United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R01 -93/081
September 1993
PB94-963709
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Newport Naval Education/
-------
50272-101
"
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. 1 3. Recipient'. Acc888lon No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROl-93/081
4. Title .nd Subtitle ~ Report Date
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/27/93
Newport Naval Education/Training Center, RI &.
Second Remedial Action
7. Author(.) I. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Add,... 10 Project TukIWcn Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Granl(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponaorlng Organization Name .nd AddF1l8. 13. Type of Report 10 Period eover8d
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/800
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
1~ Supplementary Not..
PB94-963709
16. Abatract (Limit: 200 words)
The 11.5-acre Newport Naval Education/Training Center site is an inactive landfill
located in Middletown, Rhode Island. Land use in the area is predominantly rural, with
onsite grasslands and woodlands. The site borders Narragansett Bay, and the shoreline
of the site lies within the 100-year coastal floodplain. From 1955 to the mid-1970s,
McAllister Point Landfill, located in the central portion of the facility, accepted all
waste generated at the Newport Naval complex, including spent acids, paints, solvents,
oil, and PCB-contaminated transformer oil. From 1955 to 1964, the waste was brought
onsite, spread out with a bulldozer, and covered. In 1965, an incinerator was built
onsite and operated until 1970 or 1971, when it was closed due to resultant air
emissions. During the remaining years that the site was operational, all wastes were
disposed of directly into the landfill. After closure of the landfill, a three-foot
thick clay/silt cover was placed over several portions of the site. As part of the
Department of Defense's Installation Restoration Program, environmental sampling and
analysis was conducted in 1983 to determine the presence of contamination at the site.
These studies revealed low levels of inorganic and phenol contamination in the existing
cap, and leachate containing metals, cyanide, phenol, and other organics seeping from
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Newport Naval Education/Training Center, RI
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, debris
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs,
PCBs, pesticides, phenols), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. Identlll.ra/0p8n.£nded Terms
c. COSAT1 FleldIGroup
11. AvaUablllty Statement 19. Security Class (ThIs Report) 21. No.ofPagas
None 66
31. Security Class (This Page) 22. Pr1c8
None
(8.. AN81.Z39.18)
SHlnstructions on R.II.,...
OPT10NAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formarly NTI~35)
Department of Commerca
-------
EPA/ROD/ROl-93/081
Newport Naval Education/Training Center, RI
Second Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
the western edge of the landfill. In 1992, the U.S. Navy, EPA, and the State entered into
an agreement to cleanup the onsite hazardous substances. This ROD addresses a source
remedy for the landfill contents and control of leachate generation as a result of
infiltration, as OUI. A future ROD will address management of contaminant migration at the
landfill, as OU2. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and debris are
VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including PAHs,
PCBs, pesticides, and phenols; and metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes placing a RCRA Subtitle C multi-layer
cap over the 10.5 acres of the landfill; consolidating contaminated "hot spot" materials
and/or sediment in the landfill prior to cap construction, if determined appropriate based
on additional studies; implementing a gas vent layer below the lower barrier layer of the
cap to manage landfill gas, if determined appropriate during an evaluation; conducting
vapor pilot testing on wells located within the landfill area; conducting additional site
investigations to determine if additional measures need to be taken with respect to ground
water contamination, leachate generation, landfill gas extraction and treatment, and
remediation of "hot spot" areas and contaminated sediment; monitoring ground water and
storm water discharge quality; implementing site surface controls, including grading,
revegetation, and slope protection to prevent precipitation from infiltrating into the
landfill; and implementing institutional controls, including deed restrictions, and site
access restrictions. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is
$8,000,000, which includes an estimated present worth O&M cost of $2,300,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific soil and debris cleanup goals have not been established for the site,
but ground water, leachate, landfill gas, and sediment cleanup goals will be established,
-------
II
I'"j
i '.
f .
I.':;'
.,
'""..
v
RECORD OF DECISION
SOURCE CONTROL
OPERABLE UNIT.
Site 01 - McAllister Point Landfill
Naval Education and Training Center
Newport, Rhode Island
:'::i~t:f~~%~;;~~:~%~~t~~£:..: ::':.:. .'::
,:.,::X?Oof ('
-------
Si:.: 01 - M:.~":~:s::::- P:::::: Landfiil
~C1:"a; EduC:i=:::: a..,d Tr..::-ing Cen::::-
Ne':l.1=:::-:, R.'1od: :!:and
TABLE OF CON7E~TS
Con:::~~ P~~~ Nur.'::~:'
DECL.~_tt.1. TIO~ FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i
--
v.
m.
I.
SITE ~AME, LOCATION A.'iD DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
n.
SITE ::ISTORY AND ENFORCE~NT ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. l..?.-::i Use and Re~onse His;cry ...................................... '1
B. E:-.::r:::nent HistoI"j ............................................. 5
COM\f1JNITY PARTICIPATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
IV.
SCOPE & ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
v.
SU~1ARY OF SITE CHARACTERlSTICS ................................ 7
VI.
SU~~tARY OF SITE RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
vn. DEVELOPMENT A.'.'D SCREENING OF ALTERSATIVES ..................... 13
A. St.l~tory Re~re:r.:ntslR:sponse Obj::iives .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
B. Te:hnology and Al:::mative Deve1opc::n .
, and Screening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
vm. DESCRIPTION OF AL TER.'iA TIVES ................................... 14
XII.
IX.
Suw..1ARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . .. 16
x.
TE:E SELECTED RE.'vtEDY ......................... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
A. C1~up Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
B. Des:ription of the Remedial Compone:1ts .............................. .. 20
XI.
STATtJ"TORY DE1ER.\1INATIONS .................................... 26
A. The Selected Remedy is Prote::Uve of Human
He3lth and the E:1vircnment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
B. The Selected Remedy Attains ARAR.s .................................. 26
C. The Selected Remedial Action is Cost EffecUve ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
D. The Selected Remedy Utili%es Pemw=t Solutions
and Alternative Treatment or R=sourc: R=avery
Te:.'mologies to the Maximum Exte:n Pndicable ........"....,.............. 30
E. Th: Selected Remedy Does Not Satisfy the Prefermce for Treatment
'Which Permanently and Significantly Reduc:s the Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
or the Hazardous Substanc:s as a Principal Eement ........................ 31
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
-------
DECISION St~t\IARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISIO~
Si:.: 01 - McAllisr=r Point Landfiil
Naval Education and Training C~::r=r
Newpor-.. Rhode Island
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Conrinc~d)
Aooendic~s
APPENDIX A - RISK ASSESSME.~ TABLES
APP~'\j1)IX B - RESPONSIVE."ffiSS SUMMARY
APP~'l'DIX C - ARARs ASSESSME.'iT
APPE'l'DIX D - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APP~'l'DIX E - STATE LEITER OF CONCURRE.~CE
......
Fi~Jre No.
LIST OF FIGURES
~
P!!<~ Numbe~
1
2
3
4
5
6
NETC Sir= Location ~p ............................................ 2
McAlliSte:" Point Landfill - Si~ Location ~p .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Si~ Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Proposed Landfill Cap Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.
ConceptUal Cap Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
-------
DE CISlO=' St~L\L-\RY
I. SITE ~A.\IE, LOCA1l0:\ A.'\"D DESCRIPTIO='
v.
Th~ U.S. Nav,l Education and Training C~::ter (NETC) ='~wpor:;s a N,:onal Priorities List (NPL) site. There
are :ur.~:1tly fc~ areas of contamir.ation (AOC) anc: six s:.:dy ar:lS (SAsj within NETC ~e?'Pon tb.~ are under
investigation. This Record of De:ision (ROD) rela~s to :::e pres~:lce of :.I:e existing lanc:5l1 area at ~1:Al1iSter
Point as a sour:: of contamination. .
..
Portions of the ~ETC facility are located in Newpor-.. Mic:.:iletOv.'n, and PortSmouth, Rhoce Island. The facility
layout is long a::d narrow, following the shoreline of Aquic..~e::k Is:and for nearly 6 miles bordering Nmagansen
Bay. A facility location map is provided on Figure 1. McAlliste~ Point Landfill is located in the ce:tnl portion
of the facility, in the town of MiddJetOv.'n, Rhode Island. as shc?'J1 in F:gure 2.
Th~ McAlliste:' Point Landfill site covers approxilUtely 11.5 acres and is sitUated betv.'een Defe:se Highway
and Narraganse:: Bay. PeM Centnl Railroad tracks run in a nc~J1-souc direction along the ea5teO side of the
site, parallel to Defense Hig.~way. Access to the site is bm D~:ense Highway in the SQuth-centnl portion of
the site, The layout of the site is depicted in Figure 3.
