PB99-963914
EPA541-R99-018
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
USA Vint Hill Farms Station
Western South Run Tributary
Warrenton, VA
7/1/1999
-------
-------
FINAL
DECISION DOCUMENT
WESTERN SOUTH RUN TRIBUTARY
VINT HILL FARMS STATION
WARRENTON, VIRGINIA
Prepared for:
U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command
Prepared by:
IT Corporation
Edgewood, Maryland
June 1999
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section n
— Pace
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND..... 1
3.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1
3.1 Site Topography , 1
3.2 Adjacent Land Use.. """" ' \
3.3 Surface Water Hydrology r ZZ!!!!!!!!""!!Z!!!Z!!!!!Z" """ 4
3.4 Geology/Hydrogeology ; Z""Z™ 4
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF WESTERN SOUTH RUN TRIBUTARY..... 4
5.0 SITE HISTORY AND INVESTIGATION FINDINGS 4
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6
7.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 8
8.0 CLEANUP LEVELS ESTABLISHED FOR THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 8
9.0 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 8
9.1 Alternative 1 - No Action ; 7.'.'.'.'.'.".'.'.".'.. '. 8
9.2 Alternative 2 - Sediment Removal....; I..!!..!""."""""""! 8
10.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ^ 0
10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ZZZ"Z 11
10.2 Compliance with ARARs !ZZ 11
10.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence "' 11
10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment..... '. n
10.5 Short-term Effectiveness 11
10.6 Implementability 17
10.7 cost Z...""."ZZZZZ"Z!!!!"Z!Z! ' 12
10.8 Regulator Acceptance !..ZZZ!l" ! 12
10.9 Community Acceptance "'"ZZ!!"ZZ"!!!!!!""!!!" 12
11.0 SELECTED REMEDY AND STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 12
11.1 Selected Remedy : 12
11.2 Statutory Determinations !!".""""Z"!!!"" 12
11.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment ''.""", 13
11.2.2 Compliance with ARARs '." 13
11.2.3 Cost-Effectiveness ZZZZZZZ!ZZZZ^!Z 13
11.2.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or Resource '
RecoveryTechnologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable 13
11.2.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element ' Z!""!!'" 14
12.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 14
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued!
Section
Page
13.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
13.1 Selected Newspaper Notices """""."""".I..". --14
13.2 Comments Raised During the Public Meeting on February 5,1998 1 =
13.3 Public Meeting Attendance Roster ]*
13.4 Restoration Advisory Board Members I!.'""!.'"."" !f
13.5 Written Comments Received from Citizens During"trieI Public 'comment Period"!.".""!!]."!!!!!!^".'""'17
14.0 REFERENCES ;
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1 General Location of VHFS
2 Location of Western South Run Tributary at VHFS
3 Site-wide Surface Water and Sediment Sample Locations.
.2
.3
.5
LIST OF TABLES
able
Cleanup Levels Established for Sediment in the Western South Run Tributary.
Page
9
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Proposed Plan
Cleanup Level Development Documents
Public Notice
Written Comments from Public and U.S. Army Responses
HI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ARAR
AREE
BRA
BRAC
CFR
CECOM
CERCLA
CERFA
DD
EEQ
ENPA
EPIC
ERA
ER-L
FS
FUDS
HHRA
HI
HQ
ICFKE
MSL
NCP
PAH
PPm
PQL
Ri
SAIC
SARA
SDWA
SI
TRV
USAGE
USAEC
USEPA
VAC
VDEQ
VHFS
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Area Requiring Environmental Evaluation
Baseline Risk Assessment
Base Realignment and Closure
Code of Federal Regulations
Communications-Electronics Command
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act
Decision Document
environmental effects quotient
Enhanced Preliminary Assessment
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
Ecological Risk Assessment
Effects*Range-Low
Feasibility Study
Formerly Used Defense Sites
Human Health Risk Assessment
Hazard Index
Hazard Quotient
ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc.
mean sea level
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
parts per million
practical quantitation limit
Remedial Investigation
Science Applications International Corporation
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Site Inspection
toxicify reference value
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Environmental Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Virginia Administrative Code
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Vint Hill Farms Station
IV
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE DECISION DOCUMENT
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site Name and Location
Western South Run Tributary
Vint Hill Farms Station
Warrenton, Virginia
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This Decision Document (DD) presents the selected remedial action for the western South Run tributary at Vint
Hill Farms Station (VHFS), Warrenton, Virginia, chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and, to the extent possible, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This document was prepared as a joint
effort between the U.S. Army, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The remedial action decision is based on documents contained
in the Information Repository.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing the
remedial action selected in this DD, may present an imminent and substantial endangermentto public health,
welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This action addresses the principle threat at the site by the dredging of contaminated sediment and off-site
disposal at a permitted facility.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and state
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective.
This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable for this site. However, because treatment of the principal threat at the site was not found to be
practicable, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
. A five-year reyjew will not be necessary for the western South Run tributary since the selected remedy
i the removafofcc itaminated sediment to risk-based cleanup levels.
ROBERT L NABORS \ Date
Major General, USA
Commanding
U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command
-------
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
T?QQ^eh?ah aCtJ°!l deCi|i0n f based on the Pha!se ' Reuse A1"63 Remedial Investigation (Rl) Report
, 1998) which includes a Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) documentinq the risks from rnn£m£=««
m the western South Run tributary sediment. In the BRA, it was determineTShe Ldt eS
Run tnbutary poses unacceptable risks to human health and the environment Therefor ^ he
western South Run tributary require remedial action to be protective of human .heal? I^She
norfnr V?35?1^ study - which develops and examines remedial action alternatives for a site was
performed for the western South Run tributary and presented in the Proposed Plan (sef Attachment 1 ).
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND
1"' Fa,-r,mS S«ati°n (VHFS) is part of the U'S- ArmV Communications - Electronics Command
^^^^
I — , t -—-•—,.._..•_.. , **i v (•••f^iwvwvt MI vUl |Ud II | II |K ^
Q, .- ..- 'for lndustrial °Perations, administration buildings, and residential housing
94 acres in the eastern po^on of the pr0perty are mature hardwood forest, and the majority
operation sites.
VHFS was designated for closure in March, 1993, under the Base Realignment and'Closure (BRAC)
suant to the decision to close the installation, an Enhanced Preliminary Assessment fENPA^ a
• W«!, W3S conducted from September, 1994, to June, 1995. The objective of the SI was to
R-;S^^
ee ' ' >n v
Phase I reuse area (shown on Figure 2) by ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. (ICF KE) to evaluate- 1) ^e nature and
e)rtent of contammation; and 2) the level of risk posed to human health and the eSSSmant The
, wasf c°nducted between April and June, 1996, and included the collection of nin
completed in April, 1998.
3.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 Site Topography
area
the Fall ufT Th J?Sm h P-edmont Plateau physiographic province, approximately 20 miles west of
l3m • nff uK 3 Physi?9raPhlc boundary that separates the folded and faulted crystalline rocks
teaU h°rahic rov
of th wm • n u e oe an aued crystalline rocks
pin nh^ H teaU phy?!°9raPhic Province from the unconsolidated sediments of the A«antic Coastal
rOVinCe' f topograPhy °^* Piedmont P|ateau in the vicinity of VHFS conSof gentiy
than 1 °%- Surface elevations on the installation va^ fram 335 to 43° &
-------
JEFFERSO
(W. Va.)
LOUDOUN
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON D.C.
.FAIRFAX
Vint Hill
Farms Station
PRINCE WILLIAM.
FA.UQUIER
PRINCE GEORGES ,'
CHARLES
CALVERT
STAFFORD
ST. MARY'S
KING GEORGE
FIGURE 1
GENERAL LOCATION
OF VHFS
o"- s , . 10
SCALE IN MILES
',-N-
-------
w
0 400 900 1600
r=£S-;
SCALE IN FEET
-N
LEGEND
ROAD
WESTERN SOUTH RUN TRIBUTARY
PHASE I REUSE AREA
FIGURE 2
LOCATION OF WESTERN SOUTH
RUN TRIBUTARY AT VHFS
-------
3.2 Adjacent Land Use
Land use in the immediate vicinity of VHFS consists mainly of agriculture (mostly horse
residential am With the exception of a few residences to the north, the majority of resWentiaT
.s located to the south of VHFS. A small county recreation park is located adjacent to VHpI along SoS ?
