PB99-963916
EPA541-R99-052
1999
EPA Supet fund
Record of Decision:
Defense General Supply Center
(DLA) OU 4
Chesterfield County, VA
8/31/1999
-------
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
OU 4 - FIRE TRAINING AREA SOURCE AREA
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
PREPARED FOR
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
AND THE
U.S. ARMY ENGINEERING
AND SUPPORT CENTER HUNTSVILLE
PREPARED BY:
LAW ENGINEERING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
CONTRACT No. DACA87-94-D0016
JOB No. 10300-5-3109
JUNE 1999
-------
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
OU 4 - FIRE TRAINING AREA SOURCE AREA
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
Prepared for:
U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center - Huntsville
4820 University Square
Huntsville, AL 35816-1822
Prepared by:
Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
112 TownPark Drive
' Kennesaw, GA 30144
CONTRACT NO. 87-94-D-0016; D.O.09
JUNE 1999
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 DECLARATION 1_1
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION 1-1
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE 1-1
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 1-1
1.4 DECLARATION STATEMENT 1-2
2. 0 DECISION SUMMARY 2-1
2.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION 2-1
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-5
2.3 SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2-8
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 2-9
2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2-9
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 2-13
2.6.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern 2-14
2.6.2 Exposure Assessment 2-14
2.6.3 Toxicity Assessment 2-16
2.6.4 Risk Characterization 2-17
2.6.5 Ecological Risk Characterization 2-18
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE 2-19
3. 0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY . 3-1
53109.39 i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2-1 Chemicals Detected in Fire Training Area - Surface and Subsurface Soils
2-2 Summary of Cancer Risk Estimates
2-3 Summary of Hazard Index Estimates
53109.39 ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2-1 Defense Supply Center Richmond and Surrounding Area
2-2 Site Map
2-3 Soil Sampling Locations (1982-1989)
2-4 Soil Sampling Locations (1992-1993)
2-5 Soil Sampling Locations (1992)
2-6 Soil Sampling Locations (1995)
2-7 Chemicals in Soils Exceeding Background and USEPA Region III Risk-Based
Concentrations
53109.39 iii
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
bgs
BTEX
CERCLA
DLA
DSCR
FFA
FOS
FTA
ISCP
MCL
mg/kg
"g/L
msl
NCP
NPL
OU
PAH
RCRA
RfD
RI
ROD
SARA
semi-volatiles
SF
SPCC
USEPA
UTL
volatiles
below ground surface
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Federal Facility Agreement
Fuel Oil Storage
Fire Training Area
Installation Spill Contingency Plan
Maximum Contaminant Level
milligram(s) per kilogram
micrograms per liter
mean sea level
National Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Operable Unit
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
reference dose
remedial investigation
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
semi-volatile organic compounds
Slope Factor
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures
United States Environmental Protection Agency
upper tolerance limit
volatile organic compounds
53109.39
-------
1.0 DECLARATION
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Fire Training Area Source Area - Operable Unit 4
Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR)
Richmond, Virginia
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
1.2.0.1 This decision document presents a determination that no remedial action is necessary to
protect human health and the environment at the Fire Training Area (FTA) Source Area, which
has been designated as Operable Unit (OU) 4, at the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR)
in Richmond, Virginia. The selected remedial action (in this case, no action) was chosen in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and, to
the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). This decision is based on the administrative record for this installation. The
Commonwealth of Virginia concurs with the selected remedy.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
1.3.0.1 This operable unit is the fourth of thirteen operable units that are currently being addressed
at DSCR. Operable Unit 4 addresses the contaminated soil at the FTA. The operable units and the
portions of the site that they address are as follows:
OU 1 - Open Storage Area
OU2 - Area 50 Source Area
OU3 - National Guard Source Area
OU4 - Fire Training Area Source Area
OU 5 - Acid Neutralization Pits Source Area
OU6 - Area 50/Open Storage Area/National Guard Area Ground
OU 7 - Fire Training Area Ground Water
OU8 - Acid Neutralization Pits Ground Water
OU9 - Interim Action for OU 6
OU 10 - Building 68
53109.39 1-1
-------
OU 11-Transitory Shelter 202
» OU 12-Building 112
* OU 13-PoIycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Area
13.0.2 The "No Action Alternative" is the selected remedy for this site. The Remedial
Investigation and the Risk Evaluation conducted for OU 4 support this decision. The
concentrations of contaminants in the soil at the site do not pose unacceptable risks to ecological
receptors or human health. The human receptors which were evaluated included current and
potential future on-site receptors at OU 4, including workers, construction workers, recreational
users and residents.
1.4 DECLARATION STATEMENT
1.4.0.1 The "No Action Alternative" for the contaminated soil at the Fire Training Source Area is
protective of human health and the environment. Therefore, applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements have not been identified. Because this remedy will not leave hazardous substances
onsite above health-based levels for residential receptors, the land use for the site will be unlimited
and unrestricted. Therefore, the five-year review will not apply to this action.
Jan BVjleitman Date
Staff Director, Environmental and Safety Policy
Defense Logistics Agency
Abraham Ferdas Date
Director, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
53109.39 1-2
-------
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Fire Training Area Source Area - Operable Unit (OU) 4
Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR)
Richmond, Chesterfield County, Virginia
2.1.0.1 The DSCR is located in Chesterfield County, Virginia, approximately 11 miles south of the
city of Richmond (Figure 2-1). The FTA is located in the southern section of DSCR. The southern
boundary of DSCR is formed by Kingsland Creek, which is located approximately 600 feet south of
the FTA. Operable Unit 4 consists of the contaminated soil at the FTA. Ground-water
contamination at the FTA, which has been designated as OU 7, will be addressed by a separate
Record of Decision (ROD).
2.1.0.2 The FTA was formerly used for fire training exercises, where waste chemicals were
reportedly dumped in pits, ignited, and then extinguished. The area includes three former, unlined
pits known to have been constructed in the FTA that were reportedly used for fire training purposes.
Figure 2-2 shows the location of the three bum pits. Fire training exercises were conducted at the
site from at least the late 1960s through 1979. Currently, the FTA, and the areas immediately
surrounding the FTA, are used for storage of used construction materials, nonhazardous soils, and
other miscellaneous, innocuous materials. An unpaved road that passes north and west of the FTA
and then follows the northern side of Kingsland Creek is used as a jogging path.
2.1.0.3 The DSCR was originally constructed in 1941 as two separate facilities: the Richmond
General Depot and Richmond Holding and Reconsignment Point. In 1962 the installation became
designated as the Defense General Supply Center and in 1996, the facility name was changed to
DSCR.
2.1.0.4 The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), an agency of the Department of Defense, provides
logistics support to the military services including procurement and supply support, contract
administration, and other services. Since 1942, the DSCR's mission has been the managing and
furnishing of military general supplies to the Armed Forces and several federal civflian agencies.
53109.39 2-1
-------
Today DSCR manages more than 300,000 general supply items at a facility valued at $100 million
and encompassing 565 acres. The DSCR has more than 16 million square feet of covered storage
space in 27 large brick warehouses and a million square feet of office space.
2.1.0.S Land use in the vicinity of DSCR is primarily single family residential, intermixed with
retail stores and light industry. The southern boundary of DSCR is formed by Kingsland Creek,
which is located approximately 600 feet south of the FTA. The north creek bank is forested leading
into a sparsely grassed area just south of the FTA. The area to the south of DSCR has been
developed as predominantly single family residential housing. Based on available information,
approximately 200 residential dwellings are located downgradient and within a 1-mile radius of the
FTA. An additional 240 residences are located north and east of the site within a 1-mile radius.
Office buildings and housing units at DSCR are located upgradient of the FTA and are not
potentially impacted by the site. The estimated number of people living within 1 mile downgradient
of the FTA in 1992 was 603. The total population living within a 1-mile radius of the site in 1992
was approximately 2,000.
2.1.0.6 DSCR received its drinking water from the Chesterfield County Water Supply from 1988 to
1993; since 1993, the water has been obtained from the City of Richmond water system. No water
supply wells are located on DSCR's property. The off-base residential areas (primarily south and
northeast of the FTA) have been served by the public water supply system since June 1987, but
some of the homes also have private ground-water wells. A residential well survey conducted in
October 1992 identified 19 ground-water wells located south of the FTA. Of these wells, 10 are
used for the household's water supply needs. Four wells are used for outside purposes only (i.e.,
irrigation). The other five wells are reportedly not used. Of the 14 wells that are used, 4 are
screened in the upper aquifer (less than 35 feet deep), and 4 are screened in the lower aquifer
(greater than 35 feet deep). The depths are not known for the remaining six wells.
2.1.0.7 There is no surface-water storage or surface-water intake at the FTA. KJngsland Creek
forms the southern boundary of the DSCR and ultimately discharges into the James River
approximately 2.5 miles downstream of the DSCR. There are no surface-water intakes from the
creek prior to its discharge to the James River.
53109.39 2-2
-------
2.1.0.8 The DSCR is located within the modified continental climatic zone, an area characterized
by extreme variations in temperature and precipitation during the course of a year. Typically, the
area experiences warm summers, relatively mild winters and normally adequate rainfall. The mean
annual temperature is between 55 degrees Fahrenheit and 60 degrees Fahrenheit. The average
annual precipitation is 44.2 inches. The mean annual pan evaporation rate for the area is between
48 and 64 inches. Precipitation and pan evaporation are generally greatest during July and August.
Wind direction in the vicinity of the DSCR is variable most of the time, although the prevailing
wind direction is southerly.
2.1.0.9 The land surface at the FTA has been extensively altered by grading and filling operations.
The topography slopes gently (1 to 2 percent) towards the creek from the FTA. The maximum
difference in the local topographic relief is approximately 15 feet. Elevations range from 100 feet
above mean sea level (msl) in the northern portion of the facility to 85 feet above msl near
Kingsland Creek.
2.1.0.10 Surface drainage in the FTA area is generally directed to the south, towards Kingsland
Creek. A drainage divide about 1,300 feet north of the FTA limits the surface drainage to
Kingsland Creek. Drainage ditches north of the FTA collect area run-off and feed into two storm
sewer lines. These storm sewer lines transect the FTA, discharging approximately midway between
the FTA and Kingsland Creek. One of these storm sewer lines is located beneath Pit I (eastern
storm sewer line). Locations of the storm sewer lines are shown in Figure 2-2. The storm sewer line
that runs adjacent to Pit 3 (western storm sewer line) is not currently functional. A concrete plug is
present at the former discharge point, which has resulted in backflow of water into the drainage
ditches that feed into the eastern storm sewer line.
2.1.0.11 The eastern storm sewer line is currently functional. The line discharges above ground
into a surface drainage ditch that flows through a low wooded area south of the FTA. A culvert
allows drainage from this area beneath a roadway to Kingsland Creek. In 1995, a supplemental
investigation of the soils at the outlet of the eastern sewer line and the low wooded area was
performed to determine whether surface run-off from the FTA collected by the storm sewer
system and open drainage features (ditches) may have transported contaminants (PAHs,
53109.39 2-3 .
-------
pesticides, volatiles, and metals) into the wooded area south of the FTA. Based on the data from
this investigation, it was concluded that drainage waters were not contributing significantly to
contamination in the low wooded area and Kingsland Creek.
2.1.0.12 The unconsolidated soils below the DSCR have been divided into four formations by the
U.S. Geological Survey. The Eastover Formation is present immediately below the land surface
and consists of up to 25 feet of interlayered beds of sand, silt and clay with occasional gravel. The
predominantly gray clay and silt of the Calvert Formation underlies the Eastover throughout the
area. The Calvert Formation averages approximately 11 feet in thickness. The Aquia Formation
consists of approximately seven feet of gray sand, gravel and clay underlying the Calvert
Formation. The Potomac Formation, which underlies the Aquia Formation, extends to the bedrock.
The Potomac consists of approximately 40 feet of interbedded sand and gravel with occasional silty
and clayey seams. Bedrock in the region consists of the Petersburg Granite. The Petersburg
Granite is overlain with saprolite, a clay-rich, weathered component of parent bedrock, which
retains the features of the granite.
2.1.0.13 An unconfined aquifer is present in the Eastover Formation. This aquifer is referred to in
this report as the upper aquifer to distinguish it from a confined aquifer that exists in the Potomac
Formation (the lower aquifer). The upper aquifer would be the first aquifer expected to be impacted
by any surface releases of contaminants at the FTA.
