PB99-963906
EPA541-R99-010
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Weapons Station
(WPNSTA) OUs 8 & 9
Yorktown, VA
6/9/1999
-------
-------
Final
Record of Decision
Operable Unit Nos. VIII and IX
Site 1 - Dudley Road Landfill
and
Site 3 - Group 16 Magazines Landfill
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown
Yorktown, Virginia
May 1999
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
v
1.0 DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION 1-1
1.1 Site Name and Location 1-1
1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose 1-1
1.3 Assessment of the Sites 1-1
1.4 Description of the Selected Remedies 1 -1
1.5 Statutory Determinations 1-3
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY . 2-1
2.1 Site Name. Location, and Description 2-1
2.1.1 Site 1 - Dudley Road Landfill 2-1
2.1.2 Site 3 - Group 16 Magazines Landfill 2-1
2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities . 2-1
2.2.1 Site History 2-1
2.2.2 Enforcement Activities 2-4
2.2.3 History of Previous Investigations 2-5
2.3 Highlights of Community Participation 2-6
2.4 Scope and Role of the Remedies 2-7
2.5 Summary of Site Characteristics 2-7
2.5.1 Site 1 Site Characteristics 2-7
2.5.2 Site 3 Site Characteristics 2-8
2.6 Summary of Site Risks . 2-11
2.6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Summary 2-12
2.6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Summary 2-36
2.6.3 Summary of Risk Assessment Results 2-44
2.7 Description of Remedial Alternatives 2-45
2.7.1 Site 1 Remedial Action Alternatives 2-45
2.7.2 Site 3 Remedial Action Alternatives 2-47
2.8 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 2-49
2.8.1 Site 1 RAA Comparative Analysis 2-53
2.8.2 Site 3 RAA Comparative Analysis 2-57
2.9 Selected Remedies 2-59
2.10 Description of Selected Remedies and Performance Standards 2-60
2.10.1 Site 1 2-60
2.10.2 Site 3 2-64
2.10.3 Sites 1 and 3 - Institutional Controls 2-64
2.11 Statutory Determinations 2-67
2.11.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment... 2-67
2.11.2 Compliance with ARARs 2-67
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
2. 1 1 .3 Cost Effectiveness .............. .......... . .......... 2-70
2. 1 1 .4 Use of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent
Practicable .................... ........ ............. 2-70
2.1 1.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element ........... 2-70
2. 1 2 Documentation of Significant Changes . . . . ........ ............ 2-70
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY .............. ................... 3-1
3.1 Overview ................................ ................ 3-1
3.2 Background on Community Involvement ...................... . 3-1
3.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
....... • .................... . ............. . ....... . ..... 3-2
4.0 REFERENCES ........... ........... ____ .......... .............. 4_l
LIST OF TABLES
2- 1 Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern from
Surface Soil Sample Analysis, Site 1 ............. . . . ......... ....... 2-16
2-2 Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern from
Surface Soil Sample Analysis, Site 1 AOC ____ . ....... , ............ 2-17
2-3 Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern from
Subsurface Soil Sample Analysis, Site 1 . . ..... . ____ ........... ____ ... 2-18
2-4 Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern from
Surface Water Sample Analysis, Sites 1 and 3 ................. ....... 2-19
2-5 Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern from
Sediment Sample Analysis, Sites 1 and 3 ..... ................ . ...... 2-20
2-6 Incremental Cancer Risk and Hazard Index Values for Current Potential Human
Receptors - per Media at Site 1 ................ . . . . ............ .... 2-21
2-7 Incremental Cancer Risk and Hazard Index Values for Future Potential
Human Receptors, RME and Central Tendency Values, Site 1 ........... 2-22
2-8 Individual Contaminant Risk Values for Surface Soil - Future Potential Human
Receptors, Site 1 .... ........ . . . ........ .......... . 2-24
2-9 Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern from
Surface Soil Sample Analysis, Site 3 - Proper ....... . ...... ........... 2-27
2- 1 0 Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern from Surface
Soil Sample Analysis, Site 3 - AOC ........................... ..... 2-28
2- 1 1 Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern from Shallow
Subsurface Soil Sample Analysis, Site 3 ..... ... ..... ................ 2-29
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
2-12 Incremental Cancer Risk and Hazard Index Values for Current Potential Human
Receptors, RME and Central Tendency Values, Site 3 2-30
2-13 Individual Contaminant Risk Values for Surface Soil - Current Potential Human
Receptors, Site 3 2-32
2-14 Incremental Cancer Risk and Hazard Index Values for Future Potential Human
Receptors, RME and Central Tendency Values, Site 3 2-33
2-15 Individual Contaminant Risk Values for Surface Soil - Future Potential Human
Receptors, Site 3 '-. 2-34
2-16 Summary of Ecological Chemicals of Potential Concern from Surface Soil Sample
Analysis, Site 1 2-37
2-17 Summary of Ecological Chemicals of Potential Concern from Surface Soil Sample
Analysis, Site 3 Proper 2-38
2-18 Summary of Ecological Chemicals of Potential Concern from Surface Soil Sample
Analysis, Site 3 AOC • 2-39
2-19 Summary of Ecological Chemicals of Potential Concern from Surface Water
Sample Analysis, Sites 1 and 3 2-41
2-20 Summary of Ecological Chemicals of Potential Concern from Sediment Sample
Analysis, Sites 1 and 3 2-42
2-21 Glossary of Evaluation Criteria, Sites 1 and 3 2-50
2-22 Summary of Detailed Analysis, Sites 1 and 3 2-51
2-23 Summary of the Cost Estimate for Site 1 RAA 3 2-61
2-24 Summary of the Cost Estimate for Site 3 RAA 4 2-62
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1 Location of Naval Weapons Station Yorktown 2-2
2-2 Site Plan of Sites 1 and 3 2-3
2-3 Site 1 Arsenic Area of Concern , 2-9
2-4 Site 3 PAH Area of Concern 2-10
2-5 Site I RAA 3: Soil Cover, Surface Debris Removal, and Excavation with Off-Site
Disposal 2-63
2-6 Site 3 RAA 4: Soil Excavation with Off-Site Disposal and Debris Removal 2-66
IV
-------
LIST OF ACROiNYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AOC
ARAR
bgs
CERCLA
COC
COPC
CRP
CT
DoD
DoN
ESQD
FFA
FS
HI
HQ
IAS
ICR
IDW
IR
LANTDIV
LOAEL
LUC
LUCAP
LUCIP
mg/kg
NCP
NOAEL
NPL
NPW
Area of Concern
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
below ground surface
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980
Contaminant of Concern
Contaminant of Potential Concern
Community Relations Program
central tendency
Department of Defense
Department of the Navy
explosive safety quantity distance
Federal Facility Agreement
Feasibility Study
hazard index
hazard quotient
Initial Assessment Study
incremental cancer risk
investigation derived waste
Installation Restoration
Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
land use control
Land Use Control Assurance Plan
Land Use Control Implementation Plan
milligrams per kilogram
micrograms per liter
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
No Observable Adverse Effect Level
National Priorities List
net present worth
-------
O&M
ou
PAH
PRAP
RA
RAA
RAB
RCRA
RI
RME
RL
ROD
SARA
SWMU
TAL
TCE
TCL
TBC
TNT
UCL
USEPA
voc
WPNSTA
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
(Continued)
operation and maintenance
operable unit
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
Proposed Remedial Action Plan
risk assessment
remedial action alternative
Restoration Advisory Board
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Investigation
reasonable maximum exposure
remediation level
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Solid Waste Management Unit
Target Analyte List
trichloroethene
Target Compound List
to-be-considered criterion
trinitrotoluene
upper confidence level
United States Environmental Protection Agency
volatile organic compound
Naval Weapons Station
VI
-------
-------
1.0 DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION
1.1 Site Name and Location
Naval Weapons Station (WPNSTA) Yorktown, Yorktown, Virginia
Sites 1 and 3; Operable Units (OUs) VIII and IX
1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the selected remedial actions to reduce the
risks posed by soil at Site 1 and soil at Site 3 located at WPNSTA Yorktown. Yorktovs n.
Virginia. Soil contaminated by arsenic at Site 1 is designated as OU VIII and soil
contaminated by polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at Site 3 is designated as OU
IX. The remedial actions are chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and.
to the extent practicable, with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The information supporting the decisions on the selected
remedies is contained in the administrative record file. Section 2.2.2 lists major
documents contained in the administrative record file.
The Commonwealth of Virginia concurs with the selected remedy.
1.3 Assessment of the Sites
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from OUs VIII and IX, if not
addressed by implementing the remedial actions selected in this ROD, may present an
imminent and substantial endangemient to human health and the environment.
1.4 Description of the Selected Remedies
The cleanup of OU VIII and OU IX is part of a comprehensive environmental
remediation currently being performed at WPNSTA Yorktown under the Department of
Defense (DoD) Installation Restoration (IR) Program.
\
The removal of soil at Sites 1 and 3 addresses the principal threat to human health and the
environment at OUs VIII and IX by eliminating the source materials (arsenic and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)) and eliminating the potential release of
these contaminants to the environment. Major components of the selected remedies for
OUs VIII and IX include:
OU VIII - Site 1 - Dudley Road Landfill
• Removing and disposing/recycling surficial debris identified at Site 1.
1-1
-------
• Excavating the soil in the southwest portion of Site I (near monitoring
wells 1GW12A and 1GW12B) which exceeds arsenic concentrations of 63
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The depth of the excavation will be
approximately two feet. Confirmatory soil samples will be collected to
confirm the extent of contamination.
• Disposing of the arsenic-contaminated soil at an off-site approved disposal
facility.
• Backfilling the excavation area with clean soil fill from the WPNSTA
borrow pit.
• Restoring portions of the existing soil cover at Site 1. This will include
backfilling the depressions and eroded areas of the soil cover with clean
soil fill from the WPNSTA borrow pit. and then placing topsoil over the
disturbed areas, including the backfilled excavation area. The areas will
then be revegetated with native grasses.
• Current land use controls exist for Site 1 because of the Explosive Safety
Quantity Distance (ESQD) arc associated with the storage of ordnance,
which prohibits residential development and certain types of industrial
development. Land use controls will be included in the WPNSTA Land
Use Control Assurance Plan (LUCAP) independent of the land use
controls associated with the ESQD arc. The additional restriction will
prohibit future residential property use because soil will be remediated to
meet commercial/industrial levels, the most likely future land use scenario,
and contaminant concentrations exceeding residential remediation levels
will remain in soil at Site 1.
OUIX - Site 3 - Group 16 Magazines Landfill
• Removing and disposing/recycling surficial debris identified at Site 3.
• Excavating the soil in the northeast portion of Site 3 (near soil sample
location 3SS10), which exceeds PAH (total carcinogenic) concentrations
of 10 mg/kg. The depth of the excavation will be approximately two feet.
Confirmatory soil samples will be collected to confirm the extent of
contamination.
• Disposing of the PAH-contaminated soil at an off-site approved disposal
facility.
• Backfilling the excavation area with clean soil fill from the WPNSTA
borrow pit.
1-2
-------
• Placing six inches of topsoil over the excavation area, and then
revegetating this area with native grasses.
• Current land use controls exist for Site 3 because of the Explosive Safety
Quantity Distance (ESQD) arc associated with the storage of ordnance.
which prohibits residential development and certain types of industrial
development. Land use controls will be included in the WPNSTA
LUCAP independent of the land use controls associated with the ESQD
arc. The additional restriction will prohibit future residential property use
because soil will be remediated to meet commercial/industrial levels, the
most likely future land use scenario, and contaminant concentrations
exceeding residential remediation levels will remain in soil at Site 3.
1.5 Statutory Determinations
The selected remedies are protective of human health and the environment, comply with
Federal and State (Commonwealth) requirements that are legally applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) to the remedial action, and are cost-effective.
The remedies use permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. The selected remedies do not meet the statutory preference
for remedies employing treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants as a
principal element. The selected remedies, which include excavation and off-site disposal
of contaminated soil, represent a better balance of tradeoffs under the evaluation criteria
than alternatives using treatment, due to the limited volume of soil requiring remediation
at both sites. Because the remedies will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site,
a review will be conducted no less often than every five years after the initiation of the
remedial actions to ensure the remedies continue to provide protection of human health
and the enYJ
J. R. Doyle/CAPT, CEC, USfo/ Date
Regional/Engineer
By direction of the Commander,
Navy Region Mid-Atlantic
Abranam Ferdas, Director Date
Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
1-3
-------
-------
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 Site Name. Location, and Description
WPNSTA Yorktown is a 10,624 acre installation on the Virginia Peninsula in York and
James City Counties and the City of Newport News (Figure 2-1). It is bounded on the
northwest by the Naval Supply Center Cheatham Annex, the Virginia Emergency Fuel
Farm, and the future community development of Whittaker's Mill; on the northeast by the
York River and the Colonial National Historic Parkway; on the southwest by Route 143
and Interstate 64; and on the southeast by Route 238 and the community of Lackey.
2.1.1 Site 1 - Dudley Road Landfill
Site 1 (Figure 2-2) is an approximately 6-acre area located just north of the headwaters of
Indian Field Creek. A dirt road runs through the site and a dirt mound is located in the
northern portion of the site. The majority of the area is cleared, but is surrounded by
woods. Site 1 is named for its proximity to Dudley Road.
The general topography at Site 1 is level (near the landfill) with a slight slope to the east
and more pronounced slopes east and south of the site toward Indian Field Creek. Thus,
the majority of surface water drains toward Indian Field Creek.
2.1.2 Site 3 - Group 16 Magazines Landfill
Site 3 (Figure 2-2) is a 2-acre area located east of the Group 16 Magazines and south of
Site 1. Site 3 is separated from Site 1 by a ravine leading to Indian Field Creek. Site 3 is
named for its proximity to the Group 16 Magazines.
The general topography at Site 3 can be described as uneven with topographic highs at the
northern and southwestern areas of the site, and topographic lows (excluding the areas
adjacent to Indian Field Creek) within the landfill. Surface water across the site flows in
the direction of Indian Field Creek.
2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities
2.2.1 Site History
Originally named the U.S. Mine Depot, WPNSTA Yorktown was established in 1918 to
support the laying of mines in the North Sea during World War I. For 20 years after
World War I, the depot received, reclaimed, stored, and issued mines, depth charges, and
related materials. During World War II, the facility was expanded to include three
additional trinitrotoluene (TNT) loading plants and new torpedo overhaul facilities. A
research and development laboratory for experimentation with high explosives was
established in 1944. In 1947, a quality evaluation laboratory was developed to monitor
2-1
-------
<----.j. •,.<• -* N. •* -r-^it:^\. — -j' v^ v'» Xxw^'Tix/ /\
^P.I—i ii ' —-n»aai^M»»»»^^^^—
1 inch =» 8333 ft.
I^BMMBMMBMMMaOMHi^^B^^H
SOURCE: U.S.C.S. 1:100.000-5CAIE PlMWCt
Wf. WlUWSMtt. MKMM, |H4.
aker
HakiK l:iiv»(jnmunlul.i
FIGURE 2-1
LOCATION OF NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
-------
ISn
f»
•®&
INDIAN FIELD CREEK
,•;;••'; >•!•. ' • • " • t
^i>'--.,., ;• - :
^%/ -•-- :;
)KI01«C
\
-SITE 3
MAGAZINE
GROUP NO. 16
NOItS:
I ElEVAIIONS SHOWN WERE TAKEN fROM fH ALUMINUM RIVET
IOCAICO IN CONCRfTf IICADWAIL N Of M RD 10 AMMO
OVERHAUL. BINCH MAKK NUMHtH MR -2.5 UIVATIONM4 II
2 HORIZONTAL INFORMATION SHOWN WAS IAKEN FROM A
DRAWING IHLEO 'HOfilZONlAl SURVEYING CONIROi POINTS
INOEK" BY TALBOT AND ASSOCIATES. ItO CODE »ENI. NO.
80091 SHEET NUMBER 1-7.
———— . IKCUHT
•*• * "*• - tone of MVCMNI
I I - tmuK»g
j., - WCTUNOS
- MMIS AHIA
sound rn> « ». »ucu»i \tn
ttl 0
*gm—•«—.^B
I inth - l"0 II
fo tBO
FIGURE 2-2
SITE PLAN OF SITES 1 AND 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
tORKTOWN. VIRGINIA
-------
special tasks assigned to the facility, which included the design and development of depth
charges and advanced underwater weapons. On August 7, 1959, the depot was
redesignated the U.S. Naval Weapons Station. The primary mission of WPNSTA
Yorktown is to provide ordnance, technical support, and related services to sustain the
war-fighting capability of the armed forces in support of national military strategy.
Site 1 was originally used for sand mining, but became a landfill as depressional areas
created by the mining activities were used for waste disposal. The landfill was operated
under a Conditional Permit (No. 287) issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Disposed materials reportedly included asbestos insulation from steam piping; oil, grease,
paint, and solvent containers; nitramine-contaminated carbon; household appliances;
scrap metal banding; construction rubble; plastic lens grinding wastes; tree limbs; 'lumber;
packaging wastes; electrical wires; and waste oil. General waste disposal activities
occurred from approximately 1965 to 1979, but a portion of the site was reportedly used
for plastic lens grinding waste disposal up until 1983. The landfill is covered by
approximately two feet of soil.
The history of the Site 3 landfill is unrelated to operations at the Group 16 Magazines.
The landfill area was reportedly in use from 1940 to 1970. Similar to Site 1, Site 3 was
originally used for sand mining, but became a landfill as depressional areas created by
mining activities were used for waste disposal. Wastes that were disposed at the site
included solvents, sludge from boiler cleaning operations, grease trap wastes, settling
tank skimmings containing oil and grease, and animal carcasses. This landfill received an
estimated 90 tons of waste. Currently, most of the site, which is overgrown with trees, is
covered by approximately two feet of soil with some scattered surface debris.
2.2.2 Enforcement Activities
On October 15,1992, WPNSTA Yorktown was included on the National Priorities List
(NPL) because of the facility's proximity to wetlands and the potential impact on the
surrounding environment. A Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) between the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region III, the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and the Department of the Navy (DoN).was finalized in August of 1994 for
WPNSTA Yorktown. The FFA covers the investigation, development, selection, and
implementation of response actions, satisfying WPNSTA Yorktown's Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action obligations as well as
appropriate provisions of CERCLA for all sites, RCRA Solid Waste Management Units
(SWMUs), and RCRA Areas of Concern (AOCs).
No documented enforcement activities have been conducted to date at either Site 1 or Site
3 under the FFA.
2-4
-------
The following documents provide details of the site investigations and assessments of
cleanup actions for OUs VIII and IX.
• C.C. Johnson & Associates, Inc. and CH2M Hill. Initial Assessment
Study of Naval Weapons Station. Yorktown. July 1984.
• Dames & Moore. Confirmation Study Step IA (Verification^). Round One.
Naval Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia. June 1986.
• Dames & Moore. Confirmation Study Step IA (Verification). Round Two,
Naval Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia. June 1988.
• Dames & Moore. Draft Remedial Investigation Interim Report. Naval
Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia. February 1989.
• Baker Environmental, Inc. and Roy F. Weston, Inc. Final Round One
Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 1-9. 1L 12. 16-19 and 21. Naval
Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia. July 1993.
• Baker Environmental, Inc. Final Round Two Remedial Investigation
Report. Sites 1 and 3. Naval Weapons Station Yorktown. Yorktown.
Virginia. July 1997.
• Baker Environmental, Inc. Final Feasibility Study. Sites 1 and 3. Naval
Weapons Station Yorktown. Yorktown. Virginia. October 1997.
2.2.3 History of Previous Investigations
The purpose of the Initial Assessment Study (IAS) (C.C. Johnson & Associates, Inc.
and CH2M Hill, July 1984) was to identify and assess sites at WPNSTA Yorktown
posing a potential threat to human health and/or the environment due to contamination
from past operations. Nineteen potentially contaminated sites were identified based on
information from historical records, aerial photographs, field inspections, and personnel
interviews. Each site was evaluated for the type of contamination, migration pathways,
and pollutant receptors. The IAS concluded that 15 of the 19 sites, including Sites 1 and
3, were of sufficient threat to human health and/or the environment to warrant
Confirmation Studies.
A Confirmation Study was conducted for the 15 sites identified in the I AS. Two rounds
of data were obtained during the Confirmation Study. The first round of data was
collected in the winter of 1986. This effort was documented in the "Confirmation Study
Step IA (Verification), Round One," (Dames & Moore, 1986). The second round of
sampling was conducted during November and December 1987. The results of the
analyses and comparisons with appropriate regulatory standards were presented in the
"Confirmation Study Step IA (Verification), Round Two," (Dames & Moore, 1988).
2-5
-------
The 15 sites, including Sites 1 and 3, were recommended in the Confirmation Study for
further study and were evaluated as part of the Round One Remedial Investigation (RI),
conducted in 1993. Soil, surface water, sediment and groundwater were collected and
analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) organic compounds, and Target Analyte List
(TAL) inorganic compounds. Data generated during the Round One RI was compared
with standards and/or available criteria and the sites were further recommended for
additional investigation, if necessary. Sites 1 and 3 indicated the presence of
contamination in soil and groundwater; therefore, these sites were targeted for a more
comprehensive investigation and a baseline risk assessment to better evaluate the
significance of site-related contamination.
To confirm the presence of the volatile organic compound (VOC), trichloroethene (TCE),
in the groundwater at Site 1, an additional groundwater sample was collected from
monitoring well 1GW12 and analyzed for VOCs. This sample confirmed the presence of
TCE in the groundwater.
The Round Two RI and report for Sites 1 and 3 were completed in July 1997 (Baker,
1997a). Additional soil data indicated that contamination was present at both sites. A
potential hot spot of arsenic-contaminated soil (concentrations detected above screening
levels and background) was identified at Site 1, and a potential hot spot of PAH-
contaminated soil (concentrations detected above screening levels and background) was
identified at Site 3. Subsequent hot spot delineation sampling was conducted at both
sites. This additional sampling indicated that an arsenic hot spot was present at Site 1 in
the surface soil near monitoring wells 1GW12A and 1GW12B. In addition, a PAH hot
spot was identified and confirmed in the surface soil at Site 3 near surface soil sample
location 3SS10. This additional sample data were used as part of the Feasibility Study
(FS) Report (Baker, 1997b) to determine the extent of soil contamination.
2.3 Highlights of Community Participation
The Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for Sites 1 and 3 (Baker, 1997c) was
released to the public in May 1998 at the four information repositories listed below:
• York County Public Library
8500 George Washington Highway
Yorktown, VA 23692
(757)890-3377
• Newport News City Public Library
366 Deshazor Drive
Newport News, VA 23506
(757) 247-8506
2-6
-------
• Gloucester Public Library
P.O. Box 367, Main Street
Gloucester, VA 23 601
(804)887-4720
• Naval Weapons Station Yorktown
Environmental Directorate
Building 31 -B, P.O. Drawer 160
Yorktown, VA 23691-0160
(757) 887-4775 (ext. 29) (Contact: Mr. Jeff Harlow)
The notice of availability of this document was published on May 24, 1998, in the Daily
Press. A public comment period was held from May 26, 1998 to July 11, 1998. A fact
sheet that summarized the PRAP was distributed to attendees of the public meeting held
at the York County Recreational Services Meeting Room, 301 Godwin Neck Road,
Yorktown, Virginia, on May 26, 1998. This meeting was held to inform interested
members of the community about the preferred remedial alternatives under consideration
and to seek public comments. At the public meeting, representatives from the DoN, EPA,
and VADEQ were available to answer questions about the sites and the remedial
alternatives under consideration. A transcript of the public meeting is attached to this
document as Appendix A. No comments were received during the public comment
period.
2.4 Scope and Role of the Remedies
Sites 1 and 3 are part of comprehensive environmental investigations being conducted
under the IR Program at WPNSTA Yorktown. OU VIII consists of arsenic-contaminated
soil at Site 1. OU IX consists of PAH-contaminated soil at Site 3.
To protect human health and the environment, the arsenic- and PAH-contaminated soil
hot spots at Site 1 and Site 3, respectively, will be excavated to a depth of approximately
2 feet. The soil will be transported off-site to an approved disposal facility. All
excavated areas will be backfilled with clean soil and revegetated. Surficial debris will be
removed from both sites and appropriately disposed or recycled. Land use controls will
be implemented at the sites to prohibit residential development and activities that
interfere with or compromise the integrity of the soil cover. In addition, at Site 1,
portions of the existing soil cover will be restored by filling depressions and eroded areas
with clean backfill, covering such areas with topsoil, and revegetating such areas.
