(Summary Report)

Environmental Risk Study

For

City of Cbester Pennsylvania

Conducted by tbe US Environmental Protection Agency

Region ill

in conjunction with the

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

June 1995

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

The US Environmental Protection Agency wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and support efforts of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) the PADER Region I Office the Pennsylvania Department of Health Bureau of Epidemiology the Delaware County Commissioners Chester City Council Mayor Barbara Bohannon-Shepard Chester Citizens Concerned for Quality Living Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia Delaware valley Toxics coalition and Pacific Environmental Services Inc bull

This report is a condensed version of the Chester Risk study TechDioa1 support Document written by staff at the US Environmental Protection Agency Region III Ottice in Philadelphia Pennsylvania and which is currently undergoing a scientific peer review as required by Agency policy

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy for releasing technical stUdies of the type outlined -in this summary document is that they must clear the peer review process prior to release to the public The interim draft report summary presented here is being made available to the pUblic for a dual purpcse

1) in crder to begin the follow up and mitigation process necessary to better define and sUbsequently reduce the risks to human health in the City cf Chester Pennsylvania

2) to provide general guidance as a model protocol ~elated to methods of performing aggregated riSk studies at other locations It is generally accepted that cumulative risk studies are needed to provide technical information and a tramework for decision-making related to proposed andor current sources or pollution

Environmental RiSk Study for themiddotcity 0 ChesterPennsylyania

The Chester RiSk Assessment Project was part of an initiative by the united States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Region III and agencies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to study environmental risks health and regulatory issues in the Chester Pennsylvania area

Study Conclusions and Recommendations

CONCLUSIONS

1 - Blood lead levels in the children 0 Chester is unacceptably high with over 60 of the childrens blood samples above the Center or Disease Control(CDC) recommended maximum level of 10 micrograms per deciliter(~gdl)_

2 - Both cancer and non-cancer risks eg kidney and liver disease and respiratory problems from the pollution sources at locations in the city of Chester exceed levels which EPA believes are acceptable

J - Air emissions frqm facilities in and around Chester provide a large component of the cancer and non-cancer riSk to the citizens of Chester

4 - The health riskS from eating contaminated fish from streams in Chester and the Delaware River is unacceptably high_

5 - Drinking water in Chester is typical of supplies in other cities throughout the country

RECOMMENDATIONS

1 - The lead paint education and abatement program in the City of Chester should be aggressively enhanced

2 - sources of air emissions which impact the areas of the city with unacceptably high riSk should be targeted for compliance inspections and any necessary enforcement action

J - A voluntary emission reduction program should be instituted to obtain emissions reductions from facilities Which provide the most emissions in the areas of highest risk

4 - Enhanced pUblic education programs to communicate the reasons behind the existing state mandated fishing ban should be implemented

5 - While fuqitive dust emissions have not ~hown to be a significant component of risk in the City a program to minimi~e bull fugitive emissions trom dirt piles and streets should be instituted to alleviate this nuiaance

6 - While noise and cdor levels were not shown to be a significant component ot risk in the city a noise and odor monitoring program should be instituted in areas most likely to sutter trom these nuisances If significant levels are found a noise andlor Odor reduction program should be implemented in thoBe areas

study Method apd procedurs

Background

The City of Chester is located approximately 15 miles southwest of Philadelphia along the Delaware River According to the 1990 United States Census 41856 persons reside in Chester which h~s an area of 48 square miles Surrounding co=zunitiea also examined in development of this report include Eddystone Trainer Marcus Hook and Linwood Major surface transportation routes transect Chester inc1udinq Interstate 95 and US Route 13 which parallels Interstate 95 to the east US Route 322 bisects Chester fro= northwest to southeast

Drinking water for the city of Chester is supplied by the Chester Water Authority (CWA) and Philadelphia Suburban Water Company (PSWC)

Larqe sources of surtace water in the City of Chester include Chester Creek and the Oe1aware River All streams 1n the Chester vicinity ultimately drain into the Delaware River in a branching pattern The Oelaware River is a protected waterway for the aaintenance and propagation of fish species that are indigenous to a warm-water habitat

The hydrogeologic conditions that exist beneath the study area are highly dynamic in nature water levels are influenced by tides and high rates of infiltration from storms

Methodology

A key element in the project scope called tor environmental risks to be quantitated wherever possible and supplemented with qualitative information

Chemical data were gathered from existing sources The scope of this project did not include collection ot new data specitica11y designed for a Chester risk assessment Instead the

vorkgroup perfo~ed an exa~ination of available data which yielded the folloving observations

e The data had been collected for different progr~ and different agencies These data were not originally designed to support a quantitative risk assesment of the Chester area

e The databases were of varying quality and certain che~icals and media had not been tested However with the limited data available it vas possible for many data sets to be used to generate estimated risks

Modeling of air data from point sources preceded the air risk assessment such that point source air risks are based on projected 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 info~ation and Toxic Releas Inventory (TRI) data did not involve the types of environmental data conducive to quantitative risk assessment

In a risk assessment the ha~ard5 posed by chemicals detected by chemical analysis are evaluated Potential risks aay exist when chemicals are present in the air vater and soils and sensitive receptor5(ieh~answildlifeand plantlifej are present which have access to the ch~cals Thi constitutes a co~plete exposure pathway

To evaluate risks several steps are taken First the data are assessed for usability and comparability Data may then undergo statistical manipulations for use in the quantitative riSk assessment An initial screening step occurs during data evaluation for the purpose of narrowing down the list of chemicals that are quantitatively assessed Using conservative assu~ptions the che~ical concentrations that would correspond to

lthe lower end of the target screening risk range are calCUlated These concentrations are called risk-based concentrations(RBCs) and are compared to the site data during the data evaluation stage to rule out Chemicals that vill not contribute siqnificantly to risks at the site

Exposure pathways are then determined The receptors that

1 taret crniftg rik range within the EPA S~perfund proqraa dfinbullbull bull cceptAble cancer riaka ea thoae which do not xc-d the eetAblihed range of 1~-06 to 1pound-04 Thi range cerreponde to an 4ditional cencer riek of 1 in or~ tlllon(1pound-06) to 1 in 10000(1pound-04) from eIPQeure to a qibullbullo chaDdca1 The l-r re conervatie -- end IlOr protCT_ -- end of thl nnltje ie 1pound-06

For non-cancer-cauinq ch~icelbullbull the ratio between the calculated potntial doe end the dobullbull known to be ate lbould nOt ec_ onbullbull

may be exposed are also chosen Both current and future land uses must be considered Usinq site-specific or default assumptions estimated exposure doses are calculate~ tor each receptor bull

Once the amount of exposure each receptor receive has been calculated that amount or dose is compared with values desiqned to assess the safety or toxicity of a chemical This step Which is called risk characterization helps the risk assessor determine the likelihood ot adverse effects occurrinq for that exposure scenario

Finally the uncertainty of the risk analysis is described either quantitatively qualitatively or both This step helps qive 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 cheicals of potential concern (COPCs) COPCs are detined as those substances that are potentially related to the risk source being studied and whoe data are of sufticient quality tor use in the rik assessment It is appropriate to select COPes tor each medium o~ concern

Data were otten screened using RBCs RBCs were used to determine Whether it included in the risk assessment the chemical would be likely to contribute signiticantly to the risk

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

Uncertainty assooiated with the assesment ot risk may be associated with exposure estimation toxicity assessment and in risk characterization The policy ot the USEPA is to be protective of human health and the enviro~ent In accordance with this policy exposure estimates and the parameter used in the characteriation of the exposures are ot 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 ot the actual exposures experienced by receptors

study r1R4iRg

Childrens Blood LeQd Investigation

Historically inorganic lead has been released to the env1ro~ent by many human activities such as aining smeltinq use or leaded gasoline and aanutacturing ot batteries plastics

bull

I and chemicals Lead is not volatile so it usually moves through the air as fine dust which deposits and contaminates soil within a few miles of its source People can be exposed to lead in air feed drinking water (and beverages) soil and dust and across the placenta before birth

Important toxic effects of lead inClude anemia hypertension and damage to the kidneys testicles and nervous system Small children are most sensitive to toxic effects of lead because they suffer significant losses in motor skills and cognitive ability at lead doses which do not affect adults EPA considers children with blood lead levels of 10 or more micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood to be at risk of irreversible damage to the nervous system

Chester officials provided records of over 10000 blood lead measurements for children which EPA entered into a computer database Age and gender were not reported(although all were reported to be seven years or younger at the time of the test) nor was information available about how the children were chosen for blood lead sampling Lead concentration data for air tap water soil dust and food were not available This limited database allowed EPA to compare blood lead levels in Chester with those in similar Eastern cities but did not support conclusions about sources ot lead exposure

Average blood lead levels in Chester between 1989 end 1993 (Figure 4-16) were higher than 1990 averages in Boston Baltimore or Cincinnati However blood lead in Chester decreased significantly during this tive-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 ~o tell if the decline in blood lead was real or artificial (caused by sa~plin9 different groups ot children or by medically treating children with high blood lead levels)

EPA compared the Chester blood lead observations with predictions frOD a computer model that predicts blood lead Because lead levels in Chesters air water soil and food were not available EPA used national averages to make the predictions To match the Chester blood lead data it was necessary to add 130 micrograms of lead intaka per day to the national averages

EPA determined the average blood lead level for each residence by combining multiple measurements from the sabullbull child and from siblings A map of blood lead levels in Chester was prepared The map showed no noticeable patterns of blood lead there appears to be no part of Chester where blood lead is higher or lower than the others

Overall EPAS analysis of blood lead suggests that

Recent measurements of Chester children blood lead levels are similar to those in similar Eastern us cities_

2 Children in Chester receive lead exposures which are bullsubstantially higher than the us average

3 It is not possible with the limited data available to tell the source of the childrens excess lead exposure

4 The problem of high blood lead ~ppears to be city-wide rather than confined to specific neighborhoods

Modeled Air Concentrations

As was previously noted no new data was gathered for this study The recent years air data that existed was often developed for specific purposes eg compliance monitoring of permitted emission parameters or was presented in format which was not compatible 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 regarding the industry types geographical locations and production capabilities and that meteorologic data combined with actual or generic emission levels could be utilized in a computer mOdeled simUlation of speciated ambient air quality

Estimated air concentrations for 699 chemicals were provided for approximately 1400 locations in Chester City Of the pollutants assessed 640 are gaseous in nature while 59 exist as particulate matter2

Although emission contributions from many sources were modeled only the total concentration of each pollutant at each location was considered in risk calcUlations Of the 699 chemicals evaluated 122 have toxicity values in the form of reference dose(RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) bull Five of the modeled Chemicals are criteria pollutants and are regulated under the authority of the Clean Air Act via the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)~

For chemicals with reference doses (RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) modeling results were screened using RHCS as described above to identify Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) Accordingly inhalation under a standard residential exposure scenario was considered In instances where both an RfD and a CSF exist for a given copc only the most sensitive

2 a~all aolid particlbullbull like duat which mo~ with air current

bull

endpoint (cancer or non-cancer) was evaluated

Estimated criteria pollutant concentrations were compared to the NAAQS (This approach for evaluating potential threats is similar to the ethodology employed for assessing non-cancer threats posed by chemicals with BfDs)

For 9asoline and diesel carcinogenic risks were assessed based upon respective unit risks for these compounds as determined by a recent USEPA invetiqation (USEPA 1993c)

For the criteria pollutants predicted concentrations at each grid location were compared to NAAQSs

Indiyidual Risks

At various locations in Chester several chemicals were predicted to exist in air at concentrations of potential concern Chromium VI was determined to contribute the _ost to carcinogenic] risk at any given location while hydrogen chloride presents the greatest non-cancer threat A summary of the highest individual risks in Chester City is presented in Table 4-32 for carcinogenic COPes and in Table 4-33 for COPCs with non-cancer endpoints

None of the predicted concentrations of criteria pollutants in Chester exceeded NAAQSs aa illustrated in Table 4-34

CUmulative Risks

cumulative carcinogenic risks and non-cancer threats are predicted to exceed levels considered safe at several locations in Chester City The range of aggregate carcinogenic risks in Chester as a result of inhalation is estimated to be 1lE-S to 66E-5 4 bull For non-cancer endpoints the range of Hazard indices(HI) is predicted to be 10 to 38 The risks are also displayed on Figures 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 and 4-34

cumUlative values for the criteria pollutants were-estimated to range from 06 to 16 This is illustrated on Fig 4-35

It is possible to discuss the culpability of various sources of air pollution to these risk~ As outlined in the section on

4 1lE-05 i a cin~ific no~a~ion ~aed in riak charactari~a~ion to expraaa an axcaaa cancar riak in the ganaral popvl~ion of 11 paraona ou~ af 100000 would bamp expectad to incurtnat die from cancer bvt incur a cancer) a cancer abOve and beyond the na~l lncidence of cancer

7

air quality modeling a large number of source~ wa~ modeled the sources vary dramatically in their contribution to both carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards bullPoint sources accounted for roughly 40 percent of environmental carcinogenic risk in Chester and more than halt at the sUb-chronic risk Oelcora and Sun each contribute roughly one quarter of the long-term cancer risk Delcora and PQ Inc e~it chromium and arsenic Delcora emits those and other heavy metals and Sun emits many organic species DuPont and Westinghouse account tor approximately 80 percent of the rionshycancer risk

Area Source Emissions

County-wide estimated emissions were available for area sources of air contaminants These data were not conducive to the performance of a quantitative riSk asse88ment because of the difficulty in identifying individual Chemicals and separating the Chester area out from the county However a qualitativesemishyquantitative assessment follows

Sources of toxic air releases which are sall when evaluated indiVidually but are significant When co~ined with other facilities of siilar type in a given geographic area are termed area sources Volatile organic compounds (VOCa) are ot particular concern because some are classified by USEPA as probable or possible human carcinogens Also they photochemically Combine with oxidea ot nitrogen (NOxl and carbon monoxide (COl in the presence of sunlight to torm ozone which causes respiratory problems and plant damage

Information about area sources comes from two sources of data Information about the location industry type and number of employees is available through Dun and Bradstreet Information about the amount ot VOCs released per e=ployee per year is available in USEPA 1991d Co~inlnq these two databases gives an estimate of VOC eissions per facility pe year

A list ot facilities with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes between 4000 and 9999 (which include businesses such as transportation services gasoline service stations automObile repair shops and dry cleaners) and within the study area was retrieved trom the Dun and Bradstreet (DB) data base [Facilities with SIC codes between 2000 middotand 3999 (manufacturin9l are reported in the TRI data base and are evaluated in the Air Toxics Modeling portion of the study)

A grid system was establiShed tor the study area with each grid square approximately one square kilometer (or about 12 mile by 12 mile) and the IUD of the estimated emissions tor each

bull

l facility within a given grid square was calculated The values for the grid system were assigned colors trom redto green with grey indicating no facilities

Fig 4-36 shows the estimated emissions fer all the grid squares in the study area Fig 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15) grid squares which represent estimated annual releases or VOCS of over 40000 pounds Fig 4-38 shows the minority distribution of the study area with the 9 high sqpares indicated in crossshyhatching This indicates that grid squares 6 7 and 8 are in an area with a very high percentage of minority population indicating that the potential for impact to the minority community is greatest in these areas

There are several limitations to the appro~ch used to estimate the vac emissions for the area sources First the OampB data b~se does not contain every facility in the stUdy area that releases vdCs In ~ddition the estimates of vac releases are b~sed on stUdies of typical facilities and are not actual me~sures of the releases from the faqilities in the stUdy area The actual type and ~mount of vac releases is not ~vailable The estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that were identified in the OampB database so that approximate values were used instead of SIC code-specific ones

EPIPEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of the community and a specific epidemiological stUdy to try to establish 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 preliminary exercise looked at the mort~lity rate for certain dise~ses in the city as compared to the state and county This exercise may be found in Appendix Ill This may give useful information regarding the existing health of the community although it cannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions

Surface Water Sediment Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water sediment and fish tissue data the STORET database CERCLIa files and the Nation~l Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

The CERCLIS database was described previously Five CERCLIS sites in the Chester studyen area had surface water ~ndor sediment data These sites underwent data quality review in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work was authorized

The N~tiQnal Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

The US Environmental Protection Agency wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and support efforts of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) the PADER Region I Office the Pennsylvania Department of Health Bureau of Epidemiology the Delaware County Commissioners Chester City Council Mayor Barbara Bohannon-Shepard Chester Citizens Concerned for Quality Living Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia Delaware valley Toxics coalition and Pacific Environmental Services Inc bull

This report is a condensed version of the Chester Risk study TechDioa1 support Document written by staff at the US Environmental Protection Agency Region III Ottice in Philadelphia Pennsylvania and which is currently undergoing a scientific peer review as required by Agency policy

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy for releasing technical stUdies of the type outlined -in this summary document is that they must clear the peer review process prior to release to the public The interim draft report summary presented here is being made available to the pUblic for a dual purpcse

1) in crder to begin the follow up and mitigation process necessary to better define and sUbsequently reduce the risks to human health in the City cf Chester Pennsylvania

2) to provide general guidance as a model protocol ~elated to methods of performing aggregated riSk studies at other locations It is generally accepted that cumulative risk studies are needed to provide technical information and a tramework for decision-making related to proposed andor current sources or pollution

Environmental RiSk Study for themiddotcity 0 ChesterPennsylyania

The Chester RiSk Assessment Project was part of an initiative by the united States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Region III and agencies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to study environmental risks health and regulatory issues in the Chester Pennsylvania area

Study Conclusions and Recommendations

CONCLUSIONS

1 - Blood lead levels in the children 0 Chester is unacceptably high with over 60 of the childrens blood samples above the Center or Disease Control(CDC) recommended maximum level of 10 micrograms per deciliter(~gdl)_

2 - Both cancer and non-cancer risks eg kidney and liver disease and respiratory problems from the pollution sources at locations in the city of Chester exceed levels which EPA believes are acceptable

J - Air emissions frqm facilities in and around Chester provide a large component of the cancer and non-cancer riSk to the citizens of Chester

4 - The health riskS from eating contaminated fish from streams in Chester and the Delaware River is unacceptably high_

5 - Drinking water in Chester is typical of supplies in other cities throughout the country

RECOMMENDATIONS

1 - The lead paint education and abatement program in the City of Chester should be aggressively enhanced

2 - sources of air emissions which impact the areas of the city with unacceptably high riSk should be targeted for compliance inspections and any necessary enforcement action

J - A voluntary emission reduction program should be instituted to obtain emissions reductions from facilities Which provide the most emissions in the areas of highest risk

4 - Enhanced pUblic education programs to communicate the reasons behind the existing state mandated fishing ban should be implemented

5 - While fuqitive dust emissions have not ~hown to be a significant component of risk in the City a program to minimi~e bull fugitive emissions trom dirt piles and streets should be instituted to alleviate this nuiaance

6 - While noise and cdor levels were not shown to be a significant component ot risk in the city a noise and odor monitoring program should be instituted in areas most likely to sutter trom these nuisances If significant levels are found a noise andlor Odor reduction program should be implemented in thoBe areas

study Method apd procedurs

Background

The City of Chester is located approximately 15 miles southwest of Philadelphia along the Delaware River According to the 1990 United States Census 41856 persons reside in Chester which h~s an area of 48 square miles Surrounding co=zunitiea also examined in development of this report include Eddystone Trainer Marcus Hook and Linwood Major surface transportation routes transect Chester inc1udinq Interstate 95 and US Route 13 which parallels Interstate 95 to the east US Route 322 bisects Chester fro= northwest to southeast

Drinking water for the city of Chester is supplied by the Chester Water Authority (CWA) and Philadelphia Suburban Water Company (PSWC)

Larqe sources of surtace water in the City of Chester include Chester Creek and the Oe1aware River All streams 1n the Chester vicinity ultimately drain into the Delaware River in a branching pattern The Oelaware River is a protected waterway for the aaintenance and propagation of fish species that are indigenous to a warm-water habitat

The hydrogeologic conditions that exist beneath the study area are highly dynamic in nature water levels are influenced by tides and high rates of infiltration from storms

Methodology

A key element in the project scope called tor environmental risks to be quantitated wherever possible and supplemented with qualitative information

Chemical data were gathered from existing sources The scope of this project did not include collection ot new data specitica11y designed for a Chester risk assessment Instead the

vorkgroup perfo~ed an exa~ination of available data which yielded the folloving observations

e The data had been collected for different progr~ and different agencies These data were not originally designed to support a quantitative risk assesment of the Chester area

e The databases were of varying quality and certain che~icals and media had not been tested However with the limited data available it vas possible for many data sets to be used to generate estimated risks

Modeling of air data from point sources preceded the air risk assessment such that point source air risks are based on projected 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 info~ation and Toxic Releas Inventory (TRI) data did not involve the types of environmental data conducive to quantitative risk assessment

In a risk assessment the ha~ard5 posed by chemicals detected by chemical analysis are evaluated Potential risks aay exist when chemicals are present in the air vater and soils and sensitive receptor5(ieh~answildlifeand plantlifej are present which have access to the ch~cals Thi constitutes a co~plete exposure pathway

To evaluate risks several steps are taken First the data are assessed for usability and comparability Data may then undergo statistical manipulations for use in the quantitative riSk assessment An initial screening step occurs during data evaluation for the purpose of narrowing down the list of chemicals that are quantitatively assessed Using conservative assu~ptions the che~ical concentrations that would correspond to

lthe lower end of the target screening risk range are calCUlated These concentrations are called risk-based concentrations(RBCs) and are compared to the site data during the data evaluation stage to rule out Chemicals that vill not contribute siqnificantly to risks at the site

Exposure pathways are then determined The receptors that

1 taret crniftg rik range within the EPA S~perfund proqraa dfinbullbull bull cceptAble cancer riaka ea thoae which do not xc-d the eetAblihed range of 1~-06 to 1pound-04 Thi range cerreponde to an 4ditional cencer riek of 1 in or~ tlllon(1pound-06) to 1 in 10000(1pound-04) from eIPQeure to a qibullbullo chaDdca1 The l-r re conervatie -- end IlOr protCT_ -- end of thl nnltje ie 1pound-06

For non-cancer-cauinq ch~icelbullbull the ratio between the calculated potntial doe end the dobullbull known to be ate lbould nOt ec_ onbullbull

may be exposed are also chosen Both current and future land uses must be considered Usinq site-specific or default assumptions estimated exposure doses are calculate~ tor each receptor bull

Once the amount of exposure each receptor receive has been calculated that amount or dose is compared with values desiqned to assess the safety or toxicity of a chemical This step Which is called risk characterization helps the risk assessor determine the likelihood ot adverse effects occurrinq for that exposure scenario

Finally the uncertainty of the risk analysis is described either quantitatively qualitatively or both This step helps qive 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 cheicals of potential concern (COPCs) COPCs are detined as those substances that are potentially related to the risk source being studied and whoe data are of sufticient quality tor use in the rik assessment It is appropriate to select COPes tor each medium o~ concern

Data were otten screened using RBCs RBCs were used to determine Whether it included in the risk assessment the chemical would be likely to contribute signiticantly to the risk

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

Uncertainty assooiated with the assesment ot risk may be associated with exposure estimation toxicity assessment and in risk characterization The policy ot the USEPA is to be protective of human health and the enviro~ent In accordance with this policy exposure estimates and the parameter used in the characteriation of the exposures are ot 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 ot the actual exposures experienced by receptors

study r1R4iRg

Childrens Blood LeQd Investigation

Historically inorganic lead has been released to the env1ro~ent by many human activities such as aining smeltinq use or leaded gasoline and aanutacturing ot batteries plastics

bull

I and chemicals Lead is not volatile so it usually moves through the air as fine dust which deposits and contaminates soil within a few miles of its source People can be exposed to lead in air feed drinking water (and beverages) soil and dust and across the placenta before birth

Important toxic effects of lead inClude anemia hypertension and damage to the kidneys testicles and nervous system Small children are most sensitive to toxic effects of lead because they suffer significant losses in motor skills and cognitive ability at lead doses which do not affect adults EPA considers children with blood lead levels of 10 or more micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood to be at risk of irreversible damage to the nervous system

Chester officials provided records of over 10000 blood lead measurements for children which EPA entered into a computer database Age and gender were not reported(although all were reported to be seven years or younger at the time of the test) nor was information available about how the children were chosen for blood lead sampling Lead concentration data for air tap water soil dust and food were not available This limited database allowed EPA to compare blood lead levels in Chester with those in similar Eastern cities but did not support conclusions about sources ot lead exposure

Average blood lead levels in Chester between 1989 end 1993 (Figure 4-16) were higher than 1990 averages in Boston Baltimore or Cincinnati However blood lead in Chester decreased significantly during this tive-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 ~o tell if the decline in blood lead was real or artificial (caused by sa~plin9 different groups ot children or by medically treating children with high blood lead levels)

EPA compared the Chester blood lead observations with predictions frOD a computer model that predicts blood lead Because lead levels in Chesters air water soil and food were not available EPA used national averages to make the predictions To match the Chester blood lead data it was necessary to add 130 micrograms of lead intaka per day to the national averages

EPA determined the average blood lead level for each residence by combining multiple measurements from the sabullbull child and from siblings A map of blood lead levels in Chester was prepared The map showed no noticeable patterns of blood lead there appears to be no part of Chester where blood lead is higher or lower than the others

Overall EPAS analysis of blood lead suggests that

Recent measurements of Chester children blood lead levels are similar to those in similar Eastern us cities_