2.1.0.14 Parker Pond and Bellwood Elk Preserve are the two areas of environmental significance
near the FTA site in the DSCR. Parker Pond, located approximately 600 feet north (upgradient) of
the FTA, is a recreational pond with fish and waterfowl, and is stocked with bluegill, largemouth
bass, and catfish for recreational fishing. The Bellwood Elk Preserve, located 2,200 feet east of the
FTA, is a 20-acre fenced area supporting a herd of 8 to 10 elk. The herd is maintained by DSCR
personnel. It is unlikely that these areas would be impacted by the contaminants detected at the
FTA due to their distance from the site and geographic location, which would preclude drainage or
surface run-off from the FTA reaching these areas.
53109.39 2-4
-------
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.2.0.1 Past industrial operations at the DSCR have included parachute manufacture and repair,
mess kit and canteen repair, refrigerator repair, material handling, equipment overhaul, and engine
rebuilding. Current industrial operations include the refurbishing of steel combat helmets and
compressed gas cylinders using both wet (acid and caustic) and dry (ball blasting) processes, and
tent and fabric repair.
2.2.0.2 The DSCR motor pool operations include minor vehicle repairs, fluid changes, and vehicle
lubrication. These activities take place at the motor pool facility located in the southern portion of
the DSCR. There are several underground gasoline and fuel storage tanks located throughout the
installation.
2.2.0.3 Chemical operations at the DSCR have included storing and shipping flammable, toxic,
corrosive and oxidizer chemicals for DLA. The majority of the chemicals are stored in warehouses
at the DSCR. Chemicals stored at the DSCR have also included pesticides and herbicides for use at
DSCR and as part of the chemical stock mission of the DSCR.
2.2.0.4 Operable Unit 4 consists of the source area or soil associated with activities at the FT A.
Fire training exercises were conducted at the FTA from the mid 1960s until the late 1970s. The
surface area of the site was used for the fire training exercises during which obsolete and
unserviceable waste chemicals were burned. Three separate unlined pits are known to have been
constructed in the FTA, and were probably used for the fire training exercises. The location of the
three bum pits is provided in Figure 2-2. Flammable liquid chemicals and petroleum products were
dumped into these pits, ignited, and then extinguished during the training exercises. Petroleum oils,
lubricating oils, solvents, pesticides, and herbicides may have been burned at the site.
2.2.0.5 Pit 1, which was in use from approximately the mid 1970s through 1979, was a circular
feature, with a diameter of approximately 50 feet and a depth of 3 feet. The pit was filled in with
soil in 1983. The western edge of the pit is underlain by a storm sewer that runs north-south
through the area and eventually discharges into Kingsland Creek southeast of the FTA (Figure 2-2).
53109.39 2-5
-------
2.2.0.6 Pit 2 was rectangular in shape, approximately 20 feet by 40 feet in dimension, with an
unknown depth. The pit is reported to have been filled in with soil when it was replaced by Pit 1 in
the early to mid 1970s. The pit was in operation from the late 1960s until its abandonment.
2.2.0.7 Pit 3 was identified in the area during previous investigations, but it is uncertain if it was
used for fire training exercises. The pit was rectangular in shape and estimated to be 10 feet by 25
feet in dimension, with an unknown depth.
2.2.0.8 Several sampling and analysis programs have been performed for the soils, ground water,
sediments and surface water associated with the FTA during the Remedial Investigation (RI) to
evaluate the nature, magnitude and extent of contamination and evaluate the risks posed to human
health and the environment by site-related contamination..
2.2.0.9 The primary contaminants detected in the soils at the FTA are polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). Other contaminants detected in the FTA soil include pesticides, metals, and
volatile organic compounds (volatiles). The presence of these compounds is related to the materials
used during the fire training exercises.
2.2.0.10 Elevated concentrations of PAHs were detected in soil samples collected between the FTA
and Kingsland Creek. This area of contamination is suspected to be related to a release of No. 4
fuel oil from a 300,000 gallon aboveground fuel oil storage (FOS) tank formerly located west of Pit
3. The tank was surrounded by an earthen containment berm that overlies the former location of Pit
3. In November 1978, a spill reportedly occurred from the tank, with an estimated 10,600 gallons of
fuel oil released to the bermed area as a result of a cracked valve. Heavy rain at the time of the spill
caused the oil to flow into the western line of the storm sewer system that traverses the FTA and
eventually discharge in to a low-lying area south of the FTA now designated by DSCR as the
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Area (PAH Area) (OU 13). The contamination associated with
this spill is being addressed under OU 13.
2.2.0.11 Contamination of both the upper and lower aquifers is indicated at the FTA site. The
primary contaminants in ground water are chlorinated volatiles, with petroleum-related
53109.39 2-6
-------
contaminants (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes [BTEX]), metals, and semivolatile
organic compounds (semi-volatiles) also detected in some wells. The contaminated ground water
associated with the FTA is being addressed under OU 7.
2.2.0.12 Less than 20 micrograms per liter (ug/L) of chlorinated and aromatic volatiles were
detected in the surface waters of Kingsland Creek. These contaminants are suspected to result from
discharge of contaminated ground water into the creek.
2.2.0.13 The DSCR has implemented a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC)
and an Installation Spill Contingency Plan (ISCP) to aid in the prevention, control, and remediation
of spills at the DSCR. The SPCC plan identifies procedures and actions that are to be followed to
prevent spills and/or control spills once they occur. The ISCP presents guidelines for spill response,
including cleanup and disposal of chemicals and contaminated soils.
2.2.0.14 In 1984, the DSCR was recommended for placement on the CERCLA National Priorities
List (NPL) and was promulgated to the NPL in 1987. This action resulted from a Hazard Ranking
System scoring performed for the DSCR that was based on the conclusions of previous studies
conducted at the facility by the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. In August 1986, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a Corrective Action Permit to
DSCR pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.
As part of the RCRA activities conducted at DSCR, three RI documents were issued pertaining to
sites investigated at DSCR from 1989 through 1995. In 1990, the DLA, DSCR, USEPA, and the
Commonwealth of Virginia entered into a CERCLA Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) pursuant to
Section 120 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9620, which guides remediation activities. Since 1990,
DSCR has been completing the RIs, and preparing feasibility studies for the 13 named operable
units. The RI for OU 4 was completed in December 1996. Additional environmental investigations
have been conducted at DSCR since 1990 pursuant to the FFA. RODs have been issued for OU 1,
OU 3, OU 5 and OU 9. Feasibility Studies are currently being completed for OU 2, OU 6, OU 7,
OU 8, OU 10, OU 11, OU 12, and OU 13.
53109.39 2-7
-------
2.3 SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
2.3.0.1 On 23 February 1984, the DSCR organized an Interagency Task Force comprised of state
regulatory agencies, USEPA, county agencies, Virginia National Guard, Rayon Park
Representatives, and DSCR personnel. The purpose of this group was to ensure that actions carried
out at the site were done with input and review from affected parties.
2.3.0.2 DSCR prepared a community relations plan in 1992. In 1994, the base held a public
information session to provide additional information to the public. DSCR also sends out
information to a predetermined mailing list on a regular basis. The community relations effort
meets the requirements of CERCLA Section 117(a), as amended by SARA (1986).
23.0.3 The proposed plan and ROD for OU 4 were made available to .the public on February 21,
1999. The proposed plan was made available to the public in the administrative record maintained
at the central branch of the Chesterfield Public Library in Chesterfield, Virginia, The notice of
availability for this document was published in the Richmond Times Dispatch, on February 21,
1999. The public comment period was held through April 7, 1999. In addition, a public meeting
was held on March 17,1999. At this meeting, representatives from USEPA, the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and DSCR answered questions concerning the remedial alternatives evaluated for this site.
A response to the comments received during this period is included in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is part of this ROD. This decision document presents the selected remedial
alternative for OU 4, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the extent
practicable, the NCP. The decision for OU 4 is based on the administrative record.
53109.39 2-8
-------
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
/
2.4.0.1 The work at the DSCR has been organized into 13 operable units:
OU 1 - Open Storage Area
OU 2 - Area 50 Source Area
OU 3 - National Guard Area Source Area
OU 4 - Fire Training Source Area
OU 5 - Acid Neutralization Pits Source Area
OU 6 - Area 50/Open Storage Area/National Guard Area Ground Water
OU 7 - Fire Training Area Ground Water
OU 8 - Acid Neutralization Pits Ground Water
OU 9 - Interim Action for OU 6
OU 10 - Building 68
OU 11 - Transitory Shelter 202
' OU 12 - Building 112
OU 13 - PAH Area
2.4.0.2 The scope of this action addresses the fourth operable unit (OU 4) at DSCR, the source area
(contaminated soil) at the Fire Training Area. Contaminated ground water at the FTA is being
addressed under OU 7. The contaminated soils located south and southeast of the FTA were
originally included under OU 4. However, the source of PAH contamination in the soils is not
associated with activities at the FTA and this area, therefore, was identified as a separate operable
unit (OU 13).
2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
2.5.0.1 Site investigations at the FTA were initiated in 1982 with the installation of four ground-
water monitoring wells. Several phases of soil sampling have been performed at the FTA. Soil
samples were first obtained during the RI from 1982 to 1989 (Figure 2-3). Additional soil samples
were collected hi 1992 and 1993 (Figure 2-4). Soil samples were obtained from the aboveground
fuel oil storage area, the PAH Area, and an area south of Kingsland Creek in 1992 (Figure 2-5).
Additional soil and ground-water samples were collected in the FTA and PAH Area and sediment
samples were collected from Kingsland Creek in September 1995 to supplement the Rl for the FTA
(Figure 2-6). More recently, additional soil samples were collected during installation of the
53109.39 2-9
-------
monitoring wells for a dual-phase extraction pilot test performed adjacent to the FOS Area in 1997J
as part of the feasibility study process for OU 7.
2.5.0.2 This ROD addresses the chemicals detected in surface and subsurface soil samples
collected at depths of 1 to 10 feet below grade at the FTA. A summary of the sampling results of
the chemical analysis of these soil samples is presented in Table 2-1. The background
concentrations presented in Table 2-1 are based on the upper limits established during the
Background Characterization Study performed at DSCR in 1997. Following discussions with the
USEPA, the background value for arsenic was revised to include additional data. The revised
background value for arsenic (84 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) was presented and discussed
during a meeting at USEPA's office on January 26, 1998. Documentation of the revised
background value for arsenic is provided in the minutes for the meeting, which were transmitted
via a letter from Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. dated March 10, 1998. The
background data set for arsenic appears to be acceptable for data comparison purposes. Based on
a 2-sided Student's T-test at the 5 percent significance level, the OU 4 arsenic data do not appear
to be significantly different from background.
2.5.0.3 The results of soil sampling at the FTA site indicate that metals, volatiles, semi-volatiles,
and pesticide contamination exist in the soil within and between the former fire training pits. The
highest contaminant concentrations are apparently restricted to the soils within the extent of the
former pits, and in an area between Pits 1 and 2 (Figure 2-7). Of the 22 metals detected in soils
from all 3 pits, 13 were detected at concentrations less than background concentrations established
for the DSCR (Table 2-1). Metals that exceeded background concentrations include beryllium,
cadmium, copper, manganese, mercury, nickel, potassium, selenium, and zinc. The majority of
these exceedances are not considered high relative to the natural variation expected in background
concentrations. In addition, the historical practices at the FTA do not suggest that there is any
relationship between the metal detections and the former activities that took place in the three pits.
53109.39
2-10
-------
2.5.0.4 Twenty-seven semi-volatile organic compounds, mostly PAHs, were detected in soils of
the FTA (Table 2-1). The PAHs detected occurred at levels above background levels established
for the DSCR. Background values were not established for most of the other semi-volatiles. Of the
detected semi-volatiles without associated background criteria, none exceeded available USEPA
Region III Residential Risk-Based Concentrations. Five PAHs, including benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, are
carcinogenic in nature. The PAHs were detected at all three former fire training pits and the
surrounding areas, but were limited primarily to surface soils. Chlorinated benzenes were detected
at Pit 3.
2.5.0.5 Thirteen volatiles were detected in soils of the FTA. The highest concentrations of
chlorinated volatiles (e.g., trichloroethene at 76 mg/kg) were detected in surface soils of Pit 1,
although low levels (e.g., 0.001 mg/kg) were detected in soils throughout the site. Background
concentrations are not available for volatiles because volatiles are not naturally present in the
environment and past use of the site (prior to presence of DSCR) does not indicate an anthropogenic
source for volatiles.