2.5 Summary of Site Characteristics
2.5.1 Site 1 Site Characteristics
With respect to surface soil at Site 1, a potential hot spot of arsenic-contaminated soil
near monitoring wells 1GW12A and 1GW12B was further delineated during the
2-7
-------
additional sampling conducted after the Round Two RI. Based on the surface soil
sample, it was determined that the arsenic-contamination is a hot spot at Site 1. The
Round Two RI Report concluded that the subsurface soil at Site 1 has not been
significantly impacted by the past disposal practices at the site. Figure 2-3 identifies the
arsenic hot spot and the analytical results.
With respect to shallow groundwater at Site 1, the VOC, TCE, appeared to have the most
significant impact on the groundwater. During the Round One RI, TCE concentrations as
high as 18,000 ug/L were detected in monitoring well 1GW12 in 1992. The sample
collected from this same well during the confirmatory sampling conducted for the Round
Two RI work plans in 1995 had a TCE concentration of 3,900 ug/L. During the Round
Two RI (1996), the TCE concentrations detected at Site 1 were as high as 190 ug/L.
Therefore, it appears that the TCE contaminant concentration in the shallow groundwater
at the site decreased over time.
With respect to deep groundwater at Site 1, TCE was detected at a maximum
concentration of 360 ug/L in monitoring well 1GW12B during the Round Two RI (1996).
This well is located near the area where TCE was detected in the shallow groundwater.
The TCE contamination appears to be limited to the upper portion of the deep aquifer. It
is noted that deep groundwater at Site 1 was sampled only during the Round Two RI.
The surface water and sediment associated with Site 1 were not impacted by past site
operations.
2.5.2 Site 3 Site Characteristics
With respect to surface soil at Site 3, PAHs were detected at elevated concentrations in
one of the surface soil samples (at the 3SS10 location) collected during the Round Two RI.
Additional confirmatory soil samples were collected in 1996 around sample location
3SS10 to confirm the presence of a PAH hot spot. The confirmatory sample results
indicated that the elevated PAH concentrations were limited to the surface soil within a
small area near sample location 3SS10, which is in the eastern portion of the site. Figure
2-4 identifies the PAH hot spot and sample results.
With respect to groundwater at Site 3, the Round Two RI results were consistent with the
Round One RI results. VOC contamination appeared to be the highest near monitoring
well 3GW19 which is installed within the shallow portions of the Yorktown-Eastover
aquifer (the shallow Columbia aquifer is not present at Site 3). Vinyl chloride (48 ug/L);
1,1-dichloroethene (4J ug/L)1; 1,2-dichloroethene (570 ug/L); and TCE (860 ug/L) were
detected in the groundwater from this area. The groundwater samples collected at greater
depths within this same aquifer showed a significant decrease of VOC concentrations.
In 4J £tg/L, the letter J represents a below detection limit qualifier.
2-8
-------
IJM4
»RSfl«C ADI A
01 CUMCIHM
FIGURE 2-3
SHE 1
ARSfNIC ARU
OP CONCfRN
NAVAL WCAPONS SlAHON YORKIOWN
tORKIOWN. VIPC.IIIIA
Ill'
VONItO*lMl will IDOIlON
•••tf* "• V*T»«~" •- ~-~,,,r
iivti of II m»/»i mutt.
-------
JSi!
* = Zn
II!
p I
ff f
ft I
I ~ .1 =
s r: ^-? • s
II
s 3
-------
2.6 Summary of Site Risks
A baseline risk assessment (RA) was conducted as part of the Sites 1 and 3 Round Two
Remedial Investigation Report (Baker, 1997a). Both human health and ecological RAs
were conducted. This section summarizes the results of the baseline RA and those
contaminants associated with unacceptable human health risks and potential adverse
ecological effects.
Human health risks are described by evaluating noncarcinogenic (systemic) and
carcinogenic health effects. Reference dose (RfDs) values have been developed by EPA
for indicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to contaminants of
potential concern (COPCs) exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed
in units of mg/Kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans.
including sensitive individuals. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological data or
animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied to account for the use of
animal data to predict effects on humans. These uncertainty factors help ensure that the
RfDs will not underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur.
The potential for noncarcinogenic effects is evaluated by comparing an exposure level
over a specified time period (e.g, lifetime) with a reference dose for a similar exposure
period. The ratio of exposure to the reference dose is called a hazard quotient (HQ). HQ
values are then summed to produce hazard indices (His) for each potential receptor and
means of exposure (dermal, ingestion, inhalation). If a hazard index is greater than or
equal to 1.0, the contaminants included in the hazard index are re-examined to see whether
they affect the same target organ (e.g., liver). If they do not, new hazard indices are
computed, summing HQ values only for contaminants that affect a single target organ.
Contaminants that affect a single target organ and produce a hazard index greater than or
equal to 1.0 are considered to be chemicals of concern (COCs) and remedial action is
considered to reduce the risk of adverse, noncarcinogenic health effects in the exposed
population.
Carcinogenic human health risks are expressed as a probability known as an incremental
lifetime cancer risk (ICR). This risk is the incremental probability that an individual will
develop cancer in his or her lifetime following exposure to a contaminant. These risks are
usually expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1 x 10"6). An incremental lifetime cancer risk
of I x 10"6, for example, indicates that an individual who receives an estimated reasonable
maximum exposure to contaminants at a site has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing
cancer as a result. This is referred to as an "incremental lifetime cancer risk" because it
would be in addition to the risks of cancer that individuals face from other causes (for
example, smoking). The ICR values for all potentially carcinogenic COPCs to which a
person may be exposed are added together. The total ICR value is compared to EPA's
generally acceptable risk range of 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10'6. The generally acceptable risk range
is the range of cancer risks considered to be acceptable at most sites under most
circumstances. For example, the upper end of USEPA's acceptable risk range, 1 x 10"*,
means that one additional cancer case is estimated to occur in an exposed population of
10,000 as a result of exposure to the site. It can also mean that an individual with an ICR
2-11
-------
value of 1 x 10"4 has an estimated increased probability of 0.01% of contracting cancer
following exposure over the course of a lifetime.
ICR values of 10"4 or greater are evaluated to identify those contaminants in environmental
media responsible-for 95% of the unacceptable risk. These chemicals are considered to be
COCs and remedial action is considered to reduce the cancer risk.
Because WPNSTA Yorktown was placed on the National Priority List (NPL) as a result of
ecological concerns (proximity to wetlands, etc.), potential ecological receptors are also
evaluated at each site. Terrestrial and aquatic receptors are evaluated by: (1) a general
comparison to existing toxicity criteria; and (2) conservative contaminant uptake modeling
to establish a site specific body burden in an animal or organism and a comparison to
published toxicity data for a similar animal or organism. Both phases of the ecological
risk assessment culminate with the calculation of ecological HQs. Ecological HQ values
greater than or equal to 1.0 indicate the potential for adverse effects on the environment,
and chemicals producing these values are considered ecological contaminants of concern.
Remediation of these contaminants must be considered carefully, so that the selected
remedy does not create more short-term harm to the ecological receptors than is produced
by leaving contaminants in place. For example, scientists must decide if more damage
will be done by removing sediments and destroying a wetland or by having contaminants
remain in the sediment.
2.6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Summary
For both Sites 1 and 3, the human health RA was conducted for surface soil, shallow
subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. Surface soil and shallow
subsurface soil were evaluated for Sites 1 and 3 separately. Shallow groundwater (i.e., the
Columbia aquifer) was only evaluated for Site 1 because this aquifer does not exist at Site
3. Deep groundwater (i.e., the Yorktown-Eastover aquifer), surface water, and sediment
were evaluated for Sites 1 and 3 combined. Because groundwater at sites 1 and 3 and
Indian Field Creek surface water and sediment will be sampled in the future, they will be
addressed as a separate OU when data become available. As such, they will not be
addressed in this section.
Current and future potential human exposure scenarios were evaluated. The current
exposure scenarios included: on-Station adult trespasser and on-Station adolescent
trespasser. The future potential exposure scenarios included: future adult and child on-
site residents and future adult construction workers. Because of the nature of activities
conducted at and around Sites 1 and 3, potential current human exposure is limited. Both
sites lie within the Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) arc (associated with the
storage of munitions) and inside the restricted area of the Station. Residential
development is not permitted in these areas. Current and future potential human receptors
evaluated in the baseline human health RA for Sites 1 and 3 include:
• Adult On-Station Trespassers
2-12
-------
• Adolescent On-Station Trespassers (7 to 15 years old)
• Future On Site Resident Adults
• Future On-Site Resident Children (1 to 6 years old)
• Future On -Site Adult Construction Workers
The adult and adolescent trespasser scenario is unlikely, but assumes that Station
personnel and adolescent family members would trespass onto the site for recreational
purposes. The exposure potential was assumed to occur up to 143 days per year for 4
years. This estimate is conservative because current property use restrictions prohibit this
type of exposure at Sites 1 and 3.
Future residential development is unlikely at Sites 1 and 3 because they fall within the '
restricted area of the Station. However, the future on-site adult and young child resident
scenario was evaluated to address all types of potential exposure and provide a
conservative estimate of future human risk. Future adult and young child residents were
evaluated for potential exposure to groundwater, surface soil, surface water, and sediment.
An exposure frequency for surface soil of 350 days per year with durations of 24 years for
adults and 6 years for child residents was used. For groundwater, surface water, and
sediment, an exposure frequency of 40 days per year for the same durations as for surface
soil was assumed. These potential receptors were selected based on information available
regarding the physical features, site setting, site historical activities, and current and
anticipated land uses. Potential on-Station trespassers include WPNSTA personnel and
younger family members that may access the sites for recreational purposes. Potential
exposure to the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) for these potential current
receptors includes accidental ingestion of and dermal contact with surface soil, surface
water, and sediment. Total risks were estimated by site for the current potential
trespassers using both the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) and the central tendency
(CT). The RME is the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a site and
in practice is estimated by combining upper bound (90th and 95th percentile) values
(USEPA, 1989). CT describes the arithmetic mean risk or median risk (USEPA, 1992).
Despite the unlikely possibility of residential development by the military or the general
public, future residential exposure by children and adults was evaluated in the RA to
provide a conservative evaluation of potential risks associated with these sites. Potential
exposure to the COPCs for these potential future receptors includes ingestion of and
dermal contact with surface soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. In addition,
there is potential exposure to adults with respect to inhalation of VOCs present in shower
water (groundwater). However, groundwater quality in the shallow aquifers (Cornwallis
Cave and Upper Yorktown-Eastover) precludes potable use. Although pump tests were
not performed for the Cornwallis Cave or Upper Yorktown-Eastover aquifers in the
vicinity of Sites 1 and 3, these aquifers produce low yields (0 to 10 gallons per minute
throughout WPNSTA Yorktown) and contain naturally-occurring concentrations of
inorganics including iron and manganese in excess of Secondary Maximum Contaminant
Levels (SMCLs). Measurements of pH during groundwater sampling and calculated
hardness exceeded the SMCLs and the Virginia groundwater quality standards,
2-13
-------
respectively. Based on field observations obtained during well purging and development,
neither the Cornwallis Cave nor the Yorktown-Eastover aquifer would sustain a residential
household requiring 150 gallons of water per day in the vicinity of Sites 1 and 3. As such,
potable aquifer use is not possible in the vicinity of Sites 1 and 3. Groundwater will not be
addressed in this ROD; instead, groundwater will be investigated under a separate
investigation. Total risks were estimated by site for the future potential residents using
both the RME and the CT.
Future construction workers were evaluated for subsurface soil exposures for each site.
For each exposure route and potentially exposed population, ICR values and HI values
were calculated to quantify potential risks. The following subsections present a summary
of unacceptable risks (i.e., ICR values > l.OxlO"4 and HI values * \ .0) for potential human
receptors.
2.6.1.1 Site 1 Human Health Risks
Tables 2-1 through 2-5 present the COPCs evaluated in the human health RA for Site 1.
As presented on Table 2-6, total ICR values for the current adult and adolescent
on-Station trespassers at Site 1 fell within the USEPA's generally acceptable target risk
range of 1.0 x 10"6 to 1.0 x 10"4. HI values presented for current potential human receptors
at Site 1 fell below 1.0, indicating that noncarcinogenic adverse human health risks will
probably not occur subsequent to exposure.
Table 2-7 presents total residential lifetime risks resulting from summing overall potential
adult and child risks for Site 1. Risks calculated for the future construction worker were
within acceptable levels. As can be seen from Table 2-7, total RME noncarcinogenic
risks to the future child resident exceeded acceptable criteria (1.0) for the surface soil
pathway (HI=1.5). ICR values for the future adult resident and child resident fell within
the acceptable target risk range for all evaluated media at Site 1.
Risk from the surface soils were evaluated further to determine those contaminants
responsible for the elevated HI value for the future child receptor. Table 2-8 presents the
individual contaminant risk values (ICRs and His) for the surface soil medium pathway for
future residential receptors. It should be noted that the individual contaminant His did not
exceed unity; however, cumulatively, the HI value exceeds unity for the child resident.
Summing the ingestion and dermal effects of the contaminants, the primary contributor to
the HI value is arsenic [hazard quotient (HQ)=0.95] followed by iron (HQ=0.42),
aluminum (HQ= 0.11), and beryllium (HQ=0.001). These contaminants have separate
target organs from which reference doses were derived. The target organ for arsenic is the
skin (keratosis/hyperpigmentation), aluminum and beryllium do not have known target
organs, and the target organs for iron include the hepatic parenchyma (fibrosis), the heart
(cardiac dysfunction and failure), and the endocrine glands (hypogonadism). As such, the
HQ values cannot be summed and noncarcinogenic adverse health effects will not occur
subsequent to exposure.
2-14
-------
Arsenic concentrations exceeding Station-wide background concentrations were identified
in the surface soil and additional samples were collected, for purposes of the FS, to define
the extent of contamination. These data were not evaluated in the Round Two RI baseline
RA because the Round Two RI had already been completed. Arsenic concentrations
exceeding background concentrations would cause unacceptable human health risks if
exposure were to occur in the area. As such, arsenic at Site 1 was retained as a COPC for
further evaluation in the FS in order to define the extent of contamination for remediation.
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITE 1
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
ARITHMATIC
MEAN
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg)
BENZO(A)PRYENE 6/21 69J-380J 350-480
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
ALUMINUM 21/21 1.930-11.200 NA-NA
ARSENIC (2) 20/20 0.64L-43.5 NA-NA
BERYLLIUM 15/21 0.21-0.55 0.14-0.15
IRON 21/21 2.510-11.700 NA-NA
170.48
4,811.90
4.39
0.25
5,545.71
140J-180J
1.960-24,100
0.466 - 63.9
0.23J - 0.93J
1,440-19.900
Notes:
(1) Data considers both Station-wide and Anthropogenic Background Samples
(2) Only 20 samples within sample set because sample 1SBRA-00 initiated an Area of Concern
NA - Not Applicable
J - estimated value
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITE 1 - AREA OF CONCERN
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
INORGANICS (mg)kg)
ARSENIC
17/19
92.5-141
0.10-0.10
0.466-63.9
Notes:
(1) Data considers both Station-wide and Anthropogenic Background Samples
NA - Not Applicable
2-17
-------
TABLE 2-3
SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITE 3 - PROPER
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg)
BENZO(A) PRYENE
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
IRON
MANGANESE
1/15
160J
350 - 480
140J - 180J
15/15
2/15
15/15
14/15
15/15
15/15
1.930-11,200
4.6L - 16.8L
1.2-6.9
0.20 -1.5
2,460 - 23, 800
6.7-667
NA-NA
3.1UL - 5.2UL
NA-NA
0.18-0.18
NA-NA
NA - NA
1,960-24,100
9.2L-11L
0.466 - 63.9
0.23J - 0.93J
1,440-46,400
7.6L-491
Notes:
(1) Data considers both Station-wide and Anthropogenic Background Samples
NA - Not Applicable
J - estimated value
L - estimated biased low
2-18
-------
TABLE
SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITE3-AOC
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
FREQUENCY
OF
CHEMICAL DETECTION
SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg)
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(B)FLOURANTHENE
BENZO(A) PRYENE
CARBAZOLE
DIBENZO(a.h)ANTHRACENE
INDENO(l,2.3-cd)PYRENE
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
VANADIUM
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
5/6
6/6
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
160J - 92,000
120J - 98,000
170J - 77,000
43J- 37,000
41J -12,000
120J -147.000
10,000
9.5
0.98
8,040
59.4
1,580
142
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
410-410
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA - NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
120J-240J
140J -180J
230J -500
ND
ND
160J -160J
19,600-24,100
0.466 - 63.9
0.23J-0.93J
1,440-46,400
6.4-43.1
7.6L - 491
6.1J -34.7J
Notes:
(1) Data considers both Station-wide and Anthropogenic Background Samples
NA - Not Applicable
ND - Nondetect
j - estimated value
L - estimated biased low
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-5
SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITE1
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg)
BENZO(A) PRYENE 3/13
INDENO (1.2, 3-CD) PYRENE 3/13
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
ARSENIC 13/13
BERYLLIUM 11/13
IRON 13/13
59J - 130J
66J -140J
0.32L - 126L
0.12-0.38
1,660-9,450
350 - 590
350-590
NA-NA
0.14-0.15
NA - NA
140J -180
160J
0.23L - 42.7L
0.3J - 9.8
3.810J-51.100J
Notes:
(1) Data considers both Station-wide and Anthropogenic Background Samples
NA - Not Applicable
J - estimated value
K - estimated biased high
L - estimated biased low
2-20
-------
TABLE 2-6
INCREMENTAL CANCER RISK AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
FOR CURRENT POTENTIAL HUMAN RECEPTORS - PER MEDIA AT SITE 1
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Pathway
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Surface Water"'
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Sediment
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
TOTAL
Current Potential Receptors
Adult Trespassers
ICR
4.4 x I O"07
2.0 x lO"06
2.5 x 10-07
NA
NA
NA
2.5 x lO"07
8.8 x 10-07
1.1 xlO"06
3.6 x 10-06
HI
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.06
•0.2
Adolescent Trespassers
ICR
8.4 x 10J"
2.5 x lO"06
3.3 x lO"06
NA
NA
NA
4.7 x 10"07
1.1 x 10-°*
1.6x lO"06
4.9 x lO"06
HI
0.04
O.I
0.1
0,04
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.3
Notes:
0> Risk value derived using organic and total inorganic concentrations.
NA - Not applicable. No carcinogens were retained as COPCs in Sites 1 and 3 surface water.
ICR - Incremental Cancer Risk
HI
Hazard Index
2-21
-------
TABLE 2-7
INCREMENTAL CANCER RISK AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL HUMAN RECEPTORS
RME AND CENTRAL TENDENCY VALUES
SITE1
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Pathway
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Subsurface Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Surface Water
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Future Potential Receptors (1)
Residential Adults
ICR
1.3x 10-05
(9.0 x 10-07)
2.8 x ID"05
(8.7 x 10-07)
4.1 x 10-05
(1.8 x 10-°*)
NA
NA
NA
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
HI
0.1
(0.02)
0.2
(0.02)
0.3
(0.04)
NA
NA
NA
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.02
(0.02)
Residential Children
(l-6yrs.)
ICR
3.0 x 10-05
(5.6 x 10'06)
1.3x 10-05
(9.4 x lO'07)
4.3 x 10-05
(6.5 x 10-06)
NA
NA
NA
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
HI
1.1
(0-2)
0.4
(0.03)
1.5
(0.2)
NA
NA
NA
0.03
(0.02)
0.02
(0.01)
0.05
(0.03)
Construction Worker
ICR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.4 x 10-°*
1.1 x 10-06
4.5 x 10-°*'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.51
0.15
0.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2-22
-------
TABLE 2-7 (Continued)
INCREMENTAL CANCER RISK AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL HUMAN RECEPTORS
RME AND CENTRAL TENDENCY VALUES
SITE 1
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Pathway
Sediment
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Future Potential Receptors U)
Residential Adults
ICR
8.3 x 10-07
(l.OxlO-07)
l.SxlO"06
(7.0 x 10-08)
2.3 x lO"06
(1.7X-10-07)
HI
0.01
(<0.01)
0.01
(<0.01)
0.02
(<0.01)
Residential Children
(l-6yrs.)
ICR
l.9x lO'06.
(6.5 x lO"07)
6.5 x lO-07
(7.6 x 10-°*)
2.6 x 10'06
( 7.3 x IO-07)
HI
0.1
(0.02)
0.02
(<0.01)
0.12
(0.02)
Construction Worker
ICR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
"> Shaded values in table represent exceedences of USEPA acceptable risk criteria (i.e., target ICR range of
1.0 x 10"06 to 1..0 x 10"04 and target HI value of 1.0). Values not in parentheses represent RME values. Values
in parentheses represent central tendency risks.
RME - Reasonable Maximum Exposure
NA - Not Applicable
ICR - Incremental Cancer Risk
HI - Hazard Index
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-8
INDIVIDUAL CONTAMINANT RISK VALUES FOR
SURFACE SOIL - FUTURE POTENTIAL HUMAN RECEPTORS
SITE 1
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Medium/Pathway
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Surface Soi\
Dermal Contact
Surface Soil Total
Chemical
Benzo(a)pyrene
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Iron
Benzo(a)pyrene
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Iron
Future Potential Receptors10
Future Residential Adult
ICR
6.75 x 10-07
—
1.17x 10-05
6.06 x lO"07
~"
7.15 x 10-06
2.09 x 10-05
1.61 x 10-°«
—
4.1xlO-°5
HI
..
0.0078
0.076
0.00008
0.03
0.021
0.14
0.00022
0.079
0.3
Future Residential Children
(l-6yrs.)
ICR
1.57x 10-°*
—
2.73 x lO"05
1.41 x 10-06
•"
3.16x 10-06
9.22 x 10-°*
7.09 x lO"07
—
4.3 x 10-°'
HI
__
0.073
0.71
0.00077
0.28
0.036
0.24
0.00038
0.14
1-5
Notes:
CD
Shaded values in table represent exceedences of USEPA acceptable risk criteria (i.e., target ICR range of
1.0 x 10-06 to 1.0 x 10-°* and target HI value of 1.0).
ICR - Incremental Cancer Risk
HI - Hazard Index
RME - Reasonal Maximum Exposure
A \N2-t TAB
2-24
-------
2.6.1.2 Site 3 Human Health Risks
Tables 2-9 through 2-11 present the COPCs evaluated in the human health RA for Site 3.
As presented on Table 2-12, there are no unacceptable carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic
risks to potential current receptors calculated for the surface soil evaluated in Site 3
Proper. As shown on Table 2-12, the ICR values estimated for RME current trespasser
receptors (ICR=1.70 x 10'4 for adults and ICR=2.20 x 10"4 for adololescents) exposed to
the PAH hot spot surface soil exceeded the USEPA's target risk range of 1 x 10"6 to
1 x 10"4. The noncarcinogenic risks were below unity for the potential current receptors.
The elevated ICR is due primarily to the presence of benzo(a)pyrene (Table 2-13). If the
PAH hot spot is removed from the risk calculations, the surface soil ICR values fall within
acceptable levels.
In the future scenario, the surface soil pathway for Site 3 Proper presents noncarcinogenic
risks above accepted criteria (HI=1.6) for the child resident receptor (Table 2-14). The
RME ICR values for the surface soil pathway in the future scenario were calculated within
USEPA's target range of 1.0 x 10'6 to 1.0 x 1Q-4.
Risks to future receptors from surface soil exposure at Site 3 Proper were evaluated further
to determine those contaminants responsible for the elevated HI value. Table 2-15
presents the individual contaminant risk values (ICRs and His) for the surface soil medium
pathway for future residential receptors. It should be noted that the individual contaminant
HQ values did not exceed 1.0; however, cumulatively the HI value exceeds unity for the
residential child. The primary contributor to the HI at Site 3 Proper (including both
ingestion and dermal effects) is iron (HQ=0.75), followed by manganese (HQ=0.31),
antimony (HQ=0.24), arsenic (HQ=0.20), aluminum (HQ=0.11), and beryllium
(HQ=0.0024). The target organs for risk driving chemicals include the hepatic
parenchyma (fibrosis), the heart (cardiac dysfunction and failure), and the endocrine
glands (hypogonadism) for iron; the skin (keratosis/hyperpigmentation) for arsenic; and
the central nervous system and lungs for manganese. Aluminum and beryllium do not
have known target organs and the target organ for antimony is not clearly defined, but may
include whole body effects and the blood. Since the effects of the contaminants on the
target organs are unknown, the HQ values cannot be summed and noncarcinogenic adverse
health effects will not occur subsequent to exposure at Site 3 Proper.