Grass, weeds, L"1d small trees cover moSt of the site. A small. lightly wooded area is present in the north-
ce:ltnl portion or the site. A more mature wooded ar-.a is locate:: near the northeastern edge of the site betWeen
the railroad tra::ks and Defense Highway. Several depressions are pr-..sent in the cen:ra1 portion of the site
where standing water collectS during heavy pre::ipi13tion even~. A 'Ia,'etlands evaluation summary has been
conduc~d at the site and is available as pan of the ~tive Re::::mi. The Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FEMA. 1984) which covers the site and surrouncii.ng area indica-.:s the shoreline of the site lies within the 100-
year coasw flood area. The weStern edge of the site along Nar:aganse:t Bay is a coaStal bank that rises 10 to
15 feet above Mean Low Water. The areas of lOO-year coastal flood in the vicinity of me site is 12 feet, and
wave ac1:ion may reach 17 feet. At high tide the beach is only about 10 feet in width v.'bile at low tide it may
be as much as 50 feet wide. Metal debris and concrete rubble are present along the shoreline of the landfill.
The presence of the concn:te rubble and debris appears to have decr-..ased the potential for erosion of the
shoreline landfill slopes.
A more comple~ description of the site can be found in the D:'3ft Fir.:!l Focused Fe3.sIbilitV Studv (fFS) on
pages 1-10 and 1-11 (TRC, 1993).
u. SII'E HISTORY AND ENFORCDIENT ACTIVmES
A. LAND USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY
McAllister Point Landfill was 1I1e site of a sanhary landfill whic:!1 opera=d over a 2~year period. From 1955
until the mid-19iO's, 1I1e site accepted all wasteS pnemted at the Naval complex. 'Ihc landfill re=ived waste
from all opemtional areas (machine shops. ship repair, etc.), Navy housing areas (dom:sdc refuse), and ftom
the 55 ships homepon.ed at Newpon prior to 1973 (approximate!y fourteen 4O-cubic yard containers each day).
The materials disposed of at 1I1e site reportedly included spent acids, paims, solvenu, waste oDs (diesel, lube,
and fuel), and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated tranSformer oil.
-------
\.:::-/
'"
'....
.
Jr
.
TlVERTON
--
UTT1.E
COMPTCN
"
NENPORT
IfHODE ISLAND
FIGURE 1.
NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING CENTER
(NETC) SITE LOCATION MAP
.""
I :~win; No. 1Cco.N'1
2
POOR QUALIT'(
ORIGINAL
-------
)
. .
..
)
'. .
2.1"
)
'0 'OUSMOUfll
I Mill ..
~
M-t't.
,.UIf dl A
fIGURE 2.
McAI.LlSTEn "OIN' I.ANnfll1.
sITe LOCATION MA'"
Oa'.: , '...J
-------
-0
08
22,0
9D
~c
?~
~
..
,;~
.II1II( au. -
II01rI A SlIIIMUNIIID. tGf ...... - H
8NIC 011 tHE -- SIDE 01 tHE snr.
. . . . .
. . . . .
. ',','.".",
. . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .. .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ \ ~ \ ~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ \ ~ \ ~ \ ~ \ ~ /f~~If! f~~frr~::: ~~ r: ~ j ~ j ~ j ~ j ~ j ~ ~ ~ \:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . : . : . . . . . : . . . : . : . . . . . 'Ill . . .~: . :,~. : 0'''': 0 .,fb ..rEf . : . : 0 : 0 0 0 : 0 : . : . : 0 .
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ l \. \ ~ ~. \ \. \ @\\ \@\ \: \ \ \ \ \ '0~ i ..:~ -.\ m:lIMf-: \ ll: \ \ I \ \ \ II \ \ \ \;."., 'I"'
5 Wo'enlde ero
Windsor, er 01.
(711.\) 789-86.\'
---;;Cii,
RIIOOC ,~
TRC
mcB"'--"'~
NAVAL £OIJCAnON
JRAIHtNG CfNJ£R
UcAI.1J91Bt pONT lAtVFI.L
flCURE 3.
SITE PLAN
-'-l!~;~;~i;,,! ~;'~i 4:\iici.
-------
p.
During tl':: period cf :955 tr.::'~g:: 1964, ",'a.steS we:-: :=1.lcked to ::.: site, SFr:ad out 0;,'::'1 a bulldozer, and
covered. In 1965, a..-: :::::ine:'4:':: o;,'a.s built a. :he landfil;, From 19c: throug.": 19iO to 19'71, approximately 98
percent or all the ""2.s~s we~ :cr:-::d befc:-: being di~osed of ir. :.":e lanc5il. The ir.::n:~tor was closed
around 19iO due !.C ':.: result.!::: air emissic:.s. Duri:.g:he remai:-..:::g years :.I...at the si~ ",'as operational, all
wastes ""e:-: again ci:s~osed or :::::::ly in:c :he landfiil. Based on a review or aerial pr.~tographs of the site
covering t.":: pericd f::m 1965 ~.:ough 19i5, a chang: in the shap: of the shoreline in :.~e central portion of
the site is :vident, i:::::ating f:::ng of N~g:ansen Ba:-' in this ar~.
\,1 Q
Following the clOS"J:'e of the la.::::ill at McAllister Point, a three-foc. :hick covering of c!ay/silt was reportedly
placed ove: the site. Current observations confirm the presence of a clay/silt material over portions of the
landfill, although it is not conti::'Jous over the entire lar:dfill area. Si=ce the closure of the landfill, the site has
remained inactive.
A more d::ailed des:::ption or site use and history for Site 01 can :: found in the FFS Repon at pages 1-10
and 1-11 (TRC, 1993).
B. ENFORCEME~T HISTORY
In response to the environmen~ contamination which has occurred as a result of the use, handling, StOrage, or
disposal of hazarcous materials at numerous military iIls~lations at::'Oss the United States, the Department of
Defense (DOD) has iritiated inv:stig-ations and cleanup a:::ivities unde: the 1ns~ationRes<.oration (IR) Program.
The IR Program par.J.l:ls the Superfund program and is conducted in several Stages, including:
1. Identification of pot:ntial hazardous wast: sites;
2. Confin:'..ation of c: presence of hazardous materials at the site;
3. Determination of the type and extent of contamination;
4. Evalu:!ton of alte::atives for cleanup of the site;
5. Proposal of a cle:!nup remedy;
6. Seledon of a I'C:I:edy; and
7. Implementation of the remedy for the c1Wlup of the sit:.
AI! Initiat' Assessment Study (1:\S) was completed in March 1983, de:ailing hiStOrical hazardous material usage
and waste disposal practices at NETC Newpon. Fol1o~ing the lAS, a Confirmation Study (CS) was conducted
and included environmental sampling and analysis to verify the presence of contamination at the site.
On November 21, 1989, NETC Newpon was placed on the USEPA's National Priorities List. The investigation
and cleanup of Site 01 is fund:d through the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA).
In March 1992, a Federal Facility A~ement (FFA) was entered into by me U.S. Navy. the U.S.
Environmental Prot:::tion Age':Jr:y (USEP A) and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
(RIDEM) for the cleanup of haz.ardous substmces pursuant to CERCLA. The FFA sets tonh me roles and
responsibilities of each agency, contains deadlines for investigation and cleanup of the 1w:ardous waste siteS,
and esublishes a m::hanism to resolve disputes betWe:n the agencies.
-------
In. co:\t\n.~TIY PARTICIPATIO~
Throug.:':~ut the fa::licy's histCry, cor.-.mu.-.:::,' conce~ a::: involve=nent has bee:': fairly 1:-:.. The ~a'.:.. has kept
the cor.-_-nunicy a::: other interested par=es apprised ef site a:jvities throug.1 inforr:-~::nal mee:::gs, press
releases. public r.:eetings ane Techr.i:al Re','iew Cerr.r..::-.::e (TRC) meetings.
In July 1990, the ~avy rele3sed a c~rtm::.:...-.icy re!atior.s plan ~..i"j:h outlined a prograr:: :: address ::::::municy
con~rns and to keep citizens infonned a:-o:ut and involved durir:g remedial a::ivities.
The TRC meetings have bee:'l an impom::: vehicle for c~mmunity participation, The T?C meeting group was
established in 1988 and is comprised of .::e Navy, USE? A, RlDEM, and various corr_-::..~..1ity represe:uatives.
The community members of the TRC inc!:.::e represent2.!ives from Newport, Middletow:: l.'1d Ponsmcuth. The
TRC meetS every t7-.0 to three monu-.s, re...:ews the techr.ieal aspectS of the facility inves:~:.rion and re::1ediation
program, and provides community input:.:: the program.