2.5.0.6 Eight pesticides and the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-1260 were detected in soils at the
FTA. The concentrations of 4,4'-DDD; 4,4'-DDE; 4,4'-DDT; and dieldrin were greater than
background values established for DSCR. The highest concentration of a pesticide (3.3 mg/kg of
4,4-DDD) was detected in the 1-foot below ground surface (bgs) sample from SSFTA-12 near Pit 1.
PCB-1260 was detected in two out of 30 samples, both times at concentrations below the USEPA
Region III Residential Risk-Based Concentrations for soil. Petroleum hydrocarbons were also
detected in soils at the FTA, and diesel was detected at the former aboveground fuel oil storage tank
location.
2.5.0.7 Volatiles, PAHs and pesticides were detected during the RI in the PAH Area (OU 13),
which lies south of OU 4 between the FTA and Kingsland Creek. The presence of volatiles and
PAHs in the soils located south and southeast of the FTA, in the vicinity of Kingsland Creek, is
associated with the aboveground storage tank fuel oil spill that occurred in 1978 and has lead to the
53109.39 2-11
-------
designation of OU 13 (the PAH Area) and further investigation. The presence of pesticides may be
the result of surface run-off in the FTA. Remedial actions to be taken to address the contaminated
soils at OU 13 and ground water at OU 7 will be addressed under separate RODs.
2.5.0.8 In September 1995, sampling of shallow soils (0 to 6-inch depth) was performed to evaluate
the storm sewer system and drainage pathways at the FTA. Figure 2-6 notes the locations sampled.
The objective of the sampling was to determine if surface run-off from the FTA through the sewer
system and open drainage features (ditches) may have transported contaminants (PAHs, pesticides,
volatiles, and metals) into the wooded area south of the FTA. This investigation focused upon the
eastern storm sewer line and the length of a drainage ditch south of the FTA in a wooded area into
which this line discharges. In addition, samples were collected from a drainage input location on
the north side of a set of railroad tracks, and a ditch into which drainage occurs from beneath the
railroad tracks. Volatiles are not indicated to be present at significant concentrations (1.2 J p.g/kg to
23 J ug/kg) in the drainage pathways. Beryllium (0.68 mg/kg), arsenic (180 mg/kg), and three
PAHs (benzo[a]anthracene - 2,200 J ug/kg, benzo[a]pyrene - 2,600 J pig/kg, and
benzo[b]fluoranthene - 3,300 J fag/kg) were detected at concentrations that exceeded the USEPA
Region III RBCs for residential exposure. The sediment collected in the drainage pathways will be
addressed as part of OU 13 and are not further discussed in this ROD.
2.5.0.9 Surface-water samples collected from Kingsland Creek during various investigations
indicate that low levels of chlorinated volatiles (1.1 ug/L to 4.4 ug/L) and BTEX (1.1 ng/L to 15
ug/L) compounds may have been introduced to Kingsland Creek. The FTA is a likely source of the
volatiles and BTEX contamination observed in surface waters of Kingsland Creek. Migration of the
contaminants from the site may be the result of surface run-off and/or discharge of ground water
into the creek. Two storm sewer lines which run directly north to south through the FTA may also
be acting as conduits along which contaminated ground water could be directed towards the creek.
No volatiles or BTEX compounds were detected in the sediments of Kingsland Creek. The
concentrations of metals in both the surface waters and sediments of Kingsland Creek, were similar
in samples collected upstream and downstream of the FTA, and are not considered a consequence
of site contamination. Sediment/surface-water toxicity tests conducted on samples from Kingsland
53109.39 2-12
-------
Creek show relatively small or no impacts for acute toxicity and growth rates in comparison to the
control station on Kingsland Creek. Furthermore, a benthic macroinvertebrate survey was also
performed along Kingsland Creek, with results indicating no significant impacts to either species
diversity or abundance.
2.5.0.10 Semi-volatiles were detected in both the upper and lower aquifers at low concentrations
(4.3 ug/L to 27 (ag/L). Several metals were detected at elevated concentrations but could not be
related to any known site activities. The elevated concentrations of some of these metals (i.e.,
arsenic, chromium, and iron) were considered the result of naturally occurring levels of metals in
the soils. Chlorinated volatiles, primarily tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene, were detected in
both the upper and lower aquifers at concentrations which exceed federal Maximum
Containment Levels (MCLs) by several orders of magnitude. The ground-water contamination
present beneath and downgradient from the FTA is being addressed under OU 7, the ground-
water operable unit.
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
2.6.0.1 The baseline risk assessment provides the basis for taking action and indicates the exposure
pathways that need to be addressed by the remedial action. It serves as the baseline indicating what
risks could exist if no action were taken at the site. This section of the ROD reports the results of
the baseline risk assessment conducted for this site.
2.6.0.2 A baseline risk assessment has been conducted for the FTA as documented in the RI Report
and revised in the RI Report Addendum for the FTA (RI Addendum) and in the updated risk
assessment calculations for OU 4 of September 28, 1998 (updated risk assessment calculations).
The baseline risk assessment was updated in 1998 in order to re-evaluate the site-related risks
based on new background concentrations developed for DSCR, updated toxicity values, and risk
assessment procedures and guidance that have changed since the RI Addendum was prepared.
The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to provide the framework for developing risk
information necessary to assist in the risk management decision-making process at investigation
sites. The baseline risk assessment evaluates the potential health impact of the contaminants
53109.39 2-13
-------
detected in soil, ground water, surface water, and sediments on the exposed and potentially exposed
populations if no action is taken to remedy conditions at the site. This summary of site risks, based
on the updated risk assessment calculations, includes only the results pertinent to OU 4 (i.e., soil at
the FTA).
2.6.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern
Table 2-1 presents a summary of information about contaminants of potential concern in soils at
the FTA. Note that the number of contaminants of concern shown in this table is reduced from
the total number of contaminants encountered at the FTA. This reduction is performed by
considering the toxicity and frequency of occurrence of each contaminant and results in a
focused list of contaminants of concern to be addressed further.
2.6.1.2 Arsenic and iron were not selected as contaminants of potential concern because the
maximum detected concentrations of 81 mg/kg and 27,400 mg/kg, respectively, were slightly
less than their respective upper tolerance limit (UTL). It is important to note that the background
concentrations for arsenic and iron are elevated at DSCR. Exposure to the background
concentrations of arsenic and iron may result in unacceptable risk levels.
2.6.2 Exposure Assessment
2.6.2.1 A complete exposure pathway consists of a source, a release mechanism, an
environmental transport route leading to an exposure point, a receptor, and an exposure route.
There are four potential exposure scenarios at the site. These are exposure to ground water, soils
O'ncJuding airborne particulates), surface water, and sediments under present site conditions or
under anticipated future site use.
2.6.2.2 Under current conditions, the most likely exposure to soil at the FTA is for current on-
site workers. Potential exposure routes are dermal contact with contaminants in the soil,
incidental ingestion of soil through hand to mouth contact, and inhalation of contaminated dust
particles or volatile contaminants. Recreational joggers using the path near the FTA also have
53109.39
2-14
-------
the potential for exposure through inhalation of airborne dust. Access to DSCR is restricted,
therefore, joggers are comprised of DSCR employees.
i
2.6.2.3 In the future, exposure to subsurface soils is possible if remediation and/or building
occurs on site which results in disturbing subsurface soils. Potential future receptors include
construction workers, on-site workers, recreational joggers, and if the land use at the FTA
changes, residents. Future workers and residents may have contact with potentially
contaminated surface and subsurface soils through incidental ingestion of soils through hand to
mouth contact, inhalation of airborne dust particles, inhalation of volatiles, and dermal contact.
2.6.2.4 Currently, there is no potable water supplied on DSCR utilizing ground water (upper or
lower aquifers). Potable water for DSCR is received through the city of Richmond water supply.
Therefore, on-site exposure to ground water is not expected. Off-site residents have the potential
to come into contact with potentially contaminated ground water through the use of private water
wells for drinking water and other uses (bathing, irrigation of gardens or nurseries, etc.).
Ground-water issues are being addressed under OU 7.
2.6.2.5 Potential exposure pathways may include off-site contact with stream sediments and
surface water in Kingsland Creek. The FTA is actually separated from the creek by a chain link
fence, and therefore worker contact is not anticipated. Kingsland Creek is a small stream, and
use of the surface water as a potable water source by off-site residents is not expected. However,
use of the surface water by a local nursery for irrigation water may occur. In addition, wading by
children and adults is a possible scenario for residential exposure to Kingsland Creek sediments
and/or surface water (even though the area around the creek is wooded). Exposure to surface
water and sediments during wading is anticipated to be limited to dermal contact. Kingsland
Creek is not large enough to support a viable recreational fishery.
2.6.2.6 Future exposures are anticipated to remain similar to current potential exposures, as
DSCR property use is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Although residential
exposures are unlikely at the FTA, future residential exposures (adult and child) were included in
53109.39 2-15
-------
the baseline risk assessment. Future land use in the areas adjacent to the base is expected to
remain residential.
2.6.3 Toxicitv Assessment
2.6.3.1 The toxicity assessment is an integral part of the risk evaluation process. Quantitative
reference values describing the toxicity of the contaminants of concern are evaluated. Toxicity
values such as the Reference Dose (RfD) and the Slope Factor (SF) are based primarily on
human and animal studies with supportive evidence from pharmacokinetics, mutagenictty, and
chemical structure studies.
2.6.3.2 Slope Factors have been developed by the USEPA's Carcinogenic Assessment Group
for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
contaminant(s) of concern. These excess lifetime cancer risks are those related to the site and
not those associated with everyday exposures. The SFs, which are expressed in units of
(milligram per kilogram per day)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential
carcinogen, in milligram per kilogram per day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The term "upper bound"
reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach
makes underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. Slope Factors are derived from
the results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-
human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of
animal data to predict effects on humans).
2.6.3.3 Reference doses have been developed by the USEPA for indicating the potential for
adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. The RfDs,
which are expressed in units of milligram per kilogram day, are estimates of lifetime daily
exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals that are not expected to be associated
with adverse effects. Estimated intakes of contaminant(s) of concern from environmental media
(e.g., the amount of a contaminant of concern ingested from contaminated soil) can be compared
to the RfD. The RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal studies to
53109.39 2-16
-------
which uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data to predict
effects on humans).
2.6.3.4 The toxicity values used for the risk assessment were obtained from the USEPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) data base. If toxicity values were not available from
IRIS, they were obtained from the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). When
values were not available in IRIS or HEAST, values from the National Center for Environmental
Assessment were used. The toxicity assessment is then used in conjunction with the exposure
assessment to yield the risk characterization for the site
2.6.4 Risk Characterization
2.6.4.1 Risks from potential carcinogens are estimated as probabilities of cancer as a result of
exposure to chemicals from the site. The risks from each pathway (dermal contact, inhalation
and ingestion) can be summed to estimate the combined (cumulative) risk for the receptor. A
summary of the cancer risk estimates for both the current and future receptors is provided in
Table 2-2. These risk estimates are compared to the USEPA's Target Risk Range of 10"6 to 10"4
to evaluate the need for remedial action. If risk levels are above the USEPA's Target Risk
Range remedial action is generally required. If risk levels are below or within the USEPA's
target Risk Range remedial action is typically not required. The total soil pathway cancer risk
for the current occupational workers was calculated to be 2 x 10'3, which is within the USEPA's
Target Risk Range. For future occupational workers (and construction workers), the total soil
pathway cancer risks were calculated to be 9 x 10"6 and 4 x 10~7, respectively, which are within or
below the USEPA's Target Risk Range. The estimated inhalation of fugitive dust cancer risk for
current and future recreational joggers was 1 x 10"10, which is below the USEPA's Target Risk
Range. The combined risk for future residential exposure to soil at the FTA was estimated to be
5 x 10"3, which is also within the USEPA's Target Risk Range. The combined risk for the
recreational wader exposed to surface water and sediment was estimated to be 2 x 10"6, which is
within the USEPA's Target Risk Range. This information was originally presented in the
Remedial Investigation and the Feasibility Study and revised in the updated risk assessment
calculations.