With respect to the future scenario, the surface soil from the PAH hot spot presented both
unacceptable carcinogenic risks (ICR=2.6 x 10° for adults and ICR=1.50 x 10'3 for
children) and unacceptable noncarcinogenic risks (HI=1.4 for adults and HI=4.2 for
children). Table 2-15 presents the individual contaminant risk values (ICRs and His) for
the PAH hot spot surface soil medium pathway for future residential receptors. As shown
on this table, the primary contributors to the ICR are benzo(a)pyrene (ICR=1.61 x 10 ° for
adults and ICR=7.12 x 10 "* for children) and other carcinogenic PAHs listed in Table 2-
15 which exceeded EPA's acceptable risk criteria. Carcinogenic PAHs were retained as
COPCs for the surface soil PAH hot spot.
2-25
-------
As shown on Table 2-15, the noncarcinogenic risks for the PAH hot spot surface soil
pathway in the future.scenario (HI=1.4 for adult and HI=4.2 for children) are primarily a
result of dermal and ingestion exposure to concentrations of manganese (HQ=1.05 for
adult and HQ=2.54 for children) and also from concentrations of aluminum (HQ=0.05 for
adult and HQ=0.2 for children), arsenic (HQ=0.12 for adult and HQ=0.54 for children),
beryllium (HQ=0.001 for adult and HQ=0.004 for children), iron (HQ=0.13 for adult and
HQ=0.51 for children), and vanadium (HQ=0.10 for adult and HQ=0.39 for children).
The target organs for risk driving chemicals include the central nervous system and lungs
for manganese; the skin (keratosis/hyperpigmentation) for arsenic, and the hepatic
parenchyma (fibrosis), the heart (cardiac dysfunction and failure), and the endocrine
glands (hypogonadism) for iron. Aluminum, beryllium, and vanadium do not have known
target organs and the target organ for antimony is not clearly defined, but may include
whole body effects and the blood. As such, the HQ values cannot be summed. However,
manganese HQs are greater than unity for the adult and child future residents. The
manganese concentration detected in the PAH hot spot at Site 3 exceeded the HQ value of
1 and the range of background soil concentrations. It is noted that the risks to humans
from aluminum, beryllium, and vanadium in the PAH hot spot were based on one soil
sample. Aluminum, beryllium, and vanadium were not retained as COPCs in the PAH hot
spot at Site 3 because only the manganese concentration exhibited an HQ value above 1.
The carcinogenic PAHs ( benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene, and dibenzo(a,h) anthracene) were
determined to be the primary COPCs in this area.
2-26
-------
TABLE 2-9
SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SURFACE WATER SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITES 1 AND 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
ARITHMATIC
MEAN
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
CADMIUM 4/4 7.8L-9.1L NA-NA 5.1K-6.7K
IRON 4/4 1.220J-3.250J NA-NA 289J-6,650
Notes:
(1)From Background Report (Baker ,1995)
NA - Not Applicable
J - estimated value
K - estimated biased high
L - estimated biased low
2-27
-------
TABLE 2-10
SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITE3-AOC
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
FREQUENCY
OF
CHEMICAL DETECTION
SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg)
CARBAZOLE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(B)FLOURANTHENE
BENZO(K)FLOURANTHENE
BENZO(A) PRYENE
INDENO(l,2,3-cd)PYRENE
DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
IRON
MANGANESE
VANADIUM
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
5/6
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
43J - 37,000
160J - 92,000
120J - 98,000
0.13J-32J
170J - 77,000
120J -147,000
41J -12.000
10,000
9.5
0.98
8,040
1.580
142
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA - NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
410-410
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA - NA
ARITHMATIC
MEAN
8,087.67
21,008.33
24,015.00
6,755.00
19,050.00
11,413.33
2,516.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.600 - 24.100
0.466 - 63.9
0.23J - 0.93J
1,440-46,400
7.6L-491
6.1J - 34.7J
Notes: •
(1) Data considers both Station-wide and Anthropogenic Background Samples
NA-Not Applicable
J - estimated value
L - estimated biased low
pJfc
-------
TABLE 2-11
SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITE 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
CHROMIUM
IRON
MANGANESE
VANADIUM
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
2.680-15.100
0.67L-13.2L
0.17 - 3.9
3.5K-65
3,330 - 72,700
17.8-269
4.8-84
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
NA - NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA - NA
NA - NA
NA-NA
ARITHMATIC
MEAN
10,747.14
5.94
1.54
35.63
32,475.71
99.91
34.53
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
2,710-28,200
0.23J - 42.7
0.3J - 9.8
5.2L - 33.5
3.91J-51.100J
3.5J - 2,940
7.8J - 70.3L
Notes:
(1) Inorganic data considers both Station-wide and Anthropogenic Background Samples
NA-Not Applicable
J - estimated value
K - estimated biased high
L - estimated biased low
2-29
-------
TABLE 2-12
INCREMENTAL CANCER RISK AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
FOR CURRENT POTENTIAL HUMAN RECEPTORS
RME AND CENTRAL TENDENCY VALUES
SITE 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Medium/Pathway
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Subsurface Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Surface Soil - PAH Hot Spot
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Current Potential Receptors'"
Adult Trespasser
ICR
1.5x lO'07
(6.1 x 10-°')
9.3 x 10"07
(1.7x 10'07)
l.lxlO"06
(2.3 x 10-07)
NA
NA
NA
7.8 x ID"06
(1.7 xlO"06)
1.6x ID"04
(1.3 x 10-05)
£7x1$*,
"(i5 X 10**} '
HI
0.02
(0.01)
0.2
(0.02)
0.2
(0.03)
NA
NA
NA
0.04
(0.02)
0.5
(0.1)
0.5
(0-1)
Adolescent Trespasser
(7-15yrs.)
ICR
2.8 x 10-07
(1.2x 10-07)
l.2x 10-06
(l.9x 10-07)
l.SxlO-06
(3.1 x 10-07)
NA
NA
NA
1.5x lO"05
(3.3 x 10"°*)
2.0 x 10-°*
(1.5 x 10-05)
2J2xlV*
0.8x10-*)
HI
0.04
(0.02)
0.2
(0.02)
0.2
(0.04)
NA
NA
NA
0.1
(0.04)
0.6
(0-1)
0.7
(0.1)
Construction Worker
ICR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7x 10-°*
5.8 x 10-07
2.2 x 10-°*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.33
0.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2-30
-------
TABLE 2-12 (Continued)
INCREMENTAL CANCER RISK AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
FOR CURRENT POTENTIAL HUMAN RECEPTORS
RME AND CENTRAL TENDENCY VALUES
SITE 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Medium/Pathway
Surface Water
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Sediment
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Current Potential Receptors1"
Adult Trespasser
ICR
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
2.5 x 10-°'
(8.3 x 10-°')
8.8 x lO"07
(1.1 x 10-°')
1.1 x IQ-06
(1.9 x 10"07)
HI
0.02
(0.02)-
0.04
(0.03)
0.06
(0.05)
0.01
(<0.01)
0.05
(0.01)
0.06
(0.01)
Adolescent Trespasser
(7-!5yrs.)
ICR
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
4.7 x 10-07
(1.6x 10-07)
l.lxlO-06
(1.3 x 10"07)
1.6 x 10"06
(2.9x lO"07)
HI
0.04
(0.03)
0.04
(0.03)
0.08
(0.06)
0.02
(0.01)
0.06
(0-01)
0.08
(0.02)
Construction Worker
ICR
HI
Notes:
(1) Shaded values in table represent exceedences of USEPA acceptable risk criteria (i.e., target ICR range of
1.0 x lO"06 to 1.0 x IQ"04 and target HI value of 1.0). Values not in parentheses represent RME values. Values
in parentheses represent central tendency risks.
RME - Reasonable Maximum Exposure
NA - Not Applicable
ICR - Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
HI - Hazard Index
2-31
-------
TABLE 2-13
INDIVIDUAL CONTAMINANT RISK VALUES FOR
SURFACE SOIL - CURRENT POTENTIAL HUMAN RECEPTORS
SITE 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Medium/Pathway
Surface Soil - PAH Hot
Spot
Ingestton
Surface Soil - PAH Hot
Spot
Dermal Contact
Surface Soil - PAH Hot
Spot
Subtotal
Chemical
Carbazole
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Carbazole
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Current Potential Receptors'"
Adult Trespasser
ICR
6.49 x lO"09 '
5.90 x 1C-07
6.60 x 10-07
2.00 x 10-°'
5.20 x 10-°*
3.10x lO"07
7.50 x 10-07
—
2.30 x 10-07
6.70 x 10-°*
~
--
--
1.40x 10"07
1.30 x 10"°'
1.45 x lO"05
4.20 x lO-07
i MttslO*
6.60 x 10-°*
1.60x 10-05
—
2.50 x 10"07
l.lOx 10-06
—
—
—
'<
,
i.Txie*4'
:
HI
. ..
~
-- -
--
—
~
~
0.0028
0.0089
0.000055
0.0075
0.019
0.0057
..
..
—
—
-
--
-
0.015
0.00989
0.00093
0.0397
0.408
0.0301
0.5
Adolescent Trespasser
(7-l5yrs.)
ICR
1.20x lO'08
l.lOx 10-06
1.20x lO'06
3.80x 10-°*
9.80 x 10-06
5.90 x 10-07
1.40x 10'06
—
4.30 x lO^07
1.30x 10^7
—
—
—
1.70xlO-°7
1.65 x 10-05
1.70xlO-°5
5.20 x lO"07
1.40 XIQ4*
8.20 x lO"06
2.00 x 10-°'
—
3.20x10-°'
1.40x 10-06
—
—
-
: , '
2.2 x IS* '
HI
• —
--
--
-
~
-
-
0.0053
0.017
0.000 1
0.014
0.036
0.011
—
—
-
—
—
—
~
0.0186
0.0123
0.00116
0.0494
0.506
0.0374
0.7
Notes:
(l) Shaded values in table represent exceedences of USEPA acceptable risk criteria (i.e., target ICR range of
1.0 x lO"04 to 1.0 x 10"04 and target HI value of 1.0).
ICR - Incremental Cancer Risk RME - Reasonable Maximum Exposure
HI - Hazard Index
2-32
-------
TABLE 2-J4
INCREMENTAL CANCER RISK AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL HUMAN RECEPTORS
RME AND CENTRAL TENDENCY VALUES
SITE 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Pathway
Surface Soil - Site 3 Proper
tngestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Surface Soil - PAH Hot Spot
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Surface Water
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Sediment
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Subtotal
Future Potential Receptors (l)
Residential Adults
ICR
4.4 x lO'06
(4.5 x 10-07)
1.4 x lO-05
(2.6 x tO-06)
1.8 xlO"05
(3.1x lO"06)
2.3 x IO"04
(1.0 x lO^04)
2.4 x lO"05
(l.OxlO-01)
'ofifSv.
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
8.3 x IO-07
(1.0 xlO"07)
1.5 x 10-06
(7.0 x 10-°')
2.3 x 10-°*
(1.7x IO-07)
HI
0.1
(0.03)
0.4
(0.14)
0.5
(0.2)
0.2
(0.2)
1.2
(1-2)
1 ,cKr'
O.Ol
(0.004)
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.002)
0.01
(0.002)
0.02
(0.004)
Residential Children (1-6 yrs.)
ICR
l.OxlO-05
(2.8 x lO'06)
6.1 x IO-06
(3.4 x IO-06)
l.6x IO-05
(6.2 x 10-°*)
5.4 x IO-04
(8.0 x 10-05)
l.Ox 10-03
(2.6 xlO"04)
i -fSAxlW*}
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
NA
(NA)
1.9 xlO-06
(6.5 x IO-07)
6.5 x IO-07
(7.6 x 10-°')
2.6 xIO"06
(7.3 x 10-07)
HI
0.99
(0.1)
0.6
(0.2)
• "•: ; -: ';%&•<:'": -'
"'' ••"^^••••••;---
2.0
(0.7)
2.2
(1-3)
4.2
' ; (2.0)
0.03
(0.02)
0.05
(0.01)
0.05
(0.03)
0.1
(0.02)
0.02
0.12
(0.02)
Notes:
(1) Shaded values in table represent exceedences of USEPA acceptable risk criteria (i.e., target ICR range of
1.0 x 10'06 to 1.0 x 10-04 and target HI value of 1.0). Values not in parentheses represent RME values. Values
in parentheses represent central tendency risks. ICR - Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk. Hi-Hazard Index.
RME - Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
2-33
-------
TABLE 2-15
INDIVIDUAL CONTAMINANT RISK VALUES FOR
SURFACE SOIL - FUTURE POTENTIAL HUMAN RECEPTORS
SITE 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Medium/Pathway
Surface Soil - Site 3 Proper
Ingestion
Surface Soil - Site 3 Proper
Dermal Contact
Surface Soil - Site 3 Proper
Total
Surface Soil - PAH Hot Spot
Ingestion
•
Contaminant
Benzo(a)pyrene
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Iron
Manganese
Benzo(a)pyrene
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Iron
Manganese
Carbazole
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Iron
Manganese
• Vanadium
Future Potential Receptors1"
Residential Adult
ICR
5.49 x lO-07
..
—
2.54 x 10'06
1.27x 10-06
—
-
5.81 x 10*06
"
—
4.53 x 10-06
3.37 x 10-°*
..
—
1.8x 10-05
1.89x lO"07
1.75x 10-°s
1.92x lO-05
5.85 x 10'07
9.20 x 10"06
2.19x 10-05
..
6.69 x 10-06
1.98x lO"06
—
—
—
HI
_—
0.008
0.017
0.016
0.00017
0.053
0.011
— —
0.021
0.045
0.029
0.00046
0.14
0.12
0.5
„
—
—
--
—
«
--
0.014
0.043
0.00027
0.037
0.09
0.028
Residential
Children (1 -6 yrs.)
ICR
1.28x 10'06
™
5.92 x lO'06
2.97 x lO"06
—
"
2.57 x lO-06
«
—
2.0 x lO'06
1.49 x 10-06
—
--
1.6x 10-05
4.41 x lO"07
4.07 x 10-°*
4.49 x 10-05
1.36x 10-°*
:;':3,5l;po^'
2.15x 10"05
5.12x lO"05
•
1.56x 10"05
4.62 x 10-°*
—
..
—
HI
..
0.075
0.16
0.15
0.0016
0.5
O.I
- i
0.038 M
0.079 ^
0.052
0.000815
0.25
0.21
1.6
^^
..
—
-
--
—
--
0.13
0.4
0.0025
0.34
0.84
340.26
I
2-34
-------
TABLE 2-15 (Continued)
INDIVIDUAL CONTAMINANT RISK VALUES FOR
SURFACE SOIL - FUTURE POTENTIAL HUMAN RECEPTORS
SITE 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Medium/Pathway
Surface Soil - PAH Hot Soot
Dermal Contact
Surface Soil - PAH Hot Spot
Total
Contaminant
Carbazole
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fiuoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Future Potential Receptors01
Residential Adult
ICR
2.00 x 10-06
f.gsxio-6*
2.04 xta-0*
6.20 x lO"06
u»i x JO-"
9.75 x 10"05
l^XJO"
..
1.19xlO-°s
5.24 x 10"06
—
—
-
Z«x»*
^
HI
..
—
--
~
—
—
«
0.037
0.077
0.00071
0.097
0.96
0.074
; -t< >
Residential
Children (1-6 yrs.)
ICR
8.84 x 10-°'
8.17 x 10"05
9.01 x lO"05
2.74 x lO-06
7,12x10**
4.31xlO-°5
. IJ& x IQ&
—
5.28 x 10"06
2.32 x 10-°*
—
—
—
15x10^
HI
—
—
—
--
-
—
—
0.065
0.14
0.0013
0.17
1.7
0.13
42
Notes:
(l) Shaded values in table represent exceedences of USEPA acceptable risk criteria (i.e., target ICR range of
1.0 x 10-06 to 1.0 x 10-°* and target HI value of 1.0).
ICR • Incremental Cancer Risk
HI - Hazard Index
2-35
-------
2.6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Summary
. The objective of the ecological RA was to determine whether past operations at Sites 1
and 3 have adversely affected the ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic
communities. Tables 2-16 through 2-20 present the ecological COPCs for Sites 1 and 3.
Results of the ecological RA are presented below.
2.6.2.1 Site 1 Terrestrial Ecological Risk
Potential ecological risks were evaluated in the terrestrial and aquatic environments at
Site 1. Note that the aquatic habitat associated with this site is discussed with Site 3 in
Section 2.6.2.3. Potential terrestrial receptors considered in the ecological RA for Site 1
are soil fauna, soil flora, American robins, American woodcocks, marsh wrens, red-tailed
hawks, deer mice, short-tailed shrews, and meadow voles. The terrestrial receptors were
selected to represent various trophic levels. Potential risks to the soil flora and fauna
community were evaluated by a comparison of site concentrations to toxicity benchmark
values established for flora, soil invertebrates, earthworms, microorganisms, and micro
processes. Robins, woodcocks, marsh wrens, hawks, mice, shrews, and voles were
evaluated through conservative modeling of potential contaminant uptake. Contaminant
uptake was then compared with literature No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAELs)
or Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Levels (LOAELs).
Based on a screening of soil concentrations against flora/fauna toxicity values, the
terrestrial environment at Site 1 is potentially impacted by soil concentrations of
aluminum, chromium, iron, lead, and vanadium. In addition, receptor models calculated
for Site 1 demonstrated risks from surface soil concentrations of aluminum, chromium,
iron, lead, and vanadium. Site 1 surface soil concentrations of aluminum, chromium, iron,
and vanadium were detected below the range of background surface soil concentrations.
As a result, these contaminants were not retained as COPCs for further evaluation.
Site 1 surface soil concentrations of lead were detected above background concentrations.
Only one soil sample (62.3 mg/kg) collected at Site 1 exceeded the maximum background
lead concentration (43.1 mg/kg); therefore, lead was not considered as a Site 1 soil COPC.
2-36
-------
TABL^II
SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITE1
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
FREQUENCY
OF
CHEMICAL DETECTION
SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg)
BENZO (a) ANTHRACENE
BENZO (a) PYRENE
BENZO (b) FLOURANTHENE
BENZO (g.h.i) PERYLENE
BENZO (k) FLOURANTHENE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
CHRYSENE
FLOURANTHENE
INDENO (1, 2. 3 - cd) PYRENE
PHERANTHRENE
PYRENE
NITRAMINES (ug/kg)
2-.4-DINITROTOLUENE
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
ALUMINUM
BERYLLIUM
CHROMIUM
IRON
LEAD
NICKEL
VANADIUM
ZINC
6/21
6/21
9/21
7/21
6/21
2/21
7/21
8/21
7/21
1/21
8/21
1/21
21/21
15/21
21/21
21/21
21/21
16/21
21/21
21/21
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
47J - 400
69J - 380J
48J - 690
42J-260J
43J - 260J
40J-240J
56J - 480
60J - 390
49J - 300J
200J
52J - 470
68J
1,930-11,200
0.21 - 0.55
3.4K-12.4
2,510-11,700
2.8 - 62.3K
2.3K-7.3K
5.6 - 20
4.4K-43.5
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
350 - 480
350 - 480
350-480
350 - 480
350 - 480
350 - 480
350-480
350 - 480
350 - 480
350 - 480
350-480
NA - NA
NA-NA
0.14-0.15
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
1.9-2.4
NA-NA
NA-NA
ARITHMATIC
MEAN
170.81
170.48
183.38
155.76
162.29
184.76
174.57
176.86
161.10
190.00
179.10
NA
4,811.90
0.25
6.50
5.545.71
9.62
3.43
10.10
15.90
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.960-24,100
0.23J - 0.93J
2.6 - 33.5
1.440-46,400
6.4 - 43.1
3.8J - 12.5
6.1J-64.7
3.2KJ - 48.4
Notes:
(1) Data considers both Station-wide and Anthropogenic Background Samples
NA - Not Applicable; J - estimated value; K - estimated biased high
2-37
-------
TABLE 2-17
SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITE 3-PROPER
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL
SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg)
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(B)FLOURANTHENE
BEN20(A) PRYENE
CHRYSENE
FLOURANTHENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
BERYLLIUM
CHROMIUM
CYANIDE
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
15/15
2/15
14/15
15/15
1/15
15/15
15/15
15/15
2/15
11/15
1/15
15/15
13/15
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
• " " ••••—••^-••i— -i»nE555SJi«*«Bi™I«««™
160J
220J
160J
170J
140J
220J
240
985-11,600
4.6L-16.8L
0.20 -1.5
2.9K-31.6K
0.89
2,460 • 23, 800
3.1-74.3
6.7 - 667
0.05-0.11
2.0K-8.9
0.23K
5.3 - 37.7
3.7L - 203
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
360 - 440
360-440
360-440
360-440
NA-NA
3.1 - 5.2
0.34-0.58
NA-NA
0.42 - 0.60
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
0.04 - 0.06
1.8-3.0
0.15-0.35
NA-NA
10.5B-11.1B
ARITHMATIC
MEAN
193.00
199.67
195.67
196.33
194.33
199.67
201.00
4,547.00
3.20
0.49
10.36
0.29
8.331.33
15.98
121.29
0.03
3.66
0.13
15.87
31.57
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.960-24.100
9.2L-11L
0.23J - 0.93J
2.6-33.5
ND
1,440-46,400
6.4-43.1
7.6L-491
0.05J
3.8J-12.5
ND
5.2J-64.7
3 2KJ - 48 4
Notes:
(1)Data considers both Station-wide and Anthropogenic Background Samples
NA - Not Applicable
ND - Not Detected
J - estimated value K - estimated biased high
L - estimated biased low
-------
TABLE 2-18
SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITE3-AOC
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
FREQUENCY
OF
CHEMICAL DETECTION
SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg)
ACENAPHTHENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(B)FLOURANTHENE
BENZO(A) PRYENE
BENZO(g.h,i)PERYLENE
BENZO(K)FLOURANTHENE
CARBAZOLE
CHRYSENE
DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
FLOURANTHENE
FLOURENE
INDENO(l,2,3-cd)PYRENE
2-METHYLNAPTHALENE
NAPTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
4/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
5/6
4/6
6/6
4/6
6/6
3/6
4/6
6/6
6/6
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
260 J - 18,000
65J- 47,000
160J- 92,000
1 20 J- 98,000
1 70 J- 77,000
110J- 41,000
130J- 37,000
43J - 37,000
230J - 87.00
41 J - 12,000
190J -14,000
370J - 190,000
290J - 22,000
120J - 147,000
57J - 4.000J
62J - 7,300
250J - 200,000
290J - 160,000
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
380-8,100
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
410-410
390-410
NA-NA
390-410
NA-NA
390-410
390-410
NA-NA
NA-NA
RANGE OF
ARITHMATIC STATION
MEAN BACKGROUND (1)
3,650.00
10,743.67
21,008.33
24,015.00
19,050.00
10,265.00
6,755.00
8,087.67
21,210.00
2,516.00
2,833.33
43,210.00
4,363.33
11,413.33
842.83
1,424.67
43,260.00
36,671.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2-39
-------
TABLE 2-18 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITE3-AOC
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
ALUMINUM
BERYLLIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
VANADIUM
ZINC
FREQUENCY RANGE OF RANGE OF
OF DETECTED DETECTED
DETECTION CONCENTRATIONS LIMITS
1/1
1/1
1/1
1-Jan
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
10,000
0.98
16
10.9
8,040
59.4
1,580
0.15
.21.5
142
180
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA - NA
ARITHMATIC
MEAN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
19,600-24,100
0.23J - 0.93J
2.6 - 33.5
1.2J-24.4
1,440-46,400
6.4-43.1
7.6L-491
0.05J
3.8J - 12.5
5.2J-64.7
3.2KJ - 48.4
Notes:
(1) Data considers both Station-wide and Anthropogenic Background Samples
NA - Not Applicable
ND - Nondetect
J - Estimated value
K - Estimated biased high
L - Estimated biased low
2-40
-------
INORGANICS (ug/kg)
ALUMINUM
COPPER
IRON
MANGANESE
ZINC
TABLE 2-19
SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SURFACE WATER SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITES 1 AND 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
ARITHMATIC
MEAN
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
Notes:
(1) From Background Report (Baker ,1995)
NA - Not Applicable
J - Estimated value
K - Estimated biased high
1.110-2,420
7.4K-9.1K
1.220J-3.250J
20.8 - 54.9J
10.4K-20.1K
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
1,677.50
8.05
2,032.50
44.10
15.18
171J-5,600
5.6J - 6.7J
289J-6,650
33.1-379
7.9J-20.2
2-41
-------
TABLE 2-20
SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FROM SEDIMENT SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SITES 1 AND 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
COBALT
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
NICKEL
VANADIUM
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
10/10
8/10
1/10
7/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
6/10
10/10
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
434-21,100
0.63 -1 5.4 J
1.7
0.46-8.9
577 - 39,100
0.91 - 56.8
3.7 - 379
11.8-21
0.79-51.8
RANGE OF
DETECTED
LIMITS
NA-NA
0.30 - 0.37
0.68 - 2.4
0.43 - 0.88
NA - NA
NA-NA
NA-NA
0.21-2.4
NA-NA
ARITHMATIC
MEAN
10,899.30
8.55
1.70
6.51
22,812.70
19.88
171.15
17.25
28.48
RANGE OF
STATION
BACKGROUND (1)
1,510-40,500
1.4J-13.1
ND
3.8J-15J
3,060-46,000
3.4-51.6
7.4-1,980
9.3K - 55.2
4J - 202J
Notes:
(1) From Background Report (Baker .1995)
NA - Not Applicable
ND - Not Detected
J - Estimated value
K - Estimated biased high
-------
2.6.2.2 Site 3 Terrestrial Ecological Risk
Potential ecological risks were evaluated in the terrestrial environment at Site 3. Two
separate ecological RAs were conducted for Site 3; one for a potential hot spot of PAH-
contaminated soil and one for the remaining area of Site 3 (also termed Site 3 Proper).