The ACminisrrative Record, a file which :s maintained and contains all information cor.!::ered and relied upon
by the Navy to make itS decision on the selection of a response action under CERCL-\. :s available for public
review at the Naval Education and Trainir:g Center in Ne~'Port, Rhode Island, Infonm:::l Repositories, which
contain files available for public review ';..hich include current information on techni~ =epons and reference
documentS regarding the site, are main::uned at the following locations: the Newp::=: Public Library, the
Middle:own Free Library and the Ponsmeuth Free Public Library Association. The !\l',')' published a notice
and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan in :'1e Newport Daily News on August 3 and A1.:;.:.st 4, 1993 and in the
Providence Journal Bulletin on August 4, 1993 and made the plan available to the public l: the previo~ly listed
public libraries. Notices of a change in beation of the public hearing and public mee:.:g were printed in the
Newport Daily News on AUg'J,St 23 and A~gust 24, 1993 and in the Providence Journal ;;.llletin on August 25,
1993.
On August 25, 1993, the Navy held an i::formational meeting to discuss the resultS of ~e field investigation
activities, as described in the Remedial ~...estigation Technical Report, and the cleanc;: alternatives presented
in the Draft Fmal Focused Feasibility StUdy, and to present the Navy's Proposed P;lIl. Also during this
meeting, representatives from the Navy, TRC Environmental Corporation, USEPA, and WEM we:': available
to answer questions from the public about McAllister Point Landfill and the propose: remedial alternative.
From August 4, 1993 to September 3, IS93, the Navy held a 30-day public comment: ;:-e::iod to accept public
comment on the alternatives presented in ;he Draft Fmal Focused Feasibility Study and ~e Proposed Plan and
on any other documentS addressing the McAllister Point Landfill site previously r::e3.Sed to the public.
Immediately following the informational ceeting on August 25, 1993, the Na..'Y held a ::~blic hearing to accept
formal comments on the Proposed Plan. A transcript of this he3ring is included in the a:::1ched responsiveness
summary. Both verbal and written comme::ns were received regarding the Proposed Plan. These comments and
the Navy's responses to these commentS are presented in the Responsiveness Summary attached as Appendix
B.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPO~SE ArnON
The selected remedy described herein is a sour= control alternative. In summary, the remedy provides
conuinment and isolation of the landfill contentS, the control of leachate generation as :1 result of infiltration,
protection against surface erosion and landfill gas migration, and the performa::~ of additional site
investigations. It addresses the principal threatS to human health and the environment pcsed by the site and is
intended to be the permanent sour~ control remedy for the site. Management of con~t migration at the
McAllister Point Landfill site will be acdressed within a second operable unit. lv~gement of migration.
6
-------
re:=:e:::ai al:=~..l:j\'es will be develop~= and e\'a:~:=::: :~:::7.'ing :he completion of additiei..l: ~:!d inves~Eltions
at :.~: ~1cAl;;s:=~ Point Landfill si~. The Re::::~= ::f D:::sion fer the rr.anagement of rr.:~~::n ope~::: unit
wii! be issue::: ?rior to the commen::e=:1em of the sc::.r:e ::ntrcl oper3ble unit.
v. St.~!.\1ARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
~.
Se:::icn 1.5 or the Draft Final FFS Re~rt (TRC, 1993) ::::ains an overview of the si~ in\'es~gations c::::uc:=d
at the McAllist:r Point Landfill si~. The significant fi;;':'!ngs of the site investigations are s-.lI:l!tWize: below.
\) .
A Confirmation SDJdy (CS) including environme:tal sa=:?ling and analysis was conducte:: from 1984 :D 1985
to verify the presence of contamination at the M;Allist:: Point L.andfill site. The CS ir::::.:ded the c:l1ection
of soil, lea:::-.ate and ground water samples frem the site as v,'ell as sediment and rr.:.:ssel samples from
Narragansett Bay. The analysis of a composite surface soil sample collected from the la:.::fiil cover ::-.aterial
indicated that low levels of contamination (inorglni:s a:.: phenols) may be associated wit.": the existing landfill
cap. Samples of leachate seeping frem the west:~ edge of the landfill exhibited metals, c::anide, phe::ol, and
some other organic constitUentS. Se:lment and blue mussel samples were collected along :'":e landfill score and
at tWo background locations several miles north ;!..d sou:.": of the site, respectively. The presence of iI:::rganic
contaminantS was de~::t:d in sedime:t samples colle:::=~ adjacent to the si~, especially ne:uo the sou:::e:n end
of the landfiil, with levels de::reasing with diSWL"1::e frco the si~. Inorganics were also present in mussel
samples. PCBs were de~cted in mussel samples but appe:.red to be attributable to bay-wic: contamina!ion, on
the basis of similar levels detected in the background I1::ISsel samples. Site ground wat:: samples exhibited
elevated levels of metals. While the CS resultS incii~:=d that the presence of the lancfill had reS'.:!ted in
apparent impactS to ground water a."1d sediment quality, the SDJdy did not define whe:.":er the lanc5il was
continuing to contribute contaminantS into Narrag->_'lSett Bay and, if it was, the potential mig:-ation paur;..ays by
which the contamination was reaching the bay.
Additional sediment and mussel sampiing was conduc::c by the U.S. Army Corps of Ent.::::rs in the portion
of Narragansett Bay adjacent to McAllister Point Landfill in January 1988. Mussel and seCiment samples were
coUected and analyzed for metals. The sedime:1t samples were also analyzed for PCBs and total pe::roleum
hydrocarbons (TPH). All three chemical types v,'ere de:::ted in the sediment samples, v,ith concentrations in
sediment samples collected adjacent to the landfill consis.::1tly at least one order of magnituc:e greater U:an those
detected in the control sample. Copper, chromium, zinc and PCBs were detected in some or the mussel samples
at concentrations greater than were detected in the contrOl sample.
A Phase'l RI was conducted at McAllister Point Landfill from 1989 to 1990. The ge:::al purposes of the
ovenll investigation were to:
.
determine the presence, nature and extent of contamination resulting from historic site advities,
including on-site and off-site impacts to soils, ground water, surface water, sediment and biota;
identify potential conr::tminant migration rout:S;
identify potential receptors of site conr::tmiMntS; and
characterize related environmental impactS and potential human health risks.
.
.
.
For a detailed assessment of the Phase I RI investigation refer to the Fmal RI Technical Report, v,'bich is
included in the Administrative Record. A Phase n RI is planned to further inveStigate the site.
-------
The Kavy irr.;:i::::~:::.:d a field sampling prog7""~~ to :':alua:.: the si:.: which included sit: g~ophysi:al sur..:::s,
and th~ colle:::::1 a.~d chemical analysis of ~3.ce s::i, subsurfac: soil, leachat:, and ~ound wa:.::- sarr.;:::s.
Volatij~ orgarJ: c::::pounds (VOCs), base r:::.:tI'aL~:id e~=actabl~ organic compow:d.s (BNA;) (inclu:;ng
polynu:l:ar arcr:"..at: hydrocarbons (PAHs», ~scicic:s, PCBs, and inorganics were all d~:.:ct:d in or.-sit: seils.
The rr.ajor areas or::.e site ';I.'he:-: contaminants -;.'ere c::.:cte:: in the soil at elevated levels include the follo,,::,;:ng:
. Nor..ie~ area - C4rcinogenic PARs;
. Nor.h-c:e:1tral area - BNAs, carcincgenic ?AHs. and inorganics;
. Cent:'a1landfill area - VOCs, BNAs, PCBs and inorgar,ics;
. Sout.i or access road - BNAs, ca.rc~,:loge,l: PARs, and inorganics; and
. Shoreline - BNAs, ca.rcinog~nic PARs, a::d inorganics.
'...
The overburden at the site consists of fill and glacial :ill deposits. The fill material generally consists of t.11'ee
broad categories of ';I.'aste: domestic-type refuse, ind\.:.S:rial/c:::Itlsuuccion (demolition) wast:, and inci.'leratOr ash.
The central, mounded portion of the landfill may be c:.aracte:1zed by the presence of domestic-type refuse (e.g.,
plastic, paper, garba.g~). The remainder of d:e site g~nerally consiSts of waste typical of building demolition
debris (e.g., ';I.'ood. rr.etal, brick, concrete, etc.). In::neratCr ash is present within the northweste:.1 portien of
the sit: and a single location in the southern part of :'1e site.
Under the ground ';I.'ater investigation, samples we~ collected from eight new monitoring wells and three
existing monitoring wells. Two of the new ';,'ells ';I.'ere se~ened in bedrock while the remaining wells were
screened in the overburden. VOCs, BNAs, PCBs a:ld inorganics were all detected in ground wat:r samples.
A thin oil layer was observed floating on the gro~d water surface in one monitoring well located in the
southern portion of the site. The major areas of the site where conr.lminantS were detected at levels exceeding
drinking water standards include the following:
. Northern area - inorganics;
. North-central area - inorganics;
. Central landfill area - VOCs. and inorgacics; and
. South of access road - VOCS. PCBs, and inorgamcs.