2 Children in Chester receive lead exposures which are bullsubstantially higher than the us average

3 It is not possible with the limited data available to tell the source of the childrens excess lead exposure

4 The problem of high blood lead ~ppears to be city-wide rather than confined to specific neighborhoods

Modeled Air Concentrations

As was previously noted no new data was gathered for this study The recent years air data that existed was often developed for specific purposes eg compliance monitoring of permitted emission parameters or was presented in format which was not compatible 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 regarding the industry types geographical locations and production capabilities and that meteorologic data combined with actual or generic emission levels could be utilized in a computer mOdeled simUlation of speciated ambient air quality

Estimated air concentrations for 699 chemicals were provided for approximately 1400 locations in Chester City Of the pollutants assessed 640 are gaseous in nature while 59 exist as particulate matter2

Although emission contributions from many sources were modeled only the total concentration of each pollutant at each location was considered in risk calcUlations Of the 699 chemicals evaluated 122 have toxicity values in the form of reference dose(RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) bull Five of the modeled Chemicals are criteria pollutants and are regulated under the authority of the Clean Air Act via the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)~

For chemicals with reference doses (RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) modeling results were screened using RHCS as described above to identify Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) Accordingly inhalation under a standard residential exposure scenario was considered In instances where both an RfD and a CSF exist for a given copc only the most sensitive

2 a~all aolid particlbullbull like duat which mo~ with air current

bull

endpoint (cancer or non-cancer) was evaluated

Estimated criteria pollutant concentrations were compared to the NAAQS (This approach for evaluating potential threats is similar to the ethodology employed for assessing non-cancer threats posed by chemicals with BfDs)

For 9asoline and diesel carcinogenic risks were assessed based upon respective unit risks for these compounds as determined by a recent USEPA invetiqation (USEPA 1993c)

For the criteria pollutants predicted concentrations at each grid location were compared to NAAQSs

Indiyidual Risks

At various locations in Chester several chemicals were predicted to exist in air at concentrations of potential concern Chromium VI was determined to contribute the _ost to carcinogenic] risk at any given location while hydrogen chloride presents the greatest non-cancer threat A summary of the highest individual risks in Chester City is presented in Table 4-32 for carcinogenic COPes and in Table 4-33 for COPCs with non-cancer endpoints

None of the predicted concentrations of criteria pollutants in Chester exceeded NAAQSs aa illustrated in Table 4-34

CUmulative Risks

cumulative carcinogenic risks and non-cancer threats are predicted to exceed levels considered safe at several locations in Chester City The range of aggregate carcinogenic risks in Chester as a result of inhalation is estimated to be 1lE-S to 66E-5 4 bull For non-cancer endpoints the range of Hazard indices(HI) is predicted to be 10 to 38 The risks are also displayed on Figures 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 and 4-34

cumUlative values for the criteria pollutants were-estimated to range from 06 to 16 This is illustrated on Fig 4-35

It is possible to discuss the culpability of various sources of air pollution to these risk~ As outlined in the section on

4 1lE-05 i a cin~ific no~a~ion ~aed in riak charactari~a~ion to expraaa an axcaaa cancar riak in the ganaral popvl~ion of 11 paraona ou~ af 100000 would bamp expectad to incurtnat die from cancer bvt incur a cancer) a cancer abOve and beyond the na~l lncidence of cancer

7

air quality modeling a large number of source~ wa~ modeled the sources vary dramatically in their contribution to both carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards bullPoint sources accounted for roughly 40 percent of environmental carcinogenic risk in Chester and more than halt at the sUb-chronic risk Oelcora and Sun each contribute roughly one quarter of the long-term cancer risk Delcora and PQ Inc e~it chromium and arsenic Delcora emits those and other heavy metals and Sun emits many organic species DuPont and Westinghouse account tor approximately 80 percent of the rionshycancer risk

Area Source Emissions

County-wide estimated emissions were available for area sources of air contaminants These data were not conducive to the performance of a quantitative riSk asse88ment because of the difficulty in identifying individual Chemicals and separating the Chester area out from the county However a qualitativesemishyquantitative assessment follows

Sources of toxic air releases which are sall when evaluated indiVidually but are significant When co~ined with other facilities of siilar type in a given geographic area are termed area sources Volatile organic compounds (VOCa) are ot particular concern because some are classified by USEPA as probable or possible human carcinogens Also they photochemically Combine with oxidea ot nitrogen (NOxl and carbon monoxide (COl in the presence of sunlight to torm ozone which causes respiratory problems and plant damage

Information about area sources comes from two sources of data Information about the location industry type and number of employees is available through Dun and Bradstreet Information about the amount ot VOCs released per e=ployee per year is available in USEPA 1991d Co~inlnq these two databases gives an estimate of VOC eissions per facility pe year

A list ot facilities with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes between 4000 and 9999 (which include businesses such as transportation services gasoline service stations automObile repair shops and dry cleaners) and within the study area was retrieved trom the Dun and Bradstreet (DB) data base [Facilities with SIC codes between 2000 middotand 3999 (manufacturin9l are reported in the TRI data base and are evaluated in the Air Toxics Modeling portion of the study)

A grid system was establiShed tor the study area with each grid square approximately one square kilometer (or about 12 mile by 12 mile) and the IUD of the estimated emissions tor each

bull

l facility within a given grid square was calculated The values for the grid system were assigned colors trom redto green with grey indicating no facilities

Fig 4-36 shows the estimated emissions fer all the grid squares in the study area Fig 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15) grid squares which represent estimated annual releases or VOCS of over 40000 pounds Fig 4-38 shows the minority distribution of the study area with the 9 high sqpares indicated in crossshyhatching This indicates that grid squares 6 7 and 8 are in an area with a very high percentage of minority population indicating that the potential for impact to the minority community is greatest in these areas

There are several limitations to the appro~ch used to estimate the vac emissions for the area sources First the OampB data b~se does not contain every facility in the stUdy area that releases vdCs In ~ddition the estimates of vac releases are b~sed on stUdies of typical facilities and are not actual me~sures of the releases from the faqilities in the stUdy area The actual type and ~mount of vac releases is not ~vailable The estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that were identified in the OampB database so that approximate values were used instead of SIC code-specific ones

EPIPEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of the community and a specific epidemiological stUdy to try to establish 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 preliminary exercise looked at the mort~lity rate for certain dise~ses in the city as compared to the state and county This exercise may be found in Appendix Ill This may give useful information regarding the existing health of the community although it cannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions

Surface Water Sediment Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water sediment and fish tissue data the STORET database CERCLIa files and the Nation~l Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

The CERCLIS database was described previously Five CERCLIS sites in the Chester studyen area had surface water ~ndor sediment data These sites underwent data quality review in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work was authorized

The N~tiQnal Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

Environmental RiSk Study for themiddotcity 0 ChesterPennsylyania

The Chester RiSk Assessment Project was part of an initiative by the united States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Region III and agencies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to study environmental risks health and regulatory issues in the Chester Pennsylvania area

Study Conclusions and Recommendations

CONCLUSIONS

1 - Blood lead levels in the children 0 Chester is unacceptably high with over 60 of the childrens blood samples above the Center or Disease Control(CDC) recommended maximum level of 10 micrograms per deciliter(~gdl)_

2 - Both cancer and non-cancer risks eg kidney and liver disease and respiratory problems from the pollution sources at locations in the city of Chester exceed levels which EPA believes are acceptable

J - Air emissions frqm facilities in and around Chester provide a large component of the cancer and non-cancer riSk to the citizens of Chester

4 - The health riskS from eating contaminated fish from streams in Chester and the Delaware River is unacceptably high_

5 - Drinking water in Chester is typical of supplies in other cities throughout the country

RECOMMENDATIONS

1 - The lead paint education and abatement program in the City of Chester should be aggressively enhanced

2 - sources of air emissions which impact the areas of the city with unacceptably high riSk should be targeted for compliance inspections and any necessary enforcement action

J - A voluntary emission reduction program should be instituted to obtain emissions reductions from facilities Which provide the most emissions in the areas of highest risk

4 - Enhanced pUblic education programs to communicate the reasons behind the existing state mandated fishing ban should be implemented

5 - While fuqitive dust emissions have not ~hown to be a significant component of risk in the City a program to minimi~e bull fugitive emissions trom dirt piles and streets should be instituted to alleviate this nuiaance

6 - While noise and cdor levels were not shown to be a significant component ot risk in the city a noise and odor monitoring program should be instituted in areas most likely to sutter trom these nuisances If significant levels are found a noise andlor Odor reduction program should be implemented in thoBe areas

study Method apd procedurs

Background

The City of Chester is located approximately 15 miles southwest of Philadelphia along the Delaware River According to the 1990 United States Census 41856 persons reside in Chester which h~s an area of 48 square miles Surrounding co=zunitiea also examined in development of this report include Eddystone Trainer Marcus Hook and Linwood Major surface transportation routes transect Chester inc1udinq Interstate 95 and US Route 13 which parallels Interstate 95 to the east US Route 322 bisects Chester fro= northwest to southeast

Drinking water for the city of Chester is supplied by the Chester Water Authority (CWA) and Philadelphia Suburban Water Company (PSWC)

Larqe sources of surtace water in the City of Chester include Chester Creek and the Oe1aware River All streams 1n the Chester vicinity ultimately drain into the Delaware River in a branching pattern The Oelaware River is a protected waterway for the aaintenance and propagation of fish species that are indigenous to a warm-water habitat

The hydrogeologic conditions that exist beneath the study area are highly dynamic in nature water levels are influenced by tides and high rates of infiltration from storms

Methodology

A key element in the project scope called tor environmental risks to be quantitated wherever possible and supplemented with qualitative information

Chemical data were gathered from existing sources The scope of this project did not include collection ot new data specitica11y designed for a Chester risk assessment Instead the

vorkgroup perfo~ed an exa~ination of available data which yielded the folloving observations

e The data had been collected for different progr~ and different agencies These data were not originally designed to support a quantitative risk assesment of the Chester area

e The databases were of varying quality and certain che~icals and media had not been tested However with the limited data available it vas possible for many data sets to be used to generate estimated risks

Modeling of air data from point sources preceded the air risk assessment such that point source air risks are based on projected 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 info~ation and Toxic Releas Inventory (TRI) data did not involve the types of environmental data conducive to quantitative risk assessment

In a risk assessment the ha~ard5 posed by chemicals detected by chemical analysis are evaluated Potential risks aay exist when chemicals are present in the air vater and soils and sensitive receptor5(ieh~answildlifeand plantlifej are present which have access to the ch~cals Thi constitutes a co~plete exposure pathway

To evaluate risks several steps are taken First the data are assessed for usability and comparability Data may then undergo statistical manipulations for use in the quantitative riSk assessment An initial screening step occurs during data evaluation for the purpose of narrowing down the list of chemicals that are quantitatively assessed Using conservative assu~ptions the che~ical concentrations that would correspond to

lthe lower end of the target screening risk range are calCUlated These concentrations are called risk-based concentrations(RBCs) and are compared to the site data during the data evaluation stage to rule out Chemicals that vill not contribute siqnificantly to risks at the site

Exposure pathways are then determined The receptors that

1 taret crniftg rik range within the EPA S~perfund proqraa dfinbullbull bull cceptAble cancer riaka ea thoae which do not xc-d the eetAblihed range of 1~-06 to 1pound-04 Thi range cerreponde to an 4ditional cencer riek of 1 in or~ tlllon(1pound-06) to 1 in 10000(1pound-04) from eIPQeure to a qibullbullo chaDdca1 The l-r re conervatie -- end IlOr protCT_ -- end of thl nnltje ie 1pound-06

For non-cancer-cauinq ch~icelbullbull the ratio between the calculated potntial doe end the dobullbull known to be ate lbould nOt ec_ onbullbull

may be exposed are also chosen Both current and future land uses must be considered Usinq site-specific or default assumptions estimated exposure doses are calculate~ tor each receptor bull

Once the amount of exposure each receptor receive has been calculated that amount or dose is compared with values desiqned to assess the safety or toxicity of a chemical This step Which is called risk characterization helps the risk assessor determine the likelihood ot adverse effects occurrinq for that exposure scenario

Finally the uncertainty of the risk analysis is described either quantitatively qualitatively or both This step helps qive 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 cheicals of potential concern (COPCs) COPCs are detined as those substances that are potentially related to the risk source being studied and whoe data are of sufticient quality tor use in the rik assessment It is appropriate to select COPes tor each medium o~ concern

Data were otten screened using RBCs RBCs were used to determine Whether it included in the risk assessment the chemical would be likely to contribute signiticantly to the risk

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

Uncertainty assooiated with the assesment ot risk may be associated with exposure estimation toxicity assessment and in risk characterization The policy ot the USEPA is to be protective of human health and the enviro~ent In accordance with this policy exposure estimates and the parameter used in the characteriation of the exposures are ot 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 ot the actual exposures experienced by receptors

study r1R4iRg

Childrens Blood LeQd Investigation

Historically inorganic lead has been released to the env1ro~ent by many human activities such as aining smeltinq use or leaded gasoline and aanutacturing ot batteries plastics

bull

I and chemicals Lead is not volatile so it usually moves through the air as fine dust which deposits and contaminates soil within a few miles of its source People can be exposed to lead in air feed drinking water (and beverages) soil and dust and across the placenta before birth

Important toxic effects of lead inClude anemia hypertension and damage to the kidneys testicles and nervous system Small children are most sensitive to toxic effects of lead because they suffer significant losses in motor skills and cognitive ability at lead doses which do not affect adults EPA considers children with blood lead levels of 10 or more micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood to be at risk of irreversible damage to the nervous system

Chester officials provided records of over 10000 blood lead measurements for children which EPA entered into a computer database Age and gender were not reported(although all were reported to be seven years or younger at the time of the test) nor was information available about how the children were chosen for blood lead sampling Lead concentration data for air tap water soil dust and food were not available This limited database allowed EPA to compare blood lead levels in Chester with those in similar Eastern cities but did not support conclusions about sources ot lead exposure

Average blood lead levels in Chester between 1989 end 1993 (Figure 4-16) were higher than 1990 averages in Boston Baltimore or Cincinnati However blood lead in Chester decreased significantly during this tive-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 ~o tell if the decline in blood lead was real or artificial (caused by sa~plin9 different groups ot children or by medically treating children with high blood lead levels)

EPA compared the Chester blood lead observations with predictions frOD a computer model that predicts blood lead Because lead levels in Chesters air water soil and food were not available EPA used national averages to make the predictions To match the Chester blood lead data it was necessary to add 130 micrograms of lead intaka per day to the national averages

EPA determined the average blood lead level for each residence by combining multiple measurements from the sabullbull child and from siblings A map of blood lead levels in Chester was prepared The map showed no noticeable patterns of blood lead there appears to be no part of Chester where blood lead is higher or lower than the others

Overall EPAS analysis of blood lead suggests that

Recent measurements of Chester children blood lead levels are similar to those in similar Eastern us cities_

2 Children in Chester receive lead exposures which are bullsubstantially higher than the us average

3 It is not possible with the limited data available to tell the source of the childrens excess lead exposure

4 The problem of high blood lead ~ppears to be city-wide rather than confined to specific neighborhoods

Modeled Air Concentrations

As was previously noted no new data was gathered for this study The recent years air data that existed was often developed for specific purposes eg compliance monitoring of permitted emission parameters or was presented in format which was not compatible 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 regarding the industry types geographical locations and production capabilities and that meteorologic data combined with actual or generic emission levels could be utilized in a computer mOdeled simUlation of speciated ambient air quality

Estimated air concentrations for 699 chemicals were provided for approximately 1400 locations in Chester City Of the pollutants assessed 640 are gaseous in nature while 59 exist as particulate matter2

Although emission contributions from many sources were modeled only the total concentration of each pollutant at each location was considered in risk calcUlations Of the 699 chemicals evaluated 122 have toxicity values in the form of reference dose(RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) bull Five of the modeled Chemicals are criteria pollutants and are regulated under the authority of the Clean Air Act via the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)~

For chemicals with reference doses (RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) modeling results were screened using RHCS as described above to identify Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) Accordingly inhalation under a standard residential exposure scenario was considered In instances where both an RfD and a CSF exist for a given copc only the most sensitive

2 a~all aolid particlbullbull like duat which mo~ with air current

bull

endpoint (cancer or non-cancer) was evaluated

Estimated criteria pollutant concentrations were compared to the NAAQS (This approach for evaluating potential threats is similar to the ethodology employed for assessing non-cancer threats posed by chemicals with BfDs)

For 9asoline and diesel carcinogenic risks were assessed based upon respective unit risks for these compounds as determined by a recent USEPA invetiqation (USEPA 1993c)

For the criteria pollutants predicted concentrations at each grid location were compared to NAAQSs

Indiyidual Risks

At various locations in Chester several chemicals were predicted to exist in air at concentrations of potential concern Chromium VI was determined to contribute the _ost to carcinogenic] risk at any given location while hydrogen chloride presents the greatest non-cancer threat A summary of the highest individual risks in Chester City is presented in Table 4-32 for carcinogenic COPes and in Table 4-33 for COPCs with non-cancer endpoints

None of the predicted concentrations of criteria pollutants in Chester exceeded NAAQSs aa illustrated in Table 4-34

CUmulative Risks

cumulative carcinogenic risks and non-cancer threats are predicted to exceed levels considered safe at several locations in Chester City The range of aggregate carcinogenic risks in Chester as a result of inhalation is estimated to be 1lE-S to 66E-5 4 bull For non-cancer endpoints the range of Hazard indices(HI) is predicted to be 10 to 38 The risks are also displayed on Figures 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 and 4-34

cumUlative values for the criteria pollutants were-estimated to range from 06 to 16 This is illustrated on Fig 4-35

It is possible to discuss the culpability of various sources of air pollution to these risk~ As outlined in the section on

4 1lE-05 i a cin~ific no~a~ion ~aed in riak charactari~a~ion to expraaa an axcaaa cancar riak in the ganaral popvl~ion of 11 paraona ou~ af 100000 would bamp expectad to incurtnat die from cancer bvt incur a cancer) a cancer abOve and beyond the na~l lncidence of cancer

7

air quality modeling a large number of source~ wa~ modeled the sources vary dramatically in their contribution to both carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards bullPoint sources accounted for roughly 40 percent of environmental carcinogenic risk in Chester and more than halt at the sUb-chronic risk Oelcora and Sun each contribute roughly one quarter of the long-term cancer risk Delcora and PQ Inc e~it chromium and arsenic Delcora emits those and other heavy metals and Sun emits many organic species DuPont and Westinghouse account tor approximately 80 percent of the rionshycancer risk

Area Source Emissions

County-wide estimated emissions were available for area sources of air contaminants These data were not conducive to the performance of a quantitative riSk asse88ment because of the difficulty in identifying individual Chemicals and separating the Chester area out from the county However a qualitativesemishyquantitative assessment follows

Sources of toxic air releases which are sall when evaluated indiVidually but are significant When co~ined with other facilities of siilar type in a given geographic area are termed area sources Volatile organic compounds (VOCa) are ot particular concern because some are classified by USEPA as probable or possible human carcinogens Also they photochemically Combine with oxidea ot nitrogen (NOxl and carbon monoxide (COl in the presence of sunlight to torm ozone which causes respiratory problems and plant damage

Information about area sources comes from two sources of data Information about the location industry type and number of employees is available through Dun and Bradstreet Information about the amount ot VOCs released per e=ployee per year is available in USEPA 1991d Co~inlnq these two databases gives an estimate of VOC eissions per facility pe year

A list ot facilities with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes between 4000 and 9999 (which include businesses such as transportation services gasoline service stations automObile repair shops and dry cleaners) and within the study area was retrieved trom the Dun and Bradstreet (DB) data base [Facilities with SIC codes between 2000 middotand 3999 (manufacturin9l are reported in the TRI data base and are evaluated in the Air Toxics Modeling portion of the study)

A grid system was establiShed tor the study area with each grid square approximately one square kilometer (or about 12 mile by 12 mile) and the IUD of the estimated emissions tor each

bull

l facility within a given grid square was calculated The values for the grid system were assigned colors trom redto green with grey indicating no facilities

Fig 4-36 shows the estimated emissions fer all the grid squares in the study area Fig 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15) grid squares which represent estimated annual releases or VOCS of over 40000 pounds Fig 4-38 shows the minority distribution of the study area with the 9 high sqpares indicated in crossshyhatching This indicates that grid squares 6 7 and 8 are in an area with a very high percentage of minority population indicating that the potential for impact to the minority community is greatest in these areas

There are several limitations to the appro~ch used to estimate the vac emissions for the area sources First the OampB data b~se does not contain every facility in the stUdy area that releases vdCs In ~ddition the estimates of vac releases are b~sed on stUdies of typical facilities and are not actual me~sures of the releases from the faqilities in the stUdy area The actual type and ~mount of vac releases is not ~vailable The estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that were identified in the OampB database so that approximate values were used instead of SIC code-specific ones

EPIPEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of the community and a specific epidemiological stUdy to try to establish 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 preliminary exercise looked at the mort~lity rate for certain dise~ses in the city as compared to the state and county This exercise may be found in Appendix Ill This may give useful information regarding the existing health of the community although it cannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions

Surface Water Sediment Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water sediment and fish tissue data the STORET database CERCLIa files and the Nation~l Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

The CERCLIS database was described previously Five CERCLIS sites in the Chester studyen area had surface water ~ndor sediment data These sites underwent data quality review in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work was authorized

The N~tiQnal Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

5 - While fuqitive dust emissions have not ~hown to be a significant component of risk in the City a program to minimi~e bull fugitive emissions trom dirt piles and streets should be instituted to alleviate this nuiaance

6 - While noise and cdor levels were not shown to be a significant component ot risk in the city a noise and odor monitoring program should be instituted in areas most likely to sutter trom these nuisances If significant levels are found a noise andlor Odor reduction program should be implemented in thoBe areas

study Method apd procedurs

Background

The City of Chester is located approximately 15 miles southwest of Philadelphia along the Delaware River According to the 1990 United States Census 41856 persons reside in Chester which h~s an area of 48 square miles Surrounding co=zunitiea also examined in development of this report include Eddystone Trainer Marcus Hook and Linwood Major surface transportation routes transect Chester inc1udinq Interstate 95 and US Route 13 which parallels Interstate 95 to the east US Route 322 bisects Chester fro= northwest to southeast

Drinking water for the city of Chester is supplied by the Chester Water Authority (CWA) and Philadelphia Suburban Water Company (PSWC)

Larqe sources of surtace water in the City of Chester include Chester Creek and the Oe1aware River All streams 1n the Chester vicinity ultimately drain into the Delaware River in a branching pattern The Oelaware River is a protected waterway for the aaintenance and propagation of fish species that are indigenous to a warm-water habitat

The hydrogeologic conditions that exist beneath the study area are highly dynamic in nature water levels are influenced by tides and high rates of infiltration from storms

Methodology

A key element in the project scope called tor environmental risks to be quantitated wherever possible and supplemented with qualitative information

Chemical data were gathered from existing sources The scope of this project did not include collection ot new data specitica11y designed for a Chester risk assessment Instead the

vorkgroup perfo~ed an exa~ination of available data which yielded the folloving observations

e The data had been collected for different progr~ and different agencies These data were not originally designed to support a quantitative risk assesment of the Chester area

e The databases were of varying quality and certain che~icals and media had not been tested However with the limited data available it vas possible for many data sets to be used to generate estimated risks

Modeling of air data from point sources preceded the air risk assessment such that point source air risks are based on projected 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 info~ation and Toxic Releas Inventory (TRI) data did not involve the types of environmental data conducive to quantitative risk assessment

In a risk assessment the ha~ard5 posed by chemicals detected by chemical analysis are evaluated Potential risks aay exist when chemicals are present in the air vater and soils and sensitive receptor5(ieh~answildlifeand plantlifej are present which have access to the ch~cals Thi constitutes a co~plete exposure pathway

To evaluate risks several steps are taken First the data are assessed for usability and comparability Data may then undergo statistical manipulations for use in the quantitative riSk assessment An initial screening step occurs during data evaluation for the purpose of narrowing down the list of chemicals that are quantitatively assessed Using conservative assu~ptions the che~ical concentrations that would correspond to

lthe lower end of the target screening risk range are calCUlated These concentrations are called risk-based concentrations(RBCs) and are compared to the site data during the data evaluation stage to rule out Chemicals that vill not contribute siqnificantly to risks at the site

Exposure pathways are then determined The receptors that

1 taret crniftg rik range within the EPA S~perfund proqraa dfinbullbull bull cceptAble cancer riaka ea thoae which do not xc-d the eetAblihed range of 1~-06 to 1pound-04 Thi range cerreponde to an 4ditional cencer riek of 1 in or~ tlllon(1pound-06) to 1 in 10000(1pound-04) from eIPQeure to a qibullbullo chaDdca1 The l-r re conervatie -- end IlOr protCT_ -- end of thl nnltje ie 1pound-06

For non-cancer-cauinq ch~icelbullbull the ratio between the calculated potntial doe end the dobullbull known to be ate lbould nOt ec_ onbullbull

may be exposed are also chosen Both current and future land uses must be considered Usinq site-specific or default assumptions estimated exposure doses are calculate~ tor each receptor bull

Once the amount of exposure each receptor receive has been calculated that amount or dose is compared with values desiqned to assess the safety or toxicity of a chemical This step Which is called risk characterization helps the risk assessor determine the likelihood ot adverse effects occurrinq for that exposure scenario

Finally the uncertainty of the risk analysis is described either quantitatively qualitatively or both This step helps qive 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 cheicals of potential concern (COPCs) COPCs are detined as those substances that are potentially related to the risk source being studied and whoe data are of sufticient quality tor use in the rik assessment It is appropriate to select COPes tor each medium o~ concern

Data were otten screened using RBCs RBCs were used to determine Whether it included in the risk assessment the chemical would be likely to contribute signiticantly to the risk