The aquatic habitat associated with Site 3 is discussed in Section 2.6.2.3. Potential
terrestrial receptors considered in the ecological RA for Site 3 included: soil fauna, soil
flora, American robins, American woodcocks, marsh wrens, red-tailed hawks, deer mice,
short-tailed shrews, and meadow voles. The terrestrial receptors were selected to represent
various trophic levels. Potential risks to the soil flora and fauna community were
evaluated by a comparison of site concentrations to toxicity benchmark values established
for flora, soil invertebrates, earthworms, microorganisms, and micro processes. Robins,
woodcocks, marsh wrens, hawks, mice, shrews, and voles were evaluated through
conservative modeling of potential contaminant uptake. Contaminant uptake was then
compared with literature NOAELs or LOAELs.
Site 3 Proper
The terrestrial flora and fauna environment in Site 3 Proper could be adversely influenced
by soil concentrations of aluminum, antimony, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, mercury,
thallium, vanadium, and zinc. Terrestrial receptor models displayed risks from surface
soil concentrations of aluminum, antimony, chromium, iron, lead, and vanadium. The
surface soil concentrations of aluminum, antimony, chromium, iron, and vanadium were
detected in Site 3 Proper at concentrations similar to background concentrations. The
surface soil concentrations of lead, manganese, mercury, thallium, and zinc in Site 3
Proper were detected above background concentrations.
Soil concentrations of lead (maximum site concentration = 74.3 mg/kg; background
maximum concentration =43.1 mg/kg) and manganese (maximum site concentration =
667 mg/kg; background maximum concentration = 491 mg/kg) were not detected at values
significantly greater than background ranges. Mercury concentrations were detected in
two out of fifteen samples. One sample (mercury = 0.1 mg/kg) exceeded the maximum
background concentration of mercury (0.05 mg/kg). Thallium was detected in one sample
out of the fifteen collected from Site 3 Proper and was not detected in the background
surface soil. Zinc concentrations exceeded background concentrations at two locations.
Of the two zinc exceedances of background (203 mg/kg and 51.3 mg/kg), only one sample
was detected significantly greater than background (background is 48.4 mg/kg). Due to
background concentrations and sporadic detections, the inorganics detected in the soil
collected from Site 3 Proper were retained as COPCs, but the concentrations detected did
not warrant further consideration for remediation purposes.
Site 3 - PAH-ContaminatedSoil Hot Spot
The terrestrial flora and fauna community in the PAH hot spot could be adversely
influenced by soil concentrations of PAHs, aluminum, chromium, iron, lead, manganese,
2-43
-------
mercury, vanadium, and zinc. Receptor model species may be adversely impacted by
surface soil concentrations of PAHs, aluminum, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese,
mercury, vanadium, and zinc. The highest concentrations of PAHs were collected from
the original sample collected in the PAH hot spot (3SS10) and the soil sample collected
adjacent to the original sample (3SS10C). Aluminum, chromium, copper, and lead were
detected in the hot spot area at concentrations similar to background concentrations.
Surface soil concentrations were greater than background ranges for concentrations of
manganese, mercury, vanadium, and zinc. The inorganic terrestrial risk is based on one
surface soil sample collected from the PAH hot spot. The PAHs were determined to be
the primary COPCs in this area; therefore, the inorganics were not retained for further
consideration.
2.6.2.3 Sites 1 and 3 Aquatic Ecological Risk
Potential aquatic receptors considered in the Sites 1 and 3 ecological RA included:
sediment benthic macroinvertebrates, fish (including the largemouth bass), bullfrogs, and
great blue herons. The aquatic receptors were selected to represent various trophic levels.
Sediment benthic macroinvertebrates were evaluated by a comparison to available
benchmarks. Largemouth bass, bullfrogs, and great blue herons were evaluated using
conservative uptake modeling.
The aquatic environment could be adversely affected by surface water concentrations of
aluminum, copper, and iron. Aluminum, copper, and iron at Sites 1 and 3 were detected
at concentrations similar to background. Therefore, no COPCs detected in the surface
water were retained for evaluation.
Based on slight exceedances of toxicity benchmarks, sediment concentrations of
cadmium, iron, and manganese potentially may adversely affect the benthic
macroinvertebrate community at Sites 1 and 3. In addition, other aquatic receptors
inhabiting Sites 1 and 3 could be adversely impacted by aluminum, iron, and lead, as
indicated by the receptor models. Sediment concentrations of aluminum, iron, lead, and
manganese are below background upper confidence level (UCL) concentrations. Sediment
concentrations of cadmium were detected above background concentrations. Cadmium
concentrations (maximum concentration = 1.7 mg/kg) were detected below the effects
range-medium (ER-M) value (9.6 mg/kg). Inorganics in the sediment were not retained as
COPCs.
2.6.3 Summary of Risk Assessment Results
At Site 1, arsenic detected in the soil significantly contributed to human health risk values
in excess of the generally acceptable target risk range of 1.0 x 10'6 to 1.0 x 10"4 and HI
values above 1.0. The arsenic concentrations were above the maximum Station-wide
background level. These elevated levels of arsenic were detected in the surface soil at a
hot spot located near monitoring wells 1GW12A and 1GW12B (Figure 2-3).
2-44
-------
At Site 3, several carcinogenic PAHs detected in the soil significantly contributed to
unacceptable human health risk values. Both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PAHs
detected in the surface soil produced risks in the terrestrial receptor models. The elevated
levels of PAHs were detected in a limited hot spot area in the surface soil near surface soil
sample location 3SS10. The PAHs retained as COPCs included: acenaphthene,
anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, carbazole, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(l,2,3)pyrene, naphthalene, and phenanthrene.
Based on the results of the baseline human health and ecological RAs, it was determined
that the arsenic-contaminated soil hot spot at Site 1 and the PAH-contaminated soil hot
spot at Site 3 will require remediation to be protective of human health and the
environment. Arsenic (Site 1) and PAHs (Site 3) were determined to be the contaminants
of concern (COCs) for these sites. Remediation levels (RLs) of 63 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg
were derived in the FS for arsenic at Site 1 and carcinogenic PAHs at Site 3, respectively.
These RLs are protective of both human health and the environment.
2.7 Description of Remedial Alternatives
The DoN considered a focused range of potential remedial action alternatives (RAAs) for
the remediation of Sites 1 and 3:
• Site 1 RAA 1: No Action
• Site 1 RAA 2: Soil Cover and Surface Debris Removal
• Site 1 RAA 3: Surface Debris Removal, Excavation with Off-Site Disposal,
Soil Cover, and Institutional Controls
• Site 3 RAA 1: No Action
• Site 3 RAA 2: Institutional Controls and Debris Removal
• Site 3 RAA 3: Soil Excavation with On-Site Treatment, Debris Removal,
and Institutional Controls
• Site 3 RAA 4: Soil Excavation with Off-Site Disposal, Debris Removal,
and Institutional Controls
2.7.1 Site 1 Remedial Action Alternatives
2.7.1.1 Site 1 RAA 1: No Action
Under the No Action RAA, arsenic-contaminated soil and surficial debris at Site 1 will
remain in place. No remedial efforts will be conducted to reduce the arsenic
contamination exceeding the remediation level of 63 mg/kg, to eliminate surface debris, or
to restore the eroded portions of the existing soil cover at the site. No actions will be taken
to reduce human and environmental contact with the site contaminants. This RAA was
evaluated to provide a baseline for comparison to other RAAs.
2-45
-------
• Estimated Capital Cost: $0
• Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs: $0
• Estimated Net Present Worth (NPW): $0
• Estimated Implementation Time: Immediate
2.7.1.2 Site 1 RAA 2: Soil Cover and Surface Debris Removal
RAA 2 for Site 1 includes the restoration of the soil cover currently over Site 1 and the
removal of surface debris. No specific remediation will be directed to the arsenic-
contaminated soil. The existing soil cover at Site 1 contains several small depressions
and eroded areas. It is estimated that 3,200 cubic yards of soil will be required to restore
the grade and provide proper drainage to Site 1. The cover area includes approximately
3.3 acres, with an average cover depth of two feet. A topographic land survey will be
conducted prior to the installation of the soil cover to identify the depressions and eroded
areas that will be addressed. The soil cover will consist of material that is similar to that
of the existing cover, and will be obtained from the Station's borrow pit. Six inches of
topsoil will be installed on the restored cover area. Upon completion of the soil cover
placement, the site will be vegetated with native grasses. Several areas of surface debris
have been identified near Site 1, along the ravine and bank leading toward Indian Field
Creek. Surface debris at this site consists of buckets, drums, banding, construction debris,
etc. Additional surface debris has also been noted within the Site 1 area. Surface debris
will be collected and disposed off-site or recycled. Since hazardous substances will
remain at Site 1 under this RAA, Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C § 962 l(c),
requires that this remedial action be reviewed no less often than every five years after its
initiation to ensure the protection of human health and the environment. Operation and
maintenance activities will include a biannual inspection of the soil cover.
• Estimated Capital Cost: $161,000
• Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $5,500
• Estimated NPW: $245,000
• Estimated Implementation Time: 180 days
2.7.1.3 Site 1 RAA 3: Surface Debris Removal. Excavation with Off-Site Disposal. Soil
Cover, and Institutional Controls
RAA 3 includes the removal and disposal and/or recycling of surface debris, excavation
and off-site disposal of the arsenic-contaminated soil hot spot, restoration of the soil cover
currently over Site 1, and implementation of institutional controls. Prior to excavation, the
soil will be tested to determine if it is hazardous by characteristic in accordance with the
RCRA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 261, Subpart C. Based on the test results, the
excavated soil will be stored appropriately on-site prior to being transported off-site and an
appropriate off-site disposal facility will be selected. All arsenic-contaminated soil
exceeding the remediation level of 63 mg/kg (i.e., the arsenic hot spot) will be excavated.
2-46
-------
Based on existing sampling results,-an estimated 105 cubic yards of arsenic-contaminated
soil will be removed. During the excavation activities, a minimum of 10 confirmatory soil
samples will be collected and analyzed for arsenic to determine the extent of
contamination. All excavated soil will be transported to a permitted off-site disposal
facility, as discussed above. The excavation area, together with existing depressions and
erosion areas in the existing soil cover, will be backfilled with clean soil fill from the
WPNSTA's borrow pit. A topographic land survey will be conducted prior to the
restoration of the soil cover to identify the depressions and eroded areas that need to be
addressed. The backfilled areas will be covered with six inches of topsoil and revegetated
with native grasses. An estimated 3,300 cubic yards of clean soil fill and 800 cubic yards
of topsoil will be required to fill the excavation and restore the soil cover at Site 1.
Institutional controls, in the form of land use controls, will be implemented at Site 1.
Since hazardous substances will remain at Site I under this RAA, Section 121 (c) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621 (c), requires that such remedial action be reviewed no less
often than every five years after its initiation to ensure the protection of human health and
the environment.
• Estimated Capital Cost: $190,000
• Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $5,500
• Estimated NPW: $270,000
• Estimated Implementation Time: 180 days
2.7.2 Site 3 Remedial Action Alternatives
2.7.2.1 Site 3 RAA 1: No Action
Under the No Action RAA for Site 3, contaminated soil and surficial debris will remain in
place. No remedial efforts will be conducted to reduce the PAH-contaminated soil
exceeding the remediation level of 10 mg/kg total carcinogenic PAHs or to eliminate
surface debris. No actions will be taken to reduce human and environmental contact with
the site contaminants. This RAA was evaluated to provide a baseline for comparison to
other RAAs.
• Estimated Capital Cost: $0
• Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $0
• Estimated NPW: $0
• Estimated Implementation Time: • Immediate
2.7.2.2 Site 3 RAA 2: Institutional Controls and Debris Removal
The Site 3 RAA 2 combines institutional controls with the removal of surficial debris from
Site 3. It is noted that this RAA does not include groundwater monitoring (which will be
addressed as a separate operable unit), as originally presented in the Proposed Remedial
2-47
-------
Action Plan (PRAP). In addition, remediation of the PAH-contaminated soil detected at
Site 3 is not included in this alternative. The surface debris will be removed from Site 3
and then disposed off-site or recycled, if applicable. Several areas of surface debris have
been identified around and within Site 3, along with debris noted near the dirt access road
and along the bank leading toward Indian Field Creek. Institutional controls, in the form
of land use controls, will be implemented at Site 3. Since hazardous substances will
remain at Site 3 under this RAA, Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 962 l(c),
requires that such remedial action be reviewed no less often then every five years after its
initiation to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.
• Estimated Capital Cost: $94,000
• Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $0
• Estimated NPW: $94,000
• Estimated Implementation Time: 90 days
2.7.2.3 Site 3 RAA 3: Soil Excavation with On-Site Treatment. Debris Removal, and
Institutional Controls
The Site 3 RAA 3 includes the excavation and on-site treatment of the PAH-contaminated
soil exceeding the remediation level of 10 mg/kg total carcinogenic PAHs. An estimated
90 cubic yards of PAH-contaminated soil will be removed from the hot spot area
measuring approximately 60 feet by 20 feet by 2 feet deep. A minimum of six
confirmatory soil samples will be collected and analyzed for PAHs to determine the extent
of contamination. All PAH-contaminated soil exceeding the remediation level of
10 mg/kg total carcinogenic PAHs will be excavated. The soil will be subjected to an on-
site biological treatment process such as land farming, composting, or soil vapor
extraction. Once treated, the soil will be tested for PAH concentrations and, if acceptable
(below 10 mg/kg for total carcinogenic PAHs), will be redeposited at Site 3. If the total
carcinogenic PAH concentrations in the treated soil are above 10 mg/kg, clean fill from the
Station's borrow pit will be used for backfilling the excavated area. Upon completion of
backfilling activities, the disturbed areas will be covered with six inches of topsoil and
vegetated with native grasses. Assuming that the treated soil can be returned to the
excavation, this RAA will require approximately 25 cubic yards of topsoil for final site
restoration. All surface debris and debris encountered during the hot spot excavation will
be disposed off-site or recycled. Institutional controls, in the form of land use controls,
will be implemented at Site 3. Since hazardous substances will remain at Site 3 under this
RAA, Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c), requires that such remedial action
be reviewed no less often than every five years after its initiation to ensure the protection
of human health and the environment.
• Estimated Capital Cost: $194,000
• Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $0
• Estimated NPW: $195,000
• Estimated Implementation Time: 90 days
2-48
-------
2.7.2.4 Site 3 RAA 4: Soil Excavation with Off-Site Disposal. Debris Removal, and
Institutional Controls
The Site 3 RAA 4 is similar to RAA 3, with the exception that the excavated soil will not
be treated on-site. Under this RAA, PAH-contaminated soil exceeding the 10 mg/kg
remediation level will be transported off-site to a permitted disposal facility. Prior to
excavation, the soil will be tested to determine if the soil is hazardous by characteristic in
accordance with the RCRA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 261, Subpart C. Based on the
test results, the excavated soil will be stored appropriately on-site prior to being
transported off-site and an appropriate off-site disposal facility will be selected. Based on
existing sampling results, an estimated 90 cubic yards of PAH-contaminated soil will'be
removed from the hot spot area measuring approximately 60 feet by 20 feet by 2 feet deep.
During the excavation activities, a minimum of six confirmatory soil samples will be
collected and analyzed for PAHs to determine the extent of contamination. All PAH-
contaminated soil exceeding the remediation level of 10 mg/kg total carcinogenic PAHs
will be excavated. The excavated areas will be backfilled with clean soil from the
Station's borrow pit. The disturbed area will be covered with six inches of topsoil and
vegetated with native grasses. Site restoration activities will require approximately 25
cubic yards of topsoil. In addition, all surface debris and debris encountered during the
hot spot excavation will be disposed off-site or recycled. Institutional controls, in the form
of land use controls, will be implemented at Site 3. Since hazardous substances will
remain at Site 3 under this RAA, Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 962l(c),
requires that such remedial action be reviewed no less often then every five years after its
initiation to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.
• Estimated Capital Cost: $154,500
• Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $0
• Estimated NPW: $155,000
• Estimated Implementation Time: 90 days
2.8 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
As required by CERCLA, the set of RAAs developed for Sites 1 and 3 were evaluated
against the nine criteria specified by USEPA (Table 2-21). This section and Table 2-22
summarize the detailed analysis of each alternative with respect to each site.
2-49
-------
TABLE 2-21
GLOSSARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
SITES 1 AND 3
WPNSTA YORKTOWN, YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - addresses
whether or not an alternative provides adequate protection and describes how risks
posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineering, or institutional controls.
Compliance with ARARs/TBCs - addresses whether or not an alternative will
meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs),
other criteria to be considered (TBCs), or other federal and state environmental
statutes and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence - refers to the magnitude of residual
risk and the ability of an alternative to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over time once cleanup goals have been met.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment - refers to the
anticipated performance of the treatment options that may be employed in an
alternative.
Short-term Effectiveness - refers to the speed with which the alternative achieves
protection, as well as the remedy's potential to create adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may result during the construction and
implementation period.
Implementability - refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of an
alternative, including the availability of materials and services needed to
implement the chosen solution.
Cost - includes capital and operation and maintenance costs. For comparative
purposes, provides present worth values.
State Acceptance - indicates whether, based on its review of the RI and FS
reports and the PRAP, the State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the
selected alternative.
Community Acceptance - will be assessed in the ROD following a review of the
public comments received on the RI and FS reports, and the PRAP.
2-50
-------
TABLE 2-22
SUMMARY OF DETAILED ANALYSIS
SITES 1 AND 3
WPNSTA YORKTOWN, YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
(•valuation Criteria
Overall Protectiveness
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Tcmi Effectiveness
and Permanence
• Reduction of'foxieily.
Mobility, or Volume
Through Treatment
Sitel RAAI:
No Action
• No reduction in
risk to human
health and the
environment.
• Will not meet all
ARARs
• Not effective and
permanent.
• Will not reduce
toxicity, mobility,
or volume of"
contaminants
through treatment
Site 1 RAA 2. Soil Cover
and Surface Debris Removal
• Will eliminate direct
exposure to arsenic-
contaminated soil.
• Prevents erosion of
contaminated soil.
• Reduces percolation of
surface water through
contaminated soil.
• Does not treat
contamination.
• Removes hazard of
surface debris.
• Will meet all ARARs
• If properly maintained,
soil cover will be
effective and permanent
• 5-year review required.
• Will not reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume of
contaminants through
treatment.
Site 1 RAA 3:
Debris Removal, Excavation,
Oil-Site Disposal, Soil Cover,
institutional Controls
• Significant reduction in
risk due to source removal
• Removes potential source
of groundwater and surface
water contamination.
• Does not treat
contamination.
• Removes hazard of surface
debris
• Will meet all ARARs.
• Effective and permanent
because the contaminated
soil is removed from the
site.
• 5-year review required
• Will not reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume of
contaminants through
treatment.
Site 3 RAA 1 .
No Action
• No reduction in
risk to human
health and the
environment.
• Will not meet all
ARARs
• Not effective and
permanent.
• Will not reduce
toxicity, mobility,
or volume of
contaminants
through treatment
Site 3 RAA 2
Institutional Controls, Debt is
Removal
• Will provide a slight
reduction in risk to
potential human receptors
No reduction in risk to the
environment.
• Removes hazard of surface
debris.
• Does not treat
contamination
• Will meet all ARARs.
• Not effective and
permanent
• 5-year review required
e Will not reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume of
contaminants through
treatment.
Silo 3 RAA 3 I-xcavalton,
On-Sile Treatment. Debris
Removal, Institutional
Conliols
• Significant reduction m
risk by removal and
treatment of PA II-
contaminated soil
• Removes potential source
of surface water and
groundwater
coniumination.
• Removes hazard of
surface debris
• Will meet all ARARs.
• Effective and permanent
because the contaminated
Soil is treated.
• 5:year review required
• PAII-conlammatcd soil
will be treated using
biological methods.
Sue 3 RAA 4 l-.xcavaiiim,
Off-Site Disposal, Debris
Removal, Institutional
Conliols
• Significant reduction in
risk due to source
removal
• Removes potential
source of surface water
and groundwaler
contamination.
• Does not treat
contamination
• Removes hazard of
surface debiis.
• Will meet all ARARs
• Klfective and
permanent because the
contaminated soil is
removed tiom lite site
• 5-yeai review requited
• Will not reduce
loxicily, mobility, 01
volume ol contaminants
through treatment
2-5!
-------
TABLE 2-22 (Continued)
SUMMARY OK DETAILED ANALYSIS
SITES 1 AND 3
WPNSTA YORKTOWN, YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
[•valuation Criteria
hort-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Costs (NPW)
Site 1 RAA 1:
No Action
• No short-term
effects on human
health and the
environment.
• No remedial
activities planned-
easily
implemented.
$0
Site 1 RAA 2: Soil Cover
and Surface Debris Removal
• Risk to community and
workers may increase
due to fugitive dust
caused by installation of
soil cover.
• Minimal increase in risk
to workers during debris
removal
* Easy to construct and
maintain soil cover
• Equipment and materials
readily available
J245.000
Site 1 RAA 3:
Debris Removal, Excavation,
Off-Site Disposal, Soil Cover,
Institutional Controls
• Risk to community and
workers may increase due
to fugitive dust caused by
excavation and by
installation of soil cover.
• Possible risk to
community during off-site
transportation of arsenic-
contaminated soil.
• Minimal increase in risk to
workers during debris
removal.
• Routine construction
operations.
• Equipment and materials
readily available.
• Requires coordination with
off-site disposal facility
$270,000
Site 3 RAA 1
No Action
• No short-term
effects on human
health and the
environment.
• No remedial
activities planned
-easily
implemented
JO
Sue 3 RAA 2.
Institutional Controls, Debris
Removal
• Minimal increase in risk to
workers during debris
removal
• Institutional controls are
easily implemented
• Equipment for debris
removal readily available
$9-4,000
Site 3 RAA 3 Excavation,
On-Sile Treatment, Debris
Removal, Institutional
Controls
• Risk to community and
workers may increase
due to fugitive dust
caused by excavation and
biological treatment.
• Minimal increase in risk
to workers during debris
removal.
• Uses proven method of
biological treatment, but
is more labor intensive
and takes longer to
implement than oil-site
disposal
• Routine construction
operations.
• Equipment and materials
readily available
$195,000
Site 3 RAA -I l-.xcasaliun.
Off-Site DiS|H>sul.l)clui>
Removal, InMitutiuir.il
Controls
• Risk to community uud
workers may incic.isc
due to fugitive dust
caused by excavation
• Possible risk 10
community duiing off-
site transportation of
PAII-conlammateU soil
• Minimal increase in risk
to workers during
debris removal.
• Is less luboi intensive
and takes less time to
implement than on-site
treatment
• Routine construction
operations.