The presence of VOCs in ground water samples and soil samples collected at the depth of the wat:r table over
the north-central to southern portions of the site indicates the potential for ground water 'conwnination,
throughout this area. The ground water samples collected from the deep bedrock wells generally indicated that
deep ground water quality bas not been impacted. with the exception of the detection of benzene at a
concentration of I part per billion (Ppb) in one deep well. .
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
In November 1991, a risk assessment was prepared on 1I1e basis of Phase I Remedial Investigation results for
the McAllister Point Landfill site to estimate the probability and magnitUde of potential adverse human health
effects from exposure to constitUents associated with site use. The risk assessment followed a four-step process:
1) constituent identification. which identified those constitUents. which given the specifics of the site. were of
potential concern; 2) exposure assessment, which identified current or potential futUre land uses, receptor
populations. and exposure pathways, and determined the extent of potential exposures; 3) toxicity assessment,
which considered the types and magnitUde of adverse health effects associated with each constitUent of potential
concern. and 4) risk characterization, which integtat:d the three earlier steps to summarize the potential and
8
-------
ac:-~I risks pes:::i ::y cons::::-.;:=:ts at the site, inc!\;:.:::g ca~c:nog::1ic an= ::on-carcinoge:-..:: :-:sks. 1:-:: results of
the risk assess::::::: for the ~1cAl1ister Point Lan=:::! site are S1;mIr.ar1Z:= below.
\, .
The constitU:=:ts of potem:a.l concem selected Ie: :':aluation in the ris;C assessment fer .he McAlIis::r Point
Landfill site are lis~d in Tabie A-I found in AF;::::dix A of this Rec:~d of Decision. Tnese cons':itU:nts of
potential conc::i1 'II.':~e id::::5ed through an eval'.:.!:on of the data for ill thre: media a: the site (Le., surface
soils, subsur.ace soils and g:':Jund v.ater) and eons:::.:te a representative subset of the 150 constituents identified
at the site during the Phase I Remedial Investigl::n. Tne constitUen.s of potential concern were selected to
represent potential site-related hazards based on ce::s:::tUent type, toxicity, concentration, frequency of detection,
and mobility and persistence in the environment. A summary of the n..,ge of concentrations in each media is
provided in Table A-2 of this Record of Decision. v.'hile a summary of the health effec:s associated with each
of the constitUents of poten::al conce:i1 can be f01.:::d in Appendix F of :.:':e Phase I RI Risk Assessment Repon.
~-
Potential risks associated v.'ith exposure to the c::::s':itUents of potential concern were es':imated quantitatively
or qualitatively through the development of seve:-.J hypothetical expeS".lte scenarios. These scenarios were
developed to reflect the potential for exposure to s:te constitUents based on current or potential futUre land uses
and on the location of the site. Since the site is nc: ;Jresently in active ~, trespassing was the oniy current land
use scenario evaluated in the risk assessment. F:;tW'e land uses whic~ were considered plausible during the
development of the risk assessment include recreational use of a:: site, on-site construction activities,
commercial/industrial use of the site, and residen::li site use. The follov.'ing is a brief summary of the exposure
scenarios evaluated in the risk assessment. A n::re thorough descriF::on of these sce:wios carl be found in .
Section 2.3 of the Phase I RI Risk Assessment Rc?on.
Under the current trespassing scenario, refeITed :0 as Scenario 1, it v.'as assumed that children aged 9 to 18
years and living v.'ithin the immediate vicinity of :he site may be exposed to constitUe:l':S while trespassing on
the site. Exposure was assumed to occur throu~~ incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with surface soil
at a frequency of 21 days per year (I.e., approxir:-..?tely one day per week during the summer and less frequently
during the school year). A soil ingestion rate of 100 mg of soil per ay and a dermal contact rate of Soo mg
of soil/day were used to evaluate these tWo pathv.-ays, respectively.
Under the future recreational use scenario (Scena.."'io 2), it was assume: that ball fields were constructed on-site
for public recreational use. As a result, children from ages 6 to 18 years old were assumed to receive dennal
and ingestion exposures to constituents in surface soil. It was assumed that children would visit the ball fields
104 days/year (five days per week in the summer and less frequently during the spring and fall). It was further
assumed that the children would ingest 100 mg soil/day and dennally contaCt soil at a rat: of 500 mg soil/day.
Under the future constrUcUon use scenario (Scenario 3), it was asswr.:d that construction workers involved in
site development would be exposed to site constitUents through incide:ltal ingestion of and dermal contaCt with
soil (to a depth of 12 feet), and inhalation of fug!tive dust. Exposure was assumed to occur for 250 days over
a one year period. Specific assumptions for eaQ exposure pathway included a soil ingestion rate of 480 mg
soil/day, a dermal contaCt rate of 500 mg soil/day, and an inhalation rate of 20 rrr of air/workday which
assumes moderate exertion.
Under the future commerciallindustrial use scer.ario (Scenario 4), it was assumed that adult employees of a
commercial/industrial business established on the site would be expos:d to surface soil contamination through
incidental ingestion (50 mg soil/day) and dermal exposure (500 mg soil/day) and to concuninated ground water
through ingestion (1 liter water/day). Employees were assumed to be exposed for 250 days per year for 25
years.
-------
t.."::der the fu:-,;:e residential use sce:-~:io (Sc::-..::.o S), :-:sks to chilc:::~ and ac:'.:!tS we:: :';a.:-~:':: sepaI4t:ly.
C:-.ildren (ag:d 0 to 6 years) and ac~tS (o...e: a perko of 30 years) were assumed to :::::.;: exposures to
c:nstitUentS in surface soil through in::dental ir.g:stion. c::-:nal conta::, and ir.ha!ation of a:::c:-::: ?artic~at:s.
C1ild and aC::.l!t residentS were also assumed to :::g:st g;ound water a."1d to ir.hale volati!: :rp.::,.ic const::JentS
released intO bat.~oom air during sho?"ering. T:-:ese expcS".lres ~'ere assumed to occur 350 6:;s y::u- for 6 years
f::Jr children and over a 30-year period for adul:s. Ch:lcr:~ were a5S'.lIDed to ingest O.iS :::.::s ?"ater/day and
:00 mg soillhouse dust per day, '(I.'hiie for adul:s these values were:; liters water/day a.:.: 100 mg soilihouse
cust per day. Other exposure assumptions for ::.ildre~ and adultS included a dermal cc:::a:: rate of SOO mg
soil/day, an inhalation rate of 20 m~ air/day fer fugitive dust, and an inhalation rate of 0.6 m3 airlhour for
inhalation of constitUentS while showering. Tne length of a shower ~'as assumed to be 12 rr.i::utes.
For each exposure pathway and land use evalU2.t:d, an a...e:-age and a reasonable maxirr.:.:.:n exposure estimate
(R.\1E) was g~:nerated for each constitUent of potential concern cor:-:sponding to exposure to the ave:-ag: and
to,e maximum concentrations detected in the relevant rr.edium.
Excess lifetime cancer risks were det.:rmined fer each exposure path~'ay by multiplying t.~: exposure level by
the constitUent-specific cancer slope factOr. Cancer slope factOrs have been developed by EPA from
epidemiological or animal stUdies to reflect a conservative "upper bound" of the risk posed by pote:ltially
carcinogenic constitUentS. That is, the trUe risk is unlikely to be grelter than the risk predic:.:d. The resulting
risk estimates are expressed in scientific notation as a probability (e.g. 1 x 1~ for 1I1,COO.OOO) and indicate
(using this example), that an average individU2.l is not likely to have greater than a one in a rr.illion chance of
developing cancer over 70 years as a result or site-related exposure as defined to the cor.s"::Jent at the Stated
concentration. Cunent EP A practice considers carcinogenic risks to be additive when assessing exposure to a
mixmre of constimentS.
The hazard index (HI) was also C3lcu1ated for each pathway as EPA's measure of to,e potential for non-
carcinogenic health effectS. The HI is a sum of the constitUent-specific hazard quotie:1tS (HQs) which are
C3lculated by dividing the exposure level by ce refer:nce dose (R:D) or other suitable be~:hmark for non-
carcinogenic health effects for an individual constitUent. RIDs have been developed by EP A to protect sensitive
individuals over the course of a lifetime and they reflect a daily exposure level that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of an adverse health effect. RIDs are derived from epidemiological or animal stUdies and
incorporate uncertainty factors to provide margins of safety betWeen the RID and the observed effect level. The
hazard quotient is often expressed as a single value (e.g. 0.3) indicating the ratio of the soated exposure as
defined to the reference dose value (m this example, the exposure as characterized is approximately one tbird
of the target exposure level for the given constitUent). The hazard quotient should only be considered additive
for constimentS that have the same or similar tOxic endpoint (for example, the hazard quotient for a constitUent
known to produce liver damage should not be added to a second constiment whose tOxic e:ldpoint is kidney
damage).