53109.39 2-17
-------
2.6.4.2 Noncarcinogenic effects are characterized by comparing the estimated chemical intakes
to the appropriate RfD value. The ratio of the chronic RfD to the chronic daily intake for a
specific chemical is termed the hazard quotient. The sum of the individual chemical hazard
quotients is the hazard index for that pathway. A hazard quotient greater than 1 indicates that the
threshold for response for a specific chemical has been exceeded, a hazard index greater than 1
that the cumulative hazard for a given exposure pathway has been exceeded. A summary of the
noncarcinogenic risk estimates for both current and future exposures to soil at the FTA is
provided in Table 2-3. The hazard indices for current occupational workers, future occupational
workers, future construction workers, and recreational joggers were all below the threshold value
of 1 with values of 0.03, 0.02, 0.4, and 0.002, respectively. The hazard indices for future
residential adults and children were also below the threshold value of 1, with values of 0.06 and
0.3, respectively. The hazard indices for recreational waders (adult and children) were below the
threshold value of 1, with values of 0.007 and 0.06, respectively. This information was originally
presented in the Remedial Investigation and the Feasibility Study and revised in the updated risk
assessment calculations.
2.6.5 Ecological Risk Characterization
2.6.5.1 Ecological risks posed by the site to the environment were considered low. The
terrestrial landscape of the site is highly industrialized, and offers little to no available habitat for
terrestrial wildlife receptors. Terrestrial wildlife are not likely to find suitable forage or nesting
habitat at this site. Terrestrial wildlife habitat is present along Kingsland Creek. The primary
exposure pathways considered were exposure to soils, and Kingsland Creek surface waters and
sediments. Burrowing species have the potential to be exposed to soils via incidental ingestion,
inhalation of fugitive dust, and dermal contact. Nonburrowing species may have exposure to
soils primarily via dermal contact and, to a lesser extent, inhalation and ingestion. Species
utilizing the riparian habitat and Kingsland Creek have the potential to be exposed to surface
water and sediments during normal foraging activities. Aquatic organisms living in the creek
also have the potential for exposure to surface water and sediments. However, surface-water and
sediment toxicity testing in Kingsland Creek did not indicate impact to the stream, and the
benthic macroinvertebrates evaluated also indicated no significant impact to species diversity or
53109.39 2-18
-------
abundance. No critical habitats or endangered species were identified that would be affected.
Considering the limited impact to the creek and the limited contamination at the site, it was
concluded that the site does not pose a significant ecological risk. It should also be noted that
Parker Pond and the Bellwood Elk Preserve are not expected to be impacted by the FTA due to
their geographic location and distance from the site.
2-7 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
2.7.0.1 Based on the results of the Revised Risk Assessment, no further action is recommended
for OU 4. Based on the concentrations of analytes detected in the soil samples collected from the
FTA and the risk posed to current and future on-site workers, future construction workers, and
future residents, no further action is deemed necessary. It is important to note that this action is
based on exposure scenarios considering direct contact with the soil. The FTA soil may require
action under OU 7 to address the potential for migration of contaminants to ground water.
2.7.0.2 No significant changes in site conditions have occurred since the issuance of the Final RI
Report. The "no action" alternative will consist of leaving the site intact. No additional
sampling or monitoring will be necessary because no future potential threats to human health or
the environment exist based on the current low levels of residual contamination, and the
acceptable levels of risk to both human health and the environment. This remedial alternative
will have no associated cost.
53109.39 2-19
-------
-------
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
3.0.0.1 The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to provide the public with a summary of
citizen comments, concerns, and questions relating to the area of concern at the Defense Supply
Center Richmond (DSCR) in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The area of concern specifically
addressed by this responsiveness summary is:
Operable Unit 4 (OU 4) - Fire Training Area Source Area
The responsiveness summary details the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) responses to these
comments, concerns, and questions.
During the public comment period from February 21, 1999, through April 7, 1999, no comments
or phone calls were received by DSCR concerning this operable unit. A public notice was
published in the Richmond Times Dispatch, a newspaper of general circulation in the area, on
February 21, 1999. In addition, a public meeting was held on March 17, 1999, at the DSCR
Building 33. At this meeting, DSCR representatives presented slides outlining the proposed plan
for OU 4 and the public was given an opportunity to comment on and ask questions concerning
the plans.
3.0.0.2 The summary is divided into the following sections:
I. Letter and newspaper notice announcing date of the public comment period and location
and time of the public meeting.
II. Copy of the certified minutes from the public meeting.
A copy of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Public Health Assessment
for DSCR was provided to Mr. and Mrs. Patton as requested at the public meeting. No public
comments on the proposed plan were received. Thus, the decision to select "no further action"
as the site remedy is unaffected.
53109.39 3_1
-------
-------
IN REPLY
PEFEH TO
SECTION I
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND
3000 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23297-5100
MAR04 1SS9
DSCR-WEP
Dear Neighbor,
I want to take this opportunity to bring you up-to-date on the
progress of the Installation Restoration Program at the Defense Supply
Center Richmond (DSCR). Although there were no public hearings during
1998, significant progress was made.
In September 1996, a major system located in the central portion
of DSCR was implemented to clean up the ground water. Through the end
of December 1998, 21,900,000 gallons of water were treated. In
addition to cleaning the ground water, the system continues to "pull
back", the contaminated ground water for treatment from Bellwood
Properties. This successful operation is evidenced by the 96 percent
reduction from contaminate levels found prior to starting up the
system and a 9 percent reduction from the end of 1997.
Although the contaminates are still at detectable limits, none
exceeded the safe drinking water standards published by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The well, which was originally
farthest away from DSCR's fence line until the installation of another
well closer to Park Lee .apartments in 1997, was 75 percent lower in
contaminates in 1998 thaa in 1997. The ground water is also in
compliance with the safe drinking water standards. Although the
system has been successful in cleaning up a large quantity of water,
the system currently bei.tg utilized is slow and could take up to
twenty years to complete the clean up. New methods of ground water
remediation are continually being developed and we are investigating
methods to enhance the existing system which will in turn reduce the
amount of time required to complete clean up.
In July 1998, we completed a one-year pilot study of ground water
clean up which treats the ground water and the soils where
contaminates are held after the ground water level is lowered due to
pumping. This new technology was extremely successful and the
estimated time to remediate the site was reduced by 75 percent. After
evaluating the test results, we decided to continue operation of the
system. Using this technology, we hope to enhance the aforementioned
system. We are also pleased that EPA has reviewed our findings and
plans to publish a paper utilizing a summary of our report as a case
study. The paper will share our experiences and lessons learned with
other people.
Federal Recycling Program
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
In December 1998, we started another pilot test utilizing
developing technology to remove contaminates from the ground water
without extracting the water from the aquifer. Results of this test
are not yet available; however, we are optimistic that this technology
will provide us with another option to clean up the ground water.
We have scheduled a public hearing on March 17, 1999 at 7:00 P.M.
in the DSCR Center Theater in building 33-K Section. Building 33 is
the first long building on the right after' you enter DSCR's main gate.
A map detailing the location is attached. The subject of this public
hearing is the presentation of the proposed plan for the former fire
training pit soils. The proposed plan presents a determination that
no further remedial action is required. A copy of the proposal along
with supporting documentation is located at the main Chesterfield
county library located on Lori Road. To assist you in your review, we
have attached a list of all documents directly relating to this
proposed plan. We have also attached a copy of the public notice that
was published in Richmond Times Dispatch on Sunday, February 21, 1999.
The public comment period starts the day of publication and closes on
April 7, 1999. We look forward to seeing you on March 17, 1999.
This should be a productive year in the Restoration Program at
DSCR. In addition to presenting the proposed plan on March 17, 1999,
we anticipate having another public meeting later this year to present
four additional proposed plans. We anticipate presenting proposed
plans for the area 50 landfill soils, building 68 soils, transitory
shelter 202 soils, and the acid neutralization pit ground water.
The EPA maintains a web site for DSCR that contains information
concerning the status of the site. The information can be accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/regShwmd/super/dgac/fa.htm. EPA also maintains a
general web site at http://www.epa.gov/.
If additional information is required on any phase of our
program, please contact t.he DSCR public affairs office at (804)
279-3209.
Sincerely,
GLENff J. PETRINA, P.E.
Director, Installation Services
Enclosures
-------
Enter through the main entrance of the Defense Supply Center
Richmond. Building 33 is the first long building on your right.
Parking will be on your left. Please do not park in handicapped
spots unless you are authorized. Please stop for pedestrians in
the crosswalks. The public meeting will be in K bay.
MAIN
ENTRANCE
GATE NO. 1
-------
-------
RICHMOND TIMES DISPATCH
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1999
METRO SECTION
PUBLIC NOTICE
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
FOR THE
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND
In accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Responsive. Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA). the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) invite public comment for one of the 13 Superfund operable
units: Contaminated Soils at ihe Former Fire Training Pits (Operable Unit (OU) 4). The public comment period will begin
on February 21. 1999 and close on April 7, 1999.
A public meeting will be held to discuss the specifics of the proposed plan at 7 p.m.. March 17, 1999. at the center the-
ater. Building 33-K Bay. at the Defense Supply Center Richmond, 8000 Jefferson Davis Highway. Richmond. VA. This
meeting will also provide an overview of the previous investigations and the risk assessment conducted for the site.
The proposed plan presents a determination that no further remedial action will be necessary to protect human health and
the environment from contaminated soil at OU 4. The. No Action decision for OU 4 is based on information presented in
the Final Remedial Investigation Report Addendum for Fire Training Area (January 1996). the Updated Risk Assessment
Calculations for OU 4-Fire Training Source Area (September 28. 1998), and amendments to the risk assessment calcula-
tions documented in a USEPA Memorandum from Jennifer Hubbard (Toxicologist) to Todd Richardson (Remedial
Project Manager) dated December 30. 1998. These documents are available in the site's administrative record (see v
below). Based on the results of the risk assessment, direct contact with the soil does not pose unacceptable human health":'
risks for current or potential future on-site receptors (inciuding.workers. construction workers, recreationai users, and res- >
idents). Groundwater contamination associated with the Fire Training Area is being addressed under a separate operable _ $
unit (OU 7).
Although this is the preferred remedial option at this time. DSCR. in consultation with USEPA and VDEQ. may modify-Ti'
the preferred alternative or select another option base;1, on the new information presented during the public comment peri- ^
od. Therefore, the public is encouraged to review the proposed plan for OU 4 and submit comments by April 7, 1999.
Citizens may review and photocopy the proposed plan and other documents relating to DSCR's Superfund studies and
remedy selection located in the site's administrative file. The file is located at the Chesterfield County Public Library, ;
9501 Lori Road. Chesterfield. Virginia 23832. Library hours are 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.. Friday and Saturday, and 10 a.m.; "
to 9 p.m. Monday through Thursday. The library is closed on Sunday.
To submit written comments on the proposed plan: obtain more information regarding the site, the comment period; the
upcoming public meeting: or to be added to the mailing list to receive updates on the program, interested panics should
contact:
Mr. Thomas Owens
Public Affairs Officer
Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR-DB)
8000 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond. VA 23297-5000
(804) 279-3209
.
Written comments on the proposed plan may also be sent to:
Ms. Felicia Daiiey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region III
Community Involvement Section (3H543)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia. PA 19103-2029
-------
-------
VOLUME RECORD
NUMBER NUMBER AD
Document List
Fire Training Pit Soils
Operable Unit 4
2
6
6
8
8
9
10
14
15
15
16
24
25
29
31
31
32
34
36
39
41
41
27
65
66
77
80
83
84
114
121
124
133
176
180
188
196
198
204
213
218
227
233
233
PREPARED
EX
USAEHA
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
Law
Law
VDWM
EPA
Draft Remedial Investigation Addendum Law
180 A Final Remedial Investigation Field Work - OU 4&7 Eng Sci
Draft Focused Feasibility Study - OU 4 Law
196 Work Task Proposal - Analysis of Drainage Pathway Law
Work Task Proposal Bedrock Monitoring Well Law
204 Final Remedial Investigation Report Addendum - OUs 4 & 7 Law
Final Supplemental Report - OUs 4 & 7 Law
Final Focused Feasibility Report - OU 4 Law
Updated Risk Assessment Calculations - OU 4 Law
USEPA Risk Assessment Comments & Response EPA/Law
233 Final Proposed Plan - OU 4 Law
TITLE OF RECORD
Water Quality Engineering Consultant No. 32-24-384
Draft Rl - Fire Training Pits
Draft Rl - Fire Training Pits - Appendices
Work Plan - Fire Training Area
Revised Work Plan - Fire Training Area
Remedial Investigation - Fire Training Area
Remedial Investigation - Fire Training Area - Appendices
Proposed Preliminary ARARs for OU 4
Draft Rl Work Plan - Fire Training Area and Acid Pits
124 A Comments on Preliminary ARARs - OU 4
DGSC Review Comments - OU 4
AREA OF
DATE CONCERN
Dec-20-84 FTP
May-26-87 FTP
May-26-87 FTP
May-21-88 FTP
Sep-21-88 FTP
May-31-89 FTP
May-31-89 FTP
Sep-16-91 FTP
Oct-11-91 FTP&ANP
Oct-30-91 FTP Soils
Nov-19-91 FTP Soils
May-4-93 FTP
Feb-9-94 FTP
Jan-27-95 FTP Soils
Sep-20-95 FTP
Aug-10-95 FTP
Jan-24-96 FTP
Dec-12-96 FTP
Aug-22-97 FTP Soils
Sep-28-98 FTP Soils
Dec-30-98 FTP Soils
Feb-17-98 FTP Soils
Page 1
-------
-------
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
SECTION H
OPERABLE UNIT FOUR
PROPOSED PLAN
PUBLIC MEETING
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND
Building 33
8000 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, Virginia 23297-5000
March 18, 1999
7:00 p.m.