• Equipment and
materials readily
available
• Requires coordination
with off-site disposal
facility
$155,000
2-52
-------
2.8.1 Site 1 RAA Comparative Analysis
2.8.1.1 Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment:
Evaluation of the overall protectiveness of alternatives focused on whether a specific
alternative would achieve adequate protection of human health and the environment and
how risks posed by each exposure pathway would be eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering, or institutional controls. The overall assessment of the
level of protection includes the evaluations conducted under other criteria, especially
long-term effectiveness and permanence, short-term effectiveness, and compliance with
ARARs.
RAA 1 for Site 1, No Action, does not include measures to protect human health or the
environment. RAA 2 provides limited protection to human health and the environment by
the implementation of a soil cover, which will eliminate direct exposure to and prevent
erosion of arsenic-contaminated soil. RAA 3 is the most protective of human health and
the environment because it provides for the actual removal and disposal of the arsenic-
contaminated soil from Site 1. Removal of the arsenic-contaminated soil will eliminate
the risk of exposure and eliminate a potential source of groundwater and surface water
contamination.
Compliance with ARARs: •
This evaluation involved determining whether each alternative would meet all of the
pertinent Federal and State ARARs (as identified in Section 2.11.2 of this ROD).
Each alternative was evaluated for compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal and State requirements. The evaluation summarized which requirements are
applicable or relevant and appropriate to each alternative. The following items were
considered for each alternative:
• Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs (e.g., ambient water quality
criteria). This factor addresses whether the ARARs can be met, and, if not,
whether a waiver may be appropriate.
• Compliance with location-specific ARARs (e.g., preservation of historic
sites, regulations relative to activities near wetlands or floodplain, etc.). As
with other ARAR-related factors, these involve consideration of whether
the ARARs can be met or whether a waiver is appropriate.
• Compliance with action-specific ARARs (e.g., RCRA minimum
technology standards). It must be determined whether ARARs can be met
or must be waived.
2-53
-------
Except for RAA 1 (No Action), the RAAs for Site 1 will comply with all applicable
location- and action-specific ARARs. The ARARs are identified in Section 2.11.2 of this
ROD. There are no chemical-specific ARARs for arsenic-contaminated soil. The
background concentration of arsenic was selected as the remediation level that is
protective of both human health and the environment.
2.8.1.2 Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence:
This criterion evaluated alternatives with respect to their long-term effectiveness and the
degree of permanence. The primary focus of this evaluation was the residual risk that will
remain at the sites and the effectiveness of the controls that will be applied to manage
residual risks. The assessment of long-term effectiveness was made considering the
following four factors:
• The magnitude of the residual risk to human and environmental receptors
remaining from untreated waste or treatment residues at the completion of
remedial activities.
• An assessment of the type, degree, and adequacy of long-term management
(including engineering controls, institutional controls, monitoring, and
operation and maintenance) required for untreated waste or treatment
residues remaining at the site.
• An assessment of the long-term reliability of engineering and/or
institutional controls to provide continued protection from untreated waste
or treatment residues.
• The potential need for replacement of the remedy and the continuing need
for repairs to maintain the performance of the remedy.
The long-term effectiveness and permanence of the No Action alternative are unknown.
The No Action alternative includes no methods to monitor arsenic concentrations over
time. RAA 2, Soil Cover and Surface Debris Removal, will provide a long-term and
permanent cover over the arsenic hot spot as long as the cover is maintained properly.
RAA 3 will be the most permanent and effective alternative because it actually removes
the contamination from the site.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility^ or Volume Through Treatment:
This evaluation criterion addressed the degree to which the alternatives employ treatment
technologies that permanently and significantly reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances. Alternatives that do not employ treatment technologies do not
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of COCs through treatment. The evaluation
2-54
-------
considered the following specific factors:
• The treatment processes, the remedies that will be employed, and the
materials that will be treated.
• The amount or volume of hazardous materials that will be destroyed or
treated.
• The degree of expected reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume,
including how the principal threat is addressed through treatment.
• The degree to which the treatment will be irreversible.
• The type and quantity of treatment residuals that will remain following
treatment.
There are no treatment RAAs for Site 1, therefore, none of the RAAs will reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of arsenic-contaminated soil through treatment.
Short-Term Effectiveness:
The short-term effectiveness of each alternative was evaluated relative to its effect on
human health and the environment during implementation of the remedial action.
Potential threats to human health and the environment associated with handling, treatment,
or transportation of hazardous substances were considered. The short-term effectiveness
assessment was based on four key factors:
• Short-term risks that might be posed to the community during
implementation of an alternative.
• Potential impacts on workers during remedial action and the effectiveness
and reliability of protective measures.
• Potential environmental impacts of the remedial action and the
effectiveness and reliability of mitigative measures during implementation.
•- Time until remedial response objectives are achieved.
No additional risks to the community or workers will be incurred with RAA 1 because it
includes no remedial action. RAA 2 may increase risks to the community and construction
workers due to fugitive dust while installing the soil cover. RAA 2 will also result in a
minimal increase in risk to workers during debris removal. RAA 3 will have similar risks
to RAA 2 due to fugitive dust and debris removal. Additional risks to the community may
also be incurred under RAA 3 because arsenic-contaminated waste will be transported off-
site.
2-55
-------
Implementability:
Implementability considerations included the technical and administrative feasibility of
each alternative and the availability of various materials and services required for its
implementation. The following factors were considered during the implementability
analysis:
• Technical Feasibility: The relative ease of implementing or completing an
action based on site-specific constraints, including the use of established
technologies, such as:
*• Ability to construct the alternative as a whole (constructability).
*• Operational reliability or the ability of a technology to meet
specified process efficiencies or performance goals.
+ Ability to undertake future remedial actions that may be required.
*• Ability to monitor the effectiveness of the remedy.
• Administrative Feasibility: The ability and time required to obtain any
necessary approvals and permits from regulatory agencies.
• Availability of Services and Materials: The availability of the technologies,
materials, or services required to implement an alternative, including:
+ Available capacity and location of needed treatment, storage, and
disposal services.
>• Availability of necessary equipment, specialists, and provisions for
necessary additional resources.
*• Timing of the availability of prospective technologies under
consideration.
»• Availability of services and materials, plus the potential for
obtaining bids that are competitive (this may be particularly
important for innovative technologies).
RAA 1 (No Action) is the most implementable alternative because it requires that no
remedial action be conducted at Site 1. RAA 2 (Soil Cover and Surface Debris Removal)
and RAA 3 (Surface Debris Removal, Excavation with Off-Site Disposal, Soil Cover, and
Institutional Controls) will require conventional and easily implementable construction
equipment and technology. RAA 3 requires coordination with an off-site disposal facility.
2-56
-------
Cost:
For each remedial alternative, a detailed cost analysis was developed based on conceptual
engineering and analyses. Unit prices were based on published construction cost data,
quotes from vendors and contractors, and/or engineering judgment. Costs are expressed in
terms of 1997 dollars. In order to allow the costs of remedial alternatives to be compared
on the basis of a single figure, the NPW value of all capital and annual costs was
determined for each alternative. The USEPA CERCLA RI/FS Guidance Document
(USEPA, 1988) recommends that a 5 percent discount rate be used in present worth
analyses.
In terms of NPW, the No Action Alternative (RAA 1) will be the least expensive ($0)
alternative to implement, followed by RAA 2 ($245,000), and then RAA 3 ($270,000).
2.8.1.3 Modifying Criteria
State Acceptance:
The Commonwealth of Virginia was involved in the selection of the remedy for Site 1.
Information regarding remedy selection was conveyed through Restoration Advisory
Board (RAB) meetings, the FS Report, the WPNSTA Yorktown Partnering meetings, and
at the public meeting held after issuance of the Proposed Plan. No Commonwealth
comments were received disputing the final remedy. The Commonwealth is satisfied that
the appropriate process was followed in evaluating the RAAs for Site 1 and concurs with
the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance:
WPNSTA Yorktown solicited input from the public on the development of alternatives
and on the alternatives identified in the Proposed Plan. A public meeting on the Proposed
Plan was held on May 26, 1998. Community members of the Restoration Advisory Board
(RAB) in attendance during the public meeting agreed with the selection of Alternative 3
at Site 1 as the preferred alternative. No additional information on the Proposed Plan has
been requested and the 45-day public comment period closed on July 11, 1998, with no
additional comments being received on the selection of a remedy.
2.8.2 Site 3 RAA Comparative Analysis
2.8.2.1 Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment:
RAA 1 for Site 3, No Action, does not include measures to protect human health or the
environment. RAA 2, Institutional Controls and Debris Removal, will prevent accidents
from human interaction with debris piles. RAA 2 will also mitigate some potential risks to
2-57
-------
human health by including land use controls that prohibit residential development and
disturbance of the soil cover, but will do nothing to protect the environment. RAA 4 is
very protective of human health and the environment because it includes removal and off-
site disposal of the PAH-contaminated soil. RAA 3 would be the most protective because
it actually treats the contaminated soil to reduce the PAH contamination to acceptable
levels.
Compliance with ARARs:
Except for RAA 1 (No Action), the RAAs for Site 3 will comply with all applicable
location- and action-specific ARARs as identified in Section 2.11.2 of this ROD. There
are no chemical-specific ARARs for PAH-contaminated soil. A risk-based remediation
level (RL) for the PAH contamination was developed that is protective of both human
health and the environment.
2.8.2.2 Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence:
The long-term effectiveness and permanence of the No Action alternative (RAA 1) are
also unknown for Site 3. It is possible that the soil PAH concentrations can decrease
through natural attenuation, but RAA 1 provides no means of monitoring PAH
concentrations over time. RAA 2 (Institutional Controls and Debris Removal) also
provides no remediation of the PAH-contaminated soil and, therefore, is not an effective
or permanent solution to the soil contamination. RAA 3 (Soil Excavation with On-Site
Treatment, Debris Removal, and Institutional Controls) will provide the most effective and
permanent solution to the contamination at Site 3 because it actually treats the
contaminated soil to reduce the PAH contamination. RAA 4 (Soil Excavation with Off-
Site Disposal, Debris Removal, and Institutional Controls) will also provide an effective
and permanent resolution to the PAH-contaminated soil at Site 3.
Reduction ofToxicity. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment:
RAAs 1,2, and 4 provide no means of treating the PAH-contaminated soil at Site 3.
RAA 3 satisfies the statutory preference for treatment. RAA 3 reduces the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of contaminated soil through biological treatment.
Short-Term Effectiveness:
No additional risks to the community or workers will be incurred with RAA 1 because it
includes no remedial action. RAAs 2, 3, and 4 may pose a limited risk to workers during
debris removal activities. RAA 3 may increase risks to the community and construction
workers due to fugitive dust while conducting excavation and biological treatment
operations. RAA 4 will have fugitive dust concerns during excavation activities, and may
also pose additional risks to the community because the waste is to be transported off-site.
2-58
-------
Implementability:
RAA 1 (No Action) is the most easily implemented alternative because it requires no
remedial action be conducted at Site 3. RAA 2 (Institutional Controls and Debris
Removal) will be easily implemented. RAA 3 (Soil Excavation with On-Site Treatment,
Debris Removal, and Institutional Controls) uses proven biological treatment and
conventional construction methods. RAA 3 provides a permanent treatment solution, but
the biological treatment is more labor and time intensive than RAA 4 (Soil Excavation
with Off-Site Disposal, Debris Removal, and Institutional Controls). RAA 4 employs
conventional construction methods and will be easier to implement than RAA 3.
Cost:
In terms of NPW, the No Action Alternative (Site 3 RAA 1) will be the least expensive
alternative ($0) to implement, followed by Site 3 RAA 2 ($94,000), Site 3 RAA 4
($155,000), and then Site 3 RAA 3 ($195,000).
2.8.2.3 Modifying Criteria
§tate Acceptance:
The Commonwealth of Virginia was involved in the selection of the remedy for Site 3.
Information regarding remedy selection was conveyed through RAB meetings, the FS
Report, the WPNSTA Yorktown Partnering meetings, and at the public meeting held after
issuance of the Proposed Plan. No Commonwealth comments were received disputing the
final remedy. The Commonwealth is satisfied that the appropriate process was followed in
evaluating the RAAs for Site 3 and concurs with the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance:
WPNSTA Yorktown solicited input from the public on the development of alternatives
and on the alternatives identified in the Proposed Plan. A public meeting on the Proposed
Plan was held on May 26,1998. Community members of the RAB in attendance during
the public meeting agreed with the selection of Alternative 4 at Site 3 as the preferred
alternative. No additional information on the Proposed Plan has been requested and the
45-day public comment period closed on July 11, 1998, with no additional comments
being received on the selection of a remedy.
2.9 Selected Remedies
Based on an evaluation of the various RAAs developed for Sites 1 and 3, the DoN is
selecting Site 1 RAA 3 (Surface Debris Removal, Excavation with Off-Site Disposal, Soil
Cover, and Institutional Controls) and Site 3 RAA 4 (Soil Excavation with Off-Site
Disposal, Debris Removal, and Institutional Controls) as the remedies for Operable Unit
VIII at Site 1 and Operable Unit IX at Site 3, respectively. Under these RAAs, the hot spot
2-59
-------
soil contamination at both sites will be removed and disposed off-site, the surface debris
will be removed, the existing soil cover at Site 1 will be restored, and institutional controls
will be implemented. Figures 2-5 and 2-6 identify the major components of the selected
remedies for Site 1 and Site 3, respectively.
The selected remedies will provide the best balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives
with respect to the evaluation criteria. The DoN believes that the selected remedies will be
protective of human health and the environment, will comply with ARARs, will be cost-
effective, and will utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. The selected remedies will not meet the statutory preference
for treatment as a principal element.
Tables 2-23 and 2-24 present a summary of the cost estimates developed for Site 1 RAA 3
and Site 3 RAA 4, respectively.
2.10 Description of Selected Remedies and Performance Standards
2.10.1 Site 1
The selected remedy for Site 1 (RAA 3) involves the excavation and off-site disposal of
contaminated soil with arsenic concentrations exceeding the RL of 63 mg/kg. The
excavated soil will be tested to determine if it is hazardous by characteristic in accordance
with the RCRA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 261, Subpart C. If the excavated soil is
determined to be hazardous waste by characteristic, it will be stored on-site in accordance
with 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart I, prior to being transported to an off-site disposal facility
permitted under RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6925, and in compliance with the RCRA regulations
at 40 C.F.R. Part 264. The depth of the excavation shall be to a minimum of two feet;
arsenic contamination is not believed to be deeper than two feet. A minimum often soil
samples will be collected throughout the area of excavation during remediation to confirm
concentrations in the underlying soil. Soil having exceedances of the RL for arsenic shall
be removed and transported off-site to an approved disposal facility. The excavated area
will be backfilled with clean fill from the WPNSTA's borrow pit, covered with six inches
of topsoil, and revegetated with native grasses. Portions of the existing soil cover at Site 1
have eroded and/or have depressions. Under the selected remedy for Site 1, the existing
soil cover will be restored with clean fill from the WPNSTA's borrow pit, covered with
six inches of topsoil, and revegetated with native grasses. A topographic land survey will
be conducted prior to the restoration of the soil cover to identify the depressions and
eroded areas that need to be addressed. The surficial debris (miscellaneous metal and
construction debris) identified within and around the Site 1 area will be removed and
disposed and/or recycled as appropriate. Approximate locations of surficial debris are
depicted on Figure 2-5. The current use of the Site 1 area is anticipated to remain as is;
residential development of the area is not planned as per the Station's Master Plan.
Currently, Site 1, an open field, is not used for any Station activities. Land use controls
will be implemented to prohibit residential development at Site 1 and activities that
interfere with or compromise the integrity of the soil cover at Site 1. Implementation of
2-60
-------
TABLE 2-23
SUMMARY OF THE COST ESTIMATE FOR
SITE 1 RAA 3
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Cost Component
DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
General Pre- and Post-Construction Items
Site Work
Hot Spot Soil Excavation and Disposal
Soil Cover Restoration
Surface Debris Removal
TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS
« Soil Cover Maintenance
TOTAL NET PRESENT WORTH
Approximate Subtotal
Cost ($)
$80,000
$15,000
$24,000
$30,000
$8,000
Total Cost ($)
5157,000
$33,000
$190,000
$5,500 (l)
$270.000
'The cost estimate for operation and maintenance is based on a 30 year period utilizing current values.
2-61
-------
TABLE 2-24
SUMMARY OF THE COST ESTIMATE FOR
SITE 3 RAA 4
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Cost Component
DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
• General Pre- and Post-Construction Items
• Site Work
• Hot Spot Soil Excavation and Disposal
• Surface Debris Removal
TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
Approximate Subtotal
Cost ($)
$80,000
SI 1,500
SI 6,000
$20,000
Total Cost ($)
$127.500
$27,000
$154.500
Note:
No annual operations and maintenance costs are associated with this RAA, therefore, the net present worth is
equal to the total capital cost
2-62
-------
ARSENIC AREA
OF CONCERN
NOTES:
MAGAZINE
GROUP NO. 16
Q£VATXJNS SHMM VEME TAKEN FHOH Ml AUMMUH IMCT
LOOTED N CONCRETE KMMNJ. M. OF M. NO. TO MMO
OVERHAUL. BENCH IMM mMHK UM-U OXVHTDW-M.il'
HOmZONUL MFOMMT10N SHOOK «HS TAKEM FROM A
MMMW TITLED 1KM20NTM. SUMEtMO CONTROL POMTS
MOOT Of TMJOT AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. CODE DCNT. NO.
80001 SHEET NUUaCK h-7.
1 Loch - 180 ft
aker
Bik«r
LEGEND
- EDGC Of WATER
- TREEUHC
- eocc or PAVEMENT
- BUILDING
- WCTUNOS
- DEBRIS AftCA
APPROXIMATE
SITE BOUNDARY
ARSENIC AREA
Or CONCERN
I SOURCE; PHR * A. AUGUST 1995.
FIGURE 2-5
SITE 1 RAA 3: SOIL COVER,
SURFACE DEBRIS REMOVAL, AND
EXCAVATION WITH OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
2-63
-------
the land use controls is described in Section 2.10.3, below. Operation and maintenance
consisting of soil cover maintenance will be conducted.
. 2.10.2 Site 3
The selected remedy for Site 3 (RAA 4) involves the excavation and off-site disposal of
contaminated soil with total carcinogenic PAH concentrations exceeding the RL of
10 mg/kg. The excavated soil will be tested to determine if it is hazardous by
characteristic in accordance with the RCRA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 261, Subpart C.
If the excavated soil is,determined to be hazardous waste by characteristic, it will be stored
on-site in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart I, prior to being transported to an
off-site disposal facility permitted under RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6925, and in compliance with
the RCRA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 264. The depth of the excavation shall be to a
minimurrf of two feet; PAH contamination is not believed to be deeper than two feet. A
mjnimum of six'confirmatory soil samples will be collected throughout the area of
excavation during remediation to confirm concentrations in the underlying soil. Soil
having exceedances of the RL shall be removed and transported off-site to an approved
disposal facility. The excavated area will be backfilled with on-Station fill, covered with
six-inches of topsoil, and vegetated with native grasses. The surficial debris
(miscellaneous metal and construction debris) identified within and around the Site 3 area
will be removed and disposed and/or recycled as appropriate. Figure 2-6 presents the _
approximate locations of surficial debris. The current use of the Site 3 area is anticipated
to remain as is; residential development of the area is not planned as per the Station's
Master Plan. Site 3, a wooded area, currently is not used for any Station activities. Land
use controls will be implemented to prohibit residential development at Site 3 and
activities that interfere with or compromise the integrity of the soil cover at Site 3.
Implementation of the land use controls is described in Section 2.10.3, below.
2.10.3 Sites 1 and 3 - Institutional Controls
WPNSTA Yorktown shall prohibit (i) residential use of Sites 1 and 3, and (ii) activities
that interfere with or compromise the integrity of the soil cover at Sites 1 and 3. These are
the "land use control objectives" for Sites 1 and 3. The precise boundaries of the areas in
which residential use is prohibited shall be fixed during the development of the Land Use
Control Implementation Plan described in the next paragraph.
Withifi-90 days-following the execution of this ROD, WPNSTA Yorktown shall develop a
Land Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP) with the concurrence of EPA Region III
and in consultation with the Commonwealth of Virginia. The LUCIP shall include:
(1) a description and the location of Sites 1 and 3, including a map, a
description of their approximate size, and a description of the contaminants
of concern (COCs); ^^
(2) the land use control (LUC) objectives selected above;
2-64
-------
(3) the particular controls and mechanisms to achieve these objectives;
(4) a reference to this ROD; and
(5) any other pertinent information.
The DoN, with the concurrence of USEPA Region III and in consultation with the
Commonwealth of Virginia, is developing a Land Use Control Assurance Plan (LUCAP)
for WPNSTA Yorktown as required by the Record of Decision for Sites 6 and 7 at
WPNSTA Yorktown. The completed LUCAP will contain Station-wide periodic
inspection, condition certification, and agency notification procedures designed to ensure
the maintenance by Station personnel of any site specific LUCs deemed necessary for
future protection of human health and the environment, including LUCs selected in this
ROD. A fundamental premise underlying execution of the LUCAP is that through the
DoN's substantial good-faith compliance with procedures called for therein, reasonable
assurances will be provided to USEPA and the Commonwealth of Virginia as to the
permanency of those remedies which include the use of specific LUCs.
Although the terms and conditions of the LUCAP will not be specifically incorporated in—
or made enforceable as to this or any other ROD, it is understood and agreed by the DoN,
USEPA, and the Commonwealth of Virginia that the contemplated permanence of the
remedy reflected herein shall be dependent upon the Station's good-faith compliance with
specific LUC maintenance commitments reflected therein. Should such compliance not
occur or should the LUCAP be terminated, it is understood that the protectiveness of the
remedy concurred in may be reconsidered and that additional measures may need to be
taken to adequately ensure necessary future protection of human health and the
environment.
2-65
-------
INDIAN FIELD CREEK
yltf
J
:>AHAHEA
)F CONCERN
ut.
)
J
/
^
ater
race or
nnQjxr
- eocc or MVDKMT
LEGEND
o-
- f Ah A*E*
or COHCQM
! - OCHRS M£A
tOUKt.- *M* c A. UKXBT 1M&
FIGURE 2-6
SITE 3 RAA 4: SOIL EXCAVATION
WiTH OFF-SITE DISPOSAL AND
DE3RIS REMOVAL
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
2-66
-------
2.11 Statutory Determinations
Remedial actions must meet the statutory requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA,
42 U.S.C. § 9621. Remedial actions undertaken at NPL sites must achieve adequate
protection of human health and the environment; comply with ARARs of both Federal and
State (Commonwealth) laws and regulations; be cost-effective; and utilize, to the
maximum extent practicable, permanent solutions and alternative treatment or resource
recovery technologies. Remedial alternatives that reduce the volume, toxicity, and/or
mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants through treatment as the
principal element are preferred. The following discussion summarizes the statutory
requirements that are met by the RAAs selected for Sites 1 and 3.
2.11.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Site 1 RAA 3 and Site 3 RAA 4 will provide a significant reduction in risks to human
health and the environment through the removal of the soil contaminants (arsenic and
PAHs). As such, these RAAs will provide protectiveness to human health and the
environment. The potential source of contamination to other environmental media will be
removed.
2.11.2 Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedies for Sites 1 and 3 will comply with all Federal and State location-
and action-specific ARARs as outlined below. Chemical-specific ARARs are not
available for the contaminants of concern in the soil; therefore, a risk-based RL for PAH-
contaminated soil was developed and the background level for arsenic-contaminated soil
was selected as the remediation levels that are protective of both human health and the
environment.
2.11.2.1 Location-Specific ARARs
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. § 470aa-
mm) (32 CFR Part 229; 43 CFR Part 7)
Archaeological resources encountered during excavation must be reviewed
by Federal and Commonwealth archaeologists to determine if such
resources should be preserved. The WPNSTA Yorktown Environmental
Directorate will be contacted and the Draft Historic Preservation Plan for
WPNSTA Yorktown (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1990) will be
reviewed prior to development of the Remedial Action Work Plan to
determine if archaeological resources are likely to be present at Sites 1 and
3.
2-67
-------
• National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 470-470x-6)
(36 CFR Part 800)
Impacts on properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or
eligible for such listing, should be avoided or, if unavoidable, mitigated
through design and data recovery. The WPNSTA Yorktown
Environmental Directorate will be contacted and the Draft Historic
Preservation Plan for WPNSTA Yorktown (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1990) will be reviewed prior to development of the Remedial Action Work
Plan to determine if such properties are present at Site 1 or Site 3.
• Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands
(40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A, excluding Sections 6(a)(2), 6(a)(4),
6(a)(6), and 6(c); 40 CFR § 6.302(a))
Requirement to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands
that could be caused by a remedial action. Although no wetlands exist at
Site 1 or Site 3, erosion from excavation activities could migrate to
wetlands at Indian Field Creek. An erosion control plan will be established
as part of the Remedial Action Work Plan.
• Clean Water Act, Section 404 (33 U.S.C. § 1344)
(40 CFR § 230.10; 40 CFR § 231 (231.1,231.2,231.7,231.8))
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of dredged or
fill material into a wetland without a permit. CERCLA on-site actions do
not require a permit, but the substantive requirements of Section 404
regarding such a discharge are an ARAR. No material taken from either
Site 1 or Site 3 will be discharged into wetlands.
• Virginia Wetlands Regulation
(VR 450-01-0051 §§ 1-5; 4 VAC 20-390-10 to -50)
Regulates activities that impact wetlands. The remedial action will be
undertaken in such a way as to limit potential impacts on wetlands via
erosion from Site 1 and Site 3 during excavation activities.
2.11.2.2 Action-Specific ARARs
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle C
(Hazardous Waste Management) (42 U.S.C. §§ 6921-6939e)
Applicable to any action at WPNSTA Yorktown involving treatment,
storage, or disposal of hazardous waste.
2-68
-------
- Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
(40 CFR Part 261)
Under RCRA, contaminated soils at Sites 1 and 3 are not considered
hazardous by listing, but they may exhibit hazardous characteristics. Any
wastes hazardous by characteristic must be identified as part of the
remedial action in order to determine appropriate on-site storage procedures
and to select an appropriate off-site disposal facility. If the waste is
determined to be hazardous by characteristic, the off-site disposal facility
must be permitted under RCRA, 42 U.S.C § 6925, and in compliance with
the RCRA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 264.
- Use and Management of Containers ,
(40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I)
Regulates the use and management of containers of hazardous waste being
stored at hazardous waste facilities. Remediation may generate
containerized waste, such as investigation derived waste (IDW) associated
with confirmatory sampling and the excavated soil. If this waste is
determined to be hazardous waste under RCRA and is stored in containers
before being disposed of off-site, the use and management of such
containers stored on-site must be in compliance with 40 C.F.R Part 264,
Subpart I.
• Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
(VR 672-10-1 el sfia; 9 VAC 20-60-10 fit
Regulates the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste.
- Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes
(VR 672-10-1 §§ 3-3.12; 9 VAC 20-60-100 to - 220)
Under the Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations,
contaminated soils at Sites 1 and 3 are not considered to be hazardous by
listing, but they may exhibit hazardous characteristics. Any wastes
hazardous by characteristic must be identified as part of the remedial action
in order to determine appropriate on-site storage procedures and to select an
appropriate off-site disposal facility. If the waste is determined to be
hazardous by characteristic, the off-site disposal facility must be permitted
and in compliance with all applicable requirements under the Virginia
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.
- Use and Management of Containers
(VR 672-10-1 § 10.8; 9 VAC 20-60-820)
Regulates the use and management of containers of hazardous waste being
stored at hazardous waste facilities. Applies where the IDW associated
with confirmatory sampling and the excavated soil is determined to be
hazardous waste and is stored in containers on-site before being disposed
2-69
-------
off-site.
• Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations
(VR 625-02-00 §§ 1-11; 4 VAC 50-30-1- to - 110)
Applicable to remedial actions involving land disturbing activities.
Activities associated with the excavation at Sites I and 3 will have an
erosion control plan submitted to Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (LANTDIV) for approval.
2.11.3 Cost Effectiveness
Site 1 RAA 3 is the most cost-effective alternative for Site 1 in terms of an "action"
alternative. The other two RAAs developed and evaluated for the site do not include
actions to remediate the arsenic hot spot.
Site 3 RAA 4 is the most cost-effective "action" alternative for Site 3. RAA 3 includes
on-site treatment of the PAH-contaminated soil which is more expensive than the
proposed remedy in RAA 4. RAA 3 would also take more time to implement which
would increase labor costs.
2.11.4 Use of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedies for Sites 1 and 3 use permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The selected remedies require the
removal and off-site disposal of contaminated soil, which is a permanent solution;
however, the limited volume of soil that requires remediation at the sites does not justify
the costs and other implementation factors associated with a treatment option.
2.11.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedies for Sites 1 and 3 do not satisfy the preference for treatment as a
principal element. Due to the limited volume of soil requiring remediation at both sites,
the FS evaluated the off-site disposal RAAs as representing the best balance of all
evaluation criteria, including cost.
2.12 Documentation of Significant Changes
The PRAP presented the selected remedies as the preferred alternatives for Sites 1 and 3.
No significant changes to the remedies have been made since the time they were presented
as the preferred alternatives in the PRAP.
2-70
-------
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The final component of this Record of Decision is the Responsiveness Summary. The
purpose of this section is to provide a summary of the public's comments, concerns, and
questions regarding Sites 1 and 3.
During the public comment period, written comments, concerns, and questions were
solicited. A public meeting was held on May 26, 1998, at the York County Recreational
Services Building to formally present the PRAP and to answer questions and receive
comments. The transcript of this meeting is presented in Appendix A of this ROD. All
comments concerning the remedy have been considered by the DoN and USEPA in the
selection of the remedial alternatives for Sites 1 and 3.
The Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following sections:
• Overview
• Background on community involvement
• Summary of comments received during the public comment period
3.1 Overview
At the time of the public meeting on May 26, 1998, the DoN had endorsed a preferred
alternative in the PRAP for the cleanup of arsenic-contaminated soil (hot spot) and the
restoration of portions of the existing soil cover at Site 1 and for the cleanup of PAH-
contaminated soil (hot spot) at Site 3 at WPNSTA Yorktown. The Site 1 alternative
required excavation of arsenic-contaminated soil at concentrations above an RL of
63 mg/kg, and the restoration of portions of the existing soil cover at the site. The Site 3
alternative required excavation of PAH-contaminated soil at concentrations above the RL
of 10 mg/kg total carcinogenic PAHs. The excavated soil from both sites would be
transported off-site to an approved disposal facility. USEPA Region III and the
Commonwealth of Virginia concurred with the preferred alternatives for both sites.
Based on the results of the public meeting (held on May 26,1998) and associated
comment period (held from May 26, 1998 to July 11, 1998), the community generally
seems to be in support of the preferred alternatives.
3.2 Background on Community Involvement
Nearby communities have a good working relationship with WPNSTA Yorktown because
the Station maintains a good neighbor policy through the Public Affairs Office. WPNSTA
Yorktown participates in community events and celebrations to foster close ties with the
community. As part of the ongoing Community Relations Program (CRP), community
interviews were conducted in 1991 to inform the community of the IR Program and solicit
3-1
-------
feedback on the listing of WPNSTA Yorktown as an NPL site. The community expressed
concern about three issues: water resources, cleanup funding, and information
availability/validity. This public openness has been maintained by the Public Affairs
Office and the Environmental Directorate at WPNSTA Yorktown through the CRP and
resulted in the formation of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). The WPNSTA RAB
is comprised of agency representatives, technical and business persons, and members of
the community at large. The RAB meets regularly, and progress at sites such as Sites 1
and 3 is discussed from the work plan stage to selection of the remedial alternative (if
necessary). Preliminary RI results for Sites 1 and 3 were discussed at past and the most
recent RAB meetings. No significant comments were received for either site at these
meetings.
3.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
The public comment period on the PRAP began on May 26, 1998, and ended on July 11,
1998. No comments were received from the public during the public comment period.
3-2
-------
4.0 REFERENCES
Baker Environmental, Inc. 1997a. Final Round Two Remedial Investigation Report. Sites
1 and 3. Naval Weapons Station Yorktown. Yorktown. Virginia. July 1997.
Baker Environmental, Inc. 1997b. Final Feasibility Study. Sites 1 and 3. Naval Weapons
Station Yorktown. Yorktown. Virginia. October 1997.
Baker Environmental, Inc. and Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Baker/Weston). 1993. Final Round
One Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 1-9. 11. 12. 16-19. and 21. Naval Weapons
Station. Yorktown. Virginia. July 1993.
C.C. Johnson & Associates, Inc. and CH2M Hill. 1984. Initial Assessment Study of
Naval Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia. July 1984.
Dames & Moore. 1989. Draft Remedial Investigation Interim Report. Naval Weapons
Station. Yorktown. Virginia. February 1989.
Dames & Moore. 1988. Confirmation Study Step IA fVerificationX Round Two. Naval
Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia. June 1988.
Dames & Moore. 1986. Confirmation Study Step IA (Verification). Round One. Naval
Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia. June 1986.
Department of the Navy (DoN). 1991. The Master Plan for the U.S. Naval Weapons
Station. Yorktown. Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk,
Virginia.
Federal Facility Agreement under CERCLA Section 120 (FFA). 1994. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Commonwealth of Virginia, and the United States
Department of the Navy. Administrative Docket Number: III-FCA-CERC-009. August 4,
1994.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990. Draft Historic Preservation Plan Weapons Station
Yorktown. Yorktown. Virginia. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Guidance on Risk
Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors. Memorandum from Henry
Habicht to Assistant Administrators. February 26, 1992.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Tart M Interim Final. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. December 1989. EPA/540/1-
89-002.
4-1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. CERCLA Compliance with Other
Laws Manual: Interim Final. August 1988.
, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability Act fCERCLAV June 1988.
Versar. 1991. Remedial Investigation Interim Report. Naval Weapons Station. Yorktpwn,
Virginia. July 1991.
4-2
-------
APPENDIX &
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION
YORKTOWN
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS FOR
SITES 1 & 3 and SITES 6 & 7
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Yorktown, Virginia
March 26, 1998
Appearances:
Jeff Harlow, Weapons Station Yorktown
Rich Hoff, Baker Environmental, Inc.
Scott Park, LANT Division
Bob Stroud, U.S. EPA, Region 3
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
Registered Professional Reporters
Telephone: (757) 461-1984
Norfolk, Virginia
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
APPENDIX A
-------
PROCEEDINGS
KAYE PHILLIPS: I'm Kaye Phillips, public
affairs officer. I replaced Tom Black just about a
year ago, and so it's nice seeing all of you here
tonight. And captain -- I almost goofed there.
Captain Denham is here with us. He's our commanding
officer for the station. And Jay Dewing is our •
chairman for us -- cochairman.
Captain, did you have anything you wanted
to say?
CAPTAIN DENHAM: No, I don't have'
anything. Go ahead.
KAYE PHILLIPS: Jay?
JAY DEWING: Not until later.
KAYE PHILLIPS: Okay. If any of you
noticed in Sunday's paper, we had the ad that's
running that's required for 45 days regarding this
proposed remediation plan that's coming up for Sites 1
and 3 and 6 and 7. It started on the 26th of May.
And- the period will run from 10 July and any -- that's
open for public comments. And all comments would be
sent to my office, and then I turn it over to Jeff and
these gentlemen that are working "on this program.
Tonight, Jeff, along with --we have Bob
Stroud, who is new. I think it is his first official
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
3 i
I
meeting.
BOB STROUD: Second.
KAYE PHILLIPS: Okay. But Bob was still
here the last time, right?
BOB STROUD: No, he wasn't here.
KAYE PHILLIPS: But Bob replaced Rob and
he's here with us from EPA. And Scott Park and Rich
will be working with Jeff in making his presentation
tonight.
If any of you know anyone in the
community that has any comments or anything to make
regarding these, my phone number is 887-4939. That's
in the ad that's in the paper. And, please, feel free
to call me, and we'll get the information for you
that's desired.
So without anything further, I'm going to
turn it over to Jeff. And I will mention that I think
there's been some question about budget that wasn't on
your agenda, but that will be covered before the close
of the program this evening.
JEFF HARLOW: I guess first thing is we
tried to incorporate this public meeting type scenario
in with the RAB meeting. I'm interested in comments
if you'd like to do this or we can take the technical
stuff. I kind of thought this might be a quick way to
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
1 get up to speed to what's going on here in the next
2 year or so at the station.
3 But, again, if we don't like this, we can
4 change the format to just have a separate public
5 meeting, just trying to save a little money and work
*
6 it in. The trade-off of that is, is that, you know,
7 we're sacrificing some of our RAB time for it. And
8 then the other thing is we get in a pinch that we've
9 scheduled so far ahead that when we announced the
10 meeting, we were kind of set to do it; whereas in the
11 past, we probably allowed for a couple of weeks for
the announcement to hit the paper and then actually
had the public presentation.
And I guess with that, what I'm going to
do is we're going to do this as a joint effort like
Kaye was saying. I'm going to let Bob pick up. He. is
new to the sites, but he's getting on board real quick
and has been a big asset, as far as I'm concerned, and
he's got the first four slides here for us to get us
started, and then I'm going go into the site
descriptions and then Scott and Rich will follow it up
on the back end.
BOB STROUD: Good evening. I guess
you-all know, my name is Bob Stroud. I'm the new EPA
project manager for Yorktown. I've been involved with
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
the sites for about six months or so. My first
meeting was in December of '97. What we want to try
and do tonight is present to you the proposed remedial
action plans for four different sites at Yorktown,
Sites 1 and 3 and Sites 6 and 7. Actually, I'm
probably going to be repeating what Jeff and Kaye just
said.
Okay. This presentation to this meeting
is to just let all concerned citizens know that
Yorktown is going to be evaluating the four sites that
I've mentioned, Sites 1 and 3 and 6 and 7. And as
Kaye had mentioned to you, the public comment period
begins today, May 26, and continues for 45 days,
through July 10th, 1998. So if anyone has any
comments, suggestions, or concerns, they can contact
Kaye, I guess, by letter or phone or what have you.
This slide here just represents a
couple -- actually, this is the entire facility. This
map here represents the entire facility, with this
being Felgates Creek in this area and this being
Indian Field Creek. Sites 1 and 3 and 6 and 7 are in
these two areas right here. I think t.he next slide
shows it.
Here we are with Felgates, as I said, and
Indian Field Creek here, Sites 6 and 7 and Sites 1 and
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
2
3
4
5
6
3. The reason that we're doing them together like
this is because of their location. Since they are
located so close to each either, it just makes sense
in saving money and that sort of thing, to do these
sites together.
With that, I'll turn it over to Jeff
7 i Harlow.
l
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
JEFF HARLOW: Okay. I get to do site
description since I'm the resident expert, I guess.
We'll do Site l first. Ultimately it was a landfill
at the station from 1965 through just beyond 1979. it
operated under a conditional use permit. And a little
note here for lens grinding dust, we have had a
lieutenant command on our site, generally they make
all the lenses --or all the glassware for all the
military. I think the Army closed their facilities
down, and it's a pretty big business there.
But at one time they were dumping their
lens grinding dust in our landfill, pretty much an
inert plastic material.
This is Site l specifically, the entrance
point down here in the bottom of the slide.
Generally, all the debris is in this area here on the
right-hand side of this access road that you see
here. it's kind of a typical scenario, I guess, for
TAYLOB ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
7 ' .
I
1 landfills in the past. This was once a borrow area
^V for sand and fill. They had a hole. What do you do
3 with a hole? You fill it back in, and it became a
4 landfill.
4
5 You see a small ponded area here. Word
6 on it was it was an excavated area that just never got
7 filled. It dries up in the summertime. . And you see a
8 green patch. It's kind of a little wildlife
9 management area. It's beyond the boundaries of the
10 landfill itself. Indian Field you're seeing here in
11 the background right here.
12 Site 3 is a two-acre dump area, same
l^B thing. This one is even older than Dudley Road
n '
14 Landfill. It's been real difficult to even get --
except this document only speculates that it was used
in the early 1900s as a fill area for us developing
our industrial area. A lot of cuts, you know, steep
walls and stuff where it just looks like they're in
there mining out the fill for using somewhere else.
Ultimately the same thing came down, you
had a hole in the ground and what to do with it but
try to fill it back in.
This is Site 3 looking at the main roads
•P here. Putting some perspective, Dudley Road Landfill
5 would be down here at the bottom. You can't see the
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
3 i
i
2
3
4
5
6
7i
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pointer very good down here. And the beginning of
Indian Field Creek, or at least one of the branches,
would kind of run between the two sites. And
ultimately Indian Field would run down here at my feet
or whatever. You're seeing some of ,our magazines here
in the background.
Here's a perspective of the two sites
together. Here you're seeing Dudley Road Landfill.
And back in here you can kind of see some reduced
growth. That's the landfill here. And then
ultimately Felgates Creek coming out this way.
Site 6 -- and what we're doing -- I'm
just going to back up here. We're actually
incorporating both of these perhaps together in one
presentation. So 1 and 3 is the first one. We're
doing those two sites together as one unit. And
ultimately you'll see a rod for those two sites.
And now for Sites 6 and 7, there will be
a separate rod for that, and I just wanted to break
that out so we can work it all in one presentation.
Site 6 is a washout facility, basically
there since 1942-43. It's always been a reclaim
facility for TNT. We did install a carbon absorption
tower in 1975 which theoretically should have
alleviated the waste that we would have been putting
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
i 9 i
I
1 in the creeks. !
And then ultimately we hooked up HRSD,
and we've been knocking this around. I have to do a
little more research,, but I thought it was the early
'80s. We're saying '86. That's the best we have as
of right now.
There's also -- along with some of the
cooperative efforts with EPA, they had some
considerable concerns with the actual building itself
being contaminated, potentially the contaminants
migrating out into the facility. And so we're also
looking at some of the trenches and stuff inside the
building. It won't be a perfect clean closure of a
building, but at least we'll negate any potential for
the building itself contaminating out in the
environment.
We then in .the future have schedules to
do building demolition under the MIL COM program where
it should appropriately be done.
This is building 109. You see here in
the shadows a little bit, you see the trench here that
went out into, what we call now, the impoundment
area. There's a dam or what -- the impoundment here
that you see. And you don't see it on here, but it's
along this general area. And all of that wastewater
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
10
went out from this ditch into this marshy area.
There's another thing with this site off
to the side here, there's an annex that had a vapor
phase_ degreaser in there and some TCU problems here on
the site along with some explosives. This was a
second phase. I guess this building generally went
through two improvements, I guess, or modifications.
And this equipment went in the early '40s and then it
went through an upgrade.
At one time there was a tank inside this
building that actually they did TCE liquid solution
and degreasing or actually tar removal of the lining
material inside the bomb casings. And what I
understood what they do is when it got dirty, you'd
open up the valve and out in the creek it would go.
This is looking back towards Building
109, and you can now see the impoundment itself here.
It was also -- just to put a time line, it was built
at the same time the building was built, in 1942.
As far as the whole area here -- and I
guess Rich will get more into it, but the impoundment
itself is not really showing any large amounts of
explosive contamination. We're seeing it right at the
edge of the trench, right at the end of it.
And, of course, in the proposal we're
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
_i_
4
:3
4
11
going to look at just doing long-term monitoring to
see where it's at instead of destroying the wetlands
to see what might be out there.
Here you're seeing a view from the
building and the trench here going out into the
marsh. That concludes 6. And I'll go into 7.
Now, 7 was our actual explosive loading
plant three. You had a loading facility. You load
weapons or casings of bombs, and whatever you had at
the end of the day, you'd have washdown procedures,
whether it be the kettle or just the building itself.
Before 1975, that wastewater went right directly into
the creek.
After 1975 it, at least, went through
carbon tower, and then ultimately we went to HRSD.
All of these -- and just to reiterate, all of these
buildings for both 6 and.7 are since closed. 109 has
been closed since the mid '80s. And plant two, I
guess, closed about three years ago or two and a half
years. And so that's where we're at on that.
This would be a view of plant three
here. Just a quick overview, you had the prep
building where your empty casings would come in. This
was the actual loading facility here. You did remote
loading. During the actual loading process, you'd be
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
in the bunkers and actually be loading remotely. And
that discharge water came out the building right
here. And you see like a -- here it's hard to see;
we'll get to a few slides down in the bottom of this
presentation, but there's a run of rip rap here.
We did a removal action a couple of years
ago, and that's the biocell or bioslurry job that we
did. And I don't want to steal Rich's thunder here,
but essentially we succeeded in doing a good
treatability study so we don't have to go back out
here and clean this thing up.
And with that -- who is it, Scott or
Rich?
RICH HOFF: What we're going to do
tonight is a much more linear presentation of the
remedial action plan for these sites because of the
number of sites we have. In the past we have come in
here and we've discussed in detail the analytical
data, the risk assessments, and the evaluation of all
o£__the proposed remedial actions.
We thought in order to keep it a little
shorter and open it up for questions, that we would
run through this information in a little more
streamline manner. That was based on comments we
received from EPA Region 3. We've given these
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
presentations to their hierarchy. And one of their
recommendations was to streamline the process and get
more information out to'you-all quicker.
I'm going to start with Sites 1 and 3.
Scott will take 6 and 7.
As a recap, remedial investigations were
performed at both Sites 1 and 3. That included both
Round 1 RI and a Round 2 remedial investigation. Data
that was collected during these investigations were
compiled into a focused feasibility study.
We did a focused feasibility study rather
than a full-blown feasibility study because the areas
of contamination in both sites were rather small. In
fact, the first time we did a proposed plan, we were
suggesting no action at both sites.
But because of the partnering process
that we're involved in,, we've been able to sit down
with the regulators and really dissect the
information. And there were some concerns that came
out of it, the least of which is not the state's
concern about Site l and the fact that it was a former
solid waste limited landfill.
There were some findings that there were
low-lying areas that needed to be filled in. And so
when we went through the process, we wanted to focus
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
14 !
1
2
3
4
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on Chose technologies that would supplement the
reestablishment of the cupboard.
I also wanted to mention that EPA
Region 3 is going to be doing a comprehensive surface
water investigation at Indian Field Creek and Felgates
Creek in the next few months. And because of the
•
interconnectedness between groundwater and surface
water in Indian Field Creek, we didn't want to
evaluate any remedial alternatives at this time for
those media. So this focused feasibility study really
concentrated on the soils in both Site 1 and Site 3.
This is one of our worst figures. I
apologize for the quality of it. But this is Site 1
and here's Site 3. You saw through the pictures that
there was a ravine or a ditch that sort of bisected
the two, and then you enter one of the branches, one
of the two branches of .Indian Field Creek on either
side of Site 3.
To evaluate the human health and
ecological risks, when we conducted the risk
assessment, there were really no unacceptable risks.
Current receptors, again no. unacceptable risks.
Because of the frequency of exposure, it's rather
limited.
Future receptors. The concentrations
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
15.
' 3
4
^
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
•
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
when ayeraged over a large area really didn't give us
much of an average or an upper 95th percent, that we
would have to worry about. But there were some hot
spots.
The terrestrial and aquatic receptors
under the ecological risks is one of the few sites
where we had no really significant ecological
concerns.
When we were doing the focused FS,1there
were one or two locations around Site 1. In fact,
they were well-boring locations that had high arsenic
concentrations. And by "high,» I mean they were above
station-wide backdrops, which is about 63 parts per
million.
And we did some additional system
sampling to figure out what the extent of this was,
and we also tried to get to the bottom of why there
might be this increased arsenic concentration. But we
never really figured out the latter, but we did take
additional samples, quite a number of them, to define
the hot spot. And we used 63 parts per million and
above as a way of incorporating the hot spot and
evaluating the extent of potential contamination.
And, again, the solid waste landfill
cover will be reestablished as part of the remedy.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
16
It's not really a risk-driven action, but, again, it's
out there and we wanted to address it as part of the
remedy.
At Site 3, again with current receptors,
there were no unacceptable health risks. Future
receptors, there were some unacceptable risks for
adult and children. And this was based on another hot
spot. And at Site 3 we had PAHs. And if you remember
the site description for Site 3, you saw a lot of
oils, greases, sludges, and solvents that went in
there. And this is, in fact, what we're turning up;
those PAHs are usually a constituent of those types of
waste materials.
True to form, the terrestrial
demonstrated a slight risk again to the PAHs. And the
aquatic, with the limited data that we had on Indian
Field Creek, there was -no significant risk present.
Again, I want to state that EPA is going to be
collecting additional data, and that's one of the
reasons we don't want to make any comments on the
aquatic, Indian Field Creek, and the groundwater at
this time.
This is, again, kind of difficult to see,
but if you take a look at Site 1, we have an area of
debris that we're going to pick up. This is the
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
\ 17,
1 . • I
extent of the arsenic hot spot. It's very small. And j
i
what's interesting is it's really off of the main body
of what was considered to be the solid waste
•landfill. So to my.knowledge, we really have no idea
as to why that arsenic exists there. But sure enough
when we take those samples, that area is well in
excess of all the other areas at Site 1.