3.3 Surface Water Hydrology
• VHF?iS 'ocated j\tne Occoquan watershed. Most of VHFS drains to South Run via intermittent
LT? ,rar^ dltCheS> 8S Sh°Wn °n Figure 2" South Run is a sma" Class I" ^ginia stream™ iS
.d scharges nto Lake Manassas, a recreation and drinking water reservoir built on Broad Run for the Crtv of
Manassas. Lake Manassas discharges to Broad Run, which drains to the Occoquan Reservoir Drainaae for
the southern portion of the installation flows south and east to Kettle Run. Kettle Run converges with Broad Rur.
approximately 1 0 miles downstream from Lake Manassas.
3.4 Geology/Hydrogeology
* 8na'
uihM, ™ n?a' P^°n °f VHFS iS underlain bV folded-sedimentary rocks of the Catharpin.Creek Member
which consists of sandstone, arkosic sandstone, siltstone, shale, and claystone. Intrusions of basalt oriented
northeas to southwest, cut the bedrock in the central and western portions of the VHFS installation The
northeastern flank of VHFS is underlain by intrusions of diabase. Quaternary alluvium is p esen along t£e
major drainage channels within the installation.
««r*h Th8 ovlrjurden js thickest C20-40 «> >n the southern regions of the site and thins to 0-1 0 ft in the
Z^nHpSh H6 °lf bH-dKn TS?tS Primarily °f Saprolite (a chemical and PhVsical weathering product of
the underlying bedrock) which underlies lesser amounts of clayey and silty soils.
sat V"FS°ccurs in fractured bedrock and to a lesser extent in the overburden The
o P ^0^"?' ** the unfraclured bedrock ^d saprolite acting as confining units. Recharnn
nr ?n H ^T* '^^ OCCUrS * OUtCrop areas ™* from P^colation from the overburden aTong
fractures. In the overburden, the aquifer is unconfined. 9
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF WESTERN SOUTH RUN TRIBUTARY
, u iu- .,- ' draina9e IS toe western South Run tributary (see Figure 2). The western South Run
I by the discharge of several stormwater collection systems. Infiltration of groundwater into the
iter drainage system and ongoing activities at VHFS are reported to provide water to this tributary
«f cnnnn* TrCe!'Jie WeStem South Run ^^ contains water throughout the year and is capable
of supporting a number of different aquatic invertebrate and amphibian species, and a limited number of small
5.0 SITE HISTORY AND INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
K •« Thc Rl WaS conducted to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination associated with past site
^M»
-------
AREE 10-FORMER
PHOTOGRAPHIC
WASTEWATER
LAGOON
X SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
|9) SEDIMENT AND STORM EVENT
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE •
LOCATION
D
SEDIMENT. NORMAL-FLOW
SURFACE WATER, AND STORM
EVENT SURFACE WATER
SAMPLE LOCATION
IMPACTED SEDIMENT AREA
(APPROXIMATE)
FIGURES
SITE-WIDE SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS
-------
Sediment in the western South Run tributary has been impacted from past industrial (photographic
wastewater) and stormwater discharges. Sediment in the western South Run tributary was found to be
contaminated by metals, pesticides, and ppiynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In general, the highest
• concentrations of the contaminants were detected at RISED1 (at the primary headwaters of the tributary). The
second highest concentrations were detected at RISED5 (at the secondary headwaters of the tributary).
Chlordane (a pesticide) was the most predominant contaminant, exceeding the.ER-L (5x10"4 parts per million
[ppm]) in.all but one of the sediment samples collected from the western South Run tributary. The highest
chlordane concentration was at RISED1 (21.5 ppm), and the second highest chlordane concentration was at
RISED5 (1.25 ppm). In general, contamination decreases substantially along the flow path of the western
South Run tributary. Silver was the only contaminant detected at significant concentrations downstream in the
western South Run.tributary, specifically at sample location RISED9 near the property boundary. The most
probable source of silver contamination was the discharge of photographic wastewater to the Former
Photographic Wastewater Lagoon (Area Requiring Environmental Evaluation [AREE] 10). The majority of the
silver contamination in the tributary was removed during dredging operations to recover silver from the
sediments at the Former Photographic Wastewater Lagoon in 1968.
A detailed presentation of the sediment samples collected and the analytical results can be found in
the Phase I Reuse Area Rl Report (USAEC, 1998), available in.the Information Repository.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A BRA was conducted as part of the Rl to assess the human health and ecological problems that could
result if the sediment contamination in the western South Run tributary was not remediated. The Human Health
Risk Assessment (HHRA) was prepared to evaluate the magnitude of potential adverse effects on human
health associated with current industrial/commercial and potential future residential exposures to site-related
chemicals in sediment. The Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) was conducted to characterize the potential
threats to ecological receptors posed by contaminants in sediment.
The HHRA follows a four-step process:
• Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern - identifies the contaminants of potential concern
based on their toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration;
• Exposure Assessment - identifies the potential pathways of exposure, and estimates the
concentrations of contaminants to which people may be exposed as well as the frequency and
duration of these exposures;
«
• Toxic'rtv Assessment - determines the toxic effects of the contaminants; and
• Risk Characterization - provides a quantitative assessment of the overall current and future risk
to people from site contaminants based on the exposure and toxicity information.
The HHRA evaluated health effects which could result from exposure to sediment contamination in the Phase
I reuse area of VHFS. The HHRA evaluated potential risks to current trespassers and hypothetical future .child
residents who could be exposed to contaminants in sediment.
Potential carcinogenic (cancer-related) effects and noncarcinogenic effects (including various impacts
on different organ systems, such as lungs, liver, etc.) were evaluated in the HHRA. Carcinogenic effects are
expressed as the probability that an individual will develop cancer from exposure to the contaminants in the
sediment. The evaluation of noncarcinogenic effects is based on the hazard index (HI), which is the summation
of the hazard quotients (HQs) for individual chemicals. The HQ is a comparison of chemical-specific chronic
exposure doses with the corresponding protective doses derived from health criteria. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) recommends that remedial actions may be warranted at sites where the
carcinogenic risk to any person is greater than 1 x1 O^1 or the HI is greater than 1. A carcjnogemc risk of 1 x10"4
6
-------
The ERA also follows a four-step process:
Exposure Assessment - estimates exposure point concentrations for selected indicator species;
- ""—.«"«*-«• « — * contaminants ,ha, are
"> -"^inants based
Effecte
in the western South Run tnbutary (specifically at sediment sample location RISED9, wrth^n EEQ of 35)
-------
\- u • A d®,ta[Ifd Presentation °f the BRA can be found in the Phase I Reuse Area Rl Report OJSAEC 1998^
which is availabte-in the Information Repository. ™P°n juw\hc, 1998),
7.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
r«moH- Rem.edial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the environment The
remedial action objective for western South Run tributary is to minimize the potential for contaminated
sediment to pose unacceptable risks to human or ecological receptors. contaminated
8.0 CLEANUP LEVELS ESTABLISHED FOR THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
imanr *** .establis'1ed .sediment cleanup levels for the contaminants that contribute to the
unacceptable risk determination in the western South Run tributary. The sediment cleanup levels are
CISJSSh!1 ?*e hKKh°Ugh ?e contaminated sediment in the western South Run tributary poses an
unacceptable nsk to both human health and the environment, the potential adverse ecological efforts are more
significant than the human health risks. Therefore, the sediment cleanup levels for the western SouTh Run
tributary are based on concentrations which are protective of aquatic life. The sediment cleanup levels provide
Protec,ti0n ?f acluatic life from cne™al exposure with protection of aquatic life from
9.0 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
irih, ,te Tx£ remedial a'ternatives were evaluated to address sediment contamination in the western South Run
tnbutary. The range of remedial alternatives considered was limited by the nature and extent of the
contamination. Since the amount of sediment requiring remediation is relatively sniall (approximately 280 cubic
yards), it was not practical to consider active treatment or containment options in terms of cost-effective r—
and implementability. The following remedial alternatives were evaluated:
Alternative 1 - No Action; and
Alternative 2 - Sediment Removal.