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

Uncertainty assooiated with the assesment ot risk may be associated with exposure estimation toxicity assessment and in risk characterization The policy ot the USEPA is to be protective of human health and the enviro~ent In accordance with this policy exposure estimates and the parameter used in the characteriation of the exposures are ot 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 ot the actual exposures experienced by receptors

study r1R4iRg

Childrens Blood LeQd Investigation

Historically inorganic lead has been released to the env1ro~ent by many human activities such as aining smeltinq use or leaded gasoline and aanutacturing ot batteries plastics

bull

I and chemicals Lead is not volatile so it usually moves through the air as fine dust which deposits and contaminates soil within a few miles of its source People can be exposed to lead in air feed drinking water (and beverages) soil and dust and across the placenta before birth

Important toxic effects of lead inClude anemia hypertension and damage to the kidneys testicles and nervous system Small children are most sensitive to toxic effects of lead because they suffer significant losses in motor skills and cognitive ability at lead doses which do not affect adults EPA considers children with blood lead levels of 10 or more micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood to be at risk of irreversible damage to the nervous system

Chester officials provided records of over 10000 blood lead measurements for children which EPA entered into a computer database Age and gender were not reported(although all were reported to be seven years or younger at the time of the test) nor was information available about how the children were chosen for blood lead sampling Lead concentration data for air tap water soil dust and food were not available This limited database allowed EPA to compare blood lead levels in Chester with those in similar Eastern cities but did not support conclusions about sources ot lead exposure

Average blood lead levels in Chester between 1989 end 1993 (Figure 4-16) were higher than 1990 averages in Boston Baltimore or Cincinnati However blood lead in Chester decreased significantly during this tive-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 ~o tell if the decline in blood lead was real or artificial (caused by sa~plin9 different groups ot children or by medically treating children with high blood lead levels)

EPA compared the Chester blood lead observations with predictions frOD a computer model that predicts blood lead Because lead levels in Chesters air water soil and food were not available EPA used national averages to make the predictions To match the Chester blood lead data it was necessary to add 130 micrograms of lead intaka per day to the national averages

EPA determined the average blood lead level for each residence by combining multiple measurements from the sabullbull child and from siblings A map of blood lead levels in Chester was prepared The map showed no noticeable patterns of blood lead there appears to be no part of Chester where blood lead is higher or lower than the others

Overall EPAS analysis of blood lead suggests that

Recent measurements of Chester children blood lead levels are similar to those in similar Eastern us cities_

2 Children in Chester receive lead exposures which are bullsubstantially higher than the us average

3 It is not possible with the limited data available to tell the source of the childrens excess lead exposure

4 The problem of high blood lead ~ppears to be city-wide rather than confined to specific neighborhoods

Modeled Air Concentrations

As was previously noted no new data was gathered for this study The recent years air data that existed was often developed for specific purposes eg compliance monitoring of permitted emission parameters or was presented in format which was not compatible 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 regarding the industry types geographical locations and production capabilities and that meteorologic data combined with actual or generic emission levels could be utilized in a computer mOdeled simUlation of speciated ambient air quality

Estimated air concentrations for 699 chemicals were provided for approximately 1400 locations in Chester City Of the pollutants assessed 640 are gaseous in nature while 59 exist as particulate matter2

Although emission contributions from many sources were modeled only the total concentration of each pollutant at each location was considered in risk calcUlations Of the 699 chemicals evaluated 122 have toxicity values in the form of reference dose(RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) bull Five of the modeled Chemicals are criteria pollutants and are regulated under the authority of the Clean Air Act via the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)~

For chemicals with reference doses (RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) modeling results were screened using RHCS as described above to identify Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) Accordingly inhalation under a standard residential exposure scenario was considered In instances where both an RfD and a CSF exist for a given copc only the most sensitive

2 a~all aolid particlbullbull like duat which mo~ with air current

bull

endpoint (cancer or non-cancer) was evaluated

Estimated criteria pollutant concentrations were compared to the NAAQS (This approach for evaluating potential threats is similar to the ethodology employed for assessing non-cancer threats posed by chemicals with BfDs)

For 9asoline and diesel carcinogenic risks were assessed based upon respective unit risks for these compounds as determined by a recent USEPA invetiqation (USEPA 1993c)

For the criteria pollutants predicted concentrations at each grid location were compared to NAAQSs

Indiyidual Risks

At various locations in Chester several chemicals were predicted to exist in air at concentrations of potential concern Chromium VI was determined to contribute the _ost to carcinogenic] risk at any given location while hydrogen chloride presents the greatest non-cancer threat A summary of the highest individual risks in Chester City is presented in Table 4-32 for carcinogenic COPes and in Table 4-33 for COPCs with non-cancer endpoints

None of the predicted concentrations of criteria pollutants in Chester exceeded NAAQSs aa illustrated in Table 4-34

CUmulative Risks

cumulative carcinogenic risks and non-cancer threats are predicted to exceed levels considered safe at several locations in Chester City The range of aggregate carcinogenic risks in Chester as a result of inhalation is estimated to be 1lE-S to 66E-5 4 bull For non-cancer endpoints the range of Hazard indices(HI) is predicted to be 10 to 38 The risks are also displayed on Figures 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 and 4-34

cumUlative values for the criteria pollutants were-estimated to range from 06 to 16 This is illustrated on Fig 4-35

It is possible to discuss the culpability of various sources of air pollution to these risk~ As outlined in the section on

4 1lE-05 i a cin~ific no~a~ion ~aed in riak charactari~a~ion to expraaa an axcaaa cancar riak in the ganaral popvl~ion of 11 paraona ou~ af 100000 would bamp expectad to incurtnat die from cancer bvt incur a cancer) a cancer abOve and beyond the na~l lncidence of cancer

7

air quality modeling a large number of source~ wa~ modeled the sources vary dramatically in their contribution to both carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards bullPoint sources accounted for roughly 40 percent of environmental carcinogenic risk in Chester and more than halt at the sUb-chronic risk Oelcora and Sun each contribute roughly one quarter of the long-term cancer risk Delcora and PQ Inc e~it chromium and arsenic Delcora emits those and other heavy metals and Sun emits many organic species DuPont and Westinghouse account tor approximately 80 percent of the rionshycancer risk

Area Source Emissions

County-wide estimated emissions were available for area sources of air contaminants These data were not conducive to the performance of a quantitative riSk asse88ment because of the difficulty in identifying individual Chemicals and separating the Chester area out from the county However a qualitativesemishyquantitative assessment follows

Sources of toxic air releases which are sall when evaluated indiVidually but are significant When co~ined with other facilities of siilar type in a given geographic area are termed area sources Volatile organic compounds (VOCa) are ot particular concern because some are classified by USEPA as probable or possible human carcinogens Also they photochemically Combine with oxidea ot nitrogen (NOxl and carbon monoxide (COl in the presence of sunlight to torm ozone which causes respiratory problems and plant damage

Information about area sources comes from two sources of data Information about the location industry type and number of employees is available through Dun and Bradstreet Information about the amount ot VOCs released per e=ployee per year is available in USEPA 1991d Co~inlnq these two databases gives an estimate of VOC eissions per facility pe year

A list ot facilities with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes between 4000 and 9999 (which include businesses such as transportation services gasoline service stations automObile repair shops and dry cleaners) and within the study area was retrieved trom the Dun and Bradstreet (DB) data base [Facilities with SIC codes between 2000 middotand 3999 (manufacturin9l are reported in the TRI data base and are evaluated in the Air Toxics Modeling portion of the study)

A grid system was establiShed tor the study area with each grid square approximately one square kilometer (or about 12 mile by 12 mile) and the IUD of the estimated emissions tor each

bull

l facility within a given grid square was calculated The values for the grid system were assigned colors trom redto green with grey indicating no facilities

Fig 4-36 shows the estimated emissions fer all the grid squares in the study area Fig 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15) grid squares which represent estimated annual releases or VOCS of over 40000 pounds Fig 4-38 shows the minority distribution of the study area with the 9 high sqpares indicated in crossshyhatching This indicates that grid squares 6 7 and 8 are in an area with a very high percentage of minority population indicating that the potential for impact to the minority community is greatest in these areas

There are several limitations to the appro~ch used to estimate the vac emissions for the area sources First the OampB data b~se does not contain every facility in the stUdy area that releases vdCs In ~ddition the estimates of vac releases are b~sed on stUdies of typical facilities and are not actual me~sures of the releases from the faqilities in the stUdy area The actual type and ~mount of vac releases is not ~vailable The estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that were identified in the OampB database so that approximate values were used instead of SIC code-specific ones

EPIPEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of the community and a specific epidemiological stUdy to try to establish 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 preliminary exercise looked at the mort~lity rate for certain dise~ses in the city as compared to the state and county This exercise may be found in Appendix Ill This may give useful information regarding the existing health of the community although it cannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions

Surface Water Sediment Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water sediment and fish tissue data the STORET database CERCLIa files and the Nation~l Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

The CERCLIS database was described previously Five CERCLIS sites in the Chester studyen area had surface water ~ndor sediment data These sites underwent data quality review in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work was authorized

The N~tiQnal Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

vorkgroup perfo~ed an exa~ination of available data which yielded the folloving observations

e The data had been collected for different progr~ and different agencies These data were not originally designed to support a quantitative risk assesment of the Chester area

e The databases were of varying quality and certain che~icals and media had not been tested However with the limited data available it vas possible for many data sets to be used to generate estimated risks

Modeling of air data from point sources preceded the air risk assessment such that point source air risks are based on projected 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 info~ation and Toxic Releas Inventory (TRI) data did not involve the types of environmental data conducive to quantitative risk assessment

In a risk assessment the ha~ard5 posed by chemicals detected by chemical analysis are evaluated Potential risks aay exist when chemicals are present in the air vater and soils and sensitive receptor5(ieh~answildlifeand plantlifej are present which have access to the ch~cals Thi constitutes a co~plete exposure pathway

To evaluate risks several steps are taken First the data are assessed for usability and comparability Data may then undergo statistical manipulations for use in the quantitative riSk assessment An initial screening step occurs during data evaluation for the purpose of narrowing down the list of chemicals that are quantitatively assessed Using conservative assu~ptions the che~ical concentrations that would correspond to

lthe lower end of the target screening risk range are calCUlated These concentrations are called risk-based concentrations(RBCs) and are compared to the site data during the data evaluation stage to rule out Chemicals that vill not contribute siqnificantly to risks at the site

Exposure pathways are then determined The receptors that

1 taret crniftg rik range within the EPA S~perfund proqraa dfinbullbull bull cceptAble cancer riaka ea thoae which do not xc-d the eetAblihed range of 1~-06 to 1pound-04 Thi range cerreponde to an 4ditional cencer riek of 1 in or~ tlllon(1pound-06) to 1 in 10000(1pound-04) from eIPQeure to a qibullbullo chaDdca1 The l-r re conervatie -- end IlOr protCT_ -- end of thl nnltje ie 1pound-06

For non-cancer-cauinq ch~icelbullbull the ratio between the calculated potntial doe end the dobullbull known to be ate lbould nOt ec_ onbullbull

may be exposed are also chosen Both current and future land uses must be considered Usinq site-specific or default assumptions estimated exposure doses are calculate~ tor each receptor bull

Once the amount of exposure each receptor receive has been calculated that amount or dose is compared with values desiqned to assess the safety or toxicity of a chemical This step Which is called risk characterization helps the risk assessor determine the likelihood ot adverse effects occurrinq for that exposure scenario

Finally the uncertainty of the risk analysis is described either quantitatively qualitatively or both This step helps qive 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 cheicals of potential concern (COPCs) COPCs are detined as those substances that are potentially related to the risk source being studied and whoe data are of sufticient quality tor use in the rik assessment It is appropriate to select COPes tor each medium o~ concern

Data were otten screened using RBCs RBCs were used to determine Whether it included in the risk assessment the chemical would be likely to contribute signiticantly to the risk

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

Uncertainty assooiated with the assesment ot risk may be associated with exposure estimation toxicity assessment and in risk characterization The policy ot the USEPA is to be protective of human health and the enviro~ent In accordance with this policy exposure estimates and the parameter used in the characteriation of the exposures are ot 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 ot the actual exposures experienced by receptors

study r1R4iRg

Childrens Blood LeQd Investigation

Historically inorganic lead has been released to the env1ro~ent by many human activities such as aining smeltinq use or leaded gasoline and aanutacturing ot batteries plastics

bull

I and chemicals Lead is not volatile so it usually moves through the air as fine dust which deposits and contaminates soil within a few miles of its source People can be exposed to lead in air feed drinking water (and beverages) soil and dust and across the placenta before birth

Important toxic effects of lead inClude anemia hypertension and damage to the kidneys testicles and nervous system Small children are most sensitive to toxic effects of lead because they suffer significant losses in motor skills and cognitive ability at lead doses which do not affect adults EPA considers children with blood lead levels of 10 or more micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood to be at risk of irreversible damage to the nervous system

Chester officials provided records of over 10000 blood lead measurements for children which EPA entered into a computer database Age and gender were not reported(although all were reported to be seven years or younger at the time of the test) nor was information available about how the children were chosen for blood lead sampling Lead concentration data for air tap water soil dust and food were not available This limited database allowed EPA to compare blood lead levels in Chester with those in similar Eastern cities but did not support conclusions about sources ot lead exposure

Average blood lead levels in Chester between 1989 end 1993 (Figure 4-16) were higher than 1990 averages in Boston Baltimore or Cincinnati However blood lead in Chester decreased significantly during this tive-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 ~o tell if the decline in blood lead was real or artificial (caused by sa~plin9 different groups ot children or by medically treating children with high blood lead levels)

EPA compared the Chester blood lead observations with predictions frOD a computer model that predicts blood lead Because lead levels in Chesters air water soil and food were not available EPA used national averages to make the predictions To match the Chester blood lead data it was necessary to add 130 micrograms of lead intaka per day to the national averages

EPA determined the average blood lead level for each residence by combining multiple measurements from the sabullbull child and from siblings A map of blood lead levels in Chester was prepared The map showed no noticeable patterns of blood lead there appears to be no part of Chester where blood lead is higher or lower than the others

Overall EPAS analysis of blood lead suggests that

Recent measurements of Chester children blood lead levels are similar to those in similar Eastern us cities_

2 Children in Chester receive lead exposures which are bullsubstantially higher than the us average

3 It is not possible with the limited data available to tell the source of the childrens excess lead exposure

4 The problem of high blood lead ~ppears to be city-wide rather than confined to specific neighborhoods

Modeled Air Concentrations

As was previously noted no new data was gathered for this study The recent years air data that existed was often developed for specific purposes eg compliance monitoring of permitted emission parameters or was presented in format which was not compatible 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 regarding the industry types geographical locations and production capabilities and that meteorologic data combined with actual or generic emission levels could be utilized in a computer mOdeled simUlation of speciated ambient air quality

Estimated air concentrations for 699 chemicals were provided for approximately 1400 locations in Chester City Of the pollutants assessed 640 are gaseous in nature while 59 exist as particulate matter2

Although emission contributions from many sources were modeled only the total concentration of each pollutant at each location was considered in risk calcUlations Of the 699 chemicals evaluated 122 have toxicity values in the form of reference dose(RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) bull Five of the modeled Chemicals are criteria pollutants and are regulated under the authority of the Clean Air Act via the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)~

For chemicals with reference doses (RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) modeling results were screened using RHCS as described above to identify Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) Accordingly inhalation under a standard residential exposure scenario was considered In instances where both an RfD and a CSF exist for a given copc only the most sensitive

2 a~all aolid particlbullbull like duat which mo~ with air current

bull

endpoint (cancer or non-cancer) was evaluated

Estimated criteria pollutant concentrations were compared to the NAAQS (This approach for evaluating potential threats is similar to the ethodology employed for assessing non-cancer threats posed by chemicals with BfDs)

For 9asoline and diesel carcinogenic risks were assessed based upon respective unit risks for these compounds as determined by a recent USEPA invetiqation (USEPA 1993c)

For the criteria pollutants predicted concentrations at each grid location were compared to NAAQSs

Indiyidual Risks

At various locations in Chester several chemicals were predicted to exist in air at concentrations of potential concern Chromium VI was determined to contribute the _ost to carcinogenic] risk at any given location while hydrogen chloride presents the greatest non-cancer threat A summary of the highest individual risks in Chester City is presented in Table 4-32 for carcinogenic COPes and in Table 4-33 for COPCs with non-cancer endpoints

None of the predicted concentrations of criteria pollutants in Chester exceeded NAAQSs aa illustrated in Table 4-34

CUmulative Risks

cumulative carcinogenic risks and non-cancer threats are predicted to exceed levels considered safe at several locations in Chester City The range of aggregate carcinogenic risks in Chester as a result of inhalation is estimated to be 1lE-S to 66E-5 4 bull For non-cancer endpoints the range of Hazard indices(HI) is predicted to be 10 to 38 The risks are also displayed on Figures 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 and 4-34

cumUlative values for the criteria pollutants were-estimated to range from 06 to 16 This is illustrated on Fig 4-35

It is possible to discuss the culpability of various sources of air pollution to these risk~ As outlined in the section on

4 1lE-05 i a cin~ific no~a~ion ~aed in riak charactari~a~ion to expraaa an axcaaa cancar riak in the ganaral popvl~ion of 11 paraona ou~ af 100000 would bamp expectad to incurtnat die from cancer bvt incur a cancer) a cancer abOve and beyond the na~l lncidence of cancer

7

air quality modeling a large number of source~ wa~ modeled the sources vary dramatically in their contribution to both carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards bullPoint sources accounted for roughly 40 percent of environmental carcinogenic risk in Chester and more than halt at the sUb-chronic risk Oelcora and Sun each contribute roughly one quarter of the long-term cancer risk Delcora and PQ Inc e~it chromium and arsenic Delcora emits those and other heavy metals and Sun emits many organic species DuPont and Westinghouse account tor approximately 80 percent of the rionshycancer risk

Area Source Emissions

County-wide estimated emissions were available for area sources of air contaminants These data were not conducive to the performance of a quantitative riSk asse88ment because of the difficulty in identifying individual Chemicals and separating the Chester area out from the county However a qualitativesemishyquantitative assessment follows

Sources of toxic air releases which are sall when evaluated indiVidually but are significant When co~ined with other facilities of siilar type in a given geographic area are termed area sources Volatile organic compounds (VOCa) are ot particular concern because some are classified by USEPA as probable or possible human carcinogens Also they photochemically Combine with oxidea ot nitrogen (NOxl and carbon monoxide (COl in the presence of sunlight to torm ozone which causes respiratory problems and plant damage

Information about area sources comes from two sources of data Information about the location industry type and number of employees is available through Dun and Bradstreet Information about the amount ot VOCs released per e=ployee per year is available in USEPA 1991d Co~inlnq these two databases gives an estimate of VOC eissions per facility pe year

A list ot facilities with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes between 4000 and 9999 (which include businesses such as transportation services gasoline service stations automObile repair shops and dry cleaners) and within the study area was retrieved trom the Dun and Bradstreet (DB) data base [Facilities with SIC codes between 2000 middotand 3999 (manufacturin9l are reported in the TRI data base and are evaluated in the Air Toxics Modeling portion of the study)

A grid system was establiShed tor the study area with each grid square approximately one square kilometer (or about 12 mile by 12 mile) and the IUD of the estimated emissions tor each

bull

l facility within a given grid square was calculated The values for the grid system were assigned colors trom redto green with grey indicating no facilities

Fig 4-36 shows the estimated emissions fer all the grid squares in the study area Fig 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15) grid squares which represent estimated annual releases or VOCS of over 40000 pounds Fig 4-38 shows the minority distribution of the study area with the 9 high sqpares indicated in crossshyhatching This indicates that grid squares 6 7 and 8 are in an area with a very high percentage of minority population indicating that the potential for impact to the minority community is greatest in these areas

There are several limitations to the appro~ch used to estimate the vac emissions for the area sources First the OampB data b~se does not contain every facility in the stUdy area that releases vdCs In ~ddition the estimates of vac releases are b~sed on stUdies of typical facilities and are not actual me~sures of the releases from the faqilities in the stUdy area The actual type and ~mount of vac releases is not ~vailable The estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that were identified in the OampB database so that approximate values were used instead of SIC code-specific ones

EPIPEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of the community and a specific epidemiological stUdy to try to establish 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 preliminary exercise looked at the mort~lity rate for certain dise~ses in the city as compared to the state and county This exercise may be found in Appendix Ill This may give useful information regarding the existing health of the community although it cannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions

Surface Water Sediment Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water sediment and fish tissue data the STORET database CERCLIa files and the Nation~l Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

The CERCLIS database was described previously Five CERCLIS sites in the Chester studyen area had surface water ~ndor sediment data These sites underwent data quality review in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work was authorized

The N~tiQnal Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

may be exposed are also chosen Both current and future land uses must be considered Usinq site-specific or default assumptions estimated exposure doses are calculate~ tor each receptor bull

Once the amount of exposure each receptor receive has been calculated that amount or dose is compared with values desiqned to assess the safety or toxicity of a chemical This step Which is called risk characterization helps the risk assessor determine the likelihood ot adverse effects occurrinq for that exposure scenario

Finally the uncertainty of the risk analysis is described either quantitatively qualitatively or both This step helps qive 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 cheicals of potential concern (COPCs) COPCs are detined as those substances that are potentially related to the risk source being studied and whoe data are of sufticient quality tor use in the rik assessment It is appropriate to select COPes tor each medium o~ concern

Data were otten screened using RBCs RBCs were used to determine Whether it included in the risk assessment the chemical would be likely to contribute signiticantly to the risk

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

Uncertainty assooiated with the assesment ot risk may be associated with exposure estimation toxicity assessment and in risk characterization The policy ot the USEPA is to be protective of human health and the enviro~ent In accordance with this policy exposure estimates and the parameter used in the characteriation of the exposures are ot 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 ot the actual exposures experienced by receptors

study r1R4iRg

Childrens Blood LeQd Investigation

Historically inorganic lead has been released to the env1ro~ent by many human activities such as aining smeltinq use or leaded gasoline and aanutacturing ot batteries plastics

bull

I and chemicals Lead is not volatile so it usually moves through the air as fine dust which deposits and contaminates soil within a few miles of its source People can be exposed to lead in air feed drinking water (and beverages) soil and dust and across the placenta before birth

Important toxic effects of lead inClude anemia hypertension and damage to the kidneys testicles and nervous system Small children are most sensitive to toxic effects of lead because they suffer significant losses in motor skills and cognitive ability at lead doses which do not affect adults EPA considers children with blood lead levels of 10 or more micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood to be at risk of irreversible damage to the nervous system

Chester officials provided records of over 10000 blood lead measurements for children which EPA entered into a computer database Age and gender were not reported(although all were reported to be seven years or younger at the time of the test) nor was information available about how the children were chosen for blood lead sampling Lead concentration data for air tap water soil dust and food were not available This limited database allowed EPA to compare blood lead levels in Chester with those in similar Eastern cities but did not support conclusions about sources ot lead exposure

Average blood lead levels in Chester between 1989 end 1993 (Figure 4-16) were higher than 1990 averages in Boston Baltimore or Cincinnati However blood lead in Chester decreased significantly during this tive-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 ~o tell if the decline in blood lead was real or artificial (caused by sa~plin9 different groups ot children or by medically treating children with high blood lead levels)

EPA compared the Chester blood lead observations with predictions frOD a computer model that predicts blood lead Because lead levels in Chesters air water soil and food were not available EPA used national averages to make the predictions To match the Chester blood lead data it was necessary to add 130 micrograms of lead intaka per day to the national averages

EPA determined the average blood lead level for each residence by combining multiple measurements from the sabullbull child and from siblings A map of blood lead levels in Chester was prepared The map showed no noticeable patterns of blood lead there appears to be no part of Chester where blood lead is higher or lower than the others

Overall EPAS analysis of blood lead suggests that

Recent measurements of Chester children blood lead levels are similar to those in similar Eastern us cities_

2 Children in Chester receive lead exposures which are bullsubstantially higher than the us average

3 It is not possible with the limited data available to tell the source of the childrens excess lead exposure

4 The problem of high blood lead ~ppears to be city-wide rather than confined to specific neighborhoods

Modeled Air Concentrations

As was previously noted no new data was gathered for this study The recent years air data that existed was often developed for specific purposes eg compliance monitoring of permitted emission parameters or was presented in format which was not compatible 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 regarding the industry types geographical locations and production capabilities and that meteorologic data combined with actual or generic emission levels could be utilized in a computer mOdeled simUlation of speciated ambient air quality

Estimated air concentrations for 699 chemicals were provided for approximately 1400 locations in Chester City Of the pollutants assessed 640 are gaseous in nature while 59 exist as particulate matter2

Although emission contributions from many sources were modeled only the total concentration of each pollutant at each location was considered in risk calcUlations Of the 699 chemicals evaluated 122 have toxicity values in the form of reference dose(RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) bull Five of the modeled Chemicals are criteria pollutants and are regulated under the authority of the Clean Air Act via the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)~

For chemicals with reference doses (RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) modeling results were screened using RHCS as described above to identify Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) Accordingly inhalation under a standard residential exposure scenario was considered In instances where both an RfD and a CSF exist for a given copc only the most sensitive

2 a~all aolid particlbullbull like duat which mo~ with air current

bull

endpoint (cancer or non-cancer) was evaluated

Estimated criteria pollutant concentrations were compared to the NAAQS (This approach for evaluating potential threats is similar to the ethodology employed for assessing non-cancer threats posed by chemicals with BfDs)

For 9asoline and diesel carcinogenic risks were assessed based upon respective unit risks for these compounds as determined by a recent USEPA invetiqation (USEPA 1993c)

For the criteria pollutants predicted concentrations at each grid location were compared to NAAQSs