Risk estimates were evaluated using EPA's eStablished target risk range for Superfund cleanups (i.e., cancer
risk range of 1 x l~ to 1 x l~) and target HI value (i.e., HI less than or equal to 1). A conservative approach
was taken where risks from all exposure path~-ays and all constituentS were summed to yield the tOtal site risk
for a given receptor.
Table A-3 depictS the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk summary for exposures to constitUents of potential
concern in soil under current (and potential fumre) treSpassing at the site (Scenario 1). Both the average and
RME estimates of total risk fell below or within the target cancer risk range for Superfund cle:mupS eStablished
by EPA (i.e., 1 x 1~ to 1 x 1~) and below EPA's target HI value of 1.0.
-------
TC!ole A~ ee?ic:.s :he ca.rc:nog~~c ar:: =:on-ca.:::::cg~:'.:: :isk sumrT1C!ry for exposures:.: ::::nstirue:::.s of pot:=::ial
conce;.: in soil uneer fu~e re:reatio:'~! use c: :.:':e si:.: (Scenario 2). Both the ave~g~ and R.\!E esiirrJit:s of
total non-:ar:inogenic risk fell below 1.0. \\"r.::e!he average total cancer risk fell wi:.:"'::: the 1 x 10"6 to 1 x 10'"
range, tl':e R.\1E esiir..a:.: exceeded 1 x Iv. Inc:ce::tal ingestion of carcinoge:-.:: polym;::ear arorr.aiic
hydro:arbons (PAHs) in soil accoun:.:d for rr:C5; of the elevated R.\rE cancer risk eS:::=:-Jite.
-.
Table A-5 depictS the carcinogenic and non-ca,::noge~c risk sumrT1C!ry for exposures :.c :onstitue:::.s of pot::ltial
concern in soil under future constI"J::ion ac:i...::ies at tl':e site (Scenario 3). With tl':e exception of the R.\rE
estima:.: of total non-carcinogenic risk. the es:i::1ated total His and cancer risks fell ~'ithin tar!!e: levels. Tne
R.\1E estimate of total non-carcinoge~c risk exceeded 1.0 as a result of incidental ingestion of ~;:jmony in soil.
\,J..
Table A-6 depictS the carcinogenic and non-car::nog~nic risk summary for exposures tc constitUents of potential
concern in soil and ground water under future com:ner:ial/industrial use of the sit: (Scenario 4). With the
exception of the R.\rE estimate of total carcir.:g~nic risk, the estimat:d total HIs and cancer risks for soil fell
within targ~t levels. The RME estirr.a:.: of tc:al carcinogenic risk exceeded 1 x 10'" as a result of incidental
ingestion of carcinogenic PAHs in soil. Both the average and RME estimat:s of tcta.! non-car:inogenic and
carcinogenic risk for ground water exceeded -.a.:get levels. The ground water HIs were eleva:.::: as a result of
ingestion of antimony and manganese in drinlC::g ",'at:r, while ingestion of arsenic, beryilium, and carcinogenic
P AHs contributed the most to the estimated ca:~cer risks for this medium.
Table A-7 depictS the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk summary for exposures to constitUents of potential
concern in soil and ground water under future residential development of the site (Sce:wio 5). For soil, the
average total HI and cancer risk estimat:s fell ~'ithin target levels, while most of the R.\rE estimat:s of total risk
exceeded the target levels. Incidental ingestion of antimony, copper, and zinc in soil accounted for the majority
of the elevated RME estimates of non-carcinogenic risk for children. The elevat:d R,.'v!E cancer risks for
childre:l and adults occurred as a result of inc:cental ingestion of carcinogenic PAHs in soil. For ground water,
. both the average and R.\iE estimates of total non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk exceeded target levels. As
shown in Table A-g, the ground water HIs were elevated as a result of ingestion of antimony, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, manganese, and zinc in dri.-udng wat:r, while ingestion of arsenic, beryllium, vinyl chloride,
3,3'-<1ich1orobenzidine, and carcinogenic PARs contributed the most to the estimat:d cancer risks for this
medium.
Since EPA toxicity values for lead were not available, an alternative approach called the lDt:grated Lead
UptakelBiokinetic Model was used to evaluate potential risks from childhood lead exposures. As described in
Section 2.5 of the Phase I RI Risk Assessment Report, a criterion of greater than or e~ to five percent of the
child population with blood lead concentrations above 10 ,.,.g lead per deciliter of blood was used. The model
was run using two sets of surface soil data; one comprising all locations across the site and one limited to a zone
along the Narragansett Bay shoreline where the concentrations of lead in soil were higher ~lative to the rest
of the site. As shown in Table A-9, less than one percent of the modeled population of children were predicted
to have blood lead concentrations above 10 ,.,.g/d! when the mean concentration oflead in soil across the site was
used. Using either the mean or maximum soil lead concentration for the wimpacted" zone, greater than five
percent of the child population was estimated to have blood lead concentrations above 10,.,.g/d!.
Uncertainties .are associated with each component of the risk assessment process. In the exposure assessment,
for example, uncertainties in the selection of current and potential futUre land uses, exposure pathways, and
exposure pamneter values conttibute to the overall uncertainty associated with the risk estimates. Given the
uncertainty associated with the site being developed for futUre ~sidential use, the uncertainty in the risk
. estimates for this scenario is quite large. Overall, assumptions or uncertainties incorpoI3ted into this or other
components of the risk assessment are expected to contribute to an overestimation of risk associated with site
-------
use. T.'lis overesti::.ation of :-:sks reS1.:;:': in a cons~:-"ative approach to the eva::.:z:::cn
require:::e:::.s. since a::ual risks ;-osed by:.:':: site may 1::: less than those calculated.
of sit: remedial
Significant u:::ertain::~s also e~s, for the :ata used in :.1e risk assessment.
following:
These u:::e~nti:s inc!ude the
. Constiru:::tS detecte: :nfreque:::':'" in all media were assumed to occur across t.,: site at an averaoe
. =
or maximum detecte: :oncenrn:on;
. nUl" data (i.e., resu!:ng from i...ltrix effectS) were included as the sample quAntitation limit (SQL)
in calculations of the average cc:::entration, a!1d considered as potential locations of contamination.
As stated in EPA's comments 0:: the risk assessment, data qualified with "Ul" indicate constitUentS
~..hich were analyze::: ror but nc: det.ec::d, and the associated values are estirr.ated SQLs;
. "U" data (non-detec: values) were inc!uded as one-half the SQL, used in calculation of the average
concentration, and ccr..sidered as potential locations of contamination; and
. Uncertainties in background sar.:?ling locations, par:icularly with regard to inorganic constitUentS,
disallowed exclusion of constitue:1tS which may occur naturally at the site.
In most cases, uncertainties assoc:ated with oe data (e.g., inclusion of chemicals for which only "Ul" qualified
data were available) are likely to overestilT..l:': rather than underestimate the risk.
With respect to cancer risk estimates, a major uncertainty is the degree of exposure possible to vinyl chloride,
3,3' ~chlorobenzidine, and carcinogenic PARs in drinking water. These constitUents were not actUally detected
in ground water, but were included in the '1.:antitative assessment on the basis of "UI" qualified data. Cross-
assignment of the slope faCtors for benzo(a)p:Tene to the other carcinogenic PARs likely overestimated the risks
associated with exposures to these constitue:::s in ground o;I.'ater and soil. Interactions be:ween carcinogens may
lead both to enhanced and diminished carcincgenic responses which also lend a degree of uncertainty to the risk
estimates.
With respect to non-cancer risk estimates, ~e HQs for all constitUents were summed to estimate the total risk
for a given receptor. The elevated HIs (i.e., above 1.0) at this site were generally not caused by adding
individual HQs for different constituents. Tnerefore, consideration of whether it is appropriate to sum HQs
stemming from non-cancer effectS that ocC'.II' in different tissues for different constituents does not greatly
increase the uncertainty in this analysis.
No environmental assessment was conduc-..:d as part of the Phase I Remedial Investigation. Previous
Confirmation Studies indicated that sedimems and mussels in the adjac:nt portion of Narragansett Bay may be
impacted by the migration of constituents from the site. An off-shore sampling program will be conducted at
the site and a full environmental assessment will be conducted to further define site-related impactS on the .
environment.
ActUal or thre3tened releases of constituentS from this site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an immine:u and submntial endangennent to public health, welfare, or the
environment. The objective of the selected re:nedial action is to provide containment and isolation of the landfill
contents and the control of leachate generation as a result of infiltration. Through this action, exposures to the
landfiIJ area will be limited and continued migration of contamination leached from the ~'3.Ste materials located
within the unsatUrated zone into the ground ~-ater wiIJ be minimiz:d.