'
CAPITOL REPORTING, INC. '
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
P.O. Box 959
Mechanicsville, Virginia 23111
Tel. No. (804) 788-4917
copy
I
-------
1
2
3 Thomas Owens, Defense Supply Center Richmond, Acting
4 Public Affairs Officer
5 Katy Allen, Law Engineering and Environmental Services,
6 Inc.
7 Bill Saddington, Defense Supply Center Richmond,
8 Environmental Engineer
9
10 Adrianne D. Moore, DSCR-WEP
11 David Shui, Law Kennesaw
12 Stephen Mihalko, DEQ
13 Todd Richardson, EPA Region III
14 George Horvat, Dynamac Corporation
15 Sandy Olinger, Army Corps of Engineers
16 Lynne Clem, Law Engineering
17 Christian Knoche, Law Engineering
18
19 VISITORS
20 Sue & Paul Patton
21 Robert P. Avsec, Chesterfield Fire Department
22
23
24
25
-------
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
INDEX
Opening remarks by Mr. Owens
Presentation by Mr. Saddington
Presentation by Ms. Allen
Closing remarks by Mr. Owens
4
7
15
21
-------
1
2
(Richmond, Virginia, March 17, 1999, 7:00 p.m.)
MR. OWENS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Tom Owens, and I'm the acting public affairs
officer at the Defense General Supply Center, and I'd
like to welcome you to tonight's public meeting to
discuss several issues.
The first is to provide you all an update of the
DSCR restoration program. We want to present the
proposed plan for the former fire training pit soil, and
10 finally we want to let you know of the primary documents
11 that are being used for tonight's meeting. These
12 documents are on file at the Chesterfield Country
13 Library located at 9501 Lori Road in Chester, Virginia.
14 We invite you to go and look at them.
15 We have a public comment period that extends from
16 now until April 5th, and if you do have any comments
17 regarding any of the proposals that we are presenting
18 tonight, we invite you to send them in to me at my
19 address at the Defense Supply center Richmond, 8000
20 Jefferson Davis Highway in Richmond, Virginia.
21 After the public comment period we'll review all
22 comments and we'll decide on a course of action for the
23 remediation of the fire training pits. These are
24 outlined as one, implement the current plan as is; two,
25 modify the current plan, or select an alternative plan,
-------
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
and finally, issue a record of decision.
We have with us tonight the Defense Supply Center
Richmond Environmental Engineer, Mr. Bill Saddington,
who will take over this presentation from here to go
into more detail on our plan. We also have a number of
experts from different Federal, state, and offices as
well as our contractors. And at this time I would like
for them to introduce themselves before Bill comes up.
From Law Environmental our contractor who has been
working with us throughout this, would you please stand
now? We do have visitors and identify yourself and your
job with your company, okay?
MS. ALLEN: My name is Katy Allen, I'm with Law
Engineering and Environmental Services, and I'm the
project manager for the remediation of this site.
MS. CLEM: I'm Lynne Clem with Law Engineering and
Environmental Services, I'm a senior risk assessor.
MR. KNOCHE: I'm Chris Knoche with Law Engineering,
I'm a sight manager and geologist.
MR. OWENS: Okay. We have an individual from the
Environmental Protection Agency.
MR. RICHARDSON: My name is Todd Richardson, I'm
with EPA Region III, I'm the remedial project manager.
MR. OWEN: Representative from Dynamac Corporation,
one of the subcontractors.
-------
2
3
MR. HORVAT: George Horvat, Dynamac Corporation, EPA
Region III subcontractor.
MR. OWENS: Individuals from the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality.
MR. MIHALKO: My name is Stephen Mihalko, I'm a '
remedial project manager with the State, functioning to
make sure the State requirements are met during
cleanup.
MR. OWEN: Two individuals from our facilities
10 engineering and installation services department, first
11 in the back?
12 MS. MOORE: Hi, I'm Adrianne Moore and I'm the chief
13 of the service center.
14 MR. OWEN: Now our environmental engineer as I was
15 introducing one second ago is right here.
16 MR. SADDINGTON: Bill Saddington, I'm a remedial
17 project manager working together with EPA and
18 Environmental Quality.
19 MR. OWEN: And you walked in just after I introduced
20 myself, I'm Tom Owens and I work in the public affairs
21 office. If you'd like to move over to the center, it
22 may be easier for you to see down here in this darker
23 area. I think would be most beneficial.
24 Did I miss anyone?
25 MS. OLINGER: Yeah, you missed me. Sandy Olinger
-------
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
and I work for the Army Corps of Engineers, I'm the
project manager who monitors the contracts to get the
work done.
MR. OWENS: All right.
MR. SADDINGTON: Well, back up a minute. Since
people came in late --
MR. OWENS: Okay. You want to cut it off and then
pick up where Mr. Saddington comes in?
(Whereupon Mr. Owens reviewed the
preliminary introduction.)
MR. SADDINGTON: I'd like to go into a little bit
about the background on the center. It's 611 acres, it
was a little larger a couple years ago, but we sold the
reservoir to the county, or gave it to the county, so we
lost about 29 acres in that transfer. Obviously 11
miles south of Richmond, 16 miles north of Petersburg,
and has been a major supply facility for the Department
of Defense since 1941.
It currently employs over 2,800 people, and it's one
of the major elements of the defense logistics agency.
What has happened over the last couple years I'm sure is
many places have been closed and we've actually expanded
our operation. We've been working this project, as Tom
said, for at least ten years with agreement in place
from EPA.
-------
3
4
5
What we have is we have 13 operable units. Each
operable unit has some remediation or studies that have
to be done. This will be the fifth one where we have
issued a record of decision.
The first one was Operable Unit 1, which was the
6 open storage area. The record of decision for that one
7 was issued in 1992. We had the five-year review and the
8 selected remedy has been determined with EPA and the
9 State agreement still be protective to the human health
10 and the environment.
11 Operable Unit 2, this is the area that used to be a
12 ravine back in the '60s where chemicals were disposed
13 of. That was the accepted procedure in the '60s. There
14 are a lot of problems gathered today throughout --of
15 course in the United States, not just here, we're
16 getting close to a record of decision at least a
17 proposed plan on it. We anticipate it will probably be
18 late this year where we will have another meeting and
19 present the proposed plan for our Operable Unit 2.
20 We're looking in the December time frame.
21 The Operable Unit 3 is the National Guard area.
22 This, again, was a soils area. Record of decision was
23 issued in 1994, we had to remove some soils, haul them
24 off-site, a little area, the rest of it was
25 institutional controlled where we have to do some work
8
-------
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
if we're going to dig in the soils -for construction or
any intrusion of activities. We will be doing a
five-year review to make sure the selected remedy is
meeting the criteria of the health and human
environment.
The one we want to talk about tonight is Operable
Unit 4, the fire training pits. This was an area where
fire training went on for a period of years down in the
southern portion. If you live in the immediate area
you've probably seen it. I mean, I imagine there was a
black cloud of smoke.
OU-5, acid neutralization pit, this was actually the
second rod we issued in 1992. The selected remedy was
vapor vacuum extraction. The area was not as
contaminated as we originally thought. We did the pilot
test and we found out that the pilot test cleaned it up,
so we did perform an explanation of significant
differences which was presented, if I remember*
correctly, at our last meeting. And that area now has
been closed out as being clean.
OU-6 and OU-9 -- I'm sorry, this should be OU-9 down
here, these are the same areas. OU-6 is the final
solution which we're doing a pilot test now to try to
expedite the clean up. OU-9, same area, we've had a
system in operation for a little over two years, and we
-------
1
2
3
have remediated or cleaned up somewhere in the order of
two and a half million gallons of water. And we
continue to pull it back towards the center. If you're
familiar already with the area, Bellwood Properties,
which is right beside the National Guard is where we're
6 pulling the water back there to reduce contamination.
7 Again, the method we use used to be a
8 state-of-the-art method. Now more work has been done,
9 we have ended up coming out with new methods. The
10 method we're using now is taking us as long as 20 years,
11 and what we're looking at now is something to make it a
12 little faster to expedite the clean up. Do as good or
13 better job, but in a shorter period of time.
14 OU-7, the fire training pit ground water, again,
15 this is the ground water contamination related to the
16 ' fire training pits. We're looking for a way to expedite
17 the clean up in this. We did a study on it and now
18 we're looking at a different type of clean up method.
19 We probably will implement two different methods. This
20 is probably the toughest one we have right now to clean
21 up.
22 OU-8, the acid neutralization pit, groundwater. The
23 pilot study was extremely successful and we have kept it
24 running, and we have cleaned up about a million gallons
25 of water here. We are going to' issue a record of
10
-------
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
decision, but since we've had such good success wich
this one, we're going to keep it running-and probably
have a rod issued based on what we know now. They did a
very good job. It's one of the new technologies and
probably will do the job in three or four years. And
this is one of the things we're looking at for OU-S to
expedite the clean up.
The last four we have were not in the original ones,
they've been added as we found a little more out. None
of them are really significant. Building 68 - soils
this year we'll issue a rod hopefully near the end of
the year or hopefully early the next year.
Transitory shelter 202. We'll end up recommending
an institutional control, and this will essentially mean
that we can keep it as it is, but we cannot turn it over
to residential areas. But I think anybody really
familiar with this area does not foresee it in the
future going to residential controls. It's too valuable
warehouse space if anything happened to us.
Building 112 - soils. That was a pesticide facility
and some of the old pesticides in the soils there like
chlordane, I'm sure you all have heard of chlordane
which was used for termites, also the DDT, we used to
mix it there, take it around and use it in other
places. And just probably over the years we've had some
11
-------
1
2
3
4
spills and there's a little higher concentration than
you would want to find where you would use the area.
Finally, the last one, OU-13 that's the latest one
we found, that was an accident, but this was a result of
an oil spill. And when we did the original survey no
one told us about it. So we were doing some other work
in the area and we found this, and it didn't fit in
anything we found before, so they are now working on
that one again getting ready to hopefully have a rod
10 sometime next year.
11 We hope by next year we'll have all the records of
12 decision in place, all the meetings, and it would just
13 be clean up from then on. We've studied it, we've done
14 a lot of studying, and I think it has taken a long time,
15 but we're getting to the point now where what we've
16 learned and the new technology that's coming out, we
17 will probably be ahead of the game in the long run.
18 Clean it up quicker than we would if we went in with the
19 technology of the late '80s.
20 This,is the one we want to talk about today, is fire
21 training area soil area, OU-4, Operable Unit 4. The
22 proposed remedy tonight addresses only the contaminated
23 soils in the area. The ground water contamination you
24 saw earlier is being managed under another operable
25 unit, Operable Unit 7, and that is the ground water. if
12
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you're familiar with this, this is the southern portion
of the center, Kingsland Creek, and the fire training
pits are right in this area here. And the three of them
as far as we can figure we knew of two, and during the
samplings in the late '80s, where we were doing the
studying we found indications where there may have been
a third one. But no one really remembered, so it may be
some contamination from some other source, but it's got
the same characteristics as the training pit. Again,
it's in the south portion, and it's bounded by Kingsland
Creek, which is the little creek that runs along the
southern boundary.
This is a little schematic of the area. You can see
the fire training pits, the approximate location, the
west to east location, and the other lines are just
storm sewer lines that run through the building. They
actually drain a major area of the center. I would
estimate in the order of 100 to ISO acres is drained
through that particular area down there and along here.