9.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
P™™ The.Na!Lonal Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan » " contaminated sediment exceeding the established cleanup levels (i.e., in the
i f f ^, Rf.ED2> R'SED3' RISED5> and RISED9) would be dred9ed- solidified a« needed to
eliminate free liquids, transported off site by truck, and disposed using a combination of permitted off-site non-
hazardous waste and/or municipal landfills, as appropriate based on analytical results. The area to be dredqed
is approximately 2,500 ft x 3 ft x 1 ft deep (see Figure 3). Following dredging of the impacted sediments
8
-------
Table 1
Cleanup Levels Established for Sediment in the Western South Run Tributary
===^===
Constituents
Aldrin (Ecological risk) (b)
Chlordane (Human Health & Ecological risk)
alpha-Chlordane (Human Health & Ecological risk)
gamma-Chlordane (Human Health & Ecological risk)
Chromium (Ecological risk) (b)
Copper (Ecological risk)
Cleanup Levels (ppm) (a)
-^ • —•
0.03
0.105
0.105
0.105
390
°240
4,4'-DDE (Ecological risk) (b)
4,4'-DDT (Ecological risk)
Endrin (Ecological risk)
0.075
0.015
0.045
Heptachlor (Ecological risk)
Lead (Ecological risk) (b)
2-Methylnaphthalene (Ecological risk) (b)
0.005 (c)
465
Silver (Ecological risk)
1.05
15
co"cenfrf °nfs
-------
- W°Uld be.conducted to assure adequate removal of all sediment exceeding the cleanuo
ff operatons, silt fences or other control techniques would be used to mlrtS ft!
ri fq"alrty "| the western South Run tributary. Upon completion of the sedime™ Tedginq
wn ^ T °J We^em S°Uth Run tributary would be backfilled with sand, and the impacted weSands
ThP 1 . •'" a°cordance «* *• u-s- Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Nationwide Perm? Program
da° thl'S a
10.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
H if * * comParison of the alternatives by using nine evaluation criteria: overall protection
WRAP lonn torrS JEi™"*1"18? COmPliance ^ aPP|icable or ^levant and appropriate requirements
Xmt ?™!ff9~,X effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment
short-term effectiveness; implementabilily; cost; and regulator and community acceptance The first two criteria
be threshold crtte
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a remedy
provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls.
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements of other federal and state environmental statutes
and requirements or provides grounds for invoking a -waiver.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health overtime, once cleanup goals have been met.
Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated performance of
the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any
adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed durinq the
construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
ImplementabnftY is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.
Cosi includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and net present worth
costs.
Requlator acceptance indicates whether, based on their review of the Rl and Proposed Plan
the regulators (the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality rVDEQ] and USEPA) concur'
oppose, or have no comment on the selected alternative.
Community acceptance is assessed in the Responsiveness Summary which summarizes the
public comments received on the Rl and the Proposed Plan.
°f ^ alternatives was conducted based upon these evaluation criteria, and is
10
-------
10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
*KO - L, The "? af°,nr alternative (Alternative 1) is not protective of human health or the environment
•nrhan5 H **Z -"? ^ ch"d re*d™te ™* ** p0te^al adverse effects to ecotogST eSons reman
unchanged, wh.ch ,s unacceptable. Therefore, the no action alternative was eliminated i from further
consideration and will not be discussed further. w,,i,,,,«»iea from rurther
™n*a .^krnafive 2 Prides adequate protection of human health and the environment by removina
contaminated sediment, thereby eliminating the potential for exposure. removing
10.2 Compliance with ARARs
er?atiVe 2,haS, bee" des'9ned to acnleve or comply with ARARs. This alternative will satisfv the
, ar*P leVf^S SinCe a" sedimenttha' is contaminated above applicable cleanup ^vefs wHI be
i" SK"' Jhe rem°Val and disP°sition «f contaminated sediment during implementatbn of
A e nSve 2 wou d £T '" aCC°rdanCe «"* federal and ™W* solid waste manageme^TeguTaSns
ReaulSoL ThP In t H C0?du?ed ln "mpBance with the Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control
ulAcltNa^n -H PD ,oetlandS WOUld be restored followin9 dred9in9 operations in accordance with
Cor?t?oT I±d l^ InT ^T'. DUrin9- sedimentdredging, the Regulations of the Virginia AJr PoNution
SSL^ w L P?'y' Ambient air conditions wo"'d be monitored during dredging activities to assure
dSstTevelsdaowqn ^ neC6SSary baS6d °n th6 3mbient ™ ™n'A°™9< wate'sP^ ^uld teuled to keep
10.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Hp^inn .A!ternative f wo"ld Provide for fte permanent removal of contaminated sediment to an off-site location
designed to prevent contaminant migration and exposures to human and ecological receptors
10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
nnntam AI?Hnat^e 2 ^^ reduction of contamination in the western South Run tributary by removinq
con ammated sediment. The toxicity and volume of the contaminated sediment would not be affected by hS
used Sd b°pWH Ver' thn rbi'ity °f the contaminante would be ^duced because the off-site disposa! facHities
used would be designed to prevent contaminant migration. '^"lues,
.
be nrartirahtUH.Irf ^^ °^lthelcontarn!nated sediment in the western South Run tributary was not found to
be practicable due to the small volume of impacted soil, Alternative 2 does not satisfy the statutory preference
for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. w-iuiory preference
10.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Alternative 2 is considered to be effective in the short term because the volume of sediment to be
dredged „ relabvely small and would result in limited negative impacts to human health or thelmHmenT
rHSUTh HW°?erS ^ ad 3Cent residents W0uld be controlled durin9 dred9jn9 activities by water sprTys
u £ Jt f8 9lf19H oftshedlment maV imPact the q^'fty of the wetland ecosystem. Dredging operations
TH ,S 3nd^er erOS'°n C0ntr°' techniclues to minimize: 1) the migration of contaminated
dK°WnftreamVan5 2 the impaCtt° Water quality durin9 dred9jn9 operations In addition, stormwater -
t.m , H- St°rmWater 5rl'nage System Which dischar9es into the western South Run tributary wS be
temporanly diverted around the areas to be dredged to prevent stormwater from entering the segmente being
£ SnraH P^™6™/* of sediment from contaminated areas. After dredging, the stream bed would
be restored and the exposed banks revegetated to stabilize the stream arid minimize future impacts to the
11
-------
wetland ecosystem. Although truck traffic would be increased during implementation of Alternative 2 the
implementation period (approximately one month) is short and the number of trucks per day wouWbeTess 'than
10.6 Implementability
facilities '±±i?alSKe*d ^ implementable' Licensed transporters and permitted disposal
10.7 Cost
The cost to implement Alternative 2 is'estimated at $350,000.
10.8 Regulator Acceptance
VDEQ and USEPA concur with the selected remedy.
10.9 Community, Acceptance
A public meeting on the Proposed Plan was held on February 5, 1998, in Warrenton Virainia
Comments received during the public meeting and the public comment period are referenced in the
Responsiveness Summary (Section 13 of this DD). io,e,euwsu m ine
1 1 .0 SELECTED REMEDY AND STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
1 1 .1 Selected Remedy
th Consideration of the information in the Information Repository, requirements of
and the NCP, and the review of public comments on the Proposed Plan, the U S Armv in
VDE(? ^ USEPA' haS S6leCted AIternative 2, Sediment Removal, as the remedy fo^the
sediment in the western South Run tributary. .«"• ""*
^™, re,medy-'a" contaminated sediment exceeding the established cleanup levels (i e in the
of RISED1 RSED2. RISED3, RISED5, and RISED9) would be dredged, solidified as needed to
eliminate free liquris. transported off site by truck, and disposed using a combination of permitted off-site non-
hazardous was e and/or municipal landfills, as appropriate based on analytical results. The area to be dredged
iSK?!8! ?HYh ' ,? ** I? X 1 ft deep" Fo"OWing dredging of the imPacted sediments, confirmation
sampling would be conducted to assure adequate removal of all sediment exceeding the cleanup levels (see
Table 1). Dunng dredging operations, silt fences or other control techniques would be used to minimize the
impacts to water-quality in the western South Run tributary. Upon completion of the sediment dredging
disturbed areas of the western South Run tributary would be backfilled with sand, and the impacted wetlands
would be restored in accordance with the USAGE Nationwide Permit Program.