-------
VII. DE\"ELOP~IE..""T ASD SCREE:\T'G OF AL1ER.'\ATIVES
Ao STAn.TORY REOl"IREME~7S:RESPO~SE OBJECTT\"ES
.
T::~ Navy is responsible for ade::ssing envirc:"_-ne~tal con:aminai::: at the McAllis~r Point Lar.c:'1l1 site
pi.lI'SU3nt to Se:tion 120 of the COwpr~h~nsive Envircnme=::a1 Re~onse, Cornpensaicn, and Liabiiity Act
(CERCLA) and the Fde:-al Facili-:,' Agr~~=m:nt e=:~red into by :he Na\~,', the USEPA anc RIDE~t The ~avy' s
primary responsibility und~r these I~ga.l authoriti~s is to under..lke rerr.edial actions that a:~ prote:tive of human
h~alth and the environrn~nt. In addition, Se:tion 121 of CERCLA eStablishes several other S::tUltOry
requirements and preferences, including: a requirement that th~ reme~al action, when complete, must comply
with all fede:-al and more stringent s::tte enviror_"nenral standards, re~.lirements, criteria or limitations, unless
a waiver is invoked; a requireme:lt that a remedial action be selec:.d that is cost-effe:tive and that utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment te:::mologies or resour:e recovery technologies to the n:aximum
extent practicable; and a preference ror remedies in 'iI:hich treat:nent wr.::h permanently a!:d significantly reduces
the volume, toxicity or mobility of :he hazardous substances is a prin::pal element over remedies not involving
such treatme:lt. Response alternatives were developed to be :onsiste=:t with these Congressional mandates.
..
,.J .
Based on preliminary information relating to types of contaminants. environmental media of conce:n. and
potential exposure path'ilw°ays, remedial action obje:tives were developed to aid in the development and s::eening
of alternatives. These remedial adon objectives were developed to II"oitigate existing and fumre potential threats
to human health and the e:1Vironment. These re:nedial action objectives were:
.
To minimize potential environme:ltal impacts by mini..-:.izing off-site migration of potentially
contaminated surface soils, and by limiting the in."iltratio~ of precipitation to the underlying waste
withiD the landfill area, thereby minimizing leachate gene:-ation; and
. To minimize potential risk to human health associated wi:.~ exposure to the landfill area.
B. TECHNOLOGY AND ALTER.'JATIVE DEVELOPME!,-;i AND SCREBlTNG
CERCLA and the NCP set forth the process by which remedial actions are evaluated and selec~d. In
accordance with these requirements, a focused range of source control remedial alternatives was developed for
the McAllister Point Landfill site in which instiUltional and enginee~g controls were utilized to reduce the
threat posed by the presence of the landfill at the site. This range also included ana action alternative. Other.
alternatives which address management of contaminant migration will be evaluated in a separate operable unit,
upon completion of additional site investigations. The Record of Decision for the management of migration
operable unit will be completed prior to the constrUction of the source control operable unit remedy. ° Because
a focused feasibility StUdy approach was used, no initial screening of alternatives was conducted. Chapter 2 of
the FFS presents the remedial alternatives which were developed by combining the ~chnologies identified in
the technology and process option screening. Table 1 identifies the four alternatives which were developed for
the site and which underwent detailed analysis.
-------
TABLE 1
RDIEDIAL AL 'fER. 'i'A TIVES
SITE 01 - McALLISTER PODi"T LA. "1>FIL.L SITE
AL~A~l NO ACTION
ALTE1L~ATIVE 2 LTh!ITED ACTION (Fencing, Surfac:
Controls and Deed Restrictions) .
...
ALTERNATIVE 3 RCRA SUBTITLE D SOn.. CAP WITH
SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS
ALTERNATIVE 4 RCR-\ SUBTITLE C MULTI-LAYER CAP
WITH SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL
vm. DESCRIPTION OF ALTER.~Am'ES
This section describes the selected alternative and the other alternatives the Navy developed for detailed analysis.
The numbering system used in the FFS repon to distinguish betWeen the various alternatives is refe~nced here.
The source control alternatives analyzed for the McAllister Point Landfill site include a No-Action Alternative
(Alternative 1); a Fencing, Surface Controls and Deed ReStrictions Alternative (Alternative 2); a RCRA Subtitle
D Soil Cap with Surface and InstitUtional Controls Alternative (Alternative 3); and a RCR..1. Subtitle C Soil Cap
with Surface and InstitUtional Controls Alternative (Alternative 4). Detailed alternative desc:iptions are provided
on pages 3-4, 3..Q, 3-9 through 3-14 and 3-17 through 3-24 of the Draft Fmal FFS.
AJumative 1: No Action: This alternative was developed and evaluated in the FFS to se:ve as a baseliDe for
comparison with the other remedial alternatives under consideration. Under the No Action Alternative, no active
measures would be taken to reduce or to contain contamination emanating from the landfill. ~ alternative
would not meet remedial objectives.
AJu17Ulliv,2: Limiled Action (Fencing, Surf DC' Controls and Deed Restri&tions): This alternative would
consist of the foUowing components:
. Fencing of the site to reStrict site access:
. Improvements in site drainage and revegetation to restrict surficial erosion:
. Deed restrictions to limit futUre site use and development; and
. Five-year review.
-------
Unc~: th~ Limi:.:d Ac:cn Alt::;,.ative, mirimal a:'ive r=:~asures would be Ween to reduce con:ami::ation
erna:.ating from t!:e lane::;!. S~::ace controls in t!:: for.:1 of drainage improvements and revege:ation of bare
areas of the site ~'ould be used to enhance site drai:.age ar.d minimize erosion from the s-Jrface of the lar.cfill.
Ins::w:ior.al con::ols iI ::.e form of fe:lcing and the posting of warning signs would be i~plemented to restrict
sit: ac:ess. Res=i::ions:o futUre site development would be incorporated to restrict fu~ land use.
.
Based on the improveme:,:!.S to site dninage which are incorporated intO this altemative, long-teml StOrm ~'ater
discharge monitOring is included, The monitOring program would be developed to meet fede:4l and state
pollution Discharge Elir:-.ination System regulations regarding stOrm water discharge from a landfill site. The
monitOring program would be conducted for a period of 30 years. The Navy would also review the remedial
action, to the extent required by law, to assure that it continued to protect human health and the environment.
'.
-
Estimated Time for Design and Consrruction: 3 monrhs
Estimared Period for Operarion: 30 year!
Estimated Capirc:1 Cost: $l90JXXJ
Estimated Operc:ion and MainrenDJ1ce Cost (net prestnr worrh): $290,fXXJ
Estimated Toral Cost (ner presenl worm): S580,C
-------
Alternative 4: RCR.4. Subrilie C Multi-Layer Cap wi.:.i Surface and Insrir.J1ional Colitrols: This al::mative
consists of the fci!c~'ing components:
. RCRA. Subtide C (hazardous ~'aste landfm: :ap;
. R:g:-ac.:::g of the site and drair.age impro...::::ents;
. L.ar:dtii gas management;
. Redue:cn in grade and provision of slope ;~otection alc::g Nar.agansett Bay;
. F:ncing and deed restrictions;
. Additicr.al site investigations; .
. Long-t:~ monitoring of grou.'ld water ane: storm water discharge quality; and
. Five-year review.
The landfill area ~..ould be covered with a multi-lay:: cap constrJeted in accordance with federal and state
hazardous v,aste lar.dfill closure requirements. The C2.? provides a physical barrier to potential exposures to or
erosion of surficial contaminants and restricts infiltr2.:on and the subsequent leaching of contaminants from
wastes within the unsatUrated zone. The alternative als;:: includes reg:ading or the site, improvement of drainage
fea~s, a landfill gas management system, and a re::::ction in grade and provision of slope protection along
Narragansett Bay. Fencing and deed restrictions wow:: be included to limit site access and futUI'CS site use and
development. Additional site investigations would be ~quired to de:ermin: if additional measures need to be
taken with respe:: to ground ';I.'ater contamination, leae::ate generation, landfill gas treaanent, and remediation
of hot spot areas and contaminated sediments. If dete=.ined to be appropriate based on these additional stUdies,
contaminated hot spot materials andlor sediments could ?otentially be consolidated beneath the landfill cap prior
to cap constrUction. Ground water and storm water Cis:harge monitoring would be conducted for a period of
30 years in accordance with federal and state regulations. The Navy would also review the remedial action,
to the extent required by law, to assure that it continu:d to protect human health and the environment.
£Srimazed Time for Design and Consrr:ucrion: 2 yean
£Srimmed Tzme of Operarion: 30 yean
£Srimmed Capital Cost: $4,3oo,CaJ
£Srimmed Operations and Maintenance CostS (net presmr worrh): $2,300,000
£Srimmed Total CoSt (net presenr worth): $8,C
-------
fror:: unac::;::ab!: ris~ ~osed by ~"-":-::ious substances, pc;!utants, or conta:='.inants present
at t.":: site by :!iminatir:;. reducing. ::- controlling exposu::s to the hazarec1.:.S subswmc:s.