Indiyidual Risks

At various locations in Chester several chemicals were predicted to exist in air at concentrations of potential concern Chromium VI was determined to contribute the _ost to carcinogenic] risk at any given location while hydrogen chloride presents the greatest non-cancer threat A summary of the highest individual risks in Chester City is presented in Table 4-32 for carcinogenic COPes and in Table 4-33 for COPCs with non-cancer endpoints

None of the predicted concentrations of criteria pollutants in Chester exceeded NAAQSs aa illustrated in Table 4-34

CUmulative Risks

cumulative carcinogenic risks and non-cancer threats are predicted to exceed levels considered safe at several locations in Chester City The range of aggregate carcinogenic risks in Chester as a result of inhalation is estimated to be 1lE-S to 66E-5 4 bull For non-cancer endpoints the range of Hazard indices(HI) is predicted to be 10 to 38 The risks are also displayed on Figures 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 and 4-34

cumUlative values for the criteria pollutants were-estimated to range from 06 to 16 This is illustrated on Fig 4-35

It is possible to discuss the culpability of various sources of air pollution to these risk~ As outlined in the section on

4 1lE-05 i a cin~ific no~a~ion ~aed in riak charactari~a~ion to expraaa an axcaaa cancar riak in the ganaral popvl~ion of 11 paraona ou~ af 100000 would bamp expectad to incurtnat die from cancer bvt incur a cancer) a cancer abOve and beyond the na~l lncidence of cancer

7

air quality modeling a large number of source~ wa~ modeled the sources vary dramatically in their contribution to both carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards bullPoint sources accounted for roughly 40 percent of environmental carcinogenic risk in Chester and more than halt at the sUb-chronic risk Oelcora and Sun each contribute roughly one quarter of the long-term cancer risk Delcora and PQ Inc e~it chromium and arsenic Delcora emits those and other heavy metals and Sun emits many organic species DuPont and Westinghouse account tor approximately 80 percent of the rionshycancer risk

Area Source Emissions

County-wide estimated emissions were available for area sources of air contaminants These data were not conducive to the performance of a quantitative riSk asse88ment because of the difficulty in identifying individual Chemicals and separating the Chester area out from the county However a qualitativesemishyquantitative assessment follows

Sources of toxic air releases which are sall when evaluated indiVidually but are significant When co~ined with other facilities of siilar type in a given geographic area are termed area sources Volatile organic compounds (VOCa) are ot particular concern because some are classified by USEPA as probable or possible human carcinogens Also they photochemically Combine with oxidea ot nitrogen (NOxl and carbon monoxide (COl in the presence of sunlight to torm ozone which causes respiratory problems and plant damage

Information about area sources comes from two sources of data Information about the location industry type and number of employees is available through Dun and Bradstreet Information about the amount ot VOCs released per e=ployee per year is available in USEPA 1991d Co~inlnq these two databases gives an estimate of VOC eissions per facility pe year

A list ot facilities with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes between 4000 and 9999 (which include businesses such as transportation services gasoline service stations automObile repair shops and dry cleaners) and within the study area was retrieved trom the Dun and Bradstreet (DB) data base [Facilities with SIC codes between 2000 middotand 3999 (manufacturin9l are reported in the TRI data base and are evaluated in the Air Toxics Modeling portion of the study)

A grid system was establiShed tor the study area with each grid square approximately one square kilometer (or about 12 mile by 12 mile) and the IUD of the estimated emissions tor each

bull

l facility within a given grid square was calculated The values for the grid system were assigned colors trom redto green with grey indicating no facilities

Fig 4-36 shows the estimated emissions fer all the grid squares in the study area Fig 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15) grid squares which represent estimated annual releases or VOCS of over 40000 pounds Fig 4-38 shows the minority distribution of the study area with the 9 high sqpares indicated in crossshyhatching This indicates that grid squares 6 7 and 8 are in an area with a very high percentage of minority population indicating that the potential for impact to the minority community is greatest in these areas

There are several limitations to the appro~ch used to estimate the vac emissions for the area sources First the OampB data b~se does not contain every facility in the stUdy area that releases vdCs In ~ddition the estimates of vac releases are b~sed on stUdies of typical facilities and are not actual me~sures of the releases from the faqilities in the stUdy area The actual type and ~mount of vac releases is not ~vailable The estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that were identified in the OampB database so that approximate values were used instead of SIC code-specific ones

EPIPEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of the community and a specific epidemiological stUdy to try to establish 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 preliminary exercise looked at the mort~lity rate for certain dise~ses in the city as compared to the state and county This exercise may be found in Appendix Ill This may give useful information regarding the existing health of the community although it cannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions

Surface Water Sediment Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water sediment and fish tissue data the STORET database CERCLIa files and the Nation~l Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

The CERCLIS database was described previously Five CERCLIS sites in the Chester studyen area had surface water ~ndor sediment data These sites underwent data quality review in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work was authorized

The N~tiQnal Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

I and chemicals Lead is not volatile so it usually moves through the air as fine dust which deposits and contaminates soil within a few miles of its source People can be exposed to lead in air feed drinking water (and beverages) soil and dust and across the placenta before birth

Important toxic effects of lead inClude anemia hypertension and damage to the kidneys testicles and nervous system Small children are most sensitive to toxic effects of lead because they suffer significant losses in motor skills and cognitive ability at lead doses which do not affect adults EPA considers children with blood lead levels of 10 or more micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood to be at risk of irreversible damage to the nervous system

Chester officials provided records of over 10000 blood lead measurements for children which EPA entered into a computer database Age and gender were not reported(although all were reported to be seven years or younger at the time of the test) nor was information available about how the children were chosen for blood lead sampling Lead concentration data for air tap water soil dust and food were not available This limited database allowed EPA to compare blood lead levels in Chester with those in similar Eastern cities but did not support conclusions about sources ot lead exposure

Average blood lead levels in Chester between 1989 end 1993 (Figure 4-16) were higher than 1990 averages in Boston Baltimore or Cincinnati However blood lead in Chester decreased significantly during this tive-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 ~o tell if the decline in blood lead was real or artificial (caused by sa~plin9 different groups ot children or by medically treating children with high blood lead levels)

EPA compared the Chester blood lead observations with predictions frOD a computer model that predicts blood lead Because lead levels in Chesters air water soil and food were not available EPA used national averages to make the predictions To match the Chester blood lead data it was necessary to add 130 micrograms of lead intaka per day to the national averages

EPA determined the average blood lead level for each residence by combining multiple measurements from the sabullbull child and from siblings A map of blood lead levels in Chester was prepared The map showed no noticeable patterns of blood lead there appears to be no part of Chester where blood lead is higher or lower than the others

Overall EPAS analysis of blood lead suggests that

Recent measurements of Chester children blood lead levels are similar to those in similar Eastern us cities_

2 Children in Chester receive lead exposures which are bullsubstantially higher than the us average

3 It is not possible with the limited data available to tell the source of the childrens excess lead exposure

4 The problem of high blood lead ~ppears to be city-wide rather than confined to specific neighborhoods

Modeled Air Concentrations

As was previously noted no new data was gathered for this study The recent years air data that existed was often developed for specific purposes eg compliance monitoring of permitted emission parameters or was presented in format which was not compatible 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 regarding the industry types geographical locations and production capabilities and that meteorologic data combined with actual or generic emission levels could be utilized in a computer mOdeled simUlation of speciated ambient air quality

Estimated air concentrations for 699 chemicals were provided for approximately 1400 locations in Chester City Of the pollutants assessed 640 are gaseous in nature while 59 exist as particulate matter2

Although emission contributions from many sources were modeled only the total concentration of each pollutant at each location was considered in risk calcUlations Of the 699 chemicals evaluated 122 have toxicity values in the form of reference dose(RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) bull Five of the modeled Chemicals are criteria pollutants and are regulated under the authority of the Clean Air Act via the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)~

For chemicals with reference doses (RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) modeling results were screened using RHCS as described above to identify Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) Accordingly inhalation under a standard residential exposure scenario was considered In instances where both an RfD and a CSF exist for a given copc only the most sensitive

2 a~all aolid particlbullbull like duat which mo~ with air current

bull

endpoint (cancer or non-cancer) was evaluated

Estimated criteria pollutant concentrations were compared to the NAAQS (This approach for evaluating potential threats is similar to the ethodology employed for assessing non-cancer threats posed by chemicals with BfDs)

For 9asoline and diesel carcinogenic risks were assessed based upon respective unit risks for these compounds as determined by a recent USEPA invetiqation (USEPA 1993c)

For the criteria pollutants predicted concentrations at each grid location were compared to NAAQSs

Indiyidual Risks

At various locations in Chester several chemicals were predicted to exist in air at concentrations of potential concern Chromium VI was determined to contribute the _ost to carcinogenic] risk at any given location while hydrogen chloride presents the greatest non-cancer threat A summary of the highest individual risks in Chester City is presented in Table 4-32 for carcinogenic COPes and in Table 4-33 for COPCs with non-cancer endpoints

None of the predicted concentrations of criteria pollutants in Chester exceeded NAAQSs aa illustrated in Table 4-34

CUmulative Risks

cumulative carcinogenic risks and non-cancer threats are predicted to exceed levels considered safe at several locations in Chester City The range of aggregate carcinogenic risks in Chester as a result of inhalation is estimated to be 1lE-S to 66E-5 4 bull For non-cancer endpoints the range of Hazard indices(HI) is predicted to be 10 to 38 The risks are also displayed on Figures 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 and 4-34

cumUlative values for the criteria pollutants were-estimated to range from 06 to 16 This is illustrated on Fig 4-35

It is possible to discuss the culpability of various sources of air pollution to these risk~ As outlined in the section on

4 1lE-05 i a cin~ific no~a~ion ~aed in riak charactari~a~ion to expraaa an axcaaa cancar riak in the ganaral popvl~ion of 11 paraona ou~ af 100000 would bamp expectad to incurtnat die from cancer bvt incur a cancer) a cancer abOve and beyond the na~l lncidence of cancer

7

air quality modeling a large number of source~ wa~ modeled the sources vary dramatically in their contribution to both carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards bullPoint sources accounted for roughly 40 percent of environmental carcinogenic risk in Chester and more than halt at the sUb-chronic risk Oelcora and Sun each contribute roughly one quarter of the long-term cancer risk Delcora and PQ Inc e~it chromium and arsenic Delcora emits those and other heavy metals and Sun emits many organic species DuPont and Westinghouse account tor approximately 80 percent of the rionshycancer risk

Area Source Emissions

County-wide estimated emissions were available for area sources of air contaminants These data were not conducive to the performance of a quantitative riSk asse88ment because of the difficulty in identifying individual Chemicals and separating the Chester area out from the county However a qualitativesemishyquantitative assessment follows

Sources of toxic air releases which are sall when evaluated indiVidually but are significant When co~ined with other facilities of siilar type in a given geographic area are termed area sources Volatile organic compounds (VOCa) are ot particular concern because some are classified by USEPA as probable or possible human carcinogens Also they photochemically Combine with oxidea ot nitrogen (NOxl and carbon monoxide (COl in the presence of sunlight to torm ozone which causes respiratory problems and plant damage

Information about area sources comes from two sources of data Information about the location industry type and number of employees is available through Dun and Bradstreet Information about the amount ot VOCs released per e=ployee per year is available in USEPA 1991d Co~inlnq these two databases gives an estimate of VOC eissions per facility pe year

A list ot facilities with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes between 4000 and 9999 (which include businesses such as transportation services gasoline service stations automObile repair shops and dry cleaners) and within the study area was retrieved trom the Dun and Bradstreet (DB) data base [Facilities with SIC codes between 2000 middotand 3999 (manufacturin9l are reported in the TRI data base and are evaluated in the Air Toxics Modeling portion of the study)

A grid system was establiShed tor the study area with each grid square approximately one square kilometer (or about 12 mile by 12 mile) and the IUD of the estimated emissions tor each

bull

l facility within a given grid square was calculated The values for the grid system were assigned colors trom redto green with grey indicating no facilities

Fig 4-36 shows the estimated emissions fer all the grid squares in the study area Fig 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15) grid squares which represent estimated annual releases or VOCS of over 40000 pounds Fig 4-38 shows the minority distribution of the study area with the 9 high sqpares indicated in crossshyhatching This indicates that grid squares 6 7 and 8 are in an area with a very high percentage of minority population indicating that the potential for impact to the minority community is greatest in these areas

There are several limitations to the appro~ch used to estimate the vac emissions for the area sources First the OampB data b~se does not contain every facility in the stUdy area that releases vdCs In ~ddition the estimates of vac releases are b~sed on stUdies of typical facilities and are not actual me~sures of the releases from the faqilities in the stUdy area The actual type and ~mount of vac releases is not ~vailable The estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that were identified in the OampB database so that approximate values were used instead of SIC code-specific ones

EPIPEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of the community and a specific epidemiological stUdy to try to establish 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 preliminary exercise looked at the mort~lity rate for certain dise~ses in the city as compared to the state and county This exercise may be found in Appendix Ill This may give useful information regarding the existing health of the community although it cannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions

Surface Water Sediment Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water sediment and fish tissue data the STORET database CERCLIa files and the Nation~l Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

The CERCLIS database was described previously Five CERCLIS sites in the Chester studyen area had surface water ~ndor sediment data These sites underwent data quality review in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work was authorized

The N~tiQnal Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

Recent measurements of Chester children blood lead levels are similar to those in similar Eastern us cities_

2 Children in Chester receive lead exposures which are bullsubstantially higher than the us average

3 It is not possible with the limited data available to tell the source of the childrens excess lead exposure

4 The problem of high blood lead ~ppears to be city-wide rather than confined to specific neighborhoods

Modeled Air Concentrations

As was previously noted no new data was gathered for this study The recent years air data that existed was often developed for specific purposes eg compliance monitoring of permitted emission parameters or was presented in format which was not compatible 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 regarding the industry types geographical locations and production capabilities and that meteorologic data combined with actual or generic emission levels could be utilized in a computer mOdeled simUlation of speciated ambient air quality

Estimated air concentrations for 699 chemicals were provided for approximately 1400 locations in Chester City Of the pollutants assessed 640 are gaseous in nature while 59 exist as particulate matter2

Although emission contributions from many sources were modeled only the total concentration of each pollutant at each location was considered in risk calcUlations Of the 699 chemicals evaluated 122 have toxicity values in the form of reference dose(RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) bull Five of the modeled Chemicals are criteria pollutants and are regulated under the authority of the Clean Air Act via the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)~

For chemicals with reference doses (RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs) modeling results were screened using RHCS as described above to identify Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) Accordingly inhalation under a standard residential exposure scenario was considered In instances where both an RfD and a CSF exist for a given copc only the most sensitive

2 a~all aolid particlbullbull like duat which mo~ with air current

bull

endpoint (cancer or non-cancer) was evaluated

Estimated criteria pollutant concentrations were compared to the NAAQS (This approach for evaluating potential threats is similar to the ethodology employed for assessing non-cancer threats posed by chemicals with BfDs)

For 9asoline and diesel carcinogenic risks were assessed based upon respective unit risks for these compounds as determined by a recent USEPA invetiqation (USEPA 1993c)

For the criteria pollutants predicted concentrations at each grid location were compared to NAAQSs

Indiyidual Risks

At various locations in Chester several chemicals were predicted to exist in air at concentrations of potential concern Chromium VI was determined to contribute the _ost to carcinogenic] risk at any given location while hydrogen chloride presents the greatest non-cancer threat A summary of the highest individual risks in Chester City is presented in Table 4-32 for carcinogenic COPes and in Table 4-33 for COPCs with non-cancer endpoints

None of the predicted concentrations of criteria pollutants in Chester exceeded NAAQSs aa illustrated in Table 4-34

CUmulative Risks

cumulative carcinogenic risks and non-cancer threats are predicted to exceed levels considered safe at several locations in Chester City The range of aggregate carcinogenic risks in Chester as a result of inhalation is estimated to be 1lE-S to 66E-5 4 bull For non-cancer endpoints the range of Hazard indices(HI) is predicted to be 10 to 38 The risks are also displayed on Figures 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 and 4-34

cumUlative values for the criteria pollutants were-estimated to range from 06 to 16 This is illustrated on Fig 4-35

It is possible to discuss the culpability of various sources of air pollution to these risk~ As outlined in the section on

4 1lE-05 i a cin~ific no~a~ion ~aed in riak charactari~a~ion to expraaa an axcaaa cancar riak in the ganaral popvl~ion of 11 paraona ou~ af 100000 would bamp expectad to incurtnat die from cancer bvt incur a cancer) a cancer abOve and beyond the na~l lncidence of cancer

7

air quality modeling a large number of source~ wa~ modeled the sources vary dramatically in their contribution to both carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards bullPoint sources accounted for roughly 40 percent of environmental carcinogenic risk in Chester and more than halt at the sUb-chronic risk Oelcora and Sun each contribute roughly one quarter of the long-term cancer risk Delcora and PQ Inc e~it chromium and arsenic Delcora emits those and other heavy metals and Sun emits many organic species DuPont and Westinghouse account tor approximately 80 percent of the rionshycancer risk

Area Source Emissions

County-wide estimated emissions were available for area sources of air contaminants These data were not conducive to the performance of a quantitative riSk asse88ment because of the difficulty in identifying individual Chemicals and separating the Chester area out from the county However a qualitativesemishyquantitative assessment follows

Sources of toxic air releases which are sall when evaluated indiVidually but are significant When co~ined with other facilities of siilar type in a given geographic area are termed area sources Volatile organic compounds (VOCa) are ot particular concern because some are classified by USEPA as probable or possible human carcinogens Also they photochemically Combine with oxidea ot nitrogen (NOxl and carbon monoxide (COl in the presence of sunlight to torm ozone which causes respiratory problems and plant damage

Information about area sources comes from two sources of data Information about the location industry type and number of employees is available through Dun and Bradstreet Information about the amount ot VOCs released per e=ployee per year is available in USEPA 1991d Co~inlnq these two databases gives an estimate of VOC eissions per facility pe year

A list ot facilities with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes between 4000 and 9999 (which include businesses such as transportation services gasoline service stations automObile repair shops and dry cleaners) and within the study area was retrieved trom the Dun and Bradstreet (DB) data base [Facilities with SIC codes between 2000 middotand 3999 (manufacturin9l are reported in the TRI data base and are evaluated in the Air Toxics Modeling portion of the study)

A grid system was establiShed tor the study area with each grid square approximately one square kilometer (or about 12 mile by 12 mile) and the IUD of the estimated emissions tor each

bull

l facility within a given grid square was calculated The values for the grid system were assigned colors trom redto green with grey indicating no facilities

Fig 4-36 shows the estimated emissions fer all the grid squares in the study area Fig 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15) grid squares which represent estimated annual releases or VOCS of over 40000 pounds Fig 4-38 shows the minority distribution of the study area with the 9 high sqpares indicated in crossshyhatching This indicates that grid squares 6 7 and 8 are in an area with a very high percentage of minority population indicating that the potential for impact to the minority community is greatest in these areas

There are several limitations to the appro~ch used to estimate the vac emissions for the area sources First the OampB data b~se does not contain every facility in the stUdy area that releases vdCs In ~ddition the estimates of vac releases are b~sed on stUdies of typical facilities and are not actual me~sures of the releases from the faqilities in the stUdy area The actual type and ~mount of vac releases is not ~vailable The estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that were identified in the OampB database so that approximate values were used instead of SIC code-specific ones

EPIPEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of the community and a specific epidemiological stUdy to try to establish 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 preliminary exercise looked at the mort~lity rate for certain dise~ses in the city as compared to the state and county This exercise may be found in Appendix Ill This may give useful information regarding the existing health of the community although it cannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions

Surface Water Sediment Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water sediment and fish tissue data the STORET database CERCLIa files and the Nation~l Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

The CERCLIS database was described previously Five CERCLIS sites in the Chester studyen area had surface water ~ndor sediment data These sites underwent data quality review in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work was authorized

The N~tiQnal Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

endpoint (cancer or non-cancer) was evaluated

Estimated criteria pollutant concentrations were compared to the NAAQS (This approach for evaluating potential threats is similar to the ethodology employed for assessing non-cancer threats posed by chemicals with BfDs)

For 9asoline and diesel carcinogenic risks were assessed based upon respective unit risks for these compounds as determined by a recent USEPA invetiqation (USEPA 1993c)

For the criteria pollutants predicted concentrations at each grid location were compared to NAAQSs

Indiyidual Risks

At various locations in Chester several chemicals were predicted to exist in air at concentrations of potential concern Chromium VI was determined to contribute the _ost to carcinogenic] risk at any given location while hydrogen chloride presents the greatest non-cancer threat A summary of the highest individual risks in Chester City is presented in Table 4-32 for carcinogenic COPes and in Table 4-33 for COPCs with non-cancer endpoints

None of the predicted concentrations of criteria pollutants in Chester exceeded NAAQSs aa illustrated in Table 4-34

CUmulative Risks

cumulative carcinogenic risks and non-cancer threats are predicted to exceed levels considered safe at several locations in Chester City The range of aggregate carcinogenic risks in Chester as a result of inhalation is estimated to be 1lE-S to 66E-5 4 bull For non-cancer endpoints the range of Hazard indices(HI) is predicted to be 10 to 38 The risks are also displayed on Figures 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 and 4-34

cumUlative values for the criteria pollutants were-estimated to range from 06 to 16 This is illustrated on Fig 4-35

It is possible to discuss the culpability of various sources of air pollution to these risk~ As outlined in the section on

4 1lE-05 i a cin~ific no~a~ion ~aed in riak charactari~a~ion to expraaa an axcaaa cancar riak in the ganaral popvl~ion of 11 paraona ou~ af 100000 would bamp expectad to incurtnat die from cancer bvt incur a cancer) a cancer abOve and beyond the na~l lncidence of cancer

7

air quality modeling a large number of source~ wa~ modeled the sources vary dramatically in their contribution to both carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards bullPoint sources accounted for roughly 40 percent of environmental carcinogenic risk in Chester and more than halt at the sUb-chronic risk Oelcora and Sun each contribute roughly one quarter of the long-term cancer risk Delcora and PQ Inc e~it chromium and arsenic Delcora emits those and other heavy metals and Sun emits many organic species DuPont and Westinghouse account tor approximately 80 percent of the rionshycancer risk

Area Source Emissions

County-wide estimated emissions were available for area sources of air contaminants These data were not conducive to the performance of a quantitative riSk asse88ment because of the difficulty in identifying individual Chemicals and separating the Chester area out from the county However a qualitativesemishyquantitative assessment follows

Sources of toxic air releases which are sall when evaluated indiVidually but are significant When co~ined with other facilities of siilar type in a given geographic area are termed area sources Volatile organic compounds (VOCa) are ot particular concern because some are classified by USEPA as probable or possible human carcinogens Also they photochemically Combine with oxidea ot nitrogen (NOxl and carbon monoxide (COl in the presence of sunlight to torm ozone which causes respiratory problems and plant damage

Information about area sources comes from two sources of data Information about the location industry type and number of employees is available through Dun and Bradstreet Information about the amount ot VOCs released per e=ployee per year is available in USEPA 1991d Co~inlnq these two databases gives an estimate of VOC eissions per facility pe year

A list ot facilities with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes between 4000 and 9999 (which include businesses such as transportation services gasoline service stations automObile repair shops and dry cleaners) and within the study area was retrieved trom the Dun and Bradstreet (DB) data base [Facilities with SIC codes between 2000 middotand 3999 (manufacturin9l are reported in the TRI data base and are evaluated in the Air Toxics Modeling portion of the study)

A grid system was establiShed tor the study area with each grid square approximately one square kilometer (or about 12 mile by 12 mile) and the IUD of the estimated emissions tor each

bull

l facility within a given grid square was calculated The values for the grid system were assigned colors trom redto green with grey indicating no facilities

Fig 4-36 shows the estimated emissions fer all the grid squares in the study area Fig 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15) grid squares which represent estimated annual releases or VOCS of over 40000 pounds Fig 4-38 shows the minority distribution of the study area with the 9 high sqpares indicated in crossshyhatching This indicates that grid squares 6 7 and 8 are in an area with a very high percentage of minority population indicating that the potential for impact to the minority community is greatest in these areas

There are several limitations to the appro~ch used to estimate the vac emissions for the area sources First the OampB data b~se does not contain every facility in the stUdy area that releases vdCs In ~ddition the estimates of vac releases are b~sed on stUdies of typical facilities and are not actual me~sures of the releases from the faqilities in the stUdy area The actual type and ~mount of vac releases is not ~vailable The estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that were identified in the OampB database so that approximate values were used instead of SIC code-specific ones

EPIPEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of the community and a specific epidemiological stUdy to try to establish 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 preliminary exercise looked at the mort~lity rate for certain dise~ses in the city as compared to the state and county This exercise may be found in Appendix Ill This may give useful information regarding the existing health of the community although it cannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions

Surface Water Sediment Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water sediment and fish tissue data the STORET database CERCLIa files and the Nation~l Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

The CERCLIS database was described previously Five CERCLIS sites in the Chester studyen area had surface water ~ndor sediment data These sites underwent data quality review in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work was authorized

The N~tiQnal Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

air quality modeling a large number of source~ wa~ modeled the sources vary dramatically in their contribution to both carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards bullPoint sources accounted for roughly 40 percent of environmental carcinogenic risk in Chester and more than halt at the sUb-chronic risk Oelcora and Sun each contribute roughly one quarter of the long-term cancer risk Delcora and PQ Inc e~it chromium and arsenic Delcora emits those and other heavy metals and Sun emits many organic species DuPont and Westinghouse account tor approximately 80 percent of the rionshycancer risk