The estimated cost to implement this remedy is $350,000, and the on-site activities would require
approximately one month to complete.
11.2 Statutory Determinations
Under CERCLA Section -121, selected remedies must be protective of human health and the
environment, must comply with ARARs (unless a statutory waiver is justified), must be cost-effective and must
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment
12
-------
11'2-1 Protection of Human Health and the Environmpnt
W.2.2 Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will be in full compliance with ARARs:
'
tZ!!£ 5?~?°~1 °' ? ^ Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations - an erosion and
sedimentation control plan that complies with the minimum design and implementator^standards of
the regulations will be prepared before engaging in any land disturbing a™tivft£ ^"dartis of
moient air monit • - ! of tne Virginia Air Pollution Control Board -
k. ordsr to con,ply S ™mSS SXS^ESJZKSffi^^^r"""1
11-2.3 Cost-Effectiveness
SiSS^^^^
11'2'4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technoirmiae or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practieahlg
y utilizes permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable while providing
other evaluation criteria. It achieves the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to
ia or long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity mobility
short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost; while also considering
removallnd oflffih'S^fT^8 high* ^9re6 °f 'Ong-term effectjveness and permanence as the
contaminated sedimentwould be permanent and irreversible. The variety
Of r*nnra»r»inante» r%r * *j. j — i-*" •••*••'»'-'• '»•«••« H i «vci oiuic?. I lit; VaildY
treatmpnT Whnn^n *°" ! the relative|y smal) volume of contaminated sediment cause on-site
treatment technologies to be impracticable and not cost-effective. The selected remedy is easily
13
-------
implementable, with a relatively short time frame needed for design development. There is minimal risk to the
community during the implementation of the selected remedy, and the slight risks to the environment can be
reduced by implementing standard procedures, such as erosion and sedimentation controls.
11.2.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
Because treatment of the principal threat at the site was not found to the practicable, this remedy does
not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy.
12.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Plan for western South Run tributary was released to the public on January 22,1398
(see Attachment 1). This document was made available for public review in the Information Repository at the
following location:
Fauquierpounty Library
Warrenton Branch - Reference Section
11 Winchester Street, Warrenton, VA
(540) 347-8750
Monday - Wednesday: 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Thursday - Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Sunday: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The notice of availability of the Proposed Plan (see Attachment 3) was published in The Fauguier
Citizen, the Fauauier Times-Democrat, and the Manassas Journal Messenger during the week of January 19,
1998. A public comment period was held from January 22,1998, through February 20,1998. In addition, a
public meeting was held on February 5,1998, to present the Proposed Plan for the western South Run tributary
and to answer questions and receive public comments. The public meeting minutes have been transcribed,
and a copy of the transcript is available to the public at the aforementioned location. A Responsiveness
Summary, included as part of this Decision Document (DD), has been prepared to respond to the significant
comments, criticisms, and new relevant information received during the comment period. Upon signing the DD,
the U.S. Army will publish a notice of availability of this DD in The Fauauier Citizen, the Fauguier Times-
Democrat, and the Manassas Journal Messenger, and place the DD in the Information Repository.
13.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to provide the public with a summary of citizen
comments, concerns, and questions about western South Run tributary. A public meeting was held on
February 5,1998, to present the Proposed Plan and to answer questions and receive comments. At the public
meeting, several citizens had questions regarding the Proposed Plan. Several written public comments were
received during the January 22,1998, through February 20,1998, comment period.
The- Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following sections:
' « Selected newspaper notices announcing dates of the public comment period and location and
time of the public meeting;
« Comments raised during the public meeting on February 5,1998;
• Public meeting attendance roster;
o Restoration Advisory Board Members; and
14
-------
• Written comments received from citizens during the public comment period.
All comments and concerns summarized in this document have been considered by the U S Armv in malcinn
a decision regarding the selected alternative. y n makin9
13.1 Selected Newspaper Notices
in The F^M^rmSn *"Tndn? *• availability of the Proposed Plan and the public meeting was published
of^n.r^qiQ iS£ Th^6 ^q^^es-Dsmormt. and the Manassas Joumaf
of January 1 9, 1 998. This public notice is provided in Attachment^
1 3.2 Comments Raised During the Public Meeting on February 5, 1998
Army's iSS±5S^^^ **• *" ^^ meetin9' The CifeenS' «UeSti0ns and
*"*** ***** *>*« «* Photochemical processes? Is
ARMY RESPONSE: The silver comes from photoprocessing activities. The pesticides are from a different
source. Peateries are presumed to have entered western South Run tributary through the storm s^wersys em
Sm a°nd durirTnTh T, Tf **?* ^ P8**88 W8re apf>Iied t0 the *™"d duri"9 use *™ property al™
farm and dunng the U.S. Army's operation of the installation. pcny^d
Silver is present a" the waV UP to where the western South Run tributary
fhe plrmef SSISS ?" S^I ^ " P'636"1 downstream was erther transported there over the years when
^^ Lag°°n W3S in °Perafcn °r was ^ed "P -"d transported downstream
nr?fnfmRHNE,MKC rrEE?: !!yhen ** Fomer Phc*°9raWc Wastewater Lagoon was dredged, was the dredging
preformed all the way to the confluence of the western South Run tributary and South Ruri? Qrea9|n9
ARMY RESPONSE: No, only the Former Photographic Wastewater Lagoon itself was dredged to recover silver.
CONCERNED CITIZEN: If the Former Photographic Wastewater Lagoon was dredged how come there is still
silver in the headwaters of the western South Run tributary?
of^/PofmL^f : Si'Vt- hj !hetheadwaters of western South Run tributary probably resulted from overflow
of the Former Photographic Wastewater Lagoon during its operation.
«tToChEoRHED»CITC^N:^l!hOU9h the C'eanup being Pr°Posed fe acceptable, how come there is contamination
at the headwaters and at the confluence of western South Run tributary and South Run but not in between.
: 7h/re te contamination between these two points; however the concentrations of silver and
thp hL I°Und,!0 ** accePtable to human health a"d ^e environment. For environmental risks
™m H- J06 between Je nsk P°sed bV t*16 contaminants and the risk posed by habitat destruction during
remediation was considered in this determination. y
CONCERNED CITIZEN: It was indicated that five-year reviews would not be required because the
contamination would be removed. If the same contaminants are found to reappear in the future would the U S
Army come back and remediate again? ' '
15
-------
ARMY-RESPONSE: It would have to be determined whether the contamination could be attributed to U S Armv
activities. As part of the ongoing investigation efforts, effluent from the Environmental Photographic
Interpretation Center (EPIC) Building industrial sewerline and the storm sewer system that discharge into the
western South Run tributary are being sampled to determine if they are ongoing sources of contamination to
the tnbutary. Based on analytical results for the EPIC Building industrial sewerline effluent, this-pipeline is not
an ongoing source of contamination to the tributary. As of the date of the public meeting the results of the
effluent sampling from the storm sewer system had not yet been obtained. In the interim, however results have
become available which indicate that these pipelines contain residual contamination and could be an ongoing
source of contamination to the tributary. Therefore, the pipelines will be cleaned as part of the remedial action
CONCERNED CITIZEN: What if there was construction out there that turned up some contamination that was
not detected before?
ARMY RESPONSE: This would not be covered by the remedial action for western South Run tributary but
rather would be covered by the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program or the like. If the contamination
is traceable back to the U.S. Army, they are still responsible for any cleanup.
13.3 Public Meeting Attendance Roster
The public meeting was held on February 5.1998, at the Warrenton Middle School. The members of
the community that attended the public meeting included Owen Bludau and Debra Reedy.