-.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Rele.'ant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
ade::sses wh::''l:r or ~ot a rer::::y will meet all of the ARARs of other Federal
e:ivironme:':tal laws anc S'Wlte envirc:"_-::::ital or facilities si:::1g laws or whe:.'l::- grounds for
invoking a waive:- are ~;:?licable.
-
Primarv Ba]an:::n!~ Cri~:1a
\) ~
The following five criteria are util~:d to com~ar: and evaluate the elements of those alternatives which meet
the threshold criteria.
3. Long-term effe<:tiveness and permanence addresses the citeria that are utilized to assess
alternatives for the lor.g-term effe::::veness and perman:::::: they afford, along with the
degree of c::uinty that they will prove succ:ssful.
4. Reduction or toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment addresses the degree to
which alternatives empioy recycling or treatment that redu::es toxicity, mobility, or volume.
including how treatmer.: is used to a.edress the principal threats posed by the site.
s. Short term efTe<:tiveness addresses the period of time ne:ced to achieve protection and any
shon-term risks to hu::-.an health and the environment that may be posed during the.
construction and imple~entation pe:iod. until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability add.--:sses the te::hnical and administrative feasibility of a remedy.
including the availabili.y of materi2.ls and services needed to implement a particular option.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and mainteI2I1ce (Q&M) coStS. ca1c:uIated as
present-worth costs for comparison purposes. .
Modifvin~ Criteria
'Ib.e modifying criteria are used in the final evaluation of the remedial alternatives. generally after public
comment on the FFS Repon and tt,e Proposed Plan bas been received.
8. State acceptance addresses the State'S position and key concerns related to the preferred
alternative and other alternatives. and the State's commentS on ARARs or the proposed use
of waivers.
9. Community acceptance addresses the public's general response to the alternatives descnDed
in the Proposed Plan ami FFS repon and requires a determination of wbich components of
the alternatives intereSted persons in the community support, have reservations about or
oppose.
Following the detailed analysis of e:1ch individual alternative. a comparative analysis. focusing on the relative
performance of the alternatives ag3inst the nine criteria, was conduCted. This comparative analysis can be found
in Tables 3-14 through 3-20 of the FFS. The section below presents the nine criteria and a brief narrative
summary of the alternatives and the Strengths and weaknesses according to the detailed and comparative analysis.
-------
O\'erall Prote<:tion of Human Health and the En\;ronment
Alternative 4 (the se!~:ted alte,"~:ive) ",:ould ;:ovid~ overall prote:::ion against exposu:~s :0 the la."ldfiil area
as well as minimize contaminant ~gration fro:::. the la:1dfill area dl.e to erosion and infil=-:l::cn of pr~:::pitation.
Alternative 3, which utilizes a scii cap, would a.:so provide a degree or overall protection. although it ?"ould not
be as effe::tive in reducing infilt:"l:ion of pre:::;:wuior. as Alternative 4. Alternative 2 uti:.izes only iI:.S'drotional
controls and minor drainage ir.:;roveme:lts 2.::: reveg:!a.tion to provide protection of i:~-nan health and the
environment. Alternative 1, the no action alte::13.tive. would not meet this criterion.
Comn1iance with ARARs
The proposed remedial action ",:culd meet all.J....~. Specifically, the selected alternative would comply with
location-specific ARARs, includ::::g wetlands a.."ld water resources re~rements, coastal ze:::e require:::ents, and
endangered species and cultural resource re~.lirements, as applicable. If the landfill cap and shoreward
protection featUres cannot be ce:-.oStrUcted wit.:'.i:1 the existing extent of the landfill, mitigation actions will be
taken to replace any wetlands destroyed by the remedial action, in accordance with the re~rements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and other fede:a.l wetla."Ids regulations. With respect to adon-specific ARARs,
federal and state landfill closure requirements, ARARs applicable to the venting of lar.cfil1 gases, and storm
""ater discharge requirements will be met by ::e sele:ted alternative.
The remaining alternatives do not meet all A..~.AR.s. Alternative 3 would not meet hazardous W2.St: landfill
closure requirements. Alternatives 1 and 2 would permit continued impacts to wetlands ar.d waters to occur and
therefore, would not meet the re:;uirements of :he Clean Water Act.
Lon!!- Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 4 provides the greatest degree or long-term effectiveness and permanence be::ause the multi-layer
cap design provides the greateSt degree of prote:tion against infiltration of precipitation ar.d subsequent leachate
genention. Alternative 3 is not considered as effe:tive in the long-term because the soil cap will not be as
effective a barrier to infiltration. Alternative 2, fencing, surface controls and deed remctions, provides only
minor improvements to site drainage and would have minimal impact on leachate generation. The no action
alternative, Alternative 1, is not considered pe:manent or effective in the long term.
Reduction or Toxicitv. Mobilitv. or Volume Throum Treatment
Due to the nature of this source control openble unit, none of the alternatives developed provide a reduction
in toxicity, mobility or volume of contamination through treatment. The management of migration openble unit
will consider cleanup levels and remedial options for ground water, leachate, landfill gas, hot spot areas and
sedimenu, as appropriate.
Alternative 4 would provide the greateSt reduc:ion in the mobility of contamination thiough containment This
alternative includes a multi-layer cap wbich would provide the greatest protection against infiltration of
precipitation and the subsequent gcnention of leachate as the precipitation would percolate through the
unsaturated waste materials.
Alternative 3 provides a reduction in the mobility of contamination through the capping of the site with a soil
cap, although it would not provide as much protection against infiltration of precipitation as Alternative 4.
Alternative 2 provides minimal reduction in contaminant mobility through improved site drainage and
-------
r~veg~:ation. Alt=:-:-.a:ive I, the no a::ion ai:::,,:,.arive F~:vides no reduction in the toxicity, mobiiity or volume
of co n tarr.i:-.a :,:d ma t.: rial.
Short-Term Errectiveness
-
Alternativ~ 4 and Al:.:rnative 3 wo~d be cor::;:a...-,ble in ::rms of short-term effec:iveness, ~'ith similar potential
short-term risks and envirorunental :mpac~ am:::ated o;a..ith the constIilction of the landfill caps. Alte:-native 2
would result in fe?'e:- potential shor.-t:rm hwr.a:: health or envirorunental risks during the implementation period
but would not provide the same deg:~e of prot::~on upon completion. Alternative I requires no implementation
and therefore resultS in no increase in short-t::'m risks. However, it does not achieve remedial response
objectives.
-.
,> .
Imc1ementabilitv
None of the alternatives have signincant barri~:s to implementation although the implementation considerations
become more complex with the in::-easing c::::nplexity of the remedial action. Alternative 2 is most easily
implement:d from a technical SWL'1dpoint, involving implementation of only minor surface controls and
institUtional controls. Both Alternadve 3 and Al::rnative 4 require removal of exiSting vegetation, site regrading
and slope protection along the west:rn side of :he site. The soil cap of Alternative 3 would be more easily
constrUcted than the multi-layer cap of Alte=::ative 4, which requires specialized constIilction methods and
handling for the installation of the synthetic g~omembI""..ne.
~
The capital, operation and maintem!lce, and total costS for each alternative are provided as pan of the preceding
section entitled "Description of Alt:rnatives". Alternative I, no action, is the lowest cost alternative followed
by the limited action alternative, Alternative:. A1t::natives 3 and 4 are significantly more expensive than
Alternatives 1 and 2, with Alternative 4 being the highest c:ost alternative.
State Accectance
As a pany to the FFA, the State has reviewed and c:ommented on the FFS and Proposed Plan and the Navy has
taken the State's comments into ac:ount. The State has documented its concurrence with the selected remedial
action, as presented in Sec:tion xm of this ROD. The State's commentS and outStanding c:on~rns regarding
the Phase n site inveStigations, Focused Feasibility StUdy and Proposed Plan were presented verbally at the
formal public hearing for the Proposed Plan and in a subsequent comment letter. Responses to the State
commentS are presented in the Responsiveness Summary in Appendix B. A transcript of the public: hearing is
inc:luded as Attachment A to the Responsiven:ss Summary. A cOpy of the State's letter of concurrence is
presented in Appendix E.
Communi" "AcceDtance
Community ac:ceptance of the Proposed Plan was evaluated based on verbal c:ommentS received at the public:
hearing and on the basis of written commentS re::ived during the public: comment period. This is documented
in the Responsiveness Summary pr-~ented in Appendix B.
