Sierra Club Home Page   Environmental Update   My Backyard
chapter button
Explore, enjoy and protect the planet
Click here to visit the Member Center.         
Search
Take Action
Get Outdoors
Join or Give
Inside Sierra Club
Press Room
Politics & Issues
Sierra Magazine
Sierra Club Books
Apparel and Other Merchandise
Contact Us

Join the Sierra ClubWhy become a member? Explore, Enjoy and Protect

Communities at Risk

  • Introduction
  • Alabama, Anniston
  • Arkansas, Plainview
  • Colorado, Denver
  • Florida, Lake Park and Riviera Beach
  • Georgia, Atlanta
  • Georgia, Early County
  • Idaho and Washington, Lake Coeur d'Alene and Spokane River
  • Illinois, Waukegan
  • Maine, Corinna
  • Massachusetts, Fairhaven
  • Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • Missouri, Herculaneum
  • Missouri, Oak Grove Village
  • Montana, Rimini
  • Nebraska, Omaha
  • New Hampshire, Nashua
  • New Jersey, Edison
  • North Carolina, Asheville
  • Ohio, Middletown
  • Oklahoma, Ottawa County
  • Oregon, Portland
  • Pennsylvania, Lansdale
  • South Dakota, Black Hills
  • Texas, Port Arthur
  • Wisconsin, Lower Fox River and Green Bay
  • Endnotes

  • Communities at Risk: Pennsylvania

    Groundwater Pollution Hazardous to Borough

    The small borough of Lansdale, Pennsylvania, about 20 miles north of downtown Philadelphia, has neat residential areas with comfortable homes, tree-lined streets and open spaces. Under its serene surface, however, toxic chemicals have contaminated a four-square-mile area of groundwater.(1) Studies have found industrial chemicals at levels more than 10,000 times the level that the EPA considers safe in drinking water.(2) The contaminated area, first discovered in the late 1970s and known today as North Penn Area 6, is larger than the borough itself.(3)

    Although at one time the area's wells provided the area northwest of Philadelphia with drinking water,(4) the contamination has forced the closure of some wells. After the contamination was discovered, Lansdale area residents shifted to a public water supply, but the chemicals continue to migrate through the groundwater, threatening other well water supplies. Approximately 100,000 people obtain drinking water from public and private wells within three miles of the site.(5)

    The principal soil and groundwater pollutants are tricholorethylene (TCE) and tetrachloethylene (PCE).(6) TCE can be persistent in the soil, and it remains in groundwater for a long time.(7) Both TCE and PCE can cause a range of health problems. Humans may be exposed to TCE through drinking, swimming, or contact with contaminated soil, "such as near a hazardous waste site."(8) Drinking even small amounts of TCE over a long period of time may cause "liver and kidney damage, impaired immune system function, and impaired fetal development in women."

    Breathing TCE for long periods may cause nerve, kidney, and lung damage.(9) Breathing PCE in high levels can cause "dizziness, headaches, sleepiness, confusion, nausea, difficulty in speaking and walking, unconsciousness, and death."(10) According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the health effects of breathing or drinking low levels of PCE are not known, but a study indicates that it could affect female reproductive cycles.(11)

    Since it proposed North Penn Area 6 as a candidate for the Superfund priority list in 1989, the EPA has investigated and cleaned up-or provided oversight on privately financed cleanup work-much of the contaminated soil on the site. Contaminated soil remains on portions of the site, however, and the agency is now overseeing its cleanup. Additional cleanups requiring at least EPA oversight may be needed at several sites where investigations by private parties found contamination. Those sites are now being investigated further.(12)

    Groundwater is more difficult and expensive to clean than soil. To curb the migration of contaminated groundwater under North Penn Area 6, the EPA had to accelerate construction of 2 of the 10 wells that will eventually comprise the treatment system for the final phase of cleanup.(13) Such unexpected shifts in groundwater movement illustrate why the EPA needs adequate resources to respond effectively to changing situations.

    According to a recent report(14) by the EPA Inspector General, the agency had already obligated more for the cleanup of this site than the regional office had estimated the cleanup would require. While regional EPA staff expresses no concerns about the adequacy of funding of the cleanup activities for fiscal year 2002, the estimates of the total cost of the cleanup activities vary substantially.(15)


    Up to Top


    HOME | Email Signup | About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | © 2008 Sierra Club