There was actually three pits. One was used from
mid '70s through -79, diameter was 50 feet, depth of
three feet and was filled in with soil in 1983. Pit two
from the late '60s to the early '70s, rectangular pit,
20 by 40 feet, and again, it was filled in with soil in
early to mid 1970s.
13
-------
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
15
16
And again, I mentioned the third pit was found
during the investigation, and was actually found by a
sampling of the ground water. It looked like there was
a plume there that was emitting from a place we didn't
know about.
Chemicals used in the' fire training. Most of them
were petroleum, pesticides, herbicides, of this nature,
and I think the theory was back in those days, if they
thought it would burn they would throw it in, something
would just not burn. And, of course, flammable, liquid
chemicals. From my experience in the military, these
would throw off some pretty black smoke when they lit
them off. A little history of it, 1982 was the first
work that was done on it, the Hygene Agency out of
Maryland installed four wells, and we've been sampling
off and on from 1989 to 1997. And we looked at
17 everything; we looked at soils, we looked at ground
18 water, surface water, sediments, storm water drainage,
19 and we did toxicity testing. But again, we're just
20 taking soils tonight, but everything will be tied
21 together with OU-7 to make sure the creek is protected
22 and the ground water is cleaned up.
23 The soils, the primary contaminants of concern are
24 polynuclear aromatics, the others we have are
25 pesticides, dieldrin, metals, volatile organic
14
-------
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
compounds. You get the tetrachloroethane and
trichloroethene you find all over, it's a common
degreaser. Ground water contamination will be addressed
in Operable Unit 7, but some of the other contaminants
found in there particularly are volatile. And we found
low levels of chlorinated and aromatic volatiles in
Kingsland Creek.
I'll turn it. over to Katy now, she's going to talk
about the rest, and what we considered, why we got to
the point to make the recommendation, Katy?
MS. ALLEN: Thank you, Bill. As Bill just noted, a
number of samples were collected from various media at
the fire training area. Based on the analytical results
from those samples, we looked at the data and determined
what the potential risks to human health or the
environment might be posed by the soils of the fire
training area. That's commonly called the baseline risk
assessment, and that says they're evaluated for current
and future risks to human health and environment from
site contamination during the remedial test
investigation.
The purpose of the risk assessment was two-fold.
One was to look at the human exposure, risk potential
from the site, in particular, from the contaminants
identified in the site soil. We looked at three
15
-------
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
exposure pathways, one being ingestion of the soil, in
other words if you were to actually touch the soil, get
it on your hands, and then somehow get your hand to your
mouth, and then that would ingest the soil and
particulates contained in the site.
The second thing, inhalation of fugitive dusts. The
fugitive dusts being dusts that are commonly carried
into the air by the wind, which you would then breathe
in the normal course of inhaling.
And the third being dermal or skin contact with the
soil. In other words, when you touch the soil and it
comes in contact with your skin some contaminants can
actually be absorbed through your skin. So we looked at
14 those three what we call pathways of exposure.
15 To address potential risk to the environment we
16 looked at what we call ecological risks. The ecological
17 risk being the site was considered to be low because as
18 you can see from the photograph that Bill Saddington had
19 shown earlier, the site is largely industrial, it's used
20 for storage of a variety of military materials, there is
21 extremely minimal vegetation, it's basically bare
22 ground, no grass growing, really no suitable habitat for
23 animals to live in. We wouldn't expect to see nesting
24 or those types of activities by animals in this area.
25 We reviewed endangered species that might be either
16
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in transit through this area or actually residing in the
vicinity of DSCR, and no endangered species were
identified that can be potentially affected by
contaminants at this site. We also sampled surface
water from Kingsland Creek, we did toxicity testing of
creatures that might live in the creek and determined
that there was no significant impact from the soils at
this site in Kingsland Creek. Particularly in looking
at the discharge from the storm sewer system that drains
this portion of the base.
This is a slightly more detailed description of the
actual calculations that occurred as part of the risk
assessment. We looked at current workers, in other
words, people at DSCR who actually might be engaged in
the course of their work activities and activities at
the site. For example, the people who are storing
material there, they were actually on-site, could
potentially be exposed to soils at the site.
We looked at what a future worker, in other words,
this is a person who is currently working there. We
looked at what a future worker might encounter while
working at the site, exposure to surface and subsurface
soils. And a third we looked at was the construction
worker who might actually be digging at the site, and
someone who would come in contact with either the
17
-------
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
surface soils of the site or soils that are in depth at
the site. In particular, a ten foot depth would be a
typical construction type depth that might be exposed
for construction activities.
We then used standard EPA protocols for performing
risk assessments and evaluated what the carcinogenic or
cancer risk was posed by the soils would be, and what
the percentage outcome would be, and the carcinogenic
compounds and the compounds that are not carcinogenic.
We calculated what is called a hazard index, which is a
11 threshold by which an adverse health affect might
12 occur.
13 EPA has established in it's regulations what are
14 called target risk range for carcinogens with a range
15 ranging from 10 to the minus 6th excess cancer risk, 10
16 to the minus 4th, and as you can see from this
17 calculation the excess cancer risk for these various
18 scenarios range from 2 to the minus 5th, nine to the
19 minus 6th, and four to the minus 7th.
20 The hazard index, the threshold for adverse affects
21 is, one, in other words, the number above one would
22 indicate that there was a potential adverse affect. And
23 as you see'here the hazard from the calculated numbers
24 are well below one.
25 The third column indicates what chemicals that were
18
-------
. 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
present at the site are actually creating a risk. In
other words, these are the chemicals that are
predominantly resulting in the calculated numbers. They
were predominantly poly aromatic hydrocarbons, which are
compounds from auto emissions, burning material,
completely burned poly aromatic hydrocarbons, which
would be present.- And the second compound is dieldrin,
which is a pesticide normally_used in agricultural use.
Another scenario that we looked at was if at some
future point in time, although it's not foreseeable at
this time, if and when use of this site should change
from it's current industrial use as a portion of the
center to residential use, in other words, perhaps the
property would be sold and use of the site for building
homes and people to reside at would be concentrated, we
looked at the potential risk from that land use. Public
future residential exposure scenario, and again, the
list totals that we calculated are within the range
considered acceptable by EPA. - And the same chemicals
were involved in producing that risk as were the
industrial chemicals at the site.
MR. PATTON: Would you break that 5 times 10 to the
minus 5th into layman's terms so that I could understand
what's the risk? For person or what?
MS. ALLEN: Okay. This is considered an excess
19
-------
3
4
5
6
cancer risk, above that which normally would be observed
statistically in a population. The increased risk could
be 5 people per 100,000 might incur an incident of
cancer. So it's above what's normally observed in the
population.
And another scenario that we looked at was current
7 recreation user of the site. There's a jogging path
8 that traverses the site a little bit north, but doesn't
9 actually cross the site, but there is a potential that
10 recreational users of that jogging path could be exposed
11 to fugitive dust that might be blown from the site while
12 they're jogging. And again, the risk posed there is
13 significantly low, 1 times 10 to the minus 10th, and a
14 hazard of 0.002. This is a target risk which they
15 consider to be acceptable.
IS The ecological risk characterizations, as I
17 mentioned before, the site does not pose a significant
18 ecological risk. One reason being the industrial nature
19 of the site does not offer habitat for animals to either
20 form or nest. And the second being the surface water
21 and sediment toxicity testing which was performed in
22 Kingsland Creek indicated no significant impact to the
23 creek.
24 In conclusion, based on the risk characterization
25 performed to human health risk and ecological risk
20
-------
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
assessment from the risk from the exposure to soils are
either below or within the U.S. EPA target excess cancer
risk range and below the hazard threshold for the
current future worker scenario, evaluated the current
recreational jogger, and the future residents, both
adults and children. The ecological assessment
indicated that the site does not pose a significant
ecological risTc. There are no critical habitants or
endangered species affected, and there's no significant
impact to Kingsland Creek.
This forms the basis for the recommendation at this
site that conditions in the soils at Operable Unit 4,
which is the fire training area soils, or also called
the fire training area source area, are deemed to be
protective of human health and the environment. And no
action is recommended for the soils at the fire training
area at this time.
MR. OWENS: That concludes the presentation. Do you
have any questions that anyone in this group might be
able to answer for you?
MR. PATTONs Probably not, I've been involved in it
from day one and I didn't get answers to the questions
then, and it's been years since then, and, you know, I
didn't get successful answers to the questions that I
had, and I was personally involved with the General here
-------
1
2
and his lieutenant.
I was kind of pushed back, put on raps of things
3 that went on then, so, I mean, all that's past in the
past, and I think, you know, and I like the way you're
doing things, you know, and I'm pleased with it, you
know, and I can't say that I was pleased then, but you
know, you get so many things going on and so much cover,
8 you know, going on, and it was a lot of cover up going
9 on back in those days.
10 MR. OWENS: Was there?
11 MR. PATTON: Yes, sir. And I was personally
12 involved with going with the General's aide picking up
13 some of the stuff that I had showed him, contaminate,
14 and there was no report come back that he ever cleaned
15 them up, or that he ever took samples. And I personally
16 went with him when I picked up the samples and did it,
17 see. And, you know, that's back in then we just come to
18 see the update of what's being done now. And the one
19 question I do have are you going to open the ground at
20 the National --at the end of Alcot? The open pit area
21 that's closed now, are they going to open that up and
22 clean it out, or are they going to leave that closed
23 in?
24 MR. SADDINGTON: I'm really a little lost on where
25 you're talking. Oh, OU-2?
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
MR. PATTON: I think that's right at the end of
Alcot Road where the National Guard is, to the right you
go straight on in, you go over to the open field.
MR. SADDINGTON: The open field you're talking
about?
MR. PATTON: Yes, the open pit. And General
Quarters originally said we handled chemicals like
chocolate pudding not knowing how much is under the pit.
MR. SADDINGTON: Yes, we're going to open it a
little bit. We opened it a couple years ago, and I seem
to remember you may have been at the meeting at the
Holiday Inn?
MR. PATTON: Yes.
MR. SADDINGTON: We went ahead and the only thing we
really found we did find some ora. it was floating,
now, it appears we're trying to find it again. We're
going to open it up is the plan right now, and again,
there would be a public meeting to let everybody now.
It looks like what we're going to do is we're going to
get the soil that is contaminated with ora and dig that
out and dispose of that properly, and then fill it in
again, that's step one.
Step two then is we're looking at putting a clay
cover on it so that the rainfall does not push through
it, and then the chemicals will be trapped in there.
23
-------
2
3
6
The other thing we found out, the ground water
contamination coming out of that area which feeds OU-6
seems to be getting less in the volatile organic
compound. It looks like there's been a flushing action,
and again, we are catching it at the edge of the
National Guard.
7 So the only other way we know to get to the
8 chemicals to get out of there is a storm sewer to run
9 north-south, and if you're familiar with the area you
10 know what --
11 MR. PATTON: Yes. '
12 MR. SADDINGTON: We're going to cut a line. We
13 haven't really made up our mind whether we're going line
14 the existing storm sewer and just drain the cover, or
15 cap them off and go with new storm sewers. We did a TV
16 study of those storm sewers. We ran a what I call a
17 creepy-crawler down there and got a complete TV video of
18 that. So our contractors here are evaluating now, and
19 part of their recommendation for the whole clean up will
20 be what do we do exactly with that storm sewer, replace
21 it, cap it, or, you know, line it. So that's where
22 we're going.
23 We think we have a good plan and like, again, I
24 think I mentioned, we hope to have a public meeting like
25 this probably November, December time frame. And, of
24
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
course, as you know, we've been sending you people our
mailing list and again, if you know anybody who wants to
get on the mailing list, please let me know. But we
send a letter at least once a year and make sure you're
aware of the public meetings and we'd like to see you
come and participate and I'm happy to hear you say you
think we're doing better than we did 10 or 20 years
ago. Does that answer your question?
MR. PATTON: Yes, it does. And my question -- I
don't know who would answer, this is 5 per 100,000
people, cancer rate, where they're projecting it could
be or whatever. I haven't done any research. I
threatened to do it, but I just never done it because I
didn't want to open a Pandora's box. Within 500 feet of
my house there are three people that I personally know,
have know them personally, died with cancer within 500
feet of my house. And that to me is quite high. And
just simply knowing, you know, not to go investigate,
one of them was my neighbor, next door neighbor, he died
with cancer. Then I have another neighbor that lives
two blocks down the street, he died with cancer and the
pastor who lived across the street, he died with cancer,
and all lived there for.at least -- well, there was one
more, that's four that within like I said all the same
year.