13.4 Restoration Advisory Board Members
1. Debra Reedy, Community Co-Chair
2. Richard Reisch, .U.S. Army Co-Chair
3. Dean Eckelberry
4. John Mayhugh
5. Jeff Ljppincott -
6. Owen Bludau
7. Tim Tarr .
8. NorrisGoff
9. Erich Meding
10. Kevin Bell
11. Mark Stevens
12. Nancy Inger
13. Joanne Smith
14. Henry Ross
15. Steve Mihalko
16. Robert Stroud
17. Steve Maddox
18. William Downey
19. GinaTyo
20. Joe Phelan
21. Gary Clare
22. MikeMolloy
23. Denny Adams
24. JoeWiltse
25. Bob Root , . . ,
26. Georgia Herbert . .
27. Robert Kubs
28. Kimberly Davis
29. George Rosenberger
16
-------
30. Adrienne Garreau
31. Susan Dove
32. James Tucker
33. John Williams
13.5 Written Comments Received from Citizens During the Public Comment Period
*he1?rinking Water ln Lake Manassas: There is no indication that contaminants at VHFS ^
^
14.0 REFERENCES
Applicator® International Corporation, McLean, Virginia. June, 1 996. 'eParec> °V science
lnves«9afion ^port. Vint Hill Farms Station Phase
Final °— «• P-P-d by ,CF Kaiser
17
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED PLAN
-------
-------
Proposed Plan
Western South Run Tributary
Vint Hill Farms Station, Virginia
January 1998
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Army has identified a preferred alternative to address contaminated sediment in the western South
Run tributary located on Vint Hill Farms Station (VHFS). The major characteristics of the U.S. Army's
preferred alternative (Alternative 2 in this Proposed Plan) include dredging of contaminated sediment and off-
site disposal at a permitted facility.
This Proposed Plan is based on site-related documents contained in the VHFS Information Repository. The
Information Repository can provide you with important information about the site and the western South Run
tributary. The Information Repository is located at:
Fauquier County Library
Warrenton Branch - Reference Section
1 1 Winchester Street, Warrenton, VA
(540) 347-8750
Monday - Wednesday: 1 0:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Thursday - Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Sunday: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The U.S. Army needs your comments and suggestions. The U.S. Army, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Region III, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) encourage the
public to review and comment on both of the alternatives presented in the Proposed Plan. The public
comment period begins on January 22, 1998, and closes on February 20, 1998. Please send your
comments, postmarked no later than February 20. 1998. to:
Kevin Bell, Public Affairs Officer
Public Affairs Office (Bldg. 2500)
Vint Hills Farm Station
Warrenton, VA 20187-5001
In addition, you are invited to a public meeting regarding the investigation and cleanup of contamination in the
western South Run tributary at VHFS. Representatives from the U.S. Army will report on cleanup
alternatives considered and the U.S. Army's preferred alternative. The meeting is scheduled for:
Thursday, February 5, 1998 at 7:00 p.m.
Warrenton Middle School
244 Waterloo Street, Warrenton, VA
Special provisions will be made for the handicapped and hearing impaired.
The remedy described in this Proposed Plan is the U.S. Army's preferred alternative for the sediment in the
western South Run tributary. The U.S. Army may modify the preferred alternative or select another remedial
alternative if public comments or additional data indicate that such a change will result in a more appropriate
remedial action. The U.S. Army, in consultation with USEPA and VDEQ, will make a remedy selection for the
-------
western South Run tributary in a Decision Document after the public comment neriort ha« *„* *
comments and information submitted during that time have been ^SSSSJSS^ *"*
VHFS that the U.S. Army plans to remediate are addressed by separate Proposed Plans
SITE BACKGROUND
« vi iv* v*i ivM »jiii 11^1 n. || 1^- limy
.. between April and June, 1996, and included the collection of nine sediment
tne western South Run tributary. The draft Rl Report for the Phase I reuse area w»«
completed ,n April, 1997. and is currently being revised per regulatory comments.
RESULTS OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
The Rl was conducted to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination associated with past site activities
th^o0^"! samples collected and analyzed during the R! were used in conjunction with the results from
the SI to assess the condition of VHFS. As part of the Rl. sediment samples were collected from the western
-------
JEFFERSO)
{W. Va.j
LQUDOUN
-..-,.. X-'--.--..I BALTIMORE...
•'••• •_•••-." '. ; ••.•".•
^HOWARD ; \ f '•'•. •'.••';:•"• '^ .
• ''•/<-. •:.->te^
\/ ANNE-ARUNDEL ''i.-':
'\ . • , • .' • :i.:
•\ - - -' ' . '. - •' ••!
'•••' . '• '• L^". ' .'
>'/ WASHINGTON D:C.\ .
: .FAIRFAX
Vint Hill
Farms Station
'. PRINCE WILLIAM.
' ;, PRINCE GEORGES
i*tv= '
CALVERT
FAUQUIER
CHARLES
.V. STAFFORD
ST. MARY'S
/ . KING GEORGE .
FIGURE 1
GENERAL LOCATION
OF VHFS
10.'
SCALE !Nl MILES
-------
FIGURE 2
LOCATION OF WESTERN SOUTH
ROAD
' WFSTFRN SOUTH RUN TRIBUTARY
-------
South Run tributary and the other site drainages, as shown on Figure 3. Analytical results were cn
background concentrations and regulatory screening levels for the protection oflenSSms
to as Effects Range-Lows or ER-Ls) to determine if sediment had been adversely impacted by s
Sediment in the western South Run tributary has been impacted from past industrial
wastewater) and stormwater discharges. Sediment in the western South Run foS
contaminated by metals, pesticides, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In
C°ntamiants were detected at R'SEDI (at the primary
h
'^^.fs11080^10"8 W6re detected at RISED5
-------
1600
-N-
cn
AREE10-FORMER
PHOTOGRAPHIC
WASTEWATER
LAGOON
LEGEND
' ROAD
' TRIBUTARY/DRAINAGE
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
/•
X
D
SEDIMENT AND STORM EVENT
, SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
i LOCATION
SEDIMENT. NORMAL-FLOW
SURFACE WATER. AND STORM
EVENT SURFACE WATER
SAMPLE LOCATION
-------
Potential carcinogenic (cancer-related) effects and noncarcinogenic effects (including various impacts on
different organ systems, such as lungs, Jiver, etc.) were evaluated in the HHRA. Carcinogenic effects are
expressed as the probability that an individual will develop cancer from exposure to the contaminants in the
sediment. The evaluation of noncarcinogenic effects is based on the hazard index (HI), which is the
summation of the hazard quotients for individual chemicals. The hazard quotient is a comparison of
chemical-specific chronic exposure doses with the corresponding protective doses derived from health
criteria. The USEPA recommends that remedial actions may be warranted at sites where the carcinogenic
risk to any person is greater than 1x10"* or the HI is greater than 1. A carcinogenic risk of 1x10"* means that
there is a potential of one additional person in a.population of 10,000 developing cancer from exposure to
contaminants in sediment if the sediment is not remediated. A HI greater than 1 indicates a potential for
noncarcinogenic health effects if the sediment is not remediated.
The ERA also follows a four-step process:
• Problem Formulation - develops information that characterizes habitats and potentially
exposed species and identifies contaminants of concern, exposure pathways, and
receptors;
• Exposure Assessment - estimates exposure point concentrations for selected indicator
species;
• Ecotoxicologic Effects Assessment - identifies concentrations or doses of contaminants that
are protective of indicator species; and
• Risk Characterization - estimates potential adverse effects from exposure to contaminants
based on exposure and toxicity information.
The ERA evaluated ecological effects which could result from exposure to sediment contamination in the
Phase I reuse area of VHFS. The ERA evaluated potential adverse ecological effects to aquatic life from
exposure to contaminants in sediment.
The evaluation of significant potential adverse ecological effects is based on the Environmental Effects
Quotient (EEQ). The EEQ is the ratio of the estimated exposure concentrations/doses for the chemicals of
potential concern and the toxicity reference values (TRVs) for the ecological receptors. If the EEQ is greater
than 1, there is a potential for adverse ecological effects to occur. As the magnitude of the EEQ becomes
greater than 1, the potential for adverse ecological effects becomes more significant.
The HHRA concluded that, under current land-use conditions, the risks to trespassers are acceptable for
exposure to contaminants in sediment. However, under future land-use conditions, assuming that the
western South Run tributary is not remediated, the risks to potential child residents are unacceptable for
exposure to contaminants in sediment. The. highest estimated upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk for
child residents exposed to contaminants in sediment is by dermal contact; this risk is 2x10"* (i.e., two in
10,000 residents may develop cancer caused by contaminants in the sediment). The highest non-
carcinogenic risk is for child residents exposed to contaminants in sediment by incidental ingestion and
dermal contact; the His are estimated to be 9 for the incidental ingestion route of exposure and 8 for the
dermal contact route of exposure. The organ system impacted by noncarcinogenic contaminants in
sediment is the liver. The unacceptable human health risks result primarily from chlordane.