Area Source Emissions

County-wide estimated emissions were available for area sources of air contaminants These data were not conducive to the performance of a quantitative riSk asse88ment because of the difficulty in identifying individual Chemicals and separating the Chester area out from the county However a qualitativesemishyquantitative assessment follows

Sources of toxic air releases which are sall when evaluated indiVidually but are significant When co~ined with other facilities of siilar type in a given geographic area are termed area sources Volatile organic compounds (VOCa) are ot particular concern because some are classified by USEPA as probable or possible human carcinogens Also they photochemically Combine with oxidea ot nitrogen (NOxl and carbon monoxide (COl in the presence of sunlight to torm ozone which causes respiratory problems and plant damage

Information about area sources comes from two sources of data Information about the location industry type and number of employees is available through Dun and Bradstreet Information about the amount ot VOCs released per e=ployee per year is available in USEPA 1991d Co~inlnq these two databases gives an estimate of VOC eissions per facility pe year

A list ot facilities with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes between 4000 and 9999 (which include businesses such as transportation services gasoline service stations automObile repair shops and dry cleaners) and within the study area was retrieved trom the Dun and Bradstreet (DB) data base [Facilities with SIC codes between 2000 middotand 3999 (manufacturin9l are reported in the TRI data base and are evaluated in the Air Toxics Modeling portion of the study)

A grid system was establiShed tor the study area with each grid square approximately one square kilometer (or about 12 mile by 12 mile) and the IUD of the estimated emissions tor each

bull

l facility within a given grid square was calculated The values for the grid system were assigned colors trom redto green with grey indicating no facilities

Fig 4-36 shows the estimated emissions fer all the grid squares in the study area Fig 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15) grid squares which represent estimated annual releases or VOCS of over 40000 pounds Fig 4-38 shows the minority distribution of the study area with the 9 high sqpares indicated in crossshyhatching This indicates that grid squares 6 7 and 8 are in an area with a very high percentage of minority population indicating that the potential for impact to the minority community is greatest in these areas

There are several limitations to the appro~ch used to estimate the vac emissions for the area sources First the OampB data b~se does not contain every facility in the stUdy area that releases vdCs In ~ddition the estimates of vac releases are b~sed on stUdies of typical facilities and are not actual me~sures of the releases from the faqilities in the stUdy area The actual type and ~mount of vac releases is not ~vailable The estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that were identified in the OampB database so that approximate values were used instead of SIC code-specific ones

EPIPEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of the community and a specific epidemiological stUdy to try to establish 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 preliminary exercise looked at the mort~lity rate for certain dise~ses in the city as compared to the state and county This exercise may be found in Appendix Ill This may give useful information regarding the existing health of the community although it cannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions

Surface Water Sediment Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water sediment and fish tissue data the STORET database CERCLIa files and the Nation~l Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

The CERCLIS database was described previously Five CERCLIS sites in the Chester studyen area had surface water ~ndor sediment data These sites underwent data quality review in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work was authorized

The N~tiQnal Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

l facility within a given grid square was calculated The values for the grid system were assigned colors trom redto green with grey indicating no facilities

Fig 4-36 shows the estimated emissions fer all the grid squares in the study area Fig 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15) grid squares which represent estimated annual releases or VOCS of over 40000 pounds Fig 4-38 shows the minority distribution of the study area with the 9 high sqpares indicated in crossshyhatching This indicates that grid squares 6 7 and 8 are in an area with a very high percentage of minority population indicating that the potential for impact to the minority community is greatest in these areas

There are several limitations to the appro~ch used to estimate the vac emissions for the area sources First the OampB data b~se does not contain every facility in the stUdy area that releases vdCs In ~ddition the estimates of vac releases are b~sed on stUdies of typical facilities and are not actual me~sures of the releases from the faqilities in the stUdy area The actual type and ~mount of vac releases is not ~vailable The estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that were identified in the OampB database so that approximate values were used instead of SIC code-specific ones

EPIPEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of the community and a specific epidemiological stUdy to try to establish 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 preliminary exercise looked at the mort~lity rate for certain dise~ses in the city as compared to the state and county This exercise may be found in Appendix Ill This may give useful information regarding the existing health of the community although it cannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions

Surface Water Sediment Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water sediment and fish tissue data the STORET database CERCLIa files and the Nation~l Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

The CERCLIS database was described previously Five CERCLIS sites in the Chester studyen area had surface water ~ndor sediment data These sites underwent data quality review in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work was authorized

The N~tiQnal Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

performed by OSEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide (USEPA 1992b) This study began as an outgrowth ot the National Dioxin Study which found notable concentrations of dioxins in fish tissue It involved the collection of flsh tissue from over 300 stations nationwide

One staticn from this study was located within the Chester study area and these fish tissue results were used tor the Chester risk assessment Analytical data were Obtained in accordance with the analytical procedures and quality assurance plans cited in the national study

Table ~-23 presents the risks associted with direct contact with surface water at aach location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effecta due to contact with surface water at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locations except the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 1 (39E-S) The cancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in a drainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills The water sample was reported as -greenish hrown- and is likely to have contained high amounts of suspended SOlids The feasibility of people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon its depth and width seasons of flow and may also depend upon its aesthetic appeal

Table 4-24 presents the risks associated with direct contact with sediment at each location It can be seen that the Hazard Indices for each location are less than 1 indicating that significant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact with sediment at the reported concentrations are not expected Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-S

It is likely that most of the general population of Chester does not consume locally-caught fish However sUbpopulations may exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly even subsistence fishers Subsistence fishers could have risks higher than those quantitated herein

prinking Water

This study investigated thQ drinking water quality of both private and public well users in the city of Chester and surrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough Trainer Borough Chester City Chester Township Linwood Upland Borough and Eddystone Borough The potability of the groundwater in the stUdy area and potential risk to private well users was evaluated by qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well data from Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

0

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

- 1

conservation and Recove~y Act (RCRA) sites Environmental equity issues that would require further stUdy were identitied where appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date

Private Well Investigation

The USDepartment of Census data obtained in 1990 involved a random door-to-door survey ot the housing units (both vacant and occupied) in the study area (see Table 4-1) An assessment of the data indicated that less thanl of the housing units in the study area may obtain their drinkingwater source from private wells The Chester water Authority and Health Departments are not aware of any residential properties using local groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes The local health department indicated that the entire population or Chester is connected to a public water supply(PWSI However the health department did acknowledge that verification that none existed would be quite difficult Based on 05 Census data there are an estimated 61 private wells in the study area of which approximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxi~ately 30 are believed to be drilled wells The data are extrapolations from a s~aller sample size of the actual riqures that would have been obtained from a complete count (USOOC 1990) Therefore the exact number or private wells in the study area is largely unknown

Efforts to obtain locationalinformation ror any of the 61 private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) have been ha~pered primarily because or those regulations which protect census participants individual rights to privacy It should be noted that information retrieval from the census tract is limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic area of about 200 people

Pyblic water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in the stUdy area was investigated because greater than 99t or the population is expected to obtain their drinking water rrom a pUblic supply The study area is served by the Chester WatershyAuthority except for Eddystone which is served by the ~

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company It should be noted that Philadelphia Suburban Water Company purchases water for Eddystone from the Chester Water Authority This water undergoes no additional treat~ent therefore themiddot actual source of drinking water for Eddystoneis the Chester Water Authority

Tables 4-3 4-4 and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and 30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs

TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY ITEll

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

bull The TRI database contains information abou~ chemical

releases from industrial manUfacturers and processors (prima~ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to the environment Since 1987 facilities meeting established thresholds have been required to report release data according to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community R19ht-to-Kno~

Act of 1986 (EPeRAI

Region III has developed a method tor evaluating these releasbullbull 1n terms ot their relative toxicity This method 1s do~entd in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index (USEPA 1993d) The Chemical Indexing analysis provided in the present report displays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the Chronic Index (toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Hass (non-weighted releases) for Region III highlighting TRI facilities in Delaware County Pennsylvania

The Reqional aaps (Figures 4-26 4-27 and 4-28) show TRI releases in terms of the Chronic Index including nonshycarcinogenic andor carcinogenic index dose Those releases which do not have an associated toxicitymiddotfaotor are cOmbinsd according to the amount of the relsase and are termed Residual Hass The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values are su~ed for each facility and for sach 8 x 8 mile geoqraphic grid area in Region III Combining the facility Chronic Indices within a geographic qrid gives an indication of the potential for cumulative hazard from TRI facilities within a given geoqraphic area

In Delaware County 28 facilities were subject to TRI reporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992 A summarized priority listing of these facilities is included in Table 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and 4-29 Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilities which ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95t confidence of the 28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA Tabl 4-27 shows the top six TRl facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Mass ranking

It has not been dete~ined whether these releases were continuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-time accidental releases or spills In addition the proximity of these releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations has not been established The determination middotof a potential health threat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of the stack to residential areas the surroundinq terrain and the meteorological conditions Purtheraore should it be deterained that additional analysis is required at any site listed in this report documentation which identifies these release as continuous or intermittent shOUld be Obtained prior to the

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

analysis

OTHER ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the study area Some of these were issues for Which USEPA had no available database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk assessment These issues included odors and noise and are addressed below

Qdors

Qdor 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 perceived at concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (eg ammonia ethylacrylate isopropylmercaptan) While still others can be detected as low as 1 part per trillion (eg n-butyric acid) The mere ability to sense an odor does not necessarily mean that it is harmful at threshold levels Qn the other hand some chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may not be perceived by most h~ans at levels which are signifioantly 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 these emissions

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 environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

Many residents of Chester have complained that environmental noise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home setting They cite numerous sources of the-noise and have requested help from the industrial community and the environmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable nonshyintrusive levels Some of the sources identified include

bull truck traffic passing through residential areas bull industrial operating equip~ent bull aircraft over-flights bull music sources such as car radios home hi-fi bull train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project USEPA staff reviewed applicable environmental noise stUdies perfor=ed in the Chester area and performed a literature search for any applicable mitigation measures This limited search found a Pre-operational Noise Monitoring Study (Westinghouse 1991) and a sUbsequent Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse 1993)

In the study environmental noise monitoring was performed at seven locations This was considered to be backqround noise monitoring at facility site locations prior to tinal construction and operation of the Delaware county Resource Recovery facility A total ot three continuous 24-hour time periods yere sampled inclUding one weekend day and two Yeekdays An additional four locations yere sampled in the residential community in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the Resource Recovery facility

Although there was some variability in the measured noise data due to short-duration transient events the levels measured in and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoods are typical of urban residential settings and would be considered generally acceptable

A noise control ordinance for the city of Chester Pennsylvania was passed on January 14 1993 This ordinance applies to Vehicles appliances and equipment and includes any of the ~nuisancemiddot type at unwanted sounds The ordinance includes subjective aspects of noise as vell as objective criteria limits for ~otoried vehicles and property line limits depending on land use 0~in9

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

I APPElIDIX

TABLES

bull

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

bull

-

C18TIR RIBI PROJICT TJUlLB 4-1

08 caNsos or POPULATION AND BOU8INO - 8TP- 3A 8AMPLB cou~ DATA (lO bull

bull Marcus Hook Borough

Trainer Borough

Toul BouaiDV Ddh

1055

OClClUphcl Bouillli odt

871

acat Bou_inC) unih

publio

1055

DriUa4 bullbull11

bull

DUg Woll

- shybull

other

bull bull

Chester city 16512 14538 1975 16445 Chester TownshIp cbp 1879

1778 1868 bull

Linwood 1190 IU) iIO bull bull bull Upland Borough 1124 1187 1224 bull bull bull Eddystone Borouoh 1011

bull Data 0 ained fro STr JA 993

PiJe 8EI 29 Ta bullbull H21-HJJ

1065 bull bull bull

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

bull

CHESTER Rl$K PROJECT TABLE 4-3

RlSK SUtltlARY CHESlER WAlER ALnHORITY bull

DRiNIONG WA1ER ADULT CMICEFl RISK

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (lll811-EO- 1 YEAR) 134E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1go-EO- 1 YEAR) 213E-07 TOTAl RISK Nm10LfTFLUORlDE (11181-ED- 1 YEAA) 186E-07 TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES (11192-eD- 1 YEAR) E_ TOTAL RISK WIlliOUTFLUORlDE (111l3-poundO- 1 YEAR) 178E-07TOTAl ASK WI1liOVT FLUORIDE (l1193-ED- 30 YEARS) DFIlNxlG WA1ER CHILD ----=== TOTAl RISK FROM AU SOURCES 11l1l9-ED- 1 ~ 312E-07TOTAL RSK FROM AUSOlIACES (lli$)-ED- 1 YEAA) _shyTOTAL RISK YofTHOVTFlUORlOE (lll91-ED- 1 YEAR) ampE_TOTAL RISK fFlOtl AU SOlJRCES (lSQ2-ED- 1 YEAR) shyTOTAL RISK MTHOlJT FLUORIDE (lS93-EO- 1 YEAR) 41510-07 TOTAl RISK Mll-fOUTFLUORlDE (1ll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 249E-Q6

INHAlA11ON ADULT

TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1i811-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROM ALl SOURaS (11i19O-ED- 1 YEAR) 2gtOE TOTAL FISK FROM AU SCIUFICES (111l1-ED- 1 YEAR) 312E-Q6TOTAL RISK FllOM AU SOURCES (l5amp2-ED- 1 YEAAJ TOTAL RISK FROM AlL ~ (ll1l3-ED- 1 YEAR)

_TOTAL RISK FRQU AUSOIJRCES (1893-ED- 3OYEAR$) shy- QW)

TOTAl RiSK FROM AU SOURCES (198ll-ED- 1 YEAR) 141E-oll TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1f19O_ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM ALl SOURCES (111 -EO- 1 YEAR)

shy shyTOTAl RlSK FROM AlL SOURCES (11l92-EO- 1 YEAR) 110E--ll1 TOTAL RSK FROM All SaURaS (lllll3-ED- 1 YEAR) -- TOTAl RISK FROM AU SQURCES (lll93-ED- 30 YEARS) 195E-07

TOTALRlSIltmiddot

1989(1~ ADUlT 231E-oE 19l1O (1 YEAR) ADUlT 311E-Q6 1911 (1 YEAR) T 3~-M

1m(1 YEAR) T 351E-Q6 _163 (1 YEAA) T 191 (1 YEJoR) CHIlD 1990 (1 YEAR) CHUgt -shy-shy1991(1 YEAR) CHl1D oe_ 1l92 (1 YEAR) CH 512E-01 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD 54llE-01

NON-CANCER R1Sl(

395E-Q1 =e-o 214E-Q1=-0=e-o =e-o

$21E-01 533E-01 4jl9f-01 531E-01 5S7E-01 557E-01

oooe 441pound 00 00

851E~ 11pound-01 118E-01 126E-Q1 106E-01 1Cl6E-ol _ 214E-01 21~-(l1=-0=e-o 1-C1E+OO 646E-ol 611pound-01 65TE-tl1bull

1993 (3D YEAFlS) 109E-oS 902E-Q1 middot1CllII Aisle witholII FOOde

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

CHESlER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY

DRlNlClNG WATER AOtAT

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (Ui9D-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlSK FROM AllSOUfICES (1i91-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (1lla3-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RSK FROM All SOUACES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

DRlNlONG WATER CHILD

TOTAL RSK FROM All SOURCES (lllB9_EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOlJRQS (1990-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOUKEl (lIlil -ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL RISK FROM All SCUlCES (1i92-ED- 1 YENIl TOTAL PlSK FROM AU SOlIRCfS (1S83-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (111I3-pound0- KlYEARS)

INHALA110NADULT

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (990-pound0- 1 YEARl TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (11111-EO_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1l112-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOlJRCES (11113-ED_ 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (lll93-ED_ 3OYEARS)

DERMAl CHILD

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL RlK FROM AU SOURCES (11191-poundO- IEAA) TOTAL RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1ll92-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAL PlSK FROM All SOURCES (lll93-ED- 1 YEAR) TOTAl RISK FROU All SOURCES (11l93-ED- 3OYEARS)

TOTAl RISKshy

Hl89 (1 YEAR) AOlIlT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1991 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1992(1 YEAR) ADULT 1393(1 YEAA) ADUlT 1989 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1990 (1 YEARl CHILD 1991 (1 YEAR) CHILD 1992 ( YEAR) CHILD 1993 (1 YEAR) CHILD

993 pO YEARS)

CANCER RISK

113E-07 151E-07 R72E-08 869E-C8 3ltE~ 562E-08

ooe_ =shyshy-shyshyR41E-05

629E-08 835E-OSshybull -poundshy~

778E-07

201E-ltl6 267E-ltl6 17pound-(lj

shy41SE-05 328-07 435E-07 U1E-07 251E-07 876pound-07

104E-Q4

NON_CANCER RISK

13OE-01 173E~1

112E-ol me 268E-ltl1 268E~1

304E-01 4oJE~1 -E-c =e-ltgt 626pound-01 826E-ltl1

OOOE+OO OOOE+OO

721E-02 958E-02 61I1E-02 149E~1

U9E~

13OE-ol 1731-01 1 12E-01 1l97E-02 268E-o 376E-ol 4~-Ql=--288E~1

77SE-Ql

104E+OO

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

middot

bullCHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLpound -5

RISK SUMMARY PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

DRINKING wTElI ADUlT

TOIlIl Risk IriltoA FLoDridB (11lllll-ED- 1 ~

TOllil Risk wtItIIll FUIridB (lI1lKl-EO- 1 tENQ TOIlIl Risk wIItoa FUlride (111ll1-EO- 1 YEAR) TD1aI Risk wtIt1oltt FLoridlt (1992-EO- 1 YEAR) T01l1 RIsk wIlhouI Fwrlde (1993-EO- 1 YEAR) Telal Risk wtIt1oltt FUOtIde (1993-pound0- 3OYpoundARS)

DRINKING WA1Bl CHIlD

Tl1laI Risk wIhDlA fu-a (1Il8$-EO- 1 YEAAl TgmJ FbkwlhDlA FUDridI (lIliO-ED- 1 YEAAl Total Risk wIhDlA FLaidI (1i511-EO- 1 YEMl Toaa Ritkwlltoa FIloorilraquo 1V92-EO- 1 YEARl Total RisIlt wiIhout FIuorid9 (lfi3-EO- 1 YEAAl Total Ril( wIlhouI Fuerlde (1993-EO- 30 IEARS)

INHALATION ADULT

Total Risk 110m Soutes (l989-EO- 1 VM) ToDI Risk from AI Soutes (lll9l1-ED- 1 V Tocal Risk rom AI Soutes (till -ED- 1V Teal Risk from All Soutes 11ii2-ED- 1V Total Risk trom Soutes (11lll3-ED- 1 V Total Risk from All Soucas (lllD3-ED- 30 YNrj

Total RIsk Ironl All SoltIces (196Sl-ED- 1 Ylar) Total Risk from AI SOuee$ (l990-ED- 1 VIa) Total Risk from $Olfte$ (1991-pound0- VIa) Total Risktrom Soutes (l992-ED- Vbull TotIl RiIk from SOuees (1993-ED- 1 YM) Total Risk from SOuce$IS93-ED- 3OVbull

TOTAL RISK

19119 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1990 (1 YEAR) ADULT 1amp91 (ll~ AtlULT 1992(1 YENl3 ADULT 1il93(1YEAA) ADULT HIl1ll11 YENI) CHILD 199o11~ CHIlD 1W1 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1W2 (1 YEAR) CHLD 1~3 (1 YEAR) CHILD

-0gt-0gtE-ogt 141E-07 21E-Or 514E-0ll

BltE-ogt -0gtBltE-ogt--agt OltE-agt 3lXE-0lI

SIoE-08 977f-OG UI3E-07 78CE-CMl 112E-G7 673-07

289E-OB 30pound-0I5 324E_0lI Z4lE-OB 5OE-OO 41tE-ll7 5OE-agt 4D6E-f11 61pound-f11

l87E-ol 21SE--ol=-0161E-01 24(pound-01 2o4lE-01

37E--o-SlE-ol 377E--ol 5ampE-Ol 5ea-01

bull 0lt1 UI~-J

175E-Q2 bull roE 175E-02 17SE-02

loE--ol 111E-ol 117E-ol 12lE-01 12fE-01

1B7E-01 245E-01 23llE-01 61E-01 2S7E-01 54(pound-01 614E-01 631E-01

945E_011pg3 (30 YEARS)

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

FlU

CHESTER RISK PROpoundCT TAEILE-23 SlFACE WATUI FllSXS

lTION------t CANCER-CON- ~D HAZfRO INOEl( RiSK

INCINEilATOR IANCshy

I WCNOln

INCLUDE

bull

ONRDE CH MIetL

LAWAAE COUNlY

VERIollCUf1i ClUMP (US

INDEX 000015 OClOOOJamp OllOOM 0000 000027 OllOOOU 000CI5 000023 000013 000D03

0015 OODSII 000011 Ooooose

00025 OOClOe$ OOOOT1 000011

O 1 00023 O 00015

oo1 0000035סס0_ 000012 000025 OOOClOlM 0D0045 00002

ODOOOIMI OD00027 00003 OOOOO2ll

middotOOU O1Xl3e 000013 000D037 olXlQIS OllOOOU

OOOS7 00015 000072 00007

001 OOll5a 0011

011

bullshyshy0011

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

CHESTER RISK PROJECT TABLE 4-24 SEOIMENT RISKS

bullCHEMICAl OF CONCERN HAZARD CANCER ~

001 s

SOOSO S SllS2lt NJA NJA NJA NA

-~ B m c Chrvrn s_

422115

EAST 10TH STREET

ABM WADE

MONROE CHEMICAL-OS SEQ

MONROE CHEMICAL-US SED

DELAWARE COUNTY INCINERATOR LANOshyflU 1

STATION

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

CHUlUI RISllt PROJECT TAal4-Z7

Dollbullbullbull ectA TN r 5 Cli -d middot11111_ ~ bull -

Roo CCO j 11lI Cr bull Owl

bull bull fF Ih~ M_ 116 shy Et bull

- -bull bull ot_Sshy - raquoshy V -bull Foc_ LP Fit ll DII bull nd IIbull

bull -shy 0_shy raquo-raquo aOlwih - -2 -shy T_ 2

- S- M bull shy Ell- -

~

~ bullbull_-j bull __n_ shy r _

___t bull - uP bullbull k400 -- ~--

otCO= J_I -= bull I

~ - 1IltIGolIw

I

- -Ml1IE i shy----_

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

llllillll bullbull I ibullbull 11 _-11 _ -_wltO JW - ~~i~ _w bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Ii

il bullbullbull

bullbullbull

bullbullbullbull rtf I bull

i 1shy ~

t

bull bullbull

bull J ~

I

bullbullbull

bullbullbull

il Hii I bull1 II

I p

bullbullbull 1 bullbullbullbull 1

ii i bull

F ~ bull

illlllliilllllI iilliI II I - ~= I 1 bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1 bullbullbull

bull I

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

bullbull bullbull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbullbullbull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull

bull bull bullbull

i~ middot I - bullbullbull bull ~8

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot I bullbull 3 Ji g

lL bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbull bull bullbullbullbull II I bullbull lal I

I ~ I bullbull 9 bullbull I I a I

Iiiii- H~ill 1IIII bull I jiii II I

i =~I~middotI~~i 1 bullbullbull 1 jl iisect bull

I Ii - ~I _~ ~ bullbull _ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull hi bull

Ii bullbull nbull i p

h= i i i ~ = ~ bullbull bull

I

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

I II i i 1shy

E

i j~~ ~ i ~~

I li i I II~ II _ E _

I

I II Iiiiii ii

I it Ii

i I if

ii i i il i Ii i

iliiliH

I III ~ _ illllilbullIt Il

~ bull bullomiddot smiddotbull

Ibull bullIbull bull bulli

bull

bull

- bull bull bull$ i I iii

~~ H ~~ Ill - shy Jiil

bull

bull I

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

bullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbull bull bullbull bull bullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bullbullbull

bullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbull

bull bull bull bull

H illpH

middot- b-li ~ IiI bullbull

11f yen

li~~i= 1ml III shy~ tshy-1illiillllilllil1 III iii iiill

I ~pound j I ~ o hj~ I ~I Ii Ii bull ibull r~i J I J ibull I bull bulliii Ii iii iiii 888 IIIlillllllllllllllll~ IIII iii UI iii

f i

II Illlliill bull II Ii I II~il~shy if _

gf~iH ~ Ii i Iiif bullbull II L Ili~yen bullbull

III II ii i I I Ilii L

IIlln_if ~ H EE bullbull-

h ~

Ii bullH bull

bull

II bull-r I bullill liilliilli ii iii i j- iii

- f yen I r ~ yen i e I ~ -I - i ~~ -iI r~_ fa lt shy bullbull bullbull II i I I bull 1bull i

bull ~ I bull bullbull Hbull f Ibull bull I ~ 1 bull

bullbullbull bull I

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

bullbull

bull bullbull bull bullbullbullbullbullbull bull bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbull

bullbull

bullbull bull

ljl- ~shy~ a

b bull lbull l~

IliilllijllllilllI III bull I Ili

I

i

j

bull bullIU-I l

HI l II

I I ~ j i 1111 jlbull 1 1 I

o ~I I I I I I P

i j ~i I ilI I

~ -0

~

bull Usect iiiiiiijjiiijjjjjjj jiiii mm rjjjjjjljjjjjjjjjjjj bull j bull

~t eIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i uu nI mm

h 1liiciiipound bullbullbullbullbull 1111 Ii I ~Il= II fi

~ 0shy 0

I~ i L -l IIi ITIiI bullbull I middot ill =1 bullbull I~lliIE bullbullbullbullbullbullbull I 1111 II bull 1 bullbullbullbull 1 f 0