Site 3, again the same situation, where
there are a number of debris piles that we have
identified. This is what we consider the extent of
11 Site 3 proper. And the small red area in the center
is the area of soil that we're concerned about. This
was identified and delineated using PAH test kits down
to a depth of four feet, and we have a very good
handle on the extent of contamination.
To wrap it up, we're proposing remedial
action three, and there, are a number of remedial
actions proposed for each site, and I would encourage
you-all to take a look at the total remedial action
plan for the details associated with each one of the
RAAs and the associated costs.
We're proposing at this point in time to
reestablish the soil cupboard at Site 1, to do the
debris removal, and to do the soil excavation and
off-site disposal in the area of the arsenic hot
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
18
spot. One of the reasons this was a focused FS is
that with such a small volume, it really doesn't make
sense to develop techniques such as in situ
vitrification or any of the in situ technology that
might be out there. It really wouldn't be cost
effective.
Site 3 we selected RAA-4, and it's very
similar. We're going to remove the 'debris that exists
in the area and we're going to excavate the PAH hot
spot. And, again, because of the limited size, we're
going to off-site disposal. And this will be disposed
of as nonhazardous. We have to do TCLP to confirm
that. But, again, you're talking about such a small
area that it really doesn't make sense to look at any
land finding or compost technologies. And the present
work for this remedial action, the alternative is
155,000.
With that, I'd like to turn to Scott and
he'll tell you a little bit about 6 and 7.
SCOTT PARK: Okay. Moving over to Sites
6 and 7. Again, like Sites 1 and 3, we conducted
remedial investigations and post RI investigations at
each of those sites. And then a feasibility study
report evaluated the data collected from those
investigations and also took a look at our remedial
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
13
action alternatives.
Again, we screened many and broke it down
to about six or seven, and I'll present to you which
one we came up with as our selection and that we're
proposing, again in the proposed remedial action plan
that you can review.
Sites 6 and 7, the -- let's see.
Operable Unit 14 is the whole area that bounds -- runs
along Felgates Creek. Site 6 is generally in this
area. That's the building Jeff showed you. Here's
the drainage way from that building and the large
impoundment that he showed to you. Site 7 is down
here. And you'll get some site pictures of those.
Site 7 is Operable Unit 12. And Operable
Unit 13 is the flume area or drainage way leading from
Building 109 out towards the surface impoundment. And
then Operable Unit 15 is an excavated area. I'll talk
about that a little bit more and why it's, there, what
we're doing with it.
Based on risk assessment summaries,
conclusions from Site 6 first were unacceptable risks
to human health from future residential exposure to
the soil ,and sediment in the impoundment area. Highly
unlikely that it will be developed for future
residential, but the possibility, I guess, does exist
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
20
and there are some risks to doing that.
Unacceptable ecological risks to
receptors in the impoundment area, the flume area, and
the excavation areas, those are called areas of
concern. But actually the flume area is AOC, or Area
of Concern 1, the impoundment area is Area of Concern
2, and the excavation area is Area of Concern 3.
You'll see a picture of all of those.
Site 7 conclusions were there were no
unacceptable risks to human receptors under any
land-use scenario, no unacceptable ecological risks,
and all the risks were mitigated by the removal action
conducted for the full-scale pilot study. Jeff talked
about that.
Soil was removed and was taken to our
biotreatment cell where it was put into a slurry using
the simplex saber technology, and that's been cleaned
up. And we're also using that cell right now to clean
up Site 19 which is another site we have evaluated and
moved to Rodham (phonetic) .
This is a picture of Site 7. I'll cover
that first since it was basically taken care of
already. This is the area of concern that was cleaned
up. This is a little before my time. These guys can
help me out. I believe this material here is gravel
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
1 that was placed down after the excavation took place
just to show a level where we had excavated to if it
' 3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
ever came back later and somebody had to go back down,
they would know the area that had been taken care of.
This is just a grading of that area and-
6 j Degrading it, and it wasn't revegetated, but it is
starting to vegetate itself, I believe. It's a low
spot down by Site 7.
Areas of Concern 1 and 2. First, again
the building is down in this area and there's the
drainage way coming out of the building that leads out
towards the impoundment. There's a concrete channel
--a system of channels underneath the building and
then a channel that leads wastewater out into the
flume area, as we call it, and then further along into
Area of Concern 2, which is right here. That's the
impoundment area. •
As Jeff mentioned, most of the
contamination that was found that had risks associated
with it was right in this area, Area of Concern 1.
And that's the area that we're focusing our actual -
cleanup, if you will, as I'll tell you about in our
remedial action alternatives.
This is AOC-3. It's an excavated area,
very uniform and rectangular as you can see. We're
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
22 '
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not really sure where that came from. We don't know
if it's a basement for a house or a building or a
borrow area. I don't think it's a house, but it looks
more like something-like a borrow area or something
somebody was getting ready to construct and they never
did. And it's just an area that's there, and actually
we're just going to fill that in and cover it. And we
haven't found any risks associated with that.
The selected remedial alternative for
Sites 6 and 7. Site 6, again, many were considered.
We're proposing in situ biological treatment using a
different biological treatment than the Simplot
process. •
In our last meeting we discussed a joint
venture we're working on with W.R. Grace and the
Canadian government, and we're looking for split
funding from both of those two entities, and the Navy;
the three of us are going to share-cost that. We're
in the treatability study phase right now, and it's
going- well. If we have full proof that the technology
works, that's what we're proposing to use. It will be
a land farming treatment on the station and it will be
in a greenhouse type of structure.
And we'll clean up about a thousand cubic
yards of material, is what we're expecting right now.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
! .- ' - 23
1 That's from our Area of Concern 1. There will be a
^^ soil cover area in Area of Concern 3 which was
'3 excavated, that we're not quite sure where that hole
t4 came from.
5 Also as part of the project, we're going
6 to do sludge removal from the channel system
7 underneath the building and the channel running out to
8 Area of Concern 1. And that will remove all the
9 contaminants and residual contaminants from operations
10 in that building so we can then block off the channel
11 from the building out to our site. And that way in
12 the future if any water were to get in the building or
anything came out from those channels, it would be
14 clean because we had already taken care of it; we
15 wouldn't recontaminate our site.
16 Then we'll do long-term monitoring of
17 surface water and groundwater in the entire area.
18 And, again, Jeff had said the Area of Concern 1 was
19 our primary area of contamination, and it didn't seem
20 it was getting into the surface impoundment. And
21 we're going to do long-term monitoring of the surface
22 water and groundwater to make sure that there's
23 nothing going on. The net present worth is about
8R $673,000.
25 And then Site 7, there's no action
_____
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
S
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
alternative because the site has actually been cleaned
up under a pilot study. And that present worth is
obviously zero.
Just to move along to the public
participation. Our public comment period began today
•
in the newspaper in The Daily Prggg. Kaye talked
about that. And the purpose is to encourage you and
other members of the public to participate in that
process and the selection of the proposed alternatives
for all four of these sites.
The comment period will close on
July 10th of 1998. It's a 45-day comment period. We
look forward to hearing your comments today and by
mail or by phone call if you should choose to do that.
"And on that, we'll go to comments,
questions, concerns, open the floor up to anything
anybody would like to talk about on these sites.
CINDY BARBRAU: Cindy Barbrau, York
County Business. You said that Site 7 was done under
a pilot study. Do you have anything about
approximately how much that - -
SCOTT PARK: The cost of it?
CINDY BARBRAU: Yeah.
JEFF HARLOW: It was a large-scale pilot
study.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
RICH HOFF: It was about a million
dollars.
SCOTT PARK: Did that include the
construction of the cell?
RICH HOFF: Yeah. That included the
construction of the biocell area, the excavation of
the area which expanded in scope once we started into
8 the digging, which, I think, a lot of these areas will
9 probably grow past the data that we now have. The
10 nice thing about that is that although we did spend a
11 million dollars in the up-front, we are starting to
12 see some returns from the presence of the biocell, and
it's greatly cheapened the remedial action for Site
14 19.
15 SCOTT PARK: The capital cost will be
16 recouped every time we use that cell, so it will be
17 recovered.
18 JEFF HARLOW: I guess the fortunate thing
19 or the unfortunate thing, however you look at it,
20 Grace came into play in the middle of all of this and
21 now we're looking at another alternative, innovative
22 technology, to treat contaminated soils, along with
23 TCE.
J
^m The original plans of the cell was to,
25 you know, not only clean up Site 7 and 19, but we also
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
intend to use it for Site 6. So my guess is that in
hindsight, we should have better planned ourself, but
it was an unforeseen planning.
SCOTT PARK: Well, also site 6 has
volatile contamination which Simplot Technology would
not cover and Grace would, so we're hoping that's
going to prove itself useful for not only the
explosives but the volatiles.
CINDY BARBRAU: That was a joint
venture?
SCOTT PARK: That's right.
CINDY BARBRAU: Have they done something
similar up in Canada?
SCOTT PARK: No. But the way that works
is Industry Canada has a program that's part of --it
would be like our Department of Commerce. They have a
program where if people can put in -- demonstrate a
technology or product or anything that they think will
create jobs in Canada, W.R. Grace and U.S.
corporations will have a major lab, and a lot of their
works goes through environmental -- it goes through
the Canadian lab.
The inventor of the process runs that
lab. And so if they can market this technology --
they have demonstrated it on pesticides and some other
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
27 ;
i 3
4
]
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
•
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
compounds, but if they can demonstrate it for
explosives and volatiles and then they can market that
technology, it will provide jobs in Canada due to all
of the associated items that go into the lab work and
the analytical work.
So the Canadian government is willing to
help market that or make it succeed so then Grace can
market it because it brings jobs into Canada, and
Grace wants to do it because it will make their
product and service marketable. And we're interested
because they are willing to pay a fair share to help
us do it, and so it makes our project highly amenable
and cost effective.
JEFF HARLOW: Anything else? Let's go
ahead and take a five, ten-minute break and get set up
for the next presentation.
SCOTT PARK: And give you time to think
of more questions.
(Public Hearing concluded at 7:10 p.m.)
23
•
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, SCOTT D. GREGG, RPR, and Notary
Public, certify that I recorded verbatim by Stenotype
the proceedings in the captioned cause before a public
hearing, Proposed Remedial Action Plans for Sites
1 & 3 and Sites 6 & 7, Yorktown, Virginia, on May 26,
1998.
I further certify that to the best of my
knowledge and belief, the foregoing transcript
constitutes a true and corr ;ct transcript of the said
proceedings.
/j/-^-
Given under my hand this __/^_ day of
/ 1998, at Norfolk, Virginia.
Scott D. Gregg
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC,
-------
Re: Naval Weapons Station J673 000 h| ^in
-$- '461 --984 n, IM
S673,000m :3.:4
alleviated (it .s 25
allowcdni -> li
. aimnstnt •>•*
! ~6" i alone m •• -4 >*-7
!6(22| 1:8 2:19
'40s f i| 108
'80s|2| 9:5 11:18
'86|i| *5
'97m 5:2
-1-
1 l«l 1:8 2:18
5:5 5:!1 5:21
5:25 f>-10 6:21
8:15 13 4 13:7
13:8 13:21 14:11
1-4:13 15:10 16:24
17:7 17:23 18:21
20:6 21:9 21:20
23:1 23:8 23:18
28:6
0|t| 2:20
109(4| 9:20 JO.-I7
11:17 19:16
OthlJJ 5:14 24:12
2(l| 19:14
3 III 19:15
4|i| 19:8
5 (l| 19:17
55,000 in 18:17
19 pi 20:19 25:14
25:25
900SIU 7:16
1942(11 10:19
1942-43 |i| 8:22
965 in 6:11
1975m 8:24 11:12
11:14
1979m 6:11
1998(51 1:12 5:14
24:12 28:7 28:13
-2-
2(4| 13:8 20:7
21:9 21:16
26fJ| 1:12 5:13
28:6
26th fll 2:19
-3-
3t27| 1:8 1:19
2:19 5:5 «:11
5:21 6:1 7:12
7:23 8:15 12:25
13:4 13:7 144
14:11 14:14 14:18
164 16:8 16:9
17:8 17:11 18:7
18:21 20:7 23'2 .
28:6 I
-4-
45 12| 2:17 5:13
1 5:5 5:11 *:2I
| 5:25 B:12 H:18
1 X2I 11:6 11:17
135 18:19 18.21
19:7 19:9 19:21
22:10 22:10 26:1
26:4 28:6
63t2| 15-13 15:21
-7-
7t24| 1:S 2:19
5:5 5:11 5:21
5:25 8:18 11:6
11:7 11:17 13:5
18:19 18:21 19:7
19:12 19:14 20:9
20:21 21:8 22:10
23:25 24:19 25:25
28:6
757 m 1:24
7:10|l| 27:19
-8-
887-4939 m 3:12
-9-
95th(i| 15:2
-A-
abteni 13:17
above pi 15:12 1502
absorption mi 8:23
acCCSS [1] 6:24
action |i«| 1:7 5:4
12:6 12:16 13:15
16:1 17:17 17:19
18:16 19:1 19:5
20:12 21:23 23:25
25: J 3 28:5
actions (if 12:20 17:18
actual ii| 93 11:7
11:24 11:25 21:21
dpi 2:16 3:13
additional (j[ 15:15
15:20 16:19
ddrcsS(i|l6:2
aduit(i] 16:7
affairs (u 2:3
again (ITT 4:3 14:22
15:24 16:1 16:4
16:15 16:18 16:23
17:8 18:10 18:13
IK:2I 19:2 19:5
21:9 22:10 23:18
igcndaoi 3:19
lgOU| 2:4 (l:J9
!2:7
ihcadfJl 2:12 4.9
27:15
: 9:25 1(1:5 19:9
21:15 24:4 25.22
alternative (4| is 16
22:9 24.1 25:2]
Alternatives [4| M9
19:1 21.23 24:9
always (i | 8.22
amcnablcnj 27.12
amounts m io;22
analytical (2| 12- IK
27:5
annex (i| IO.-3
announced in 49
t announcement m 4-12
'AOCm 20:5
AOC-3(«| 21:24
apologize (i i 14.13
Appearances in 1.15
: appropriately (n 9:19
aquatic m 15:5 1*16
16:21
area |S7] 5:20 6:23
7:1 7:5 7:6
7:9 7:12 7:16
7:17 9:23 9:25
10:1 10:20 15:1
16:24 17:6 17:1 i
17:12 17:25 18:9
18:14 19:8 19:10
19:15 19:17 19:23
20:3 20:3 20:5
20:5 20:6 20:6
20:7 20:7 20:23 •
21:4 2!:5 21:10
21:15 21:16 21:17
21:20 21:20 21:21
21:24 22:3 22:4
22:6 23:1 23:2
23:2 23:8 23:17
23:18 23:19 25:6
25:7
areas (aj 5:22 13.12
13:24 17:7 20:4 •
20:4 21:9 25:8
Annym 6:16
arsenic (S) 15:1 1 15:18
17:1 17:5 17:25
assessment (2| 14:21
19.20
assessments (i| 12:19
asset (n 4:is
associated (si 17:20
17:21 21:19 22:8
27:4
ASSOCIATES (it 1:22
average m 15:2
averaged (i| 15:1
-B-
>ackdrops(i| 15:13
>ackground (2| 7:11
i 6
Baker 1 1 1 i i "
Barbrauisi 24 is
: 24 IX 2-» 2" ^AU
20.12
: based n; ;;.;4 ;/, 7
19:20
basement i : i 222
[ became IM T 3
began ui 245
! beginning n i $:\
| begins n I 5 13
belief |i| 2S:9
jbcst|2| 95 2S8
bcttcrni 262
between (ii s 3
14:7
bcyondninli 7.9
jbigm 4 is 6.1?
bioccll()| 12.7 2^6
25:12
biological m 22- 1 1
22:12
bioslurrym (2:7
Ibiotrcatmcntiu 20:16
bisected in 14.15
bitfjf 9:21 IK: 19
19:18
Black tn 2:3
block m 23.it>
boardin 4:17
Bobl«| 1:19 2:24
3:2 3:3 3:5
3:6 4:16 4:23
4:24
body |t| 17:2
bomb |i i 10:13
bombs ni U.-9
borrow pi 7:1 22:3
22:4
bottom |4| 6:22 7:25
12:4 15:17
boundaries HI 7:9
bounds in 19 8
branches m 8:2
14.16 14:17
break I2| 8:19 27:15
Brings |l| 27:8
brokCHl 19:2
budget m 3 18
)uildingi23| 9.9
9:13 9:14 9:15
9:18 9-20 H»:6
10:11 10:16 10:19
11:5 11:11 11:23
12:2 19:10 19:11
19:16 21:10 21:11
21:13 22:2 23:7
23:10 23:11 23:12
>uildingS(n 11:17
>Ullt(2| 10 IK 10:19
mnkersm [2:1
>usincss)2i 6:17
24:19
Index Page 1
-------
C - excavated Rc: Nava, Wcapons station
. ___ COmpOSt fl| 18:15
~C- compounds ru 27-1
Cm 2:1
Canada (5(26: 13 26:1*:
26,19 27:3 278
Canadian |3| 22:16
2622 27:6
capital -t*t •>. 1 1
-.y 2:1 1
captioncdfu 28:4
carbon (2) 8:23 I1:I5
care (3) 20:22 21, -4
23: 1 4
casings pi 10; 13 1 1:9
1 I t^-J
1 1 -J
CcH(S| 2(J:I6 20:18
•><;a -JS-IA •>< ->A
center m 17:11
CERTIFICATE in 28:1
1 — . • f
certify (2| 28:3 28:8
[chairman |i| 2:8
I change (i| 4-4
channel |5| 21:12
21-14 23:6 23:7
23 10
(channels (2| 21:13
23-13
(cheapened |ij 25:13
children ni 16:7
|ChooSC|l| 24; 14
Cindy (S| 24.18 24:18
24i23 26:9 26:12
citizens m 5:9
(clean |t| 9:13 12.11
211:18 22:24 23-14
25:25
(cleaned (3i 20-17
20:23 24:1
cleanup (ij 21:22
(close [3i 3:19 6-3
24 1 1
(closed Ml 6:16 11:17
1 1 IK 1 1 - IQ
1 110 illy
| closure |i| 9. 13
Ice-chairman in 2:8
collected |2) 139
1824
(collecting ui 16:19
COMm 918
coming (3| 2.18 8:11 *
21:11 , <
| command [i| 6:14 <
(commanding ni 2:6
(comment MI s-i2 l
245 24:11 24:12 <
(comments (9| 2:21 c
2-21 3:11 3:23
5:15 12:24 16:20 c
24^13 24:15 c
CommcrccHi 26:16 c
(community [i| 3:ii
compiled in i3:io
t f rs A
comprehensive [i| 14:4
concentrated (i| u.-n
concentration (i| 15: 18
16:1" 10.21 19-9
creeks m 9-1
Cubic [IJ 22:24
cupboard [21 14:2
17:23
concentrations {2i 142* icurrent(2| 14:22 16:4
15:12
concern [i3| 13:21
20:5 20:6 20:6
5/1*7 '>t\-')i ") i -a
UJ.I £\J.4J £1.7
21:16 21:20 23:1
23:2 23:8 23:18
concerned [3| 4:18
5:9 17:12
concerns [si 5:15
9:9 13:19 15:8
24:16
concluded (i| 27:19
concludes (i| ll:6
conclusions [2j 19:21
20:9
concrete [i] 21:12
conditional [ii 6:12
conducted [3| 14:20
18:21 20:13
confirm m 18:12
consider (i| I7:io
considerable [i| 9:9
considered (2) 17:3
"1*5. 1 11
2Z:i(j
constituent [i| 16:12
constitutes ni 28:10
Construct (1| 22:5
construction (2| 25:4
25:6
contact [ii 5: 15
contaminants m 9: 1 0
23:9 23:9
contaminated (2| 9:10
25:22
contaminating [i i 9:15
contamination (7| 10-23
13:13 15:23 17:15
21:19 23:19 26:5
continues (i| 5:13
cooperative [i| 9:8
corporations [i| 26:20
correct [i| 28:10
COSt(4| 18:5 24:22
25:15 27:13
:03tS[l| 17:21
County [i| 24: 19 (
:ouple[3| 4:11 5:18 (
12:6 '
:ourseni 10.-25 '
:OURT(i, 28:1 i
:over[5| 15:25 20:21 ,
22:7 23:2 26:6
overedni 3:19 t
reate(i| 26:19 c
rcckri4| 5:20 5:21 j
5:25 8:2 8:11 *
10:15 11:13 14:5 L
14:6 14:8 14:17 <1
CUtS [i( 7:17
-D-
D[3| 2:1 28:2
28:18
Daily (u 24.6
damui 9:23
data f6) 12:19 13:8
16:16 16:19 18:24
25:9
dayS[2| 2:17 5:13
debris [5| 6:23 1625
17:9 17:24 18:8
Decembenij 5:2
define [i| 15:20
degreaser(i) io:4
dcgreasing(i) 10-12
delineated [t i I7:n
demolition [i| 9:18
demonstrate {2| 26: 1 7
27:1
demonstrated (2 1 16: 15
26:25
Denham [21 2:6
2:11
Department [i| 26:16
depth |l| 17:14
description [21 6-9
16:9
descriptions (i| 4:2 1
desired (i| 3:15
destroy ing (i i 11:2
detail (i| 12:18
details m 17:20
develop m is:3
developed [ 1 1 1 9:24
developing!!) 7.16
Dewing (21 2.7
2:14
different (2) 5-4
22-15
£•£•, 1 ^
difficult (2| 714
16:23
digging [i| 25:8 <
directly HI n:i2 <
dirty[i] 10:14 <
iischargeni 12:2
discussed (2| 12:18 *
22:14
lisposal(2] 17;25 *
18:11
lisposedni 18:11 *
lissect(i) 13:18 €
iitch[2| 10:1 14:15
)ivisionm 1:18 C
!ocument[i| 7;(5 e
doesn't (2| 18.2 is.u
dollars (2 1 25.2 2^11
done [3 1 9-19 2419
26:12
down [IS] 6:17 622
7:20 7:25 8'l
8:4 12:4 13:17
17:13 19:2 19:12
""* 1 • 1 *) 1 • 1 t 1 O
zi.i ^l.J 21 :8
21:10
drainage [3] 19.11
19:15 21:11
dries [if 7:7
Dudley [3| 7: 13 7:24
8:8
duC(i| 27:3
dump [if 7:12
dumping [i] 6:18
during [2| 11:25 13:9
dust [2] 6:13 6:19
-E-
E[2| 2:1 2:1
early (3| 7:16 9:4
10:8
ecological [5| M.-20
15:6 15:7 20:2
20:11
edgeui H):24
effective [2| 186
27:13
effort [l| 4:15
efforts [1] 9:8
either [21 6:3 14:17
empty [ii ii:23
encourage [zi 17:18
24:7
end[3| 4:22 10:24
11:10
enternj 14:16
entire [3 1 5:18 5 19
23:17
entities (i|22:i7
entrance (ii 6:21
environment (i i 9:16
environmental [2| 1.17
26:21
C D A . -i
EPA[7| 1:19 3:7
4:24 9:8 12:25
14:3 16:18
equipment m 108
essentially (i| 12:9
evaluate [2 1 149
14:19
evaluated (2 1 is 24
20:19
evaluating (2) i-io
15:23
;vaiuation[i| (2:19
:vening[2) 3:20
4:23
:xcavate[i| ig:9
sxcavated is\ 76
19:17 21:2 21:24
Index Page 2 ~~~ -1 — — 1
-------
Re: Naval Weapons Station excavation 1
excavation (si (724
20:4 20:7 21 :J
25:6
except [l] 7:15
excess (I) 17:7
cxist(l| 19:25
CXlStS [2J 17:5 18:8
expanded [it 25:7
expecting (!) 22:25
expert (i| 6:9
explosive [2i 10:23
11:7
explosives m io:5
26:8 27:2
exposure (2| 14:23
19:22
extent [51 15:16 15:23
17:1 17:10 17:15
-F-
faciliticsm 6:16
facility [?i 5. 18 5:19
8:21 8:23 9:11
11:8 11:24
faCt[4J 13:14 13:21
15:10 16:11
fair [l| 27:11
far[3| 4:9 4:18
10:20
farming in 22.22
feasibility [5| 13:10
13:11 13:12 14:10
18:23
fcet[2| 8:4 17:14
Fclgates [5| 5:20
5:24 8:11 14:5
19:9
fcw[3| 12:4 14:6
15:6
Field (10| 5:21 5:25
7:10 8:2 8:4
14:5 14:8 14:17
16:17 16:21
figure [ii 15:16
figured [ii 15: 19
figures m 14:12
fill 1*1 7:2 7:3
7:16 7:19 7:22
22:7
filled [2| 7:7 13:24
finding [ii 18:15
findings [i] 13:23
first [io| 2:25 3:21
4:19 5:1 6:10
8:15 13:14 19:21
20:22 21:9
five [II 27:15
floorni 24:16
flume [4| 19:15 20:3
20:5 21:15
foCUS [»i 13:25
focused [5 1 13:10
13:11 14:10 15:9
18:1
focusing [i| 21:21
followni 4:21
foregoing [l| 28:9
fonnni 16:14
format m 4:4
formertii 13:21
fortunate (i| 25:18
forward [i| 24: 13
found [2| 21:19 22:8
four [5] 4:19 5:4
5:10 17:14 24:10
frceni 3:13
Frcqucncyni 14:23
FS[2J 15:9 18:1
Full [ii 22:20
Full-blown m 13:12
full-scale [ii 20:13
funding [i] 22:17
future [6] 9:17 14:25
16:5 19:22 19:24
23:12
-G-
Giu 2:1
general (i| 9:25
generally [4] 6:14
6:23 10.6 19:9
jcntlemenni 2:23
;iven[2j 12:25 28:12
glassware [i j 6:15
;OCS(2| 26:21 26:21
;ood(4| 4:23 8:1
12:9 17:14
goofed [i) 2-s
government (2| 22:16
27:6
Grace [6) 22:15 25:20
26:6 26:19 27:7
27:9
grading [ii 2 1:5
jravelm 20:25
;reases[i] 16:10
jreatlyni 25:13
jreenm 7:8
rccnhouse[i| 22:23
Gregg [2J 28:2 28:18
rinding [2| 6:13
6:19
round [I] 7:21
jroundwater[4) 14:7
16:21 23:17 23:22
row[i| 25:9
^OWth [1] 8:10
JUCSS[U1 3:21 4:14
4:23 5:16 6:9
6:25 10:6 10:7
10:21 11:19 19:25
25:18 26:1
UyS(i| 20:24
-H-
half[i] 11:19
hand(i) 2812
handle [i i 17:15
hardti] 12.3
HarloW[7| 1:16 3:21
6:7 6:8 24:24
25:18 27:14
health ni 14:19 16^
19:22
hearing [3) 24: 13 27:19
28:5
help [31 20:25 27:7
27:11
hierarchy [i i 13:1
high[2| 15:11 15:12
highly [2| 19:23 27.12
Hindsight ni 26:2
iitm 4:12
Hoff[4( 1:17 12:14
25:1 25:5
holC[4| 7:2 7:3
7:21 23:3
looked [1| 9:2
lopingni 26:6
hot[7] 15:3 15:21
15:22 16:7 17:1
17:25 18:9
IOUSC[2| 22:2 22:3
iRSD[2| 9:2 11:15
lUmanpl 14: 19 19:22
20:10
-I-
dea[i| 17:4
dentified(2| 17:10
17:13
mpoundmcnt[i2| 9:22
9:23 10:17 10:21
19:12 19:16 19:23
20:3 20:6 21:12
21:17 23:20
mprovemcntsm 10:7
nC[2J 1:17 1:22
ncludc [t|25:3
ncluded[2i 13.7
25:5
ncorporatc[ii 3:22
ncorporating (21 8. 1 4
15:22
ncreascdm 15: 18
ndian (lot 5:21 5:25
7:10 8:2 8:4
14:5 14:8 14:17
16:16 16:21
ndustrial[i| 7: 17
ndustry[ii 26:15
nert[i] 6:20
n formation (4 1 3:14
12:23 13:3 13:19
nnovativc(i) 25:21
nsidC(3| 9:12 10:10
10:13
nstallni 8:23
nsteadni il:2
intend in 26 i
intcrconncctcdncss 1 1 1
14.7
interested [2| 323
27.10
interesting in 17.2
inventor HI 26:23
investigation 12 1 13 8
14:5
investigations rsi 13:6
13:9 1822 18-22
18:25
involved [2i 4 -2*
13:17
items [11 27:4
itself [8| 710 99
9:15 10:17 : 1022
11:11 21.7 26:7
J_
Jaym 27 2.13
2:14
Jcff[l«| 1:16 2-22
2:24 3:8 3:17
3:21 5:6 6:6
6:8 19:10 20:13
21:18 23:18 24:24
25:18 27:14
job [11 12:7
jobS[3| 26:19 27:3
27:8
joint [3] 4:15 22:14
26:9
July (3) 2:20 5:14
24:12
-K-
Kayemi 2:2 2:2
2:13 2:15 3:3
3:6 4:16 5:6
5:12 5:16 24:6
keep [l| 12:21
Itettlcni ii:il
kind(7| 3:25 4:10
6:25 7:8 8:3
8:9 16:23
kitsm 1"13
knocking HI 93
knowledge [2| 17:4
28:9
-L-
lab[4| 2620 26:22
26:24 27:4
land(2| 18:15 22:22
land-use (ii 20:11
landfill (ti| 6 10
6:19 7:4 7:10
7:14 7:24 8:8
8:10 13:22 15:24
17:4
landfills in 7:1
LANT(i| 1:18
large (3) 10:22 15:1
19:11
Index Page 3
-------
targe-scale - proper
largc-scalcm
Iast|2| 34
lattcrni 15 19
leading ft) 19-15
leads 121 21,11
least (4| 8:2
1114 I3;20
Icnsf2| 6,13
6:15
5 16
21:2
lenses in
letter (i j
level m
lieutenant [i i
limited HI 1322
J616 18-10
Hnc(i| 10-18
linear [i | 12:15
liningnj 10:12
liquidpi to;11
load (11 11:8
loading [6| l h?