The ERA determined that contaminants in sediment in the western South Run tributary pose significant
potential adverse ecological effects. The primary organics with potential to adversely affect aquatic
resources in the western South Run tributary are pesticides (primarily chlordane, with an EEQ of 3,100). and.
to a much lesser extent, PAHs (primarily 2-methylnaphthalene, with an EEQ of 19). Other significant
pesticides, including aipha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, DDT. endrin, and heptachlor. have EEQs ranging
-------
The in°rganiC c>hemica!s detected in sediment with the greatest potential for adverse
effects on aquatic resources in the western South Run tributary are .copper, chromtlm tead!
The primary locations at which chemical concentrations drove potential adverse ecological effects are the
headwaters of the western South. Run tributary (sample locations RISED1, RISED2. RISED3 aS mSEDS
frLli ^SSm9UrH ?' '" 9eneral' P68^6 and PAH ^amination was highest at sediS 2mp?e
tocation RfeEDI and decreased along the flow path of the western South Run tributary: For ™arn?le Te
chlordane at RISED1 ^s 3.100, while the EEQs for chlordane at RISED4 and RlSEDe
were less than or equal to 12. Silver was the only contaminant detected at
'" W6Stem S°Uth RU" Wbutay
-------
Table 1
Cleanup Levels Established for Sediment in the Western South Run Tributary
Constituents
===s=
Aldrin (Ecological risk) (b)
Chlordane (Human Health & Ecological risk)
alpha-Chlordane (Human Health & Ecological risk)
---- .
gamma-Chlordane (Human Health & Ecological risk)
Chromium (Ecological risk) (b)
•—•
Copper (Ecological risk)
"" ' ' ' . _
4.4'-DDE (Ecological risk) (b)
""
4.4'-DDT (Ecological risk)
Endrin (Ecological risk)
Heptachlor (Ecological risk)
— ————__„__
Lead (Ecological risk) (b)
2-Methylnaphthalene (Ecological risk) (b)
Silver (Ecological risk)
sssaa;"",, ;, a^a^^^^a
)
al risk)
jical risk)
=3BB±=BBe^3Be
C
=====
1
_
Cleanup Levels (ppm) (a)
" """ SS^S^SSS
0.03
—
0.105
—
0.105
•
0.105
0.075
(b) These compounds contribute to but do not drive unacceptable risk.
-------
and to
Alternative 2 -Sediment Removal
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
°f thS alternatives ^ usi"9 nine evaluation criteria: overall protection of
; .mplementability; cost; and regulator and community acceptance The
threshold °~* whlch must
Overall protection of human health and the envirnnmppt addresses whether or not a remedy
eCti°fn f ? d,6SCribeS how risks ^^ throu9h ^ch pathway are
C0ntrolled through ^atmeht, engineering controls, or institutional
?. addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable
=nHer! andt appropriate requirements of other federal and state environmental statutes
and requirements or provides grounds for invoking a waiver.
ignq-term effectiveness ^ permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health over time, once cleanup goals have been met.
.Redu.ct.i9n pf toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment is the anticipated performance of
the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
•
Short-term effentivpneq^ addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any
adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
ImplementaWty is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.
Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and net present
worth c
10
-------
• Regulator acceptance indicates whether, based on their review of the Rl and Proposed
Plan, the regulators (VDEQ and USEPA) concur, oppose, or have no comment on the
preferred alternative at this present time.
• Community acceptance will be assessed in the Decision Document following a review of the
public comments received on the Rl and the Proposed Plan.
The comparative analysis of the alternatives was conducted based upon these evaluation criteria, and is
described below.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The no action alternative {Alternative 1) is not protective of human health or the environment because the
risks to potential future child residents and the potential adverse effects to ecological receptors remain
unchanged, which is unacceptable. Therefore, the no action alternative was eliminated from further
consideration and will not be discussed further.
Alternative 2 provides adequate protection of .human health and the environment by removing contaminated
sediment, thereby eliminating the potential for exposure.
Compliance with ARARs
Alternative 2 has been designed to achieve or comply with ARARs. This alternative will satisfy the
established cleanup levels since all sediment that is contaminated above applicable cleanup levels will be
removed. In addition, the removal and disposition of contaminated sediment during implementation of
Alternative 2 would be done in accordance with federal and Virginia solid and hazardous waste regulations.
Alternative 2 would be conducted in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act, Federal Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, Virginia Water Quality Standards, Virginia Water Protection Permit Regulations, and
Virginia Erosion arid Sedimentation Control Law. The impacted wetlands would be restored following
dredging operations in accordance with USAGE'S Nationwide Permit Program. During sediment dredging,
Virginia Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution may apply. Ambient air conditions would
be monitored during dredging activities to assure acceptable air quality. As necessary based on the ambient
air monitoring, water sprays would be used to keep dust levels down.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 2 would provide for the permanent removal of contaminated sediment to an off-site location
designed to prevent contaminant migration and exposures to human and ecological receptors.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternative 2 provides reduction of contamination in the western South Run tributary by removing
contaminated sediment The toxicity and volume of the contaminated sediment would not be affected by this
.alternative; however, the mobility of the contaminants would be reduced because the off-site disposal
facilities used would be designed to prevent contaminant migration.
Because treatment of the contaminated sediment in the western South Run tributary was not found to be
practicable due to the small volume of impacted soil. Alternative 2 does not satisfy the statutory preference
for treatment as a principal element of the remedy.
11
-------
Short-term Effectiveness . .
Alternative 2 is considered to be effective in the short term because the volume of sediment to be dredaed is
relatively small and would result in limited negative impacts to human health or the environment Dust
exposure to workers and adjacent residents would be controlled during dredging activities by water spravs as
needed. The dredging of sediment may impact the quality of the wetland ecosystem. Dredginq operation^
would use silt fences and other erosion control techniques to minimize: 1) the migration of contaminated
sediment downstream; and"2) the impact to water quality during dredging operations. In addition stormwater
flow from the stormwater drainage system which discharges into the western South Run tributary would be
temporanly diverted around the areas to be dredged to prevent stormwater from entering the segments beino
dredged and prevent movement of sediment from contaminated areas. After dredging, the stream bed would
be restored and the exposed banks revegetated to stabilize the stream and minimize future impacts to the
wetland ecosystem. Although truck traffic would be increased during implementation of Alternative 2 the
implementation penod (approximately one month) is short and the number of .trucks per day would be'less
Implementabllity'
Alternative 2 is considered readily implementable. Licensed transporters and permitted disposal facilities are
currently available. • «•«<=&
-------
The United States Army
at Vint Hill Farms Station, Virginia
Invites Public
| Comment
ON A PROPOSED
EN VIRONM ENTAL CLEANUP
Concerning
Western South Run Tributary
Please Come To Our
* PUBLIC MEETING *
Thursday, February 5,1998 «7:00 p.m.*
* Warrenton Middle School Auditorium»
244 Waterloo Street« Warrenton, VA
('Sign Language Interpreter will be present)
PURPOSE: TO DISCUSS AND PRESENT THE REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES FOR THE WESTERN SOUTH RUN
TRIBUTARY.
The U.S. Army, in consultation with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Region III and the Virginia De-
partment of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), invites public com-
ment on its Proposed Plan for remediating contaminated sedi-
ment in the western South Run tributary on Vint Hill Farms
Station (VHFS), Virginia. Before selecting a final remedy,
VHFS will consider all written and oral comments received
during the public comment period.
The U.S. Army will be accepting comments during a
30-day PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD which
begins Thursday. January 22.1998
Jhd ends Friday. February 20.1998.
WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED
i | TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
Kevin Belt, Public Affairs Officer
Public Affairs Office (Bldg. 2500)
Vint Hill Farms Station
Warrenton, VA 20187-5001
O
c
Citizen Members of the 1
•ation Advisory Board I
<3
D o
Lfc r*
"^ O
fficials from USEPA, 1
and others 1
2
C
fj
0)
tional Presentations 1
DO
s
o
m
m
z
•n
O
3J
i
o
z
S"
9)
Q 5? 3s
s ^s
ir
8
o
m
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
CLEANUP LEVEL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS
-------
-------
HUMAN HEALTH RISK-BASED REMEDIATION GOALS
WESTERN SOUTH RUM TRrRilTflRY ' • ""^
VINT HILL FARMS STATIQM A/up?)