I1- il 1 bull shy bullbull 1 bullbullbullbullbull I _

i bullbull bull 1 I-I I

fmiddot bull

bullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 1bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull middot

~ IIbull bull bull bull bullfbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull uu bullbull bullbullbull

bull bull ~

IIbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull i bullbull bull bullbull bullbull

Iii 111111111 bullbullbullbullbullbull I illl II I Illh II I 0

I II

bull ~l$ jlPi- - -ilI ~H -= = bull 1 H I -II

------ bull bull

bulli bullbull I I I I ifI ~

bull bull bull bull bull bullbullbull II bullbullbull

I - bull i Ibull bullfl

bull

iil

- ii_ i

fi iI~bull bullbull bull ii~

I IUIIIPI I I

1111 iii U i

i i I

bullbull

bullbull

Il

I o

Ibullbull

l I j

iii

shy p ~i lI l ie 1I P

~ ii- eiOI

~

1i1 i

ll I -shy IIi H 11 H-----shy

iLii bull i

5

bullbullbullI I 1 t

bullH

o H

bull II I j I imiddot Ii ji i Ii Ii

he

I-

i

-l i 3

bull

i

bullbull

bullbull I

bull bull

bullbullmiddotmiddot~ 1 1 Hshy

a ~[

bull bull

bullgo 0 __ 0__

I I p

bull bullbullbull ~ bull bull bull bullHI D

bull i i

bull bull f bull _ ~_amp~D - DDtamp- bullbull bullbullbull bullbull i1l bullbullbull bull

~

~ I~l bullbullbull i L bull bullbull

bull I

bullbull bull

iiiii I I ilii -- ---1--1-1 ~ ~-=- - sect~III 11IIIIIIIIIII I 11~1 -~I I 11--- IIIII ------------------- ltIii Ililll II

0

bull bull if bull sect

bullbull- a J Po__ 00 8 DD bull bull bull bull bull -- bull -- bull eI 1111 I

bullbull II bull bull I

If ~

r

-00

r bull -0

i

bull II bull

bull I bull I rj

bullI

0

bullbullbull Sbullbull i bull

bull bullbull bull bullbull 1bullbull 0

-

- D~Z ~~s~ ~ bull bull i io fa

bull bull bull shy I bull ~~

i i 0bullbullbull bull bullbull bull ~

bullbull

bull

-I

Elll1111 I lllllill i II i i1- It

jI1 I

Hi

L I II iHIi II11 ji II ~ ~ middot~ffl

P bullCabull -p ~$ i aKsect I D DO 8 bullD ~ i IfII II I f I f I fyen ~f

f I If I Clilllgt-c J

II I I I I j I bull I I I 1 1 1 1 bull f f f f i I~rI

1

kf 0 ~ DO

bull bulli 0shy - middot(1 ~ ~ 8 Iii DO _aOD

bull I

bullbullbull

~H Hibullbullbull m fH Hi lt

bullbullbullsiie

ltiiii alaaaaaaaalllaaaalia

mbullbullbull

IIIII III middotlllliiiliillilllliil III ~~~

I

jjj gt gt gt

Hi~

gt I

bullbullbull bullbullbull

---------

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I bull

~~~i iiiii i ~~ a~a3a ~I ~ ~~~~~~

II iii I Ii I - - 2~ ~~~ ~

i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii sectsectsectsectsectsect~Isectsect~~~~~22222222222222 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~55 uaa ~~~

ii ililll I II iiii I 1IIIIIIlllllllll ill

ii illill II Ill i llillllll Iii

mm m ~~Ioi

~ liHGSamp I II IIII Illlllll li

ii I i I i

~i uuu 11111111 ii IUIII

IIbullbull -II lllll a I 33 iiii 1

11111 i II allllllllll~i rr~lil ~~ a _ bullbullbullii bullbullbullbullbull i bullbullbull i~bullbullII illill I II II iiIiiiiito

~ ~~ ~ - a bull ltIIgt a ~ I

llo ltgt g

~~ 11] - I~~ ha~~ u

H u I illl liiI

IIbull8 gg 111 I-1 0

I-III-II-jjjj II 1Illlllllllllill _11_1_ i __ ~~I I ~~~~~~~~j~~~~jjj~jj

I f f fbull

i II iii i I Il I 1111 ~g illm~ill

lmiddot~l ~ - l~e i h-- IIImiddot illilliillillllii

iii 1H

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii

1111111111111111111 aaaaaaiiiii

iii n~

00 inIn 1= liiii$ Iii Isect

II bull

~

mIICd

ClIESTZR tUSK PJlOJCT

TABLE 4-32

XAJIMthI CARCl11OGDIC JlIaU n AIR

CHEMICAL KUH RISK-BASED CARCINOGENIC

PREDICTED LEVEL RISKmiddot CONCENTRATION (uqr) (uqa)

ehromiWil VI 00047 000015 3E-05

banzene 022 lE-05

qlloline 019 5101-05 9pound-06 (uqm) bullbull

13-butlldiene OOH 00064 7E-06

cadmlWD 00067 000099 71-06

arsenic 00022 000041 5E-06

cUbullbullel 024 1 70E-05 4E-06 (uqr) middot1

crotonllldehyde 0012 00033 3pound-06

acrylonitrile 0042 0026 2pound-06

formllldehyde 030 014 2E-06

vinyl chlorid 0025 0021 lE-06

middotvalue represent the maximum carcinogenic riak posed by an individual chemical at bull specific location bull

bullbullVa1ue represents the unit riSk for this cocpound

bull vb I MtlM aowcuca DU Dr ampD

CllEXICAJ KAXUtIJC PREDICTED CONCENTRATION (u

RIn-BASm LEVEL (ur)

HAzuugt QOOTIENTshy

by4roqan chloride 17 7 acrolein 033 0021 1 Ii

2-bullbullth~tbnol 19 0 aucury (lnorqanlc) 00151 031 0

-Value reprbullbullbullnt tha aaxiaua non-cancer thrt bullbull predicted by the Haurd QIlotiant poa-S lIy an in41v14Ml cb_iColl at bull specific location

bull

bullbullbullbull

I

D1JroII uno OJ P1bullal)ICTUI COIICDT1ATIOJII 01 anDU POLLtrrUIU ro

Df1ODL JdI~ ~ QInLITl aTampJrtluN

cmaCAL KAXDroK NATIONAL RATIOmiddotmiddot PREDICTED AMBlEin AIJt CONCZHTRATIOH OOALXTY U9rlmiddot STAlIDAlUgt

(I rj

carbon aonoldd (1 hour) 196O 40000 00

carbon ~nod4 (I boun) 10000 007 1bullbulld ( ~) middot001011middotmiddotmiddot 1

nitr09an cUodda (annual) 100 0 ozona (1 bour) m -PN-IO (24 hourI) 70 150 0 IM-10 (annual) 50 0 alltur dlo1d (] b~1 1300 0 lultU 410x1de (24 boura U 0 aUlfur 4iodd (annual) lt1 0

Plbullbullbullbull ratar to Tabl 4-31 for a dtl1~ axplanation ot ach atandard

middotValua raprbullbullbullnta the ratio betvaen tha aamp1aua pradicted coneentration and ~ National ~lnt Air ~llty 3tandard

middotmiddotmiddotThe aodllld coneantratlon tor 115 reprbullbullent an ~ll

flvara9a laval rathar ~ bull quartarly eoncntration Althou1b the annual avaraq laval vbullbull eoapared to tha qlIartarly atllliclard tor 1bullbull4 inaccuraclbullbull ralatad to such bull eoapariaon are lnaiqnifiCU1C in tbe eontart of thh tudy

CHESTER COUNTY RISK PROJECT TABLE 429

SUMMARY RANKING FOR TOTAL ONSITE RELEASES bull

Ocrshya-lO~co

-~- weGH 0GCIlI0i1 00 to on co ooc ~_N

to _~oHf QlITOoO aIl _

U8Cgt91cobullbull -0

11Oun

_010or-_ R

RoImiddot M

bull~ _ shy111shyI_1$1bullshy152__

-

bull ~ _ -IU-= UIraquo ~ shy1$7_shy shy

nInO _ 2CUQIl NnI3CI _ 2MeUI lion l1nu inII h_ n_

_ _ nil bull

2a1_ 12211laquoamp l1KI 2111112 212

~=-____~~~------_-- __- ~~

_InOI7M ~u

_II nTHln 21111n 2_ UltJ2l1 _

n CllIl1 u n _ 11_=

bullbull shynshyshy11111shyshy~--

-shy4

010_101

_

-shy

shy

a-__~~

ontIIMA-ervBOOIE

bullbull Q1~IOS0lt- -1shy-0-_ _ bullbull ZiNTW~IltoII ~ __co--- OCOJsmoNCQyen bull1 ~ 0gt

bull _Ebull aElmltE _NO ElCIOOlAIOlt bull UlIUlNOIOOScoI IIOUIG guE I _ Q

bull -ecV bull scon_co J W11Q lt011middot

N

bull

_

bull

APPENDIX II

REF~CES

bull

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bull bull

bullgo 0 __ 0__

I I p

bull bullbullbull ~ bull bull bull bullHI D

bull i i

bull bull f bull _ ~_amp~D - DDtamp- bullbull bullbullbull bullbull i1l bullbullbull bull

~

~ I~l bullbullbull i L bull bullbull

bull I

bullbull bull

iiiii I I ilii -- ---1--1-1 ~ ~-=- - sect~III 11IIIIIIIIIII I 11~1 -~I I 11--- IIIII ------------------- ltIii Ililll II

0

bull bull if bull sect

bullbull- a J Po__ 00 8 DD bull bull bull bull bull -- bull -- bull eI 1111 I

bullbull II bull bull I

If ~

r

-00

r bull -0

i

bull II bull

bull I bull I rj

bullI

0

bullbullbull Sbullbull i bull

bull bullbull bull bullbull 1bullbull 0

-

- D~Z ~~s~ ~ bull bull i io fa

bull bull bull shy I bull ~~

i i 0bullbullbull bull bullbull bull ~

bullbull

bull

-I

Elll1111 I lllllill i II i i1- It

jI1 I

Hi

L I II iHIi II11 ji II ~ ~ middot~ffl

P bullCabull -p ~$ i aKsect I D DO 8 bullD ~ i IfII II I f I f I fyen ~f

f I If I Clilllgt-c J

II I I I I j I bull I I I 1 1 1 1 bull f f f f i I~rI

1

kf 0 ~ DO

bull bulli 0shy - middot(1 ~ ~ 8 Iii DO _aOD

bull I

bullbullbull

~H Hibullbullbull m fH Hi lt

bullbullbullsiie

ltiiii alaaaaaaaalllaaaalia

mbullbullbull

IIIII III middotlllliiiliillilllliil III ~~~

I

jjj gt gt gt

Hi~

gt I

bullbullbull bullbullbull

---------

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I bull

~~~i iiiii i ~~ a~a3a ~I ~ ~~~~~~

II iii I Ii I - - 2~ ~~~ ~

i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii sectsectsectsectsectsect~Isectsect~~~~~22222222222222 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~55 uaa ~~~

ii ililll I II iiii I 1IIIIIIlllllllll ill

ii illill II Ill i llillllll Iii

mm m ~~Ioi

~ liHGSamp I II IIII Illlllll li

ii I i I i

~i uuu 11111111 ii IUIII

IIbullbull -II lllll a I 33 iiii 1

11111 i II allllllllll~i rr~lil ~~ a _ bullbullbullii bullbullbullbullbull i bullbullbull i~bullbullII illill I II II iiIiiiiito

~ ~~ ~ - a bull ltIIgt a ~ I

llo ltgt g

~~ 11] - I~~ ha~~ u

H u I illl liiI

IIbull8 gg 111 I-1 0

I-III-II-jjjj II 1Illlllllllllill _11_1_ i __ ~~I I ~~~~~~~~j~~~~jjj~jj

I f f fbull

i II iii i I Il I 1111 ~g illm~ill

lmiddot~l ~ - l~e i h-- IIImiddot illilliillillllii

iii 1H

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii

1111111111111111111 aaaaaaiiiii

iii n~

00 inIn 1= liiii$ Iii Isect

II bull

~

mIICd

ClIESTZR tUSK PJlOJCT

TABLE 4-32

XAJIMthI CARCl11OGDIC JlIaU n AIR

CHEMICAL KUH RISK-BASED CARCINOGENIC

PREDICTED LEVEL RISKmiddot CONCENTRATION (uqr) (uqa)

ehromiWil VI 00047 000015 3E-05

banzene 022 lE-05

qlloline 019 5101-05 9pound-06 (uqm) bullbull

13-butlldiene OOH 00064 7E-06

cadmlWD 00067 000099 71-06

arsenic 00022 000041 5E-06

cUbullbullel 024 1 70E-05 4E-06 (uqr) middot1

crotonllldehyde 0012 00033 3pound-06

acrylonitrile 0042 0026 2pound-06

formllldehyde 030 014 2E-06

vinyl chlorid 0025 0021 lE-06

middotvalue represent the maximum carcinogenic riak posed by an individual chemical at bull specific location bull

bullbullVa1ue represents the unit riSk for this cocpound

bull vb I MtlM aowcuca DU Dr ampD

CllEXICAJ KAXUtIJC PREDICTED CONCENTRATION (u

RIn-BASm LEVEL (ur)

HAzuugt QOOTIENTshy

by4roqan chloride 17 7 acrolein 033 0021 1 Ii

2-bullbullth~tbnol 19 0 aucury (lnorqanlc) 00151 031 0

-Value reprbullbullbullnt tha aaxiaua non-cancer thrt bullbull predicted by the Haurd QIlotiant poa-S lIy an in41v14Ml cb_iColl at bull specific location

bull

bullbullbullbull

I

D1JroII uno OJ P1bullal)ICTUI COIICDT1ATIOJII 01 anDU POLLtrrUIU ro

Df1ODL JdI~ ~ QInLITl aTampJrtluN

cmaCAL KAXDroK NATIONAL RATIOmiddotmiddot PREDICTED AMBlEin AIJt CONCZHTRATIOH OOALXTY U9rlmiddot STAlIDAlUgt

(I rj

carbon aonoldd (1 hour) 196O 40000 00

carbon ~nod4 (I boun) 10000 007 1bullbulld ( ~) middot001011middotmiddotmiddot 1

nitr09an cUodda (annual) 100 0 ozona (1 bour) m -PN-IO (24 hourI) 70 150 0 IM-10 (annual) 50 0 alltur dlo1d (] b~1 1300 0 lultU 410x1de (24 boura U 0 aUlfur 4iodd (annual) lt1 0

Plbullbullbullbull ratar to Tabl 4-31 for a dtl1~ axplanation ot ach atandard

middotValua raprbullbullbullnta the ratio betvaen tha aamp1aua pradicted coneentration and ~ National ~lnt Air ~llty 3tandard

middotmiddotmiddotThe aodllld coneantratlon tor 115 reprbullbullent an ~ll

flvara9a laval rathar ~ bull quartarly eoncntration Althou1b the annual avaraq laval vbullbull eoapared to tha qlIartarly atllliclard tor 1bullbull4 inaccuraclbullbull ralatad to such bull eoapariaon are lnaiqnifiCU1C in tbe eontart of thh tudy

CHESTER COUNTY RISK PROJECT TABLE 429

SUMMARY RANKING FOR TOTAL ONSITE RELEASES bull

Ocrshya-lO~co

-~- weGH 0GCIlI0i1 00 to on co ooc ~_N

to _~oHf QlITOoO aIl _

U8Cgt91cobullbull -0

11Oun

_010or-_ R

RoImiddot M

bull~ _ shy111shyI_1$1bullshy152__

-

bull ~ _ -IU-= UIraquo ~ shy1$7_shy shy

nInO _ 2CUQIl NnI3CI _ 2MeUI lion l1nu inII h_ n_

_ _ nil bull

2a1_ 12211laquoamp l1KI 2111112 212

~=-____~~~------_-- __- ~~

_InOI7M ~u

_II nTHln 21111n 2_ UltJ2l1 _

n CllIl1 u n _ 11_=

bullbull shynshyshy11111shyshy~--

-shy4

010_101

_

-shy

shy

a-__~~

ontIIMA-ervBOOIE

bullbull Q1~IOS0lt- -1shy-0-_ _ bullbull ZiNTW~IltoII ~ __co--- OCOJsmoNCQyen bull1 ~ 0gt

bull _Ebull aElmltE _NO ElCIOOlAIOlt bull UlIUlNOIOOScoI IIOUIG guE I _ Q

bull -ecV bull scon_co J W11Q lt011middot

N

bull

_

bull

APPENDIX II

REF~CES

bull

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bullbull bull

iiiii I I ilii -- ---1--1-1 ~ ~-=- - sect~III 11IIIIIIIIIII I 11~1 -~I I 11--- IIIII ------------------- ltIii Ililll II

0

bull bull if bull sect

bullbull- a J Po__ 00 8 DD bull bull bull bull bull -- bull -- bull eI 1111 I

bullbull II bull bull I

If ~

r

-00

r bull -0

i

bull II bull

bull I bull I rj

bullI

0

bullbullbull Sbullbull i bull

bull bullbull bull bullbull 1bullbull 0

-

- D~Z ~~s~ ~ bull bull i io fa

bull bull bull shy I bull ~~

i i 0bullbullbull bull bullbull bull ~

bullbull

bull

-I

Elll1111 I lllllill i II i i1- It

jI1 I

Hi

L I II iHIi II11 ji II ~ ~ middot~ffl

P bullCabull -p ~$ i aKsect I D DO 8 bullD ~ i IfII II I f I f I fyen ~f

f I If I Clilllgt-c J

II I I I I j I bull I I I 1 1 1 1 bull f f f f i I~rI

1

kf 0 ~ DO

bull bulli 0shy - middot(1 ~ ~ 8 Iii DO _aOD

bull I

bullbullbull

~H Hibullbullbull m fH Hi lt

bullbullbullsiie

ltiiii alaaaaaaaalllaaaalia

mbullbullbull

IIIII III middotlllliiiliillilllliil III ~~~

I

jjj gt gt gt

Hi~

gt I

bullbullbull bullbullbull

---------

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I bull

~~~i iiiii i ~~ a~a3a ~I ~ ~~~~~~

II iii I Ii I - - 2~ ~~~ ~

i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii sectsectsectsectsectsect~Isectsect~~~~~22222222222222 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~55 uaa ~~~

ii ililll I II iiii I 1IIIIIIlllllllll ill

ii illill II Ill i llillllll Iii

mm m ~~Ioi

~ liHGSamp I II IIII Illlllll li

ii I i I i

~i uuu 11111111 ii IUIII

IIbullbull -II lllll a I 33 iiii 1

11111 i II allllllllll~i rr~lil ~~ a _ bullbullbullii bullbullbullbullbull i bullbullbull i~bullbullII illill I II II iiIiiiiito

~ ~~ ~ - a bull ltIIgt a ~ I

llo ltgt g

~~ 11] - I~~ ha~~ u

H u I illl liiI

IIbull8 gg 111 I-1 0

I-III-II-jjjj II 1Illlllllllllill _11_1_ i __ ~~I I ~~~~~~~~j~~~~jjj~jj

I f f fbull

i II iii i I Il I 1111 ~g illm~ill

lmiddot~l ~ - l~e i h-- IIImiddot illilliillillllii

iii 1H

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii

1111111111111111111 aaaaaaiiiii

iii n~

00 inIn 1= liiii$ Iii Isect

II bull

~

mIICd

ClIESTZR tUSK PJlOJCT

TABLE 4-32

XAJIMthI CARCl11OGDIC JlIaU n AIR

CHEMICAL KUH RISK-BASED CARCINOGENIC

PREDICTED LEVEL RISKmiddot CONCENTRATION (uqr) (uqa)

ehromiWil VI 00047 000015 3E-05

banzene 022 lE-05

qlloline 019 5101-05 9pound-06 (uqm) bullbull

13-butlldiene OOH 00064 7E-06

cadmlWD 00067 000099 71-06

arsenic 00022 000041 5E-06

cUbullbullel 024 1 70E-05 4E-06 (uqr) middot1

crotonllldehyde 0012 00033 3pound-06

acrylonitrile 0042 0026 2pound-06

formllldehyde 030 014 2E-06

vinyl chlorid 0025 0021 lE-06

middotvalue represent the maximum carcinogenic riak posed by an individual chemical at bull specific location bull

bullbullVa1ue represents the unit riSk for this cocpound

bull vb I MtlM aowcuca DU Dr ampD

CllEXICAJ KAXUtIJC PREDICTED CONCENTRATION (u

RIn-BASm LEVEL (ur)

HAzuugt QOOTIENTshy

by4roqan chloride 17 7 acrolein 033 0021 1 Ii

2-bullbullth~tbnol 19 0 aucury (lnorqanlc) 00151 031 0

-Value reprbullbullbullnt tha aaxiaua non-cancer thrt bullbull predicted by the Haurd QIlotiant poa-S lIy an in41v14Ml cb_iColl at bull specific location

bull

bullbullbullbull

I

D1JroII uno OJ P1bullal)ICTUI COIICDT1ATIOJII 01 anDU POLLtrrUIU ro

Df1ODL JdI~ ~ QInLITl aTampJrtluN

cmaCAL KAXDroK NATIONAL RATIOmiddotmiddot PREDICTED AMBlEin AIJt CONCZHTRATIOH OOALXTY U9rlmiddot STAlIDAlUgt

(I rj

carbon aonoldd (1 hour) 196O 40000 00

carbon ~nod4 (I boun) 10000 007 1bullbulld ( ~) middot001011middotmiddotmiddot 1

nitr09an cUodda (annual) 100 0 ozona (1 bour) m -PN-IO (24 hourI) 70 150 0 IM-10 (annual) 50 0 alltur dlo1d (] b~1 1300 0 lultU 410x1de (24 boura U 0 aUlfur 4iodd (annual) lt1 0

Plbullbullbullbull ratar to Tabl 4-31 for a dtl1~ axplanation ot ach atandard

middotValua raprbullbullbullnta the ratio betvaen tha aamp1aua pradicted coneentration and ~ National ~lnt Air ~llty 3tandard

middotmiddotmiddotThe aodllld coneantratlon tor 115 reprbullbullent an ~ll

flvara9a laval rathar ~ bull quartarly eoncntration Althou1b the annual avaraq laval vbullbull eoapared to tha qlIartarly atllliclard tor 1bullbull4 inaccuraclbullbull ralatad to such bull eoapariaon are lnaiqnifiCU1C in tbe eontart of thh tudy

CHESTER COUNTY RISK PROJECT TABLE 429

SUMMARY RANKING FOR TOTAL ONSITE RELEASES bull

Ocrshya-lO~co

-~- weGH 0GCIlI0i1 00 to on co ooc ~_N

to _~oHf QlITOoO aIl _

U8Cgt91cobullbull -0

11Oun

_010or-_ R

RoImiddot M

bull~ _ shy111shyI_1$1bullshy152__

-

bull ~ _ -IU-= UIraquo ~ shy1$7_shy shy

nInO _ 2CUQIl NnI3CI _ 2MeUI lion l1nu inII h_ n_

_ _ nil bull

2a1_ 12211laquoamp l1KI 2111112 212

~=-____~~~------_-- __- ~~

_InOI7M ~u

_II nTHln 21111n 2_ UltJ2l1 _

n CllIl1 u n _ 11_=

bullbull shynshyshy11111shyshy~--

-shy4

010_101

_

-shy

shy

a-__~~

ontIIMA-ervBOOIE

bullbull Q1~IOS0lt- -1shy-0-_ _ bullbull ZiNTW~IltoII ~ __co--- OCOJsmoNCQyen bull1 ~ 0gt

bull _Ebull aElmltE _NO ElCIOOlAIOlt bull UlIUlNOIOOScoI IIOUIG guE I _ Q

bull -ecV bull scon_co J W11Q lt011middot

N

bull

_

bull

APPENDIX II

REF~CES

bull

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

Elll1111 I lllllill i II i i1- It

jI1 I

Hi

L I II iHIi II11 ji II ~ ~ middot~ffl

P bullCabull -p ~$ i aKsect I D DO 8 bullD ~ i IfII II I f I f I fyen ~f

f I If I Clilllgt-c J

II I I I I j I bull I I I 1 1 1 1 bull f f f f i I~rI

1

kf 0 ~ DO

bull bulli 0shy - middot(1 ~ ~ 8 Iii DO _aOD

bull I

bullbullbull

~H Hibullbullbull m fH Hi lt

bullbullbullsiie

ltiiii alaaaaaaaalllaaaalia

mbullbullbull

IIIII III middotlllliiiliillilllliil III ~~~

I

jjj gt gt gt

Hi~

gt I

bullbullbull bullbullbull

---------

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I bull

~~~i iiiii i ~~ a~a3a ~I ~ ~~~~~~

II iii I Ii I - - 2~ ~~~ ~

i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii sectsectsectsectsectsect~Isectsect~~~~~22222222222222 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~55 uaa ~~~

ii ililll I II iiii I 1IIIIIIlllllllll ill

ii illill II Ill i llillllll Iii

mm m ~~Ioi

~ liHGSamp I II IIII Illlllll li

ii I i I i

~i uuu 11111111 ii IUIII

IIbullbull -II lllll a I 33 iiii 1

11111 i II allllllllll~i rr~lil ~~ a _ bullbullbullii bullbullbullbullbull i bullbullbull i~bullbullII illill I II II iiIiiiiito