25
-------
MR. SADDINGTON: Could you handle that, Lynne?
2 MS. CLEM: The number we gave you, the 5 and
3 100,000, those are excess cancer above what the normal
cancer is for, you know, being exposed to gasoline and
other contaminates and things that you have in your
everyday life. And I'm not sure what the actual average
cancer rate is for a given area. It's different in
every area. We've been here 30-some years and we have
quite a small --
10 MR. PATTON: And I don't know what the rate would be
11 in our small community. And I didn't like, like I said,
12 I threatened to do it and threatened to do it.and I just
13 never did it. To look and do some leg work to find out
14 who has actually died in this area from cancer.
15 MR. SADDINGTON: You know, it's just --
16 MS. OLINGER: There are so many factors, family
17 history and smoking and your job. I have several
18 friends who work industrial jobs and are exposed to all
19 kinds of things.
20 MS. CLEM: This 'is such a small area, it does seem a
21 little unusual as many of us know. Bill, do you have a
22 risk assessment around?
23 MR. SADDINGTON: I have it, it's in the public
24 record.
25 MS. CLEM: There's a public health assessment for
26
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the area.
MR. SADDINGTON: Let me try and bring out a little
bit of information. Several years ago as part of the
clean up STSDR, which is an agency for toxic substance
and disease registry, they're a part of the communicable
diseases in Atlanta, and they are part of the clean up
of every superfund site. They're required by law to
come in and do an assessment of our site. Let me check
that and see and get it out and get back to you when I
could find out. It's been four or five years since he
did it, so I don't really remember what did.
But I think one of the things he would do would be
look at the cancer risk.
MS. OLINGER: Yeah, they did look at the surrounding
areas.
MR. OWEN: Because I know when the General Defense
Supply area was built it was built higher than the area
so all the run off comes off from us from the different
centers. Because we're in a lower area we built those
as up high and everything runs off of us. We had a
problem with that for years until the run off.
MR. SADDINGTON: I remember when I first came here
we had a gentlemen that was working with me was called
Phil Butler who lived along Senate Avenue, and he was
one of the guiding lights that had the water line put
27
-------
1
2
3
4
down Congress and down Senate long before the rest of
the area had it because he had a contained --
MR. PATTON: Well because your all's drain ran
straight to his well and he couldn't get it contained.
5 MR. SADDINGTON: So the county had to run him water,
6 and that was the first water line I understand, and that
7 was in the '70s, wasn't it?
8 MR. PATTON: Yes, we've been here since '66, haven't
9 we?
10 MR. SADDINGTON: Okay. You're in county water now?
11 MR. PATTON: Yes, county water.
12 MR. SADDINGTON: Well, as long as I got your name
13 I'll take the list home and we'll make a copy and I'll
14 take a look and get back to you. It would probably be
15 two weeks because I'm going to be on vacation for the
16 next week to ten days.
17 MR. PATTON: Okay. One other question I had, too,
18 that you said that I've read in here several different
19 places where the water had been cleaned up 75 percent,
20 96 percent, and 9 percent, and then it would be another
21 20 years of cleaning up, you know, I don't understand
22 all of that.
23 MR. SADDINGTON: Well, what essentially happens is
24 it's very easy to get the first 90 percent. And what
25 we're doing now is we're pulling it back, and when I say
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
we cleaned up .96 percent, the one well we were-
monitoring from, it dropped down, we actually pulled the
water table down 10 feet.
MR. PATTON: My well went dry last year. The water
for my garden.
MR. SADDINGTON: We're sorry, we may have done that.
MR. PATTON: I've never had that problem before, of
course, we just use the water to garden with so --
MR. SADDINGTON: Well, it would not affect you all
because I think you have a shallow board well?
MR. PATTON: It's 48 feet.
MR. SADDINGTON: Okay. We may have done it. '
MR. PATTON: It's in the lower -- 44 feet before it
ever hit water.
MR. SADDINGTON: I'm sorry. i hope we didn't do
anything to you.
MR. PATTON: That was no problem because I was just
using it for water a couple hours a day.
MR. SADDINGTON: We had a fairly dry spring last
year because this actually dropped ten feet two years
ago, and it's been holding pretty steady. But what
happened is the one well, which we'll call my point of
compliance, which is the point that meets EPA
guidelines. If we get to this point, we got a point
where we know we're compliant. It dropped 96 percent
29
-------
over the life, I think was the figures, I quoted 80
2 percent?
3 MR. PATTON: Yes.
4 MR. SADDINGTON: 96. What's happened is we're
pulling water back onto the center, so we're actually
pulling clean water to replace it, reversing the ground
7 water flow. The ground water flow in that area is like
8 from a west to east. What we've done now by pumping
9 down we're making it come east to west. So we're
10 pulling cleaner water back. That's when you got the big
11 job. But what happens is it drops off quick and it just
12 approaches a point where you probably will never get to
13 zero, but you get to the point where you can't find it,
14 you can't analyze it. But that's where the 20 years
15 comes in. And when I talk 20 years, I'm talking close
16 in. This is probably 300 or 400 feet, it's right on the
17 Park Lee property. See what I'm saying? That drops' off
IB quick.
19 Now, you have to go back and if I give you the
20 results closer in they're not going to be as good as the
21 point of compliance, but EPA has basically accepted the
22 point of compliance at our fence line. So we're trying
23 to get everything back and then we're looking for a way
24 to implement or expedite the clean up, because the
25 method we use, and this is a 20-year method, and that is
30
-------
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
why everybody is trying to get away from it. We're
trying to do something that will continue to allow us to
use what we have, the money we vested, but also clean it
up by adding additional equipment. That's what we're
looking at right now.
MR. PATTON: Well, one thing that really helped us
along is when the government came in and put water in
which showed us they are interested. I mean, up to that
point they didn't show any interest at all. They cut
off bringing any water into us, period. We had to go
back to drinking well water'. They said the water you
have is contaminated and we were involved from day one,
and.I was involved there like in day one, and back in
those days things was hot and nobody knew what was going
on or the direction to go in. It was kind of jumping
\
back and forth passing the buck one to the other.
MR. SADDINGTON: I got involved a couple months
before the letter came around when water was available
to everybody and I said what are you doing, do remember
that? I said can you tell me whether the county owns
water, that was like September '87 from what I
remember. And that's when we quit doing the monitoring
water for the people.
MR. PATTON: Well, like I said, I have been
personally active in it with, you know, any way I could
31
-------
1
help. I took the General's personal aide, like I say.
2 and showed him areas that I knew of that was
contaminated, and that's one of the things that turned
me off because he took samples of things going into No
5 Name Creek is what they call it, No Name Creek, and I
6 have dealt with those chemicals before, and I knew what
7 they were. And I never got reports, they never got a
8 sample of those reports, it kind of rubs me wrong
9 because the General's aide, General Quarter's aide.
10 MS. OLINGER: We have samples now and that data is
11 available.
12 MR. PATTON: But I never Seen it.
13 MR. SADDINGTON: I don't think we have the data he'd
14 be talking about.
15 MS. OLINGER: Not that data, but we have samples.
16 MR. PATTON: I took the guy's name is -- whatever
17 information I could come back to him. As a General,
18 when he had knowledge, we had to handle the chemicals
19 like chocolate pudding. He got booted out, he was gone,
20 you know, go around telling people that, especially the
21 public.
22 MR. SADDINGTON: Well, I'm happy to report that we
23 do have little fishing in No Name Creek though EPA
24 didn't believe it until I showed it to them. You know,
25 the creek's not that deep or anything like that but they
32
-------
3
4
5
6
7
are starting to come up. i don't know where they come
from, but they're about that big, maybe an inch long.
MR. PATTON: Yeah, because he was telling me
crawfish was in this and stuff like that.
MR. SADDINGTON: I've never seen any crawfish.
MR. PATTON: I never seen fish. I have looked down
all of it and I could never find anything and he was
8 telling me all these things in it. And I live here, I
know there's nothing in it up to that point unless he
10 put stuff in and took pictures of it, they never showed
11 it to me. So I don't like to be deceived, be up front
12 and get it out in the open and we can deal with it. I'm
13 pleased, like I say, with what you're doing and happy to
14 come and, like I say, see it updated and that you're all
15 working at it.
16 MR. SADDINGTON: We anticipate we'll probably have
17 at least one, maybe two more meetings this year and
18 hopefully we're going to get another three records of
19 decision.
20 MS. OLINGER: That's kind of pushing it with EPA
21 lawyers, they're kind of limited up there.
22 MR. SADDINGTON: But that's what we're shooting for,
23 and one of them is going to be the area, the big area.
24 MR. PATTON: Right. I understand. We were doing a
25 lot of things wrong, but we have to pay the price for
33
-------
1 them now.
2 MS. OLINGER: Well, people didn't know things back
3 then.
4 MR. PATTON: Right. They just didn't care. Same
5 with Y2K.
6 MR. SADDINGTON: I knew about that 1971 when the
7 mortgages started-acting funny, you know, 30-year
8 mortgages. Any other questions? I see someone from the
9 fire department, the county fire department. Any
10 questions back there?
11 MR. AVSEC: No, sir.
12 MR. OWENS: Okay. Well, with no further questions
13 we'll conclude the evening. Thank you all for coming
14 out and make sure everybody has signed in and we have
15 the information we need, thank you.
IS (Whereupon the hearing was concluded at 7:45 p.m.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
-------
STATE OF VIRGINIA )
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
}
CITY OF RICHMOND )
I, JULIE M. WINKEL, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
Registered Professional Reporter, and Notary Public for
the Commonwealth of Virginia, residing in Virginia
certify:
That the public meeting was taken before me pursuant
to notice at the time and place therein set forth.
That the speakers comments and all comments made
by visitors had at the time of the hearing were recorded
stenographically by me and were thereafter transcribed
I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript is a
full, true, and correct record of my stenographic notes
so taken.
I further certify that I am not related to any
party to said action nor in anywise interested in the
outcome thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my
hand and affixed my official seal this 22nd dav of
March, 1999.
\
i;
^
lUu iV Vl'ii-wC?.
JULIE M. WINKEL
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Certified Shorthand Reporter
Registered Professional Reporter
and Notary Public in and for the
City of Richmond, Commonwealth of
Virginia.
My Commission Expires:
December 2, 2000
35
-------
-------
FIGURES
-------
-------
COASTLINE
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN MILES
U S ARMY ENGINEERING AND SUPPORT CENTER HUNTSVILLE
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA
OU 4 RECORD OF DECISION
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND
AND SURROUNDING AREA
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA
MtfMDfOOML
DCS 7A1/9C
CHfCXEOBMl.