Risk-based remediation goals for VHFS based on human exposures at the site were calculated for selected
chemicals detected in sediment in the western South Run tributary. Based on a review of the exposure
pathways evaluated in the risk assessment risk-based remediation goals were calculated for chemicals
contributing to pathway upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risks greater than 1x1 (T1 and/or hazard indices
(His) greater than or equal to 1 . The development of risk-based remediation goals focused on the inciderS
mgeston exposure pathway only. Although cancer risks exceeding 1x10"* were associated with dermal
contact exposure to sediment in the western South Run tributary, risk-based" 'remediation goals did no
incorporate exposures through this route due, to the great uncertainties associated with assessing derma
STTT" H°r ?f mple' maj°r uncertaintles exist in the extent to which chemicals are percutaneously
SE J!? , "V e?enlto which chemicals partition from soil to skin leading to uncertainty in the use of
default dermal absorption factors in the evaluation of risk. Uncertainties also exist in the use of adjusted oral
toxicity cntena to evaluate dermal exposure pathways depending on how closely the factors used to adiust
oral toxicity criteria reflect the difference between the oral and dermal routes.
Child resident exposures to sediment in the western South Run tributary yielded upper-bound excess lifetime
cancer risks greater than 1x10" and/or His greater than or equal to 1 in'the hun^healHfSiSSj
while trespasser exposures to sediment in the western South Run tributary did not exceed these criteria'
Therefore, risk-based remediation goals for selected chemicals in sediment in the western South Run
tnbutary were developed using child resident exposure parameters.
Once the relevant exposure media and receptor were identified, risk-based remediation goals were
calculated for carcinogenic chemicals associated with chemical-specific risks greater than or equal to 1x10^
and noncarcinogenic chemicals contributing to a HI of 1 for a specific target organ. For selected carcinogenic
chemicals, nsk-based remediation goals were developed using a target risk level of 1x10^ which is at the
low end of USEPA's target risk range for health-protectiveness at Superfund sites For selected
noncarcinogenic chemicals, risk-based remediation goals were calculated to correspond to a target hazard
quotient of 1. If any of the noncarcinogenic compounds for which remediation goals were calculated had
similar target organs/critical effects, then the risk-based remediation goal for that noncarcinogenic compound
was divided by the number of compounds having the same target organ/critical effect (i e if three
noncarcinogenic compounds had "liver" as the target organ, the individual remediation goals would be
divided by three). For chemicals that exhibit both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects (e g chlordane)
the selected remediation goals represent the lower of the calculated carcinogenic and noncarcinoqenic
remediation goals.
The following section presents the exposure assumptions and equations used to calculate the nsk-based
remediation goals for chemicals in sediment. Table 1 presents the toxicity criteria used to calculate the risk-
based remediation goals for chemicals in sediment
Sediment Risk-Based Remediation Goals
Risk-based remediation goals were calculated for chemicals in sediment assuming a child resident's
exposure via incidental ingestion, and using the equations and exposure assumptions presented below
Equations are presented separately for chemicals exhibiting carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects.
The equation used to calculate risk-based remediation goals for chemicals exhibiting carcinogenic effects
using the child resident exposure parameters obtained from USEPA (1 991 ), is as follows:
-------
: TABLE 1
CHRONIC ORAL TOXICtTY CRITERIA
Chemical
Organlcs
Ctilordane
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Oral Toadetty Criteria for Carclnooant
Oral Slope- wWghtlof-
Factor Evidence Slope Factor
(mg/kn-dayr1 • Class (a) • Source
1.3E+00
• 1.3E+00
1.3E+00
B2
. 82
B2
- IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
Oral Toxlclty Criteria
Reference Dose
(RfD)
(mo/kg-day)
6E-05
6E-05
6E-05
Uncertainty
Factor (b)
. 1,000
1.000
1.000
r^^^ttoBasatt^o^^E
For Noncarcinoflcns
Target Organ/
Critical Effect te>
Uver
Uver
Liver
^
RfD Source
IRIS-
IRIS
IRIS
(a) USEPA welght-of-evidence classification scheme for carcinogens:
A « Human Carcinogen, sufficient evidence of cardnogerridty In humans;
B1 = Probable Human Carcinogen, limited human data are available;
82 - Probable Human Carcinogen, sufficient evidence of eardnogenidty In animals with inadequate or lack of evidence In humans-
C * Possible Human Carcinogen, limited evidence from animal studies In the absence of human studies- and
D « Not classified as to human eardnogenidty. Inadequate or no evidence.
(b) Uncertainty factors presented are the products of specific uncertainty factors and modifying factors. Uncertainty factors used to
develop reference doses generally consist of multiples of 10. with each factor representing a specific area of uncertainty In the
data available. The standard uncertainty factors Indude;
- a 10-fold factor to account for the variation In sensitivity among the members of the human population;
- a 10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty In extrapolating animal data to the case of humans;
- a 10-fold fador to account for the uncertainty In extrapolating from ksss-than-chronic NOAELs to chronic NOAELs- and
- a 10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty In extrapolating from LOAELs to NOAELs.
Modifying fadors are applied at the discretion of the RfD reviewer to cover other uncertainties in (he data and range from 1 to 10
-------
C = TR * BW*ATe * 365 days /year
8 IR*EF * ED * SF0 * 10-6 kg/mg
where:
C* - chemical concentration in sediment (mg/kg),
TR = target excess individual lifetime cancer risk (1'ICT6)
BW = body weight (15 kg),
ATc = averaging time for carcinogenic effects (70 years),
IR = ingestion rate (200 mg/day),
EF = exposure frequency (350 days/year),
Eo = exposure duration (6 years)/ and
SF° = oral cancer slope factor [(mg/kg-day)'1] (see Table 1 ).
IJJL^"^0",,!'86?,]0 calculate risk-based remediation goals for chemicals exhibiting noncarcinoqenic
effects, us.ng the ch.ld res.dent exposure parameters obtained from USEPA (1991). is as follows
Cs =
THI * BW * ATnc * 365 days / year
IR*EF * ED * (1/RfDo) * 10-6 kg/mg
where:
c* = chemical concentration in sediment (mg/kg),
THI = target hazard index (1),
BW = body weight (15 kg).
ATnc = averaging time for noncarcinogenic effects (6 years),
IR = ingestion rate (200 mg/day),
EF = exposure frequency (350 days/year), ,
ED - exposure duration (6 years), and
RfD0 = oral chronic reference dose (mg/kg-day) (see Table 1).
Summary of Risk-Based Remediation Goals
Risk-based remediation goals for sediment in the western South Run tributary were calculated to be
protective of child residents incidentally ingesting sediment and are presented in Table 2.
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance. Standard Default Exposure
Factors. Interim Final. Washington, D.C. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. March 25,1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. Integrated Resource Information Systems (IRIS)
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati. Ohio.
-------
TABLE2
REMEDIATION GOALS FOR CHEMICALS IN SEDIMENT (•)
Toxlctty Criterion Calculated RtrmdUtton Goal (ma/tart
Chemical
Carcinogenic
Noncarclnoginlc
Selected
Remediation
Goal
SEDIMENT - WESTERN SOUTH RUN TRIBUTARY.
Child Resident Ingesb'on
Chlordane
alpha-Chiordane
gamma-Chlordane
1.3E+00
1JE+00
1.3E+00
6E-05
•' " 6E-05
6E-05
0.70
0.70
0.70
1.6
1.6
0.70
0.70
(a) Remediation goals wens calculated for predominant chemicals (i.e.. chemicals with risks exceeding ixKT* or chemicals contributing to a
HI greater than or equal to 1 for a specific target organ) for incidental ingestion pathways with a total excess lifetime cancer risk
exceeding 1x10~* or a HI greater than or equal to f.
(b) The calculated remediation goats fcr carcinogenic cnemicais were based on a target risk level of 1x10"*. and were calculated using child resident
exposure parameters. . ,. • •
(c) The calculated remediation goals for noncarcinooenic chemicals were based on a hazard quotient of 1. and were calculated using child resident
exposure parameters. The remediation goals for chlordane. alpha-chlordane, and gamma-chlordane were divided by three since they an
have the liver as the target organ.