~ ~~ ~ - a bull ltIIgt a ~ I

llo ltgt g

~~ 11] - I~~ ha~~ u

H u I illl liiI

IIbull8 gg 111 I-1 0

I-III-II-jjjj II 1Illlllllllllill _11_1_ i __ ~~I I ~~~~~~~~j~~~~jjj~jj

I f f fbull

i II iii i I Il I 1111 ~g illm~ill

lmiddot~l ~ - l~e i h-- IIImiddot illilliillillllii

iii 1H

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii

1111111111111111111 aaaaaaiiiii

iii n~

00 inIn 1= liiii$ Iii Isect

II bull

~

mIICd

ClIESTZR tUSK PJlOJCT

TABLE 4-32

XAJIMthI CARCl11OGDIC JlIaU n AIR

CHEMICAL KUH RISK-BASED CARCINOGENIC

PREDICTED LEVEL RISKmiddot CONCENTRATION (uqr) (uqa)

ehromiWil VI 00047 000015 3E-05

banzene 022 lE-05

qlloline 019 5101-05 9pound-06 (uqm) bullbull

13-butlldiene OOH 00064 7E-06

cadmlWD 00067 000099 71-06

arsenic 00022 000041 5E-06

cUbullbullel 024 1 70E-05 4E-06 (uqr) middot1

crotonllldehyde 0012 00033 3pound-06

acrylonitrile 0042 0026 2pound-06

formllldehyde 030 014 2E-06

vinyl chlorid 0025 0021 lE-06

middotvalue represent the maximum carcinogenic riak posed by an individual chemical at bull specific location bull

bullbullVa1ue represents the unit riSk for this cocpound

bull vb I MtlM aowcuca DU Dr ampD

CllEXICAJ KAXUtIJC PREDICTED CONCENTRATION (u

RIn-BASm LEVEL (ur)

HAzuugt QOOTIENTshy

by4roqan chloride 17 7 acrolein 033 0021 1 Ii

2-bullbullth~tbnol 19 0 aucury (lnorqanlc) 00151 031 0

-Value reprbullbullbullnt tha aaxiaua non-cancer thrt bullbull predicted by the Haurd QIlotiant poa-S lIy an in41v14Ml cb_iColl at bull specific location

bull

bullbullbullbull

I

D1JroII uno OJ P1bullal)ICTUI COIICDT1ATIOJII 01 anDU POLLtrrUIU ro

Df1ODL JdI~ ~ QInLITl aTampJrtluN

cmaCAL KAXDroK NATIONAL RATIOmiddotmiddot PREDICTED AMBlEin AIJt CONCZHTRATIOH OOALXTY U9rlmiddot STAlIDAlUgt

(I rj

carbon aonoldd (1 hour) 196O 40000 00

carbon ~nod4 (I boun) 10000 007 1bullbulld ( ~) middot001011middotmiddotmiddot 1

nitr09an cUodda (annual) 100 0 ozona (1 bour) m -PN-IO (24 hourI) 70 150 0 IM-10 (annual) 50 0 alltur dlo1d (] b~1 1300 0 lultU 410x1de (24 boura U 0 aUlfur 4iodd (annual) lt1 0

Plbullbullbullbull ratar to Tabl 4-31 for a dtl1~ axplanation ot ach atandard

middotValua raprbullbullbullnta the ratio betvaen tha aamp1aua pradicted coneentration and ~ National ~lnt Air ~llty 3tandard

middotmiddotmiddotThe aodllld coneantratlon tor 115 reprbullbullent an ~ll

flvara9a laval rathar ~ bull quartarly eoncntration Althou1b the annual avaraq laval vbullbull eoapared to tha qlIartarly atllliclard tor 1bullbull4 inaccuraclbullbull ralatad to such bull eoapariaon are lnaiqnifiCU1C in tbe eontart of thh tudy

CHESTER COUNTY RISK PROJECT TABLE 429

SUMMARY RANKING FOR TOTAL ONSITE RELEASES bull

Ocrshya-lO~co

-~- weGH 0GCIlI0i1 00 to on co ooc ~_N

to _~oHf QlITOoO aIl _

U8Cgt91cobullbull -0

11Oun

_010or-_ R

RoImiddot M

bull~ _ shy111shyI_1$1bullshy152__

-

bull ~ _ -IU-= UIraquo ~ shy1$7_shy shy

nInO _ 2CUQIl NnI3CI _ 2MeUI lion l1nu inII h_ n_

_ _ nil bull

2a1_ 12211laquoamp l1KI 2111112 212

~=-____~~~------_-- __- ~~

_InOI7M ~u

_II nTHln 21111n 2_ UltJ2l1 _

n CllIl1 u n _ 11_=

bullbull shynshyshy11111shyshy~--

-shy4

010_101

_

-shy

shy

a-__~~

ontIIMA-ervBOOIE

bullbull Q1~IOS0lt- -1shy-0-_ _ bullbull ZiNTW~IltoII ~ __co--- OCOJsmoNCQyen bull1 ~ 0gt

bull _Ebull aElmltE _NO ElCIOOlAIOlt bull UlIUlNOIOOScoI IIOUIG guE I _ Q

bull -ecV bull scon_co J W11Q lt011middot

N

bull

_

bull

APPENDIX II

REF~CES

bull

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bullbullbull

~H Hibullbullbull m fH Hi lt

bullbullbullsiie

ltiiii alaaaaaaaalllaaaalia

mbullbullbull

IIIII III middotlllliiiliillilllliil III ~~~

I

jjj gt gt gt

Hi~

gt I

bullbullbull bullbullbull

---------

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I bull

~~~i iiiii i ~~ a~a3a ~I ~ ~~~~~~

II iii I Ii I - - 2~ ~~~ ~

i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii sectsectsectsectsectsect~Isectsect~~~~~22222222222222 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~55 uaa ~~~

ii ililll I II iiii I 1IIIIIIlllllllll ill

ii illill II Ill i llillllll Iii

mm m ~~Ioi

~ liHGSamp I II IIII Illlllll li

ii I i I i

~i uuu 11111111 ii IUIII

IIbullbull -II lllll a I 33 iiii 1

11111 i II allllllllll~i rr~lil ~~ a _ bullbullbullii bullbullbullbullbull i bullbullbull i~bullbullII illill I II II iiIiiiiito

~ ~~ ~ - a bull ltIIgt a ~ I

llo ltgt g

~~ 11] - I~~ ha~~ u

H u I illl liiI

IIbull8 gg 111 I-1 0

I-III-II-jjjj II 1Illlllllllllill _11_1_ i __ ~~I I ~~~~~~~~j~~~~jjj~jj

I f f fbull

i II iii i I Il I 1111 ~g illm~ill

lmiddot~l ~ - l~e i h-- IIImiddot illilliillillllii

iii 1H

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii

1111111111111111111 aaaaaaiiiii

iii n~

00 inIn 1= liiii$ Iii Isect

II bull

~

mIICd

ClIESTZR tUSK PJlOJCT

TABLE 4-32

XAJIMthI CARCl11OGDIC JlIaU n AIR

CHEMICAL KUH RISK-BASED CARCINOGENIC

PREDICTED LEVEL RISKmiddot CONCENTRATION (uqr) (uqa)

ehromiWil VI 00047 000015 3E-05

banzene 022 lE-05

qlloline 019 5101-05 9pound-06 (uqm) bullbull

13-butlldiene OOH 00064 7E-06

cadmlWD 00067 000099 71-06

arsenic 00022 000041 5E-06

cUbullbullel 024 1 70E-05 4E-06 (uqr) middot1

crotonllldehyde 0012 00033 3pound-06

acrylonitrile 0042 0026 2pound-06

formllldehyde 030 014 2E-06

vinyl chlorid 0025 0021 lE-06

middotvalue represent the maximum carcinogenic riak posed by an individual chemical at bull specific location bull

bullbullVa1ue represents the unit riSk for this cocpound

bull vb I MtlM aowcuca DU Dr ampD

CllEXICAJ KAXUtIJC PREDICTED CONCENTRATION (u

RIn-BASm LEVEL (ur)

HAzuugt QOOTIENTshy

by4roqan chloride 17 7 acrolein 033 0021 1 Ii

2-bullbullth~tbnol 19 0 aucury (lnorqanlc) 00151 031 0

-Value reprbullbullbullnt tha aaxiaua non-cancer thrt bullbull predicted by the Haurd QIlotiant poa-S lIy an in41v14Ml cb_iColl at bull specific location

bull

bullbullbullbull

I

D1JroII uno OJ P1bullal)ICTUI COIICDT1ATIOJII 01 anDU POLLtrrUIU ro

Df1ODL JdI~ ~ QInLITl aTampJrtluN

cmaCAL KAXDroK NATIONAL RATIOmiddotmiddot PREDICTED AMBlEin AIJt CONCZHTRATIOH OOALXTY U9rlmiddot STAlIDAlUgt

(I rj

carbon aonoldd (1 hour) 196O 40000 00

carbon ~nod4 (I boun) 10000 007 1bullbulld ( ~) middot001011middotmiddotmiddot 1

nitr09an cUodda (annual) 100 0 ozona (1 bour) m -PN-IO (24 hourI) 70 150 0 IM-10 (annual) 50 0 alltur dlo1d (] b~1 1300 0 lultU 410x1de (24 boura U 0 aUlfur 4iodd (annual) lt1 0

Plbullbullbullbull ratar to Tabl 4-31 for a dtl1~ axplanation ot ach atandard

middotValua raprbullbullbullnta the ratio betvaen tha aamp1aua pradicted coneentration and ~ National ~lnt Air ~llty 3tandard

middotmiddotmiddotThe aodllld coneantratlon tor 115 reprbullbullent an ~ll

flvara9a laval rathar ~ bull quartarly eoncntration Althou1b the annual avaraq laval vbullbull eoapared to tha qlIartarly atllliclard tor 1bullbull4 inaccuraclbullbull ralatad to such bull eoapariaon are lnaiqnifiCU1C in tbe eontart of thh tudy

CHESTER COUNTY RISK PROJECT TABLE 429

SUMMARY RANKING FOR TOTAL ONSITE RELEASES bull

Ocrshya-lO~co

-~- weGH 0GCIlI0i1 00 to on co ooc ~_N

to _~oHf QlITOoO aIl _

U8Cgt91cobullbull -0

11Oun

_010or-_ R

RoImiddot M

bull~ _ shy111shyI_1$1bullshy152__

-

bull ~ _ -IU-= UIraquo ~ shy1$7_shy shy

nInO _ 2CUQIl NnI3CI _ 2MeUI lion l1nu inII h_ n_

_ _ nil bull

2a1_ 12211laquoamp l1KI 2111112 212

~=-____~~~------_-- __- ~~

_InOI7M ~u

_II nTHln 21111n 2_ UltJ2l1 _

n CllIl1 u n _ 11_=

bullbull shynshyshy11111shyshy~--

-shy4

010_101

_

-shy

shy

a-__~~

ontIIMA-ervBOOIE

bullbull Q1~IOS0lt- -1shy-0-_ _ bullbull ZiNTW~IltoII ~ __co--- OCOJsmoNCQyen bull1 ~ 0gt

bull _Ebull aElmltE _NO ElCIOOlAIOlt bull UlIUlNOIOOScoI IIOUIG guE I _ Q

bull -ecV bull scon_co J W11Q lt011middot

N

bull

_

bull

APPENDIX II

REF~CES

bull

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bullbullbull bullbullbull

---------

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

I bull

~~~i iiiii i ~~ a~a3a ~I ~ ~~~~~~

II iii I Ii I - - 2~ ~~~ ~

i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii sectsectsectsectsectsect~Isectsect~~~~~22222222222222 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~55 uaa ~~~

ii ililll I II iiii I 1IIIIIIlllllllll ill

ii illill II Ill i llillllll Iii

mm m ~~Ioi

~ liHGSamp I II IIII Illlllll li

ii I i I i

~i uuu 11111111 ii IUIII

IIbullbull -II lllll a I 33 iiii 1

11111 i II allllllllll~i rr~lil ~~ a _ bullbullbullii bullbullbullbullbull i bullbullbull i~bullbullII illill I II II iiIiiiiito

~ ~~ ~ - a bull ltIIgt a ~ I

llo ltgt g

~~ 11] - I~~ ha~~ u

H u I illl liiI

IIbull8 gg 111 I-1 0

I-III-II-jjjj II 1Illlllllllllill _11_1_ i __ ~~I I ~~~~~~~~j~~~~jjj~jj

I f f fbull

i II iii i I Il I 1111 ~g illm~ill

lmiddot~l ~ - l~e i h-- IIImiddot illilliillillllii

iii 1H

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii

1111111111111111111 aaaaaaiiiii

iii n~

00 inIn 1= liiii$ Iii Isect

II bull

~

mIICd

ClIESTZR tUSK PJlOJCT

TABLE 4-32

XAJIMthI CARCl11OGDIC JlIaU n AIR

CHEMICAL KUH RISK-BASED CARCINOGENIC

PREDICTED LEVEL RISKmiddot CONCENTRATION (uqr) (uqa)

ehromiWil VI 00047 000015 3E-05

banzene 022 lE-05

qlloline 019 5101-05 9pound-06 (uqm) bullbull

13-butlldiene OOH 00064 7E-06

cadmlWD 00067 000099 71-06

arsenic 00022 000041 5E-06

cUbullbullel 024 1 70E-05 4E-06 (uqr) middot1

crotonllldehyde 0012 00033 3pound-06

acrylonitrile 0042 0026 2pound-06

formllldehyde 030 014 2E-06

vinyl chlorid 0025 0021 lE-06

middotvalue represent the maximum carcinogenic riak posed by an individual chemical at bull specific location bull

bullbullVa1ue represents the unit riSk for this cocpound

bull vb I MtlM aowcuca DU Dr ampD

CllEXICAJ KAXUtIJC PREDICTED CONCENTRATION (u

RIn-BASm LEVEL (ur)

HAzuugt QOOTIENTshy

by4roqan chloride 17 7 acrolein 033 0021 1 Ii

2-bullbullth~tbnol 19 0 aucury (lnorqanlc) 00151 031 0

-Value reprbullbullbullnt tha aaxiaua non-cancer thrt bullbull predicted by the Haurd QIlotiant poa-S lIy an in41v14Ml cb_iColl at bull specific location

bull

bullbullbullbull

I

D1JroII uno OJ P1bullal)ICTUI COIICDT1ATIOJII 01 anDU POLLtrrUIU ro

Df1ODL JdI~ ~ QInLITl aTampJrtluN

cmaCAL KAXDroK NATIONAL RATIOmiddotmiddot PREDICTED AMBlEin AIJt CONCZHTRATIOH OOALXTY U9rlmiddot STAlIDAlUgt

(I rj

carbon aonoldd (1 hour) 196O 40000 00

carbon ~nod4 (I boun) 10000 007 1bullbulld ( ~) middot001011middotmiddotmiddot 1

nitr09an cUodda (annual) 100 0 ozona (1 bour) m -PN-IO (24 hourI) 70 150 0 IM-10 (annual) 50 0 alltur dlo1d (] b~1 1300 0 lultU 410x1de (24 boura U 0 aUlfur 4iodd (annual) lt1 0

Plbullbullbullbull ratar to Tabl 4-31 for a dtl1~ axplanation ot ach atandard

middotValua raprbullbullbullnta the ratio betvaen tha aamp1aua pradicted coneentration and ~ National ~lnt Air ~llty 3tandard

middotmiddotmiddotThe aodllld coneantratlon tor 115 reprbullbullent an ~ll

flvara9a laval rathar ~ bull quartarly eoncntration Althou1b the annual avaraq laval vbullbull eoapared to tha qlIartarly atllliclard tor 1bullbull4 inaccuraclbullbull ralatad to such bull eoapariaon are lnaiqnifiCU1C in tbe eontart of thh tudy

CHESTER COUNTY RISK PROJECT TABLE 429

SUMMARY RANKING FOR TOTAL ONSITE RELEASES bull

Ocrshya-lO~co

-~- weGH 0GCIlI0i1 00 to on co ooc ~_N

to _~oHf QlITOoO aIl _

U8Cgt91cobullbull -0

11Oun

_010or-_ R

RoImiddot M

bull~ _ shy111shyI_1$1bullshy152__

-

bull ~ _ -IU-= UIraquo ~ shy1$7_shy shy

nInO _ 2CUQIl NnI3CI _ 2MeUI lion l1nu inII h_ n_

_ _ nil bull

2a1_ 12211laquoamp l1KI 2111112 212

~=-____~~~------_-- __- ~~

_InOI7M ~u

_II nTHln 21111n 2_ UltJ2l1 _

n CllIl1 u n _ 11_=

bullbull shynshyshy11111shyshy~--

-shy4

010_101

_

-shy

shy

a-__~~

ontIIMA-ervBOOIE

bullbull Q1~IOS0lt- -1shy-0-_ _ bullbull ZiNTW~IltoII ~ __co--- OCOJsmoNCQyen bull1 ~ 0gt

bull _Ebull aElmltE _NO ElCIOOlAIOlt bull UlIUlNOIOOScoI IIOUIG guE I _ Q

bull -ecV bull scon_co J W11Q lt011middot

N

bull

_

bull

APPENDIX II

REF~CES

bull

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

ClIESTZR tUSK PJlOJCT

TABLE 4-32

XAJIMthI CARCl11OGDIC JlIaU n AIR

CHEMICAL KUH RISK-BASED CARCINOGENIC

PREDICTED LEVEL RISKmiddot CONCENTRATION (uqr) (uqa)

ehromiWil VI 00047 000015 3E-05

banzene 022 lE-05

qlloline 019 5101-05 9pound-06 (uqm) bullbull

13-butlldiene OOH 00064 7E-06

cadmlWD 00067 000099 71-06

arsenic 00022 000041 5E-06

cUbullbullel 024 1 70E-05 4E-06 (uqr) middot1

crotonllldehyde 0012 00033 3pound-06

acrylonitrile 0042 0026 2pound-06

formllldehyde 030 014 2E-06

vinyl chlorid 0025 0021 lE-06

middotvalue represent the maximum carcinogenic riak posed by an individual chemical at bull specific location bull

bullbullVa1ue represents the unit riSk for this cocpound

bull vb I MtlM aowcuca DU Dr ampD

CllEXICAJ KAXUtIJC PREDICTED CONCENTRATION (u

RIn-BASm LEVEL (ur)

HAzuugt QOOTIENTshy

by4roqan chloride 17 7 acrolein 033 0021 1 Ii

2-bullbullth~tbnol 19 0 aucury (lnorqanlc) 00151 031 0

-Value reprbullbullbullnt tha aaxiaua non-cancer thrt bullbull predicted by the Haurd QIlotiant poa-S lIy an in41v14Ml cb_iColl at bull specific location

bull

bullbullbullbull

I

D1JroII uno OJ P1bullal)ICTUI COIICDT1ATIOJII 01 anDU POLLtrrUIU ro

Df1ODL JdI~ ~ QInLITl aTampJrtluN

cmaCAL KAXDroK NATIONAL RATIOmiddotmiddot PREDICTED AMBlEin AIJt CONCZHTRATIOH OOALXTY U9rlmiddot STAlIDAlUgt

(I rj

carbon aonoldd (1 hour) 196O 40000 00

carbon ~nod4 (I boun) 10000 007 1bullbulld ( ~) middot001011middotmiddotmiddot 1

nitr09an cUodda (annual) 100 0 ozona (1 bour) m -PN-IO (24 hourI) 70 150 0 IM-10 (annual) 50 0 alltur dlo1d (] b~1 1300 0 lultU 410x1de (24 boura U 0 aUlfur 4iodd (annual) lt1 0

Plbullbullbullbull ratar to Tabl 4-31 for a dtl1~ axplanation ot ach atandard

middotValua raprbullbullbullnta the ratio betvaen tha aamp1aua pradicted coneentration and ~ National ~lnt Air ~llty 3tandard

middotmiddotmiddotThe aodllld coneantratlon tor 115 reprbullbullent an ~ll

flvara9a laval rathar ~ bull quartarly eoncntration Althou1b the annual avaraq laval vbullbull eoapared to tha qlIartarly atllliclard tor 1bullbull4 inaccuraclbullbull ralatad to such bull eoapariaon are lnaiqnifiCU1C in tbe eontart of thh tudy

CHESTER COUNTY RISK PROJECT TABLE 429

SUMMARY RANKING FOR TOTAL ONSITE RELEASES bull

Ocrshya-lO~co

-~- weGH 0GCIlI0i1 00 to on co ooc ~_N

to _~oHf QlITOoO aIl _

U8Cgt91cobullbull -0

11Oun

_010or-_ R

RoImiddot M

bull~ _ shy111shyI_1$1bullshy152__

-

bull ~ _ -IU-= UIraquo ~ shy1$7_shy shy

nInO _ 2CUQIl NnI3CI _ 2MeUI lion l1nu inII h_ n_

_ _ nil bull

2a1_ 12211laquoamp l1KI 2111112 212

~=-____~~~------_-- __- ~~

_InOI7M ~u

_II nTHln 21111n 2_ UltJ2l1 _

n CllIl1 u n _ 11_=

bullbull shynshyshy11111shyshy~--

-shy4

010_101

_

-shy

shy

a-__~~

ontIIMA-ervBOOIE

bullbull Q1~IOS0lt- -1shy-0-_ _ bullbull ZiNTW~IltoII ~ __co--- OCOJsmoNCQyen bull1 ~ 0gt

bull _Ebull aElmltE _NO ElCIOOlAIOlt bull UlIUlNOIOOScoI IIOUIG guE I _ Q

bull -ecV bull scon_co J W11Q lt011middot

N

bull

_

bull

APPENDIX II

REF~CES

bull

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bull vb I MtlM aowcuca DU Dr ampD

CllEXICAJ KAXUtIJC PREDICTED CONCENTRATION (u

RIn-BASm LEVEL (ur)

HAzuugt QOOTIENTshy

by4roqan chloride 17 7 acrolein 033 0021 1 Ii

2-bullbullth~tbnol 19 0 aucury (lnorqanlc) 00151 031 0

-Value reprbullbullbullnt tha aaxiaua non-cancer thrt bullbull predicted by the Haurd QIlotiant poa-S lIy an in41v14Ml cb_iColl at bull specific location

bull

bullbullbullbull

I

D1JroII uno OJ P1bullal)ICTUI COIICDT1ATIOJII 01 anDU POLLtrrUIU ro

Df1ODL JdI~ ~ QInLITl aTampJrtluN

cmaCAL KAXDroK NATIONAL RATIOmiddotmiddot PREDICTED AMBlEin AIJt CONCZHTRATIOH OOALXTY U9rlmiddot STAlIDAlUgt

(I rj

carbon aonoldd (1 hour) 196O 40000 00

carbon ~nod4 (I boun) 10000 007 1bullbulld ( ~) middot001011middotmiddotmiddot 1

nitr09an cUodda (annual) 100 0 ozona (1 bour) m -PN-IO (24 hourI) 70 150 0 IM-10 (annual) 50 0 alltur dlo1d (] b~1 1300 0 lultU 410x1de (24 boura U 0 aUlfur 4iodd (annual) lt1 0

Plbullbullbullbull ratar to Tabl 4-31 for a dtl1~ axplanation ot ach atandard

middotValua raprbullbullbullnta the ratio betvaen tha aamp1aua pradicted coneentration and ~ National ~lnt Air ~llty 3tandard

middotmiddotmiddotThe aodllld coneantratlon tor 115 reprbullbullent an ~ll

flvara9a laval rathar ~ bull quartarly eoncntration Althou1b the annual avaraq laval vbullbull eoapared to tha qlIartarly atllliclard tor 1bullbull4 inaccuraclbullbull ralatad to such bull eoapariaon are lnaiqnifiCU1C in tbe eontart of thh tudy

CHESTER COUNTY RISK PROJECT TABLE 429

SUMMARY RANKING FOR TOTAL ONSITE RELEASES bull

Ocrshya-lO~co

-~- weGH 0GCIlI0i1 00 to on co ooc ~_N

to _~oHf QlITOoO aIl _

U8Cgt91cobullbull -0

11Oun

_010or-_ R

RoImiddot M

bull~ _ shy111shyI_1$1bullshy152__

-

bull ~ _ -IU-= UIraquo ~ shy1$7_shy shy

nInO _ 2CUQIl NnI3CI _ 2MeUI lion l1nu inII h_ n_

_ _ nil bull

2a1_ 12211laquoamp l1KI 2111112 212

~=-____~~~------_-- __- ~~

_InOI7M ~u

_II nTHln 21111n 2_ UltJ2l1 _

n CllIl1 u n _ 11_=

bullbull shynshyshy11111shyshy~--

-shy4

010_101

_

-shy

shy

a-__~~

ontIIMA-ervBOOIE

bullbull Q1~IOS0lt- -1shy-0-_ _ bullbull ZiNTW~IltoII ~ __co--- OCOJsmoNCQyen bull1 ~ 0gt

bull _Ebull aElmltE _NO ElCIOOlAIOlt bull UlIUlNOIOOScoI IIOUIG guE I _ Q

bull -ecV bull scon_co J W11Q lt011middot

N

bull

_

bull

APPENDIX II

REF~CES

bull

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bullbullbullbull

I

D1JroII uno OJ P1bullal)ICTUI COIICDT1ATIOJII 01 anDU POLLtrrUIU ro

Df1ODL JdI~ ~ QInLITl aTampJrtluN

cmaCAL KAXDroK NATIONAL RATIOmiddotmiddot PREDICTED AMBlEin AIJt CONCZHTRATIOH OOALXTY U9rlmiddot STAlIDAlUgt

(I rj

carbon aonoldd (1 hour) 196O 40000 00

carbon ~nod4 (I boun) 10000 007 1bullbulld ( ~) middot001011middotmiddotmiddot 1

nitr09an cUodda (annual) 100 0 ozona (1 bour) m -PN-IO (24 hourI) 70 150 0 IM-10 (annual) 50 0 alltur dlo1d (] b~1 1300 0 lultU 410x1de (24 boura U 0 aUlfur 4iodd (annual) lt1 0