KLA 7/1/96
MOJtCTUO:
11000-6-3119
ncuw
uMttft:
2-1
flUOATt
01 JUL 86
HJJTOATt
10 DEC 97
00636-53119
-------
I
tr>
o
s;
u.
cc
fc
.LEGEND:
SURVEYED GROUND ELEVATION (FEET)
- STREAM / CREEK (ARROWS INDICATE FLOW)
FENCE
RAILWAY TRACKS (INCLUDES ABANDONED
UNES)
-- TREE LINE
CONTOUR LINE
* STORM SEWER UNE w/DROP WLET
SURFACE DRAINAGE FEATURE
NOTES: 1. PIPE OUTLET REPORTEDLY CAPPED
OURWG FILING ASSOCIATED
WTH PAH AREA
2. LOCATION OF THIS LINE
INFERRED FROM DRAMNGS AND
DISCUSSIONS WITH STE PERSONNEL
SCALE IN FEET
U.S. ARMY ENGINFFRlNft AMP SUPPORT EFMTTP
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND
_____ RICHMOND. VA
cnrr/tu
OU 4 RECORD OF DECISION
SITE MAP
RRE TRAINING AREA
2/14/97
'XCW 2/14/97
ROME
2-2
nc
H OME AISCR /DON /STEM,
-------
200 400
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
(i) MONITORING WELL (DMW. DC)
$ SOIL BORING (QMS)
SHALLOW SOIL SAMPLE (DMA)
IREE LINE
rOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR LINE
SIREAM/CREEK (ARROW INDICATES FLOW)
NOTE:
DMW. DMS AND DMA ARE
DAMES AND MOORE (1989)
DC WELLS ARE USAEHA (1982)
v rrurr
U.S. ARMY ENGINEERING tt SUPPORT CENTER HUNTSV1I.j£
DEFENSE SUPPl. r CENTER RICHMOND
RICHMOND. VA
OU 4 RECORD OF DECISION
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
(1982-1989)
FIRE TRAINING AREA
DCS 2/U/97
cwcno
XCW 2/M/97
FUURE
NUNBCR:
DAIt:
97
noi o»ifc
100FC 97
-------
"* t ^h. *
: ---oC^r
/ -.- ha^*-;-
"" " lo
Oo V/1^!,.,
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
FNGtNEERinn A SUPPORT CFNTTR HUNTSVIIU
LEGEND:
<9 SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (ES. 1992)
O SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (ES. 1994)
..... - TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR LINE
X X FENCE
. . STREAM/CREEK (ARROW INDICATES FLOW)
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND
RICHMOND. VA
PKPNKO
00 4 RECORD OF DECISION
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
(1992-1993)
FIRE TRAINING AREA
ru o»it
CHECKED IV,
"DCS 2/H/97
XCW 2/14/97
FIGURE
Huuecit
2.-4-
AOI OA1L-
05ILD97
IODFC97
-------
LEGEND:
SOL SAMPLING LOCATION (LAW, 1992)
TREE LB
TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR LINE
X X FENCE
STREAM/CREEK (ARROW INDICATES FLOW)
200 400
SCALE IN FEET
U.S. ARMY ENGINEERING A SUPPORT CENTER HUNTSV1111
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND
RICHMOND. VA
OU < RECORD OF DECISION
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
(1992)
FIRE TRAINING AREA
DCS 2/M/97
CHICKED I*
XCW 2/H/97
FIGURE
9-
06.fLB.97
10.DEC.97
-------
N
SHALLOW SOL SAMPLE (0-6")
33,0, SURVEYED GROUND ELEVATION (FEET USL)
STREAM / CREEK (ARROWS WOICATE FLOW)
FENCE
RAILWAY TRACKS (INCLUDES ABANDONED
LINES)
TREE UNE
CONTOUR UNE
*- STORM SEWER UNC «r/DROP INIET
SURFACE ORAJNAGE FEATURE
: UNPAVtD ROAO
NOTES: t. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
Z (A) DISCHARGE PIPE FROM INLET 1-0 PLUGGED
WTH CONCRETE PLUG.
1 DOWNSTREAM PIPE PRESENCE/ LOCATION
INFERRED.
500
U.S. ARMY ENGINEERING AND SUPPORT CENTER
DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMOND
RICHMOND, VA
OU 4 RECORD OF DECISION
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
(1995)
FIRE TRAINING AREA
3.97
HOTOATL-
.DWG
-------
o)onthroc«n<
.ofeffMt
BMiojbJtKleronUiifti^
Mbmiti.hjanttvacm 0.8 ~
..!!_
N
SSTTA-14 ~~-Tttt*, ftO'tflt
Ptiwoollvtfit 28 1 e
OSSFTA-16
SUFOS4
"""(Jpy""*
PtWAonlnrtn*
01' bji
9
SSFTA-6
OMA-t
1.6' bgi
hroetnt
2.0'
6(«.li.l)p*r)lMt
Dfc»nl(o.h)onthrocin«
DMS-77 (j
99.0 SSFTA-"
o
SSFTA-9
SSFTA-12
PIT 1
SSFTA-14
DM A- 2
DMA-12B DMA-
^A'. ,
DMS--631 SSFTA-17
SSFTA-13 0
SSFTA-12
e«iia(l>)llugranthin<
Dl»ni(a,h)ofilh>ac«<»
lnd>no(1,2J-c>r
-------
-------
TABLES
-------
-------
TABLE 2-1
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOILS
Fire Training Area Source Area - Operable Unit 4
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Richmond, Virginia
PARAMETER
MKTA1.S mpltg-
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl] jum
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
* Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
SEMI-VOLATH FS mo/VT-
Acenaphlhene
Anthracene
' Benzo(a)anthracene
' Benzoiajpyrcne
' Benzo(b)fluoranthene
' Benzo(g.h.i)perylene
BenzodOfluoranlhene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenz(a.h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
1 .2-Dichlorobenzene
1 .3-Dichlorobenzene
1 .4-Dichlorobenzcne
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalale
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
!ndeno( 1 .2.3-cd)pyren«
2-Methyinaphlhalene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION (a)
24/24
22/24
19/24
10/24
2/24
19/24
24/24
17/24
22/24
1/8
24/24
24/24
21/24
24/24
11/24
6/24
19/24
4/24
5/24
2/8
22/24
23/24
9/58
13.58
21/58
18/58
20/58
10/58
12/58
16/58
6/34
23/58
6/58
7/58
2/58
1/39
1/39
1/39
11/58
3/58
29/58
8/58
12/58
5/58
1/39
5/58
2/58
25/58
25/58
" : USEPA RMiowm
RANGE OF MAXIMUM RISK-BASED FREQUENCY
REPORTED BACKGROUND SCREENING OF
VALUES CONCENTRATION (b) CONCENTRATION
-------
TABLE 2-1
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOILS
Fire Training Area Source Area - Operable L'nit 4
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Richmond, Virginia
PARAMETER
VOr.ATn.FS mg'Tfg;
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
total- 1 ,2-DichlorocthciK
lrans-1.2-Dichloroethene
Elhylbenzerte
Mcihylenc Chlonde
' Tetrachlorocthene
Toluene
I.I.I-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (total)
PESTICIDES, mgyfcg;
Chlordane (total)
4,4-DDD
4.4-DDE
4.4-DDT
Dieldnn
Meihoxychtor
PCB-1260
2.4.5-T
2.4.5-TP (Silvex)
OTHER mgftg'
Diesel
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION (a)
16/58
1/39
3/39
1/58
8/42
1/16
2/58
7/58
12/58
6/58
2/58
14/58
3/58
4/46
8/49
4/49
14/49
4/30
1/30
2/30
2/17
1/17
1/5
6/22
~ USEPA REGION DU !
RANGE OF MAXIMUM RJSK-BASED FREQUENCY
REPORTED BACKGROUND SCREENING OF
VALUES CONCENTRATION (b> CONCENTRATION (c) EXCEEDANCE (d)
0.003 J-0.066 J
0.63 J
'0.003J-0.013J
O.OOSJ
0.001 J-0.16
0.061
0.025-0.47 J
0.004 J-0.038
0.001 J- 130
0.001 J-1.5J
3.7-7.3
0.003 J - 76
0.1-7.6
0.0319-3.2
0.0046- 3.3
0.0039-0.36
0.006-1.9
0.0029 J- 0.49 }
0.0054 1
0.052-0.077
0.11-0.25
0.085
-
0.066 (g)
0.03
0.2
0.08
0.016
_
_
2.9
560-2.400
_
780
160
220
100
70
160
780
85
12
1.600
160
58
16.000
1.8
2.7
1.9
1.9
| 0.04
39
0.32
78
63
0/58
0/39
0/39
0/58
0/42
0/16
0/58
0/58
2/58
0/58
0/58
1/58
0/58
1/46
1/49
0/49
0/49
1/30
0/30
0/30
0/17
0/17
COPC
SELECTION
CRITERIA
e
e
e
e
e
- No background concentration established.
| |Indicates that levels in site samples exceed the boxed criterion level.
* Indicates compound selected as a contaminant of potential concern (COPC).
(a) Number of samples in which chemical was positively detected/ the number of samples available.
tbl Background concentration for DSCR based on the Revised Final Background Characterization Report (LAW. 1997).
(Cl USEPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) for Residential Soil. April 15. 1998.
(RBCs adjusted lo represent a O.I hazard quotient, as appropriate)
(d) Number of samples in which chemical was detected at concentrations exceeding background and Region III Risk-Based concentrations/the number of samples available.
le) Indicates contaminant exceeds Region HI Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) for Residential Soil.
(0 Indicates contaminant concentration exceeds the background concentration and screening criteria not available.
(gl Value listed is the sum of ilphi-chlordane and gamma-chlordane background concentrations.
(h) Derivation of arsenic background concentration documented in meeting minutes dated March 10. 1998.
BDL -Below Detection Limit
J -Estimated value
N -Spike sample recovery is not within control limits.
mpky -milligrams per kilogram, dry weight basis.
PREPARED BY/DATE: MJA 5/18/99
CHECKED BY/DATE: LWC 5/19/99
53109 39
2 Of 2
-------
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
Fire Training Area Source Area - Operable Unit 4
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Richmond, Virginia
Population
Pathway
Estimated
Excess Cancel-
Risk
CURRENT LAND USE
Occupational exposure to surface soils
FUTURE LAND USE
Occupational exposure to surface and
subsurface soils
CURRENT/FUTURE LAND USE
Recreational exposure to sediment and
surface water
CURRENT/FUTURE LAND USE
On-Base recreational exposure to
surface soils
FUTURE LAND USE (a)
Residential exposure to surface and
subsurface soils
OCCUPATIONAL ADULT
Incidental ingestion of soils
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Dermal contact with soils
Total Risk for Occupational Adult Worker:
OCCUPATIONAL ADULT
Incidental ingestion of soils
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Dermal contact with soils
Total Risk for Occupational Adult Worker:
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
Incidental ingestion of soil
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Inhalation of volatiles
Dermal contact with soils
Total Risk for Construction Worker:
RECREATIONAL WADER
Dermal contact with surface water
Dermal contact with sediment
Total Risk for Recreational Wader:
ON-BASE RECREATIONAL JOGGER
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Total Risk for Recreational Jogger:
ON-SITE RESIDENTIAL ADULT
Incidental ingestion of soils
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Inhalation of volatiles
Dermal contact with soils
Total Risk for Residential Adult:
3E-06
5E-10
2E-05
2E-05
IE-06
6E-11
8E-06
9E-06
2E-07
6E-12
2E-09
2E-07
4E-07
2E-06
9E-08
2E-06
1E-10
1E-10
IE-OS
4E-10
IE-07
4E-05
5E-OS
(a) Ground-water expoiurej m bemg addrejMd under Operable Unit 7.
53109.39
PREPARED BY/DATE: MJA 5/18/99
CHECKED BY/DATE: LWC 5/19/99
-------
TABLE 2-3
SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
Fire Training Area Source Are* - Operable Unit 4
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Richmond, Virginia
Population
Pathway
Estimated
Hazard Index
CURRENT LAND USE
Occupational exposure to surface soils
FUTURE LAND USE
Occupational exposure to surface and
subsurface soils
OCCUPATIONAL ADULT
Incidental ingestion of soils
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Dermal contact with soils
Total Hazard Index for Occupational Adult Worker
OCCUPATIONAL ADULT
Incidental ingestion of soils
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Dermal contact with sous
0.005
0.007
0.02
0.03
0.005
0.01
0.008
CURRENT/FUTURE LAND USE
Recreational exposure to sediment
and surface water
Total Hazard Index for Occupational Adult Worker
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
Incidental ingestion of soil
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Inhalation of volatile*
Dermal contact with soil
Total Hazard Index for Construction worker:
ADULT RECREATIONAL WADER
Dermal contact with surface water
Dermal contact with sediment
0.02
0.4
0.02
0.00008
0.003
0.4
0.007
0.0003
Tola! Hazard Index for Recreational Adult:
0.007
CURRENT/FUTURE LAND USE
On-Base recreational exposure to
surface soils
FUTURE LAND USE (a)
Residential exposure to surface and
subsurface soili
CHILD RECREATIONAL WADER
Dermal contact with surface water
Dermal contact with sediment
Total Hazard Index for Recreational Child:
ON-BASE RECREATIONAL JOGGER
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Total Hazard Index for Recreational Jogger
RESIDENTIAL ADULT
Incidental ingestion of soils
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Inhalation of volatile!
Dermal contact with soils
Total Hazard Index for Residential Adult:
RESIDENTIAL CHILD
Incidental ingestion of soils
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Inhalation of volatile!
Dermal contact with sous
Total Hazard Index for Residential Child:
0.06
0.002
0.06
0.002
0.002
0.01
0.04
0.0001
0.01
0.06
0.1
0.1
0.0008
0.06
0.3
(a) Ground-water exposures are being addressed under Operable Unit 7.
53109,39
PREPARED BY/DATE: MM 5/1t/99
CHECKED BY/DATE: LWC 5/19/99
-------
Reproduced by NTIS
0 j= Ofl)
fc£W
«2; E i
sgfig
Q.~"
-i_i .
± 0) 0 C
E£«-.2
t 0 3*3
0 O O
.
.
~ |