(d) The selected remediation goal represents the tower of the calculated carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic remediation goals.
-------
ECQLQGICAI.LY.BASEP ri PANUP
WESTERN SOUTH RUN TRIBUTARY
VINT HLL FARMS
nntin?a,°ff ** ™FS Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for the Phase I Reuse Area indicate the
potential for adverse effects to aquatic life in the western South Run tributary The PoSal for
i™ ' Sample "°»««» RISED1,
and RISED9 have been identified for remediation. These areas have the
~
must be adequate to: 1) reduce or eliminate the potential for adverse effects to aquaS from
the presence of chem,ca!s in the western South Run tributary; and 2) reduce the potenKaTr
chemicals to be transported to South Run where they could adversely affect B^SS^SmSf
aquatc spec.es. Ecologically-based cleanup levels for soil at VHFS have been developed based
^ an Envlro"menta' Effects Quotient
-------
remediation goal reduces the overall area needing remediation, thus decreasing the disturbance
of the habitat in this drainage. A summary of cleanup levels based on an EEQ of 15 is presented
in 'Table 2.—*"
Additional investigation using sediment bioassays will be conducted in the portion of the western
South Run tributary,not identified for remediation (i.e.; RISED4, RISED6, RISED7, and RISED8)
The objective of the sediment bioassays will be to ensure that the established cleanup levels are
protective of aquatic life. Bioassays provide a direct measure of the toxicity of chemicals in
sediment, accounting for the synergistic/antagonistic effects of complex chemical mixtures and the
influence of physical/chemical variables in the environment. Bioassay results and correspondina
chemical data will be considered together using a weight-of-evidence approach as defined bv
Chapman (1990) to evaluate the overall potential for adverse effects to benthic organisms
Revision of the cleanup levels established herein will be considered if the bioassay and chemical
results suggest the potential for adverse effects to aquatic life in any area not currently identified
for remediation.
References
Chapman, P.M. 1990. The Sediment Quality Triad.Approach to Determining Pollution-Induced
Degradation. The Science of the Total Environment 97/98: 815-825.
Long, E.R., and Morgan, L.G. 1990. The Potential of Biological Effects of Sediment-sorbed
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National Ocean Service, Seattle, Washington.
Long, E.R., Madonald. D.D.. Smith, S.L, and Calder,.F.D. 1995. Incidence of Adverse Biological
Effects Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments
Env. Manage. 19(1): 81-97.
Persaud, D.. Joagumagi, R.. and Hayton, A. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and
Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment
and Energy. ISBN 0-7729-9248-7.
-------
Table 1
Environmental Effects Quotients {EEQs) forCOPCs in Western South Run Tributary Sediment (a)
aamma-Chlordane
Chlordane
— = Chemical not detected at this sampling location.
COPC - Chemical of Potential Concern
EEQ - Environmental Effects Quotient
TRV - Toxicity Reference Value
(a) EEQs greater than 10 are indicated with boldface type.
(b) Chemicals listed have EEQs of 10 or greater at one or more.sample locations
(c) Effects range-low (ER-L) from Long et al. (1995) or Long and Morgan (1990).
(d) Value represents lowest effect level from Persaud et al. (1993).
(e) Value for chlordane.
-------
Table 2
Cleanup Levels for Chemicals in Sediment
2-Methylnaphthalene
Aldrin
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Chlordane
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Endrin
Heptachlor
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
1.05
0.03
0.105
0.105
0.105
0.075
0.015
0.045
0.005 (a)
390
240
465
15
(a) The cleanup level listed is the Practical Quantitation Limit
(PQL) for the contract laboratory which is slightly higher than the
calculated cleanup level of 0.0045 mg/kg.
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
PUBLIC NOTICE
-------
-------
The United States Army
i BtVintHill Farms Station, Virginia
Invites Publip Comment
i ON A:PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
!^ Concerning
Western South Run Tributary
Please Come To Our
* PUBLIC MEETING *
Thursday, February 5, 1998 • 7:00 p.m.*
• Warrenton Middle School Auditorium •
244 Waterloo Street • Warrenton, VA
('Sign Language Interpreter will be present)
PURPOSE. TO DISCUSS AND PRESENT THE REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE WEST-
ERN SOUTH HUN TRIBUTARY.
Tlte U.S. Army, in consultation with tha U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Re-
gion III and Ihe Virginia Department of Environmental Oua»ly Ihe southern
portion ol Ihe property, used for industrial operations, administration buddings, and residenlial
housing. Approximately 94 acres on the eastern portion of DM property are inature hardwood
forest, and Die majority of the remaining 457 unimproved and semi-improved acres in lite
northern portion ol the properly are used lor stationary and mobile antenna operation sites. The
lacility was designated lor closure m March. 1993, under Ihe Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) Act
PROPOSAL
VHFS evaluated Uvo remedial alternatives lo address sediment contamination in Ihe western
South Run tributary.
ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action; and
ALTERNATIVE 2: Sediment Removal.
Based on available information. VHFS prefers Alternative 2 which includes dredging and oil-
site disposal ol contaminated sediment from Ihe western South Run Iribulaiy. This remedial
alternative is << permanent solution that oilers long-term effectiveness since the contaminated
sediment is removed lo cleanup levels and transported oH site for proper disposal. Since Ihe
amount ol sediment requiring remediation is relatively smal (approximately 280 cubic yards).
I was not practical lo consider active trealmeni or containment options in terms ol cost-
elfecliveness and implementatHlity. The dredging and disposal of conlarranated sediment would
be done in accordance with federal and Commonwealth ol Virginia solid and hazardous wasla
regulations.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
You can review the Proposed Plan and related technical documents at the Information Reposi-
tory at »tic lollcwing 'ccation:
Fauquier County Library
Warrenton Branch - Reference Section
11 Winchester Street
Warrenton, VA 22 1 86
Hours: M-W- 1 0 a.m. - 9 p m. and Th-Sal 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. and
Sun: I p.m. • 5 p.m.
Phone: (540) 347-8750
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AND U.S. ARMY RESPONSES
-------
-------
Vint Hill Farms Station
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
Public Comment Period
January 22, 1998 - February 20, 1998
US Army Corps
or Engineers
Baltimore District
We invite you to send in your comments or questions regarding the Vint Hill Farms Station
Proposed Remedial Action Plan for western South Run tributary. The complete document is
available at the library listed below.
Name:
Address:
Jc~
Citv:
/AM
State: \l~fr Zip: 2&(£>(=>
Phone:
Comments/Questions
Thank you for your time and opinions.
Please fold this self-mailer and staple or tape it together and return it to the address on back.
Vint Hill Farms Station Information Repository
Fauquier County Library, Warrenton Branch - Reference Section
11 Winchester Street, Warrention, VA (540) 347-8750
Mon. - Wed.: 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., Thur. - Sat.: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Sun. 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Caretaker Force
Vint Hill Farms Station
Warrantor). Virginia 20187-5001
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Office of Public Affairs
(540) 349-5013
January 30, 1998
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Ross
Acorn Farm
6610 Acorn Farm Lane
Gainesville, Virginia 22065-2401
Mr. and Mrs. Ross: .
In response to your questions regarding the proposed environmental cleanup of the Western
South Run Tributary, please see the enclosed attachment. I hope my comments adequately
address your concerns. Thank you for your interest in Vint.Hill Farms Station and I hope to see
you at next week's public meeting.
Sim
Kevin Bell
Public Affairs Officer
Encl
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Caretaker Force
Vint Hill Farms Station
Warrenton, Virginia 20187-5001
REPIY7O
ATTENTION OF
Office of Public Affairs
(540) 349-5013
January 30, 1998
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Ross
Acorn Farm
6610 Acorn Farm Lane
Gainesville, Virginia 22065-2401
Mr. and Mrs. Ross:
In response to your questions regarding the proposed environmental cleanup of the Western
South Run Tributary, please see the enclosed attachment.' I hope my comments adequately
address your concerns. Thank you for your interest in Vint Hill Farms Station and I hope to see
you at next week's public meeting.
Sin
Kevin Bell
Public Affairs Officer
Encl
-------
-------
fi 0"0 0)
•oc S>
Oa>4:
2. ^
+- Q.Q
o c
3-0
m
o e
0 C
Zo.<2 =
Reproduced byNTIS
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
J7f/s 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
-------
------- |