Plbullbullbullbull ratar to Tabl 4-31 for a dtl1~ axplanation ot ach atandard

middotValua raprbullbullbullnta the ratio betvaen tha aamp1aua pradicted coneentration and ~ National ~lnt Air ~llty 3tandard

middotmiddotmiddotThe aodllld coneantratlon tor 115 reprbullbullent an ~ll

flvara9a laval rathar ~ bull quartarly eoncntration Althou1b the annual avaraq laval vbullbull eoapared to tha qlIartarly atllliclard tor 1bullbull4 inaccuraclbullbull ralatad to such bull eoapariaon are lnaiqnifiCU1C in tbe eontart of thh tudy

CHESTER COUNTY RISK PROJECT TABLE 429

SUMMARY RANKING FOR TOTAL ONSITE RELEASES bull

Ocrshya-lO~co

-~- weGH 0GCIlI0i1 00 to on co ooc ~_N

to _~oHf QlITOoO aIl _

U8Cgt91cobullbull -0

11Oun

_010or-_ R

RoImiddot M

bull~ _ shy111shyI_1$1bullshy152__

-

bull ~ _ -IU-= UIraquo ~ shy1$7_shy shy

nInO _ 2CUQIl NnI3CI _ 2MeUI lion l1nu inII h_ n_

_ _ nil bull

2a1_ 12211laquoamp l1KI 2111112 212

~=-____~~~------_-- __- ~~

_InOI7M ~u

_II nTHln 21111n 2_ UltJ2l1 _

n CllIl1 u n _ 11_=

bullbull shynshyshy11111shyshy~--

-shy4

010_101

_

-shy

shy

a-__~~

ontIIMA-ervBOOIE

bullbull Q1~IOS0lt- -1shy-0-_ _ bullbull ZiNTW~IltoII ~ __co--- OCOJsmoNCQyen bull1 ~ 0gt

bull _Ebull aElmltE _NO ElCIOOlAIOlt bull UlIUlNOIOOScoI IIOUIG guE I _ Q

bull -ecV bull scon_co J W11Q lt011middot

N

bull

_

bull

APPENDIX II

REF~CES

bull

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

CHESTER COUNTY RISK PROJECT TABLE 429

SUMMARY RANKING FOR TOTAL ONSITE RELEASES bull

Ocrshya-lO~co

-~- weGH 0GCIlI0i1 00 to on co ooc ~_N

to _~oHf QlITOoO aIl _

U8Cgt91cobullbull -0

11Oun

_010or-_ R

RoImiddot M

bull~ _ shy111shyI_1$1bullshy152__

-

bull ~ _ -IU-= UIraquo ~ shy1$7_shy shy

nInO _ 2CUQIl NnI3CI _ 2MeUI lion l1nu inII h_ n_

_ _ nil bull

2a1_ 12211laquoamp l1KI 2111112 212

~=-____~~~------_-- __- ~~

_InOI7M ~u

_II nTHln 21111n 2_ UltJ2l1 _

n CllIl1 u n _ 11_=

bullbull shynshyshy11111shyshy~--

-shy4

010_101

_

-shy

shy

a-__~~

ontIIMA-ervBOOIE

bullbull Q1~IOS0lt- -1shy-0-_ _ bullbull ZiNTW~IltoII ~ __co--- OCOJsmoNCQyen bull1 ~ 0gt

bull _Ebull aElmltE _NO ElCIOOlAIOlt bull UlIUlNOIOOScoI IIOUIG guE I _ Q

bull -ecV bull scon_co J W11Q lt011middot

N

bull

_

bull

APPENDIX II

REF~CES

bull

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bull

APPENDIX II

REF~CES

bull

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

REFERENCES V 02

Amctur MD Doull j anct Klaassen CD Editors 1993 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Inc NY

BP Oil Groundwater Quality Data February 1994

Calaklrelle Ej Gilbert C E and H Pastides (Editors) 1989 Sate orinking Water Act Amendments Regulations and Standards Levis PUbli~hers Chelsea

Doull3 CD Klaassen and MO A=dur 1986 Casarett and Doulls Toxicology The Basic Science ot Poisons Third Edition MacMillan PUblishing Co~pany New York

Energy and Natural Resources (EHR) 1988 A Total Exposure and RiSk Assess~ent tor Drinking Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Co~pounds ILENRRE-AQ-8722 November

Foster SA and PC Chrostowski 1987 Inhalation Exposures to Volatile organic Contaminants in the Shower ICF Clement Associates Washington _D~C__ Fo~ Presentation at the 80th-Ann~al__ Meeting ot APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management) New York june 21-26

Gross 1994 Personal Communication jW1e 1994 Carol Ann Gross US EPA Region J Water Division

Hall GM 1934 3rd printing 1973 Ground Water in Southeastern Pennsylvania 255p 7 pls geol map scale 1J80160

Hawley Gessner G 1981 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary Tenth Edition Van Nostranct Reinhold Co New York

Howard PH 1989 Handbook ot Environmental Fate and Exposure Data tor Organic Che~icals Volume 1 Lewis Publishers Chelsea

Layton DW et al 1987 Derivlng allowable daily intakes for sy~temic toxic~nt$ lacking chronic toxicity data Requla~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 796-112

Lewis Richard 3 Sr 1992 Saxs Dangerous Properties Qf Industrial Materials Eighth Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co flew York

National ToxicolQgy PrQgram (NTP) Report ITR-267

OlsQn EO 199J Natural Resources Defense CQuncil Think Betore You Drink The Failure of the Nations Drinking Water System tQ Protect Public Health september

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Aprll __ 1994 Commorealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quallty Assessment 305(b) Report Bureau ot Water-Quality Management

PECO RCRA Facility Investigation wOr~ Plan April 1994

Rice 1993 Personal cOllUllunication March 1993 Eugene Rice PhD USEPA Headquarters Microbiological Treatment Branch

Rundell 1994 Personal Communication October 1994 Bruce Rundell US EPA Region 3 Hydroqeo1ogist Superfund Branch Technical Support Section

Sax NI and RJ Lewis Sr 1989 Oangerous Properties ot Industrial Materials Seventh Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold co New York

Sittig M 1985 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Second Edition Noyes PUblications Park Ridge New Jersey

Sittig Marshall 1991 Handbook ot Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Third Edition HoytiS Publications Park Ridge New Jersey

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports 1989-1991 Oeleware District ot Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia

Sun oil Retinery Work Plan September 1993

United States Department ot Commerce (USOQC1 1990 Economic and statistics Administration Bureau ot the Census summary Tape File J on CD-ROH

United tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD) 1991 Final Draft tor the Drinking Water Criteria Doc~nt on Radon ott ice ot Ground Water and Drinking Water ott ice ot Water ICAIR Program No 1524 June 14 1991

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986a $upertund Public H~alth Evaluation Manual EPA 5401-86060 ott ice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington OC

USEPA 1986b Pesticides in Ground Water Background Doc~e~t

EPA 4406-86-002 May

USEPA 1989a Risk Assessment Guidance tor Supertund volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Interim Final Otfice ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC December

USEPA 1989b Exposure Factors Handbook Oftice ot Health and Envircnllental Assessment Washington DC EPA6008-8904J Hay

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

I USpoundPA 198ge Health Effeets Assessent SUmary Tables (HEAST) Office of E=ergeney and Remedial Reponse Washinqton DC

USEPA 1989d Surface Water ~eatment Rul 54 Federal Register June 29

USEPA 1990a Health Effeets Abullbullbullbullbullment Sum=ary Tables (HEAST) Office of ~ergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1990b Dringtcing Water QuantiUeation ot Toxicologic Ettects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether- (ITBE) Environmental Criteria and Assessmlnt Oftice Cincinnati OH prepared tor Oftiee of Drinking Water ECAO-elN-D023

USEPA 1990c RCRA Orientation Hanual EPA 530-SW-90-0)6

USEPA 1991amp Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Detau~t Expoure ractor ottiee ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC OSWER Directive 92156shy0) larch

USEPA 1991b Lead and Copper RUle 56 rederal Regitr 26460shy26564 1une 7

USEPA 19Hc NatiOnal Primary Drinking Water Requlation Radionuclides Proposed Rule Part II 56 Federal Register 3)050-)3127 July 18

USEPA 1991d Procedurs tor the Preparation ot Emision Inventorie tor Carbon Ionoxide and Precursors ot Oton Vol~e

I General Guidance for Stationary Source EPA 4504-91-016 lay 1991

USEPA 1991e RCRA priorititat ion syste~ Scoring Summary july

USEPA 1992a Dermal Exposure Abullbullessment Principles and Applications Interim Report ott ice of Health and Environmlntal Assesment Washinqton DC EPA600i-91011B January

USEPA 1992b National Study ot Chemical Reidues in FlIh ott ice ot Science and Tchnolo9Y Washington DC EPA 823-R-9Zshy008 Septmber

USEPA 1993a Tctal Coliform Rul Learnr Guide tor Public Watr Supply system Rqulatory and Health ottieials

USEPA 1993b Health Etteets Assssment S~ary Tables (HEAST) Annual Update oft ice of Emergney and Rmedial Respone Washinqton DC EPA540-9-9)058 Karch

USEPA 199)e Hotor Vehiele-Rlatd Air Toxic Study EPA 420shyR-93-005 APril

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

USEPA 1993d Chemical Indexing System for the ~oxic Che~ical Release Inventory Part I Chronic Index EPA903R-93002

USEPA 1994a Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Office of Emergency and Remedisl Response Washington DC bull USEPA 1994b Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table First Quarter 1994

USEPA 1994C Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)Database

USEPA 1994d Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories Officeof Water May

USEPA 1994e National Primary Or inking Water RegulationsOisinfectants and Disinfection Byproductbullbull 59 Federal Register34320-34325 July 29

USEPA 1994f Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Office ot Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC

USEPA 1994g Comprehensive Environ=ental Response Compensation and Liability Intormation System (CERCLIS) Databasll

USEPA 1994h STORET Database Retrievals 41394 51094 and 52594 Research Triangle Park HC

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1989middot Selected GroundshyWater Data Chester Cou~ty PA Open-tile Report 87-217

USGS 1992 Are Fertili~ers and Pesticides in~he Ground Water A Case StUdy ot the Delmarva Peninsula Delaware Maryland and Virginia Circular 1080

USGS 1993 Pesticides in Shellow Ground Water in the Delmarva Peninsula Unpublished Draft Report March

Versar Inc tor United States Enviror~ental Protection Agency 1979 Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants Monitoring and Data support Division Washington DC EPA 4404-79-029

Verschueren K 1983 Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals Second Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co Naw York

Weber 1993 PllOrsonal C~lIlllunication March 1993 Pete Wber- US EPA Region 3 Maryland Program Han~ger- to~ Ground Water Protection Water Management Division

Wastinghouse Electric corporation 1991 Delaware County Resource Recovery Facility Pr-e-Operational Noise Monitoring proposed by Roy f Weston Inc and Analysis and Computing Inc

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

oestinchousa rle-rie Corporation 1993 Racurea Raccvry Facility Nai bullbull Rpar~

bull

bull

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

I APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORM)~ION

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

Ag-adjusted incilencc aod Mortality ratu tor Chutu City DelAware Coynty and aliacent coynties

The eoclosd ~ables describe ~h cancr exprleoce for resldeo~s of Chester City Olawar County and adjacent e~unties Tha iv ~3ncr aits li~~d tor mals and temales represent about 62 and 58 prcnt ot the to~al eancr risk espe~ively

Thbullbulllva~d cancer riSk among 1llalbullbull tor ~all si~es combied R in Chbullbull~r ci~y is eharac~ris~ic ot rates seen among black malbullbull (5493 Chs~r ci~y sompara ~o 5232 pr 100000 Pennsylvania black mals) Th rat was 25 prcent gra~r than tor all mals in the s~a~ (5493 compard to 4393 pr 100000)

A signiticant propor~ion ot ~h mal eancr wr l~ng and prosta~bull Toq~hr thy represn~d 49 prcnt ot the total CAncr rik in ~he c01llmuni~y Th mo~ signiticantCAU of lung eancr cancr i cigar~~ moking Which accoun~ tor abou~ 90 prcent ot all cabullbullbullbull Ther i no knovn environmntal caubullbull of pro~at cancr

Similarly the cancr riSk tor all itbullbull combind~

a1llonq tmalbullbull in Chbullbulltr City i charactri~ic of ra~bullbull I bullbulln amonq black tmalbullbull (3530 Chbullbulltr City compard to 3603 pr 100000 Pnnylvania black fmale) Th rat wa 5 prcnt lowr than tor all tmalbullbull in the tat (3530 compard to 3726 pr 100000) Lung and brt cancrs account tor 44 prcnt of the total caner riSk a=onqtmalbullbull Thr i no known nvironmntal caubullbull of brast cancr

The dath rat rflct th incidnc ratand the survival by individual cancr Th total cancr dath rat in the tat for black mal bullbull was 344 per 100000 imilar to ~he rate tor Chbullbulltr city 1llale (348 per 100000) While the dbullbullth rat for tmalbullbull was 1981 and 1871 pr 100000 tor Chbullbulltr City fmalbullbull and Ponylvania black fmal r bullbullpctivly

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bullbull

bull bull bull

I

bullbull Nbull bull

N N

bull shy Qbull bull bull -bull bull bullbull bullbull bull bull shyN N N

bullbull bullNbull bullbullN

lt

bull

bull bullbull 0

--bull 0

~ bullbull bullbull 0bull 0bull bull- bullbull N1 0

0bull bull N - N 0 bullNbull

bull~bullbull

0bull

bull bull bullIbull

bull0- N

~ 0 bull 0 bull 1

bull

Nbull -0

bullbullbull

bull bullbull 0

~

~~

~ shyc ~ () 0 ~

- ~ M

~

~ ~ 0

~

shy~

-gt-~

-~

~

~

~ l-o gt 0E

- gt

~

~

~

-gtshy ~

~

~ ~

0

- ~

~ -~Q ~ 0shy shy()

lt

0 bull bull 0 0 N 0 bull

bullbull bull bullbull bullbull bull0 - N

0 bull bull 0 0 ~ - bull bull

bull bull bull -bull bull bull bull bullN N

N N bull bull bull shybull bull bull -bull bull bull- ~ bull N N N-

N ~ bull bull bullbull

0 bullbull N

bull bull bullN N - -

bull N bull N - bullbull bull bull bullNbull bull - bull - bull-

bull bull bullbull bull

~

bullbull bull ~

bullbull bull bull bull bull bull 1 bull bull i

bull =bull bullbull bull bull bull bull =bull bull -bull 0bull bull z

~ bullbull ~

bull bullbull bullbullbull z -0

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

Age-adjusled cancer incidence rales for Chesler Cily Delaware nnd adjacentcounties and

Pennsylvania by sex 1937-91

CM Cit Dol Co Wontome Co Chute Co Phll lplbullbullbull C lenIbullbullIbull

All 91

L lIhbullbullbullto

CI floot

101

181

mho

tIoml

All Sit

Lu IIto

CIol

t

1I_IBI

b

k

I~

SSS

1221

US

1t4

127

JSJa 41

laJ1

10 U

UJI 422

IS2

bullbullbull

166

41S

4

122

131bullbull

~J22

72~

n6

1060

n1

IS

10J

J727

471

1319

126

10J

bullbullbull

4094

gtt

676

97J

J74

12 S

U

J70J SlJ

12SJ

124

bullbullbull

SIJ

1116

724

Ci10

421

1101

bullbull

JIlS7

41S

na

111

It bull

bullbullbullbullbullbull

UJJ tIJ 1

44S

IS I

10 I

J7l

JSJ

t7J

1172

1t1

bullbullbull 101

ale-adjusted to lhe 1970 US slanderd pop Source Ill npl of Iklllth rates per 100000 population

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

prollhlc--123

IUD--IJ8

bldder amp

bull

DlsldbuUon of selecled cancers diagnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1907-1991

MALES

bull

leukemillo~--12

lytnJlhomI- -14

kldney--42

eolon reclum-- 49

CUe =378 726_ or lbe loh

SOUTce IA DCIIL or It h ll lolal cancerl Imoul mle ruldenll

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

Disll~bulion of selecled cancers dl8gnosed among residenls of Chesler Cily from 1987-1991

FEMALES

breut--IJI

kldllcy--16

lun--69

~ leukemiu--6

Iympbum- -6

bladder amp

Calle = Z9Z 601 01 the lohlshy

bull 486 lotl c nceu amolll tenuit cllidculjl Source IA Dq c lth

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

I

-- bullbull-bullbull--bull

bull bull ~bullbull-bullQ

~

bull bull bull

bull - bull bullCo bull bullbull = bull ~ bull bullbull w -- bull- = bull bull -Co IJ tJ bSl

shybull-bullCo Qbull lt-

-

bullbull-bulle

bull shycl0ltshy~

-shyo o- shy0

~

~

o - ~ - - ---

shyN-

-

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bull bull

- -

bull

bull --shy- ubull -~ t bullbullU bull shy- - bull bull

-bull bull U-bullII -

~bull bull

- bull -~ -bull bull bull - -bull

~ bull -bull -- bull= bull shy bull

u

~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C

-

Cshy I 1-0 gt ~ -z U

bull

bullbullbullz- - 0 bull

0lt eCo shy gt c~

~ shy_ ~ u 0- 0lt-0ltshy~

QJ In c z0gt bulld - J bull-bullU~ ~- o 0shyo 0 - 0shy~

d 0lt

o L~_---_~~-J-----_ -0000 s 0 = d _ _

0lt -0 =- IQ ~

bull bull

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

- -

--

ltshy

I

0-shy ~ 2 lo~E-

gtu-c ~ I ~cz - 0Q a-su 0 shyu~

o l shyo 0 - c

~

0shy

-

bullshy0 0 u bull

u 0-gt u ~ - t 0u u bull u shy0bullu ~

u -0 bull 0-bull bullbullbull -bull -0 -bullbull shy

bull-bull- - ~

0

~

] -uU lt u Q

lt

3- ~ ~ fJ is

- - - - shy

u

bullu= 0

bullbullu-e

0 -----N-

-bullbullbull -

N-~ - - N N - - -- - shy

bull

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

Ratio of Cancel Incidence Rales (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvania 1907-1991

DREAST

Ratio IJ C Cilybull I) poundpoundj1

I W vv LV

IsectsectI DIbullbullue Coto I lI Philadelphia Co

5 ~ Wnntaomery CO

DI-- I f2JChuler Co

(5)

(la)

(12) (Iraquo) Femaln

Source PA Dept o( Health

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bull bull

bullbull

~- bull

bullbull bullu bull -u ~

u bull bull bull bull~

bull u ~ -bull = bull

bull

-bullu ~ ubullu bullbull bull - -u -~= ~ li ~

~ U ~

Q

lt

u

~ IU ~ hSJ bull ~ - u

u- - 1

bullbull=

Jl l shy 0~ -- ~

d ~

bullbulle bullbull

Co 0 0s gt c ~ - gtshy- C~ ~ -ZC 0- 0shy~ ~

bullbull CC

bullu bullbull

--~

U 0 shy0 0 bullbull shy

-~ ~

-0 -~ - -Q - - - shy

N N Q - - - -Q

~ - - - ~-

L

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

Rnlio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selected Populalions to Pennsylvania 1967-91

PROSTATE

2JO 1shyRatioo------Oiiii8i--------------ll bull Chesler City

Wle

2gt

20

10

0---shy

flgS Delbullbulle Co

l] Phlladelpbla C~

~ Monicollury Co

f2J Chester Co

Souree IA DCIII or lIeltli

~

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

- -

Ratio of Coneer Incidence Rales for Selecle Populations la Pennsylvania 1967-1991

NON-IIODGKINS LYMPHOMAS

Ratio -----------------------1Cbulu City60 Ishy

06ltl SBa Delware Co

PhlldeJllhla Co0 ~ Won1lomery c~_lO

f2lChuter CoWAI I01--

7

(lO) ( 0)

(0)

(60)1---------------- Wles Femalu

middoturc UtilI or IIcl I ~

(0)

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bull

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rules (or Selecled Populations to Pennsylvoniu 1967-1991

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Cbeolor CIl

0 [ 2 IsectsectI dbullbullue Co

20

~ Phlladelpbla Co

o Ir--- ~ Is] foliliomcry Co

(2) Chcltcr Co

(20)

(0)

I () COO) (02) I (60)

Ies Femalel

(JJ)

Source IA IJcpt or IIcalth

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

Ths ratios ~ere oaleul td to provide an pidI10100io piotur 0 tl disase burdn ot the city ot Chstr comp red to other P~sylvania citi Th actual nuber ot ~ tl in ~bullbullbull selctd citismiddot populations r c01pamprd with c leul td n=br ot d es or each ciey Thse calculated ~aths r th n=br at d thbullbullrpectd trc= ach citymiddot population it ~ t popul~tion b~~ th ortality rat 0bullbull s~ ndanl popul tion For this ~~rcis purrobullbullbull ~ acrt lity rats ot th whole Co=on lth r usd as thbullbulltndrd By aUltiplyinq ach city population by th Coonthmiddots ratbullbull tor ch causa ot dth thbullbullXPctd nuhr tor acb caubullbull ot dath vas obtained This xpctd nu=br as thn dividd into the ctul n=br tor aa caubullbull ot dath pr city nd =ultiplid by lOOt A n=br ~atr than lOOt rtlcts an xcs in ctu l daths ovr xpcted daths A nU=r lss than loot retlcts lebullbull actual than xpcted dbullbullths And a ratio qual to loot rtlcts no dittrnc btn the actual and expctd dath For xUlpl the 170t ratio tor dtb troll hypertnsion in the city ot Cheter 1111 that thre r Ot 1I0r daths trolll hypertnsion in Chbullbullt than in th co_on alth aa a hol Thbullbullbull ratio ar only bullbulltimats that cannot account tor the lIluiltitud ot tactors that oontribut to a particular populationmiddots lIlortality ratbull Thus caution should b usd in intrprtinq thbullbullbull ratios Specitically on cannot dtrllIine a oaue and ttcot rlationship trolll any ot these ratiobullbull Hovr thy do providea valuable ~ay ot rlatively quiokly abullbullbullbullbull1n9 and cOlllparillq disa~

burdns For xamplbullbull the ratio ot 244 tor daths trolll live disase in the city ot Chstr is rd arninq U q trong-Iy indio tinq further invbullbulltiq tion into this cause ot dath in this lIlunioipality

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

Mo~ality Ratios

Blood Pssure

Heart Attack

blpbysaca

Liver Oise

Pnuemonia-rlu

lUdney Oibullbullae

(1992

Chatr

170

129

1594

Mo~amplity Ratesl

W1enr

lon

un

au

un

an

100-

Phila

179

lon

123t

11U

11n

13

10

13U

135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

0 Q u bull~ 0 - 1- 0-u 0 bull ubull Ebullbull bull -bull 0 bullbull~ y-bullbull bullbull -bull -0

-bullbull- - 0 0u bull

~ I] ~ CSJ

~ shy- ~ -I

Ul rshy0 ~ -

--

bull

-o N ~

bullbull-bull

N ~ -

bull

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bull bull

Thbullbullbull ratiels ltoIer callt1l1ated to provide an epidellioloqie pic~ur elft 4i5l5 ~uden Of th City of Chester cOlllpared to ot_shyPennsylvania eities The actual nu=ber elf dbullbullt1s in thebullbull seleeted cities populations loIer compared with a cal=lated nlJlkler ltIt d bullbulltn tor bullbullCh city Th~ calcUlated deaths are the nuber ot dat axpeetad trOll each ltlty pop~lati~n i that pcpulaticn had the sa_ ottality rat as some stllndald l051lllltion Fo lttls eercises purpose the lIlo~ality rate ot the 1011101 Co~onol bullbulllt loIer used as ~ standard 8y llultiplyinq bullbullch citys populaticn by the CO=Clnoleatmiddots ratbullbull tor bullbullch caus of death t expected nueber tor bullbullch caus of death va obtained bull This expected nuber wbullbull to dividecl into the lCtual nWilber tor bullbullch aus ot eah prcity and ~ultiplid by 100 A numbr grbullbullter than 100 rtlects an excess in ctual dbullbullths ovr xpcted deth A numbr ls than lOOt retlects 1bullbullbull actual than xpactd daths And a ratio qual to loot reUct no dittrnc btn the actual nd expctd deathS for xampl the 170 ratio tor dbullbulltbs troll hyp~nsion in the city ot Chbullbulltr mbullbullns tht thr r 70 1I0r dbullbullth troll hypertension in Chbullbulltr than 1n the Common lth bullbull a bole Ihbullbulla ratio ara only bullbulltizate that cannot account tor the =uiltitud ot ta~ors tht contribute to a particulr population=ortality ratbullbull bu eaution should be used in intrpretinq thbullbullbull ratio spcitieally one cannot datetllin a cause and ttalt rltionship troll any at ~~ea ratios Howvr thy do provide a vluably at rltively quickly ssesinq and comparinq disebullbullbull burdn For eXlllllpl the ratio at 2 tor dath trom liver dibullbullbullbullbull in the cit ot Chstr i red rninq tlg stronglyindicting tu~hr invbullbulltiqtion into this caubullbull ot dbullbullth in this municiplity

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135

bull Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortality Rats)

Strok

bphys-=a

JUdzlllY 01bullbullbullbullbull

C1str ~estr

Krrstvn Phila Pbrqh

no 10 122 17n 11lt

on 111

11n un

un un

au 100 10n

175 157t 134

15 on on 133

11n un 135