11:2-1 11-25
12 I
located i ii 6:3
location (i i
locations 121
15:11
long-term pi
23:16 23:21
look(7| 11:1
17:19 18:14
24:13 25:19
looking (5]
9;I2 10:16
25:21
looks |z| 7:18
low ni 21:7
low-lying ui
24-24
22.14
21:14
9-14
6:19
-V22
3:23
4:5
5:8
6:14
14:24
11:8
II 25
62
15 10
11.1
16:24
18:25
7-23
22:16
22:3
13:24
-M-
magazincsni 8,5
mail (t| 2414
mainjzj 7:23 17:2
majorni 26:2o
makes i2| 6:3 27 12
management (i | 79
managcrfii 4.25
manncrfij 12,24
map IM 5; 19
Marchni 1:12
market MI 26-24 •>!••>
27:7 27;8
marketable m 27:10
marsh HI ii;6
marshy [i i iorj
material MI 6-20
H)rl3 20:25 22:25
materials (i| 16:13
May t3| 2:19 5:13
28:6
meanni 15:12
median) 14:10
meeting (8| 3:1
Index Page 4
I 4 10 5-2
I 2214
I members HI 24:8
.'mention |2| 317
! 14:3
mentioned [3| 511
5:12 21:18
GDJd [I] 11:18
middle [ii 25:20
might MI 3.25 113
15:18 18:5
migrating [i i 9:11
MILni 9:18
military [i i 6:16
million |4| 15:14 1521
25:1 25:11
mining [i i 7:19
mitigated HI 20:12
j modifications HI io.-7
money [2| 4:5 6:4
monitoring |3| 11-1
23.16 23:21
months (2i 5:1 14.6
mostui 21:18
move H| 24:4
moved [ii 20:20
Moving HI 18.20
N[l| 2:1
name [i| 4:24
NAVAL HI 1.4
Navy ni 22:17
needed [ii 13:24
negate (ii 9:14
net |i| 23:23
never pi 7:6 1^-19
22:5
new(3| 2:25 4:17
4:24
newspaper (i | 24:6
! next [4J 4:1 5-22
14:6 27:16
niC6f2| 2:4 25:10
nonhazardousni 18:12
Norfolk pi 125
28:13
Notary HI 28.2
note n i 6.-I3
nothing [i | 23:23
noticed [i 12:16
nowfioj 8:18 9-6
*22 10:17 11-7
20:18 22:19 22-25
25:9 25:21
number ui 3:12 1217
15:20 17:9 17:17
!off(3| lu-2
' 23:10
Off-site (2| 17:25
office|ii 222
officer(2i 2:3
official [i12.25
oils [tj 16:10
older [i i 7.13
once [2]
One[18]
8:2
8:16
13:1
14:16
16:19
19:4
7:1
6:18
8:14
8:20
14:12
15:6
17-20
2:21
24:16
Open[4|
12:22
Operable [4|
19:14 19:14
operated (i i
operations HI
order n i 12:21
original [i |
ourselfm 26:2
overview m
\~:2
18:11
2:7
25:7
7:13
8:15
10:10
14:16
15:10
18:1
10:15
19:8
19:17
6:12
23:9
25:24
11:22
-P-
PHI
2:1
27:19
17:13
16:8
OHI 2.1
obviously [i i
24:3
PAHf2|
PAHs[3j
16:15
paper [3) 2:16
4:12
Park[io| 1:18
18:20 24:22
25:15 26:4
26:14 27:17
|part[4| 15:25
23:5 26:15
I participate [i i
participation (i i
partnering in
parts [2j 15:13
past[4| 4:ii
12:17 25:9
I patch [i | 7:8
pay HI 27:11
peopleni 26:17
per[2| 15:13
percent [i 115.2
perfect HI 9:13
peiformedm
perhaps [ij
period [si 2:20
24:5 24:11
I permit [i j 6:12
perspective [2|
pesticides HI
j phase [3j m:4
22:19
18:9
16:12
3:13
3:7
25'3
26' 1 1
16:2
24:8
24:5
n:i6
15:21
7:1
15:21
13:7
8:14
5:12
24:12
7:24
26:25
10:6
Re: Naval Weapons Station
Phillips |6|
' 2:2 2:13
33 3:6
phone [31 3:12
24:14
phonetic [ij
pick[2| 4:16
picture [2] 20:8
pictures [21
19:13
17:9
20:13
24:24
4:8
21:1
piles n i
pilot [4|
24:20
pinch [i |
place [i |
placed [i i 21
plan[5| 2:18
13:14 17:20
planned [i |
planning m
plans [4| |;7
25:24 28:5
plant pi 11.8
11:21
plastic (i i 6:20
play HI 25.20
point [2) 6:22
pointer (i i 8:1
ponded HI 7:5
possibility HI
post (I) 18.22
potential [2|
15:23
potentially n |
prep fi| 11:22
presence [i i
present [6| 5:3
18:15 19:3
24:2
presentation i g|
4:13 5:8
8:20 12:5
27:16
presentations (i i
Press HI 24:6
pretty [2| 6:17
primary HI
problems HI
procedures (i i
proceedings (3|
28:4 28:11
process (7J 11:25
13:16 13:25
24:9 26:23
product (2|
27:10
Professional [i |
>rogram is\
3:20 9:18
26:17
project [j| 4.25
27:12
proof [I | 22:20
proper n i I7:ii
20:20
16:25
20:21
14:14
24:2
12.16
19:5
26:2
26:3
54
17:22
19:25
914
9.10
25:12
16:17
23:23
38
S'lS
I2M5
13:1
6:19
23:19
nt:4
u:io
13-2
22-13
26:18
i:23
2 23
26:15
235
-------
Re: Naval Weapons Station proposal - solvents
proposal u\ uv.2S
proposed [9| i 7
2:18 5:3 12:20
13:14 17:18 19:5
24:9 28:5
proposing [si 17:16
17:22 19:5 22:11
22:21
prove [ij 26:7
provide [fj ' 27:3
public [12] 2:2 2:21
3:22 4:4 4:13
5:12 24:4 24:5
24:8 27:19 28:3
28:4
purpose [i] 24:7
3Ut(3l 10:18 20:16
">j£ 1 T
26:17
iutting[2] 7:24 8:25
-O-
V
quality [i| 14:13
questions ni 12:22
24:16 27:18
quick [3) 3:25 4:17
11 -T ")
1 .2.1
quicker [i)l 3:3
quite [2] 15:20 23:3
n
""IX""
1(1] 2:1
lAA-4[i] 18:7
RAAs[ii 17:21
RAB(2l 3:23 4:7
rap[i| 12:5
rather [3| 13:11 13:13
14:23
ravine (ii 14: 15
ready [ii 22:5
real[2| 4:17 7:14
really [MI 10:22 13:18
14:10 14:21 15:1
15:7 15:19 16:1
17:2 17:4 18:2
18:5 18:14 22:1
reason [ii 6:1
reasons [2| 16:20 18:1
recap [i| 13:6
received [ii 12:25
receptors m 14:22_-
14:25 15:5 16:4
16:6 20:3 20:10
reclaim (i] 8:22
recommendations [i|
13:2
rccontaminate[ii 23:15
recorded [ij 28:3
recouped [ii 25: 1 6
recovered [ii 25:17
rectangular (i) 21:25
red[ii I7:ii
reduced [i i 8:9
reestablish [ii 17:23
reestablished [i] 15:25 ,'road[4| 6:24 7:13 share-cost ( 1 1 22:1H
rccstablishmentfii 14:2
regarding (2) 2:17
3:12
Region (3) 1:19 12:25
14:4
Registered [i| 1:23
regradingm 21:6
regulators [i i 13: is
reiterate [i] 11:16
remedial [is) 1:7
5:3 12:16 12:20
13:6 13:8 14:9
17:16 17:17 17:19
18:16 18:22 18:25
19:5 21:23 22:9
25:13 28:5
remediation [i i 2:18
remedy (2| 15:25 16:3
remember (i) 16:8
rpmote n i 11 -74
LWUl\/l\* 1 1 I ' ^ .ff^
remotely [i] 12:1
removal [5] 10:12
12:6 17:24 20:12
23:6
remove m 18:8 23:8
removed in 20:15
repeating [t] 5:6
replaced [21 2:3
3:6
report [i | 18:24
REPORTER1 S[i] 28:1
Reporters [ii 1:23
represents [2] 5:17
5:19
required [i] 2:17
research [ii 9:4
resident [ii 6:9
residential [2] 19:22
19:25
residual m 23:9
returns (ii 25:12
re vegetated (ii 21:6
review m 19:6
RI[2] 13:8 18:22
Rich (S| 1:17 3:7
4:21 10:21 12:13
12:14 25:1 25:5
lich's [i] 12:8
right [14] 3:4 5:22
7:11 9:6 10:23
10:24 11:12 12:2
20:18 21:16 21:20
22:19 22:25 26:11
right-hand [i] 6:24
rip [l| 12:5
risk (5] 12:19 14:20
16:15 16:17 19:20
risk-driven ni 16:1
risks [14] 14:20 14:21
14:22 15:6 16:5
16:6 19:21 20:1
20:2 20:10 20:11
20:12 21:19 22:8
7:24 8:8 shortcrt n 1:22
roads [ii 7:23
Rob[l] 3:6
rod[2| 8:17 8:19
Rodham (ii 20: 20
Round [2] 13:8 13:8
RPR[1] 28:2
run [S] 2:20 8:3
8:4 12:5 12:23
running [21 2:17
23:7
runS[2| 19:8 26:23
-S-
S(H 2:1
saber [i| 20: 17
sacrificing ni 4:7
samples (2) 15:20
17:6
sampling (i i 15:16
sand (ii 7:2
save [ti 4:5
saving [i| 6:4
Saw [2] 14:14 16:9
scenario m 3:22
6:25 20:11
scheduled [i] 4:9
schedules [i| 9:17
SCOpe [l| 25:7
Scott [16| 1:18 3:7
4:21 12:12 13:5
18:18 18:20 24:22
25:3 25:15 26:4
26:11 26:14 27:17
28:2 28:18
screened m 19:2
Second [21 3:2 10:6
sediment (ii 19:23
see [20| 6:24 7:5
7:7 7:25 8:9
8:17 9:20 9:21
9:24 9:24 10:17
11:2 11:3 12:3
12:3 16:23 19:7
20:8 21:25 25:12
Seeing [6] 2:4 7:10
8:5 8:8 10:23
11:4
seemni 23: 19
selected [2| 18:7
22:9
selection (2i 19:4
24:9 '
Sense [3] 6:3 18:3
18:14
Sent [1 ) 2:22
separate [2i 4:4
8:19
service m 27: 10
set(2l 4:10 27:15
seven [ii 19:3
shadows [i] 9:21
share n i 27:11
show(i) 21:2
showed |2) 19:10 19:12
showing [i| 10:22
Shows [i| 5:23
Side (31 6:24 10-3
14:18
significant [2) 15-7
16:17
similar [2] 18:8 26:13
simplex [i| 20:17
Simplot(2| 22:12
26:5
sit[i| 13 17
sitC[49| 4:20 6:8
6:10 6:14 6:21
7:12 7:23 812
8:21 10.2 10:5
13:21 14:11 14:11
14- 1 } 14-14 14- 1 X
l^.IJ 1^.1^ 1 *+. 1 O
15:10 16:4 16:8
16:9 16:9 16:24
17-7 1 7-R 1 7- II
i'./ i/.o I'.ji
17:18 17:23 18:7
19:9 19:12 19:13
19:14 19:21 20:9
20:19 20:19 20:21
21:8 22:10 23:11
23:15 23:25 24:1
24:19 25:13 25:25
26: 1 26:4
SltCS [3S| 1:8 1:8
2:18 4:17 5:1
5:4 5:5 5:5
5:10 5:11 5'21
£ ")C CT< £. C
5.25 5:25 o:5
8:3 8:7 8:16
8:17 8:18 12:16
12:17 13:4 13:7
13:13 13:15 15:6
18:20 18:21 18:23
19:7 22:10 24:10
24:17 28:5 28:6
situ (31 18:3 18:4
22:11
situation [i| 17:8
six [2) 5:1 19:3
size(l) 18:10
Slide (31 5:17 522
6:22
Slides [21 4:19 12:4
Slight [i| 16:15
Sludge [l| 23:6
Sludges [l| 16:10
slurry (i| 20:16
Small [«| 7:5 13:13
17:1 17:11 18:2
18:13
soil [6] 17:12 17:23
17:24 19:23 20:15
23:2
soils [2| 14:11 25:22
SOlid [3] 13:22 15:24
17:3
solution [ij I0:ll
solvents [ii 16.10
Index Page 5
-------
}
i
s
t.
t!
7
7
T
T
tc
tc
.somcwhcrc - zero Rc: Naval Weapons Station
somewhere 1 1 1 7; j 9
,SOrt|2| f>4 14-15
specifically HI 6:21
speculates HI 7:15
speed ni 41
spend ni 25:10
Split|I| 22:16
SpOt(7| 1521 15:22
16;8 17,1 18:1
18:10 21:8
Spots (11 15:4
start (i| 13,4
Started [3| 2:19 4:20
starting (2| 21:7
25- 1 1
State ( u 16:18
state's HI 13,20
station (6| 1.4 i:i6
2;7 42 6:11
22*22
station-wide (i| 15:13
Steal (|| 12:8
stecpni 7:1?
Stcnotypcni 28.3
Still (it 3:3
streamline [2i 12:24
I3;2
Stroud(6| 1:19 2-25
32 3:5 4:23
424
Structure HI 22:23
Study (ii| 12:10 13: 10
13:11 13:12 14:10
18:23 20:13 22:19
242 24:20 24:25
Stuff (3| 3:25 7.18
9 12
0 1 1 f* /*/*/*/** f t I ">"7.*7
O Ul*l«Cv«U 1 1 J _ / /
succeeded m 12:9
SUch(3| 18:2 183
18 13
suggesting HI 13:15
suggestions HI 5:15
summaries HI 19:20
mmmcrtimciii 77
5unday's(i| 2:16
Jupplcmcntni I4'i
•urfacC(6| 14;4 14:7 1
IV 16 23.17 23:20 <
"> 1 *> I
2321
ystcm(3| 15:15 21:13
"> VA
236 t
--.-
ankjii 10:10
in u io-i?
*• 1*1 i\t i ^
•AYLOEm 1:22
CE(2| 10:11 25:23 t
CLPfi, 18:J2 I
CU[IJ 10:4 J;
chnicaldi 3:24 •
chniqucsni 18:3
technologies 121 14 i • nn ->i u
18:15
technology [g| 18,4
20:17 22:20 25:22
26:5 26:18 26:24
27:3
Telephone ni 1:24
ten-minute [ii 27:15
terrestrial (2 1 15.5
16:14
test(i| 17:13
theoretical ly(i| 8:24
thought (3| 3:25 9:4
12:21
thousand m 22:24
three [5| 1 1:8 11:19
11:21 17:17 22:18
through HOI 5:14
6:11 10:7 10:9
11:14 12:23 13:25
14:14 26:21 26:21
thunder m 12:8
TNTm 8:23
today |3| 5:13 24:5
24:13
together [si 6:1
6:5 8:8 8:14
8:16
Tom m 2;3
tonight [5| 2:5 2:24
3:9 5:3 12:15
tOok[2| 18:25 21:1
total (I) 17:19
towards pi 10:16
19:16 21:12
tOWCr [2| 8:24 11:15
trade-off n i 4:6
transcript ni i:io
28:9 28:10
treat HI 25:22
trcatability [2| 12:10
22:19
treatment (3| 22: n
22:12 22:22
trench [31 9:21 10:24
11:5
trenches HI 9:12
tried [2| 3:22 15:17
tniC[2| 16:14 28:10
fry(2| 5:2 7:22
lying [l| 4:5
urn[«| 2:22 3:17
6:6 18:18
urning [i| 16.11 '
WO(12| 5:22 8:3
8:7 8:16 8:17
10:7 11:18 11:19 1
14:16 14:17 15:10
22:17 ^
wo-acrem 7:12 v
ype[2| 3:22 22:23 *
>TJeS[i| 16:12 '
ypical HI 6:25 '
V
-U-
U.S[2| 1:19 26:19
ultimately [?i 6:10
7:20 8:4 8:11
8:17 9:2 11:15
unacceptable [8| 1 4:21
14:22 16:5 16:6
19:21 20:2 20:10
20: 1 1
under [7) 6:12 9:18
15:6 20:10 24:2
24:19 28:12
underneath [2| 21: 13
23:7
understood HI 10:14
unforeseen [i| 26:3
unfortunate (t| 25:19
uniform HI 21:25
unit(S) 8:16 19:8
19:14 19:15 19:17
unlikely m 19:24
up [23| 2:18 4:1
4:16 4:21 7:7
8:13 9:2 10:15
12:11 12:22 16:11
16:25 17:16 19:4
20:18 20:19 20:24
22:24 24:2 24:16
25:25 26:13 27:15
up-front [i| 25:11
upgraded) 10:9
upper HI 15.2
used [2] 7:15 15:21
useful [i| 26:7
Using in 7:19 17:13
20:16 20:18 22:11
usually (ij 16:12
-V-
valveni 10:15
vaporm 10:3
vegetated) 21:7
venture m 22: 15 26:10
verbatim [i| 28:3
view[2| 11:4 11:21
Virginia [«| j:j|
1:25 28:6 28:13
vitrification HI ig:4
volatile di 26:5
volatiles[2| 26:8
27:2
/Glume [i|18:2
-W-
IV.R[2| 22:15 26:19
vails (I) 7:18
vantSdi 27:9
vashdown(i) ii:io
washout [i i 8.21
trasteiS) 8:25 13:22
15:24 16:13 17:3
/astewateroi 9:25
Index Page 6 -L-
water [<>• 12:2 us
14:8 23:12 23 17
23:22
weapons m 14
1.16 11:9
weeks m 4.11
well-boring (i| i5:ii
wetlands [i| -ii:2
whereas [i| 4:io
whole [2| 10:20 19:8
wildlife (i| 7.8
willing [2| 27:6 27:11
without [t| 3;J6
Word [l| 7:5
works f3| 22:21 26-14
26:21
worrydj 15:3
WOrstfl) 14:12
worth [2| 23:23 24:2
wrapdi 17:16
-Y-
yardsdi 22:25
year(2| 2:4 42
years [3| ii:i9 11:20
12:6
Yorkd) 24:18
Yorktown(7] 1:5
1:11 1:16 4:25
5:4 5:10 28:6
yOU-all{3|4:24 13:3
17:19
-z-
zerOd) 24:3
-------
Reproduced by NTIS
0 £ G 0
g«
4-j 0 0
^^ 4lk MB ^^
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
------- |