-------
X. THE SEUCl:ED RDIEDY
For Sit: 01 - ~::..\llis:=: Point Landfill, the selecr.:d remedy is Alterna:ve 4, consisting or a RCRA Subtitle C
cap, and surf,,:: and ir:.s:itU:ior~1 controls. The re;.:dial action addresses source control and will be combined
with a mar..:.g::":1e:u or r.ligration remedial action, as appropriate, to provide a comprehe::sive approach to site
remediation.
A. CLEA~.n:p LE\ '"ELS
A 1()"6 excess cancel' risk level for carcinogenic effects or a concentration corresponding to a Hazard Index of
1.0 for compounds with non-carcinogenic effects is typically used to set cleanup levels. No contaminant-specific
cleanup levels have been developed for this source control remedial alternative since the alternative addresses
the landfill area as the source of contamination and landfill w~s were not sampled. Although soils/waste will
not be removed or treated under the selected alte:mtive, containment technologies arc generally considered
appropriate for landfills where treaanent is impracticable because of the volume and hete:ogeneity of the waste.
Therefore, no Target Cleanup Levels have been set for soils at the site. Cleanup levels and remedial alternatives
applicable to ground v.:ater/leachate, landfill gas, hot spot areas and contaminated sediments will be developed,
as appropriat:, within the management of migration operable unit for the site.
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDIAL COMPONENTS
The selected alternative is designed to contain the landfill area and minimi7:e the infiltration of precipitation
through the ~'aste mat:rials. The alternative includes the following components:
. RCRA Subtitle C multi-layer cap;
. Landfill gas management;
. Surface controls;
. Fencing and instiwtional controls;
. Additional site investigations;
. Operation and maintenance and site monitoring; and
. Five-year review.
~ /
RCRA Subtitle C Multi-layer Cap
A multi-layer cap will be placed over the landfill area, as indicat:d in Figtn 4, to limit the amount of
mfiItration and thereby minimi'7-e leachate production. The cap will cover approximately 10.5 acres,
encompassing the landfill area at McAllister Point, including identified areas of ash, constrUction debris and
domestic waste disposaL The cap will be designed to meet or exceed Resource Coaservation and R=covery Act
(RCRA) guidance as described in the USEPA documents, Technical Guidance Document: Final Covers on
. Hazardous Waste Landfil1s and Surface Imnoundments (USEPA, 1989) and Desism and Construction of
RCRA/CERetA Final Covers (USEPA, 1991), aDd in accordance with accepted engineering design praCtices.
The cap will be designed to comply with the performance standard set fonh in Section 14.12 of the Rhode Island
Solid W~ Management Regulations which requires that the cap have a remolded coefficient of permeability
of 1 x 10.7 centimeters per second. Site-specific factOrs will be evaluat=d in determining an effective cap design.
A typical cover system is composed of a vegetative and prot=ctive layer, a drainage layer, an upper barrier layer
consisting of a synthetic membrane, and a lower barrier layer consisting of a low permeability soil barrier. An
optional gas vent layer may be placed below the lower barrier layer, if determined to be appropriate during the
landfill gas management system evaluation. A concepU1al cap cross-section is provided in Figure 5.
-------
t-J
-
."
o
00
:;;0:;;0
90
Zc
~~
~
"
c
!
£-$
RHODC ISLAND GRID
lEOEN)
Wl/J STONE REVETUENT
l'. " 'J t=~rtUA~ AREA
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . I . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i i i i i i \ i i i i!!!!!! \ II \! i i i i i Iii i i II i 1 i i i i i III j !~J1~%~ff~t: :.;J,~'I' fi- iii i":! II
.... .. . . . ........ .. .,. . .. ~~. ~"bt"', .. .. . ... .
11111: IIIII"! III! \:":::" "il::: \: I:":: I: II: II: I: "1IIi~ ::Ii'":: i.!!:: ~ i: i ~m i i::!:: II: III!
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . .
, . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .' .
. . . . . . . . . . .' .
. . . .. ...
. . . . . .
. .
----...
TRC
TnC £i"" -...... CorpanIan
HA VAL £OUCA nON
'HAININC CfN JfH
5 Walerside C.
Wind30r. CT I.
(20) 289-86
HI
RllOOt: I
UcALJ..STBt PONT l.ANJFI.L
FIGURE 4.
PROPOSED LANDFILL CAP Af.
Oale: 7/9)
-------
12. Soli Fin
6. Soli Filler loyer
Ii
12. Sand
~
24. low Permeability Soli
~
12. Native 5011 or Sand
~
TRC
landfill Waste
NAVAL EDUCATIONAND
TRAINING CENTER
VEGETATIVE COVER
SOIL PROTECTIVE LAYER
DRAINAGE LAYER
GEOMEMBRANE
(upper barrier layer)
LOWER BARRIER LAYER
GAS VENT LAYER (OPTIONAL)
IIC 1.....-.1 Car.......
Onla: 7193
5 Wale.slde C'Gssing ,
WllldsOf, CT 06005
(203) 2119.11631
NEWPOlfr
RtlODE ISLAND
FIGURE 5. .
CONCEPTUAL CAP SECTION
-------
Landfill Gas ~1anagement
\.J..
A la:::=:i1 gas =-=-..a.nag:ment system wiJ) be incor:;:::ated i:::.:> the cap design. As pan of the design phse, a
landf.i; gas s~c:; will be conducted. A vapor piie: :.:st wiil be conduc:.:d on wells loca:.::: ~..ithin the l~dfill
area, ~'ith vape~ samples collected and analyzed to c:::rmi::: the composition of the landfill gas. The fie!:: data
will b: evalw.::d and landfill gas extraction will be modeled to evaluate potential la::dfill gas extn.:tion
alte~..a.:ves. 1:-:: design of a landfill gas venting or extrac:ion system will be developed based on the r:sults
of these analyses. If an active landfill gas extrac:on sys;.:m is required, landfill gas ex:-action well locations
will be located ~'here possible in areas suspected to be pote~tial "hot spot" areas.
"0
':, -
Surface Controls
Surfac: controls. including grading, revegetation ar.d slope protection will be implemented in conjunction with
the ~clti-laye:' cap.
Prior to cor.sU".;::ion of the cap, the sit: will be regraded to eliminat: depressions and s:.:ep sidewalls to the
exte~t practicable so that precipitation will run off instead of ponding on the surface or infiltrating ir.~ the
landfJl and to provide stable slopes. The regraded surface v,'i1I also enhance the placeme~t of the cap materials
over the landfiil area, especially along the steep sidewall areas adjacent to Narragansen Bay. Conta.II1imted
near-score sediments or "hot spot" materials may also be consolidated within the proposed cap area prior to
initiacon of cap construction activities.
Follov,ing cap construction, the entire cap will be seeded and/or planted to minimize erosion of the cap's
surface. A revegetation analysis will be condu:::d during the design phase to allov,' development of a
reveg::ation plan which will enhance futUre habitation of the site by indigenous species.
The cap and drainage system will be connected to a system of drainage swales around the landfill to control run-
on and run-off. Along the western side of the landfill, bordering Narragansett Bay, additional slope armoring
will be utilized to protect the landfill materials and the landfill cap from potential damage due to wave erosion,
storm surges, e::. During the remedial design process, a storm surge and wave analysis will be conciuc::d 10
evaluate wave energy forces along the shoreline in order to design protection of the slope. Due to the location
of the sire, the remedial design will also consider the effects that the tidal action and potential floods will have
on the cap integrity. A S1ability analysis of the existing and/or any proposed modifications to the existing side
slope will also be conducted during the design process. The final design of the slope protection syStem ~ill be
in accordance with the Army Corps of Engineers' Shore Protection Manual, and/or other appropriate guidance
documents, as well as available FEMA coastal flood elevation information. Any reduction in Ihe grade of the
seaward-facing landfill slope will be designed so as to consolidate any material removed from the slope in the
area to be capped and to minimi'T,e any movement of landfill material into the adjacent bay. In accordance with
Section 404 of the Oean Water Act and the requirementS of the Coastal Resources Management Counci4 the
slope protection featUreS along Namgansett Bay should not extend beyond the toeprint of the existing 1am1fill.
If during the design process it is determined that the cap cannot be constrUcted in accordance with this
requirement, mitigation of impacted wetlands will be required. If mitigation is required, a mitigation plan will
be developed and distributed for public comment prior to implementation. A conceptual slope section is
provided in Figure 6.
Adjacent to the remainder of the cap's perimeter, riprap and storm water run-off control swales will be used
as necessary to control run-on and run-off from the cap.
-------
UPPER
BARRIER
LAYER
N
~
STONE
REVETMENT
MATCII
EXISTING
GRADE
!
---------.
TRC
'RC EnYironmcnlol Corpwolion
NAVAL EDUCATION AND
TRAINING CENTER
!) W.IIUI!>llln CIII!>~III!I
Wind 501. CT 06()
-------
Fencing and Institutional Controls
"'-
Fencing will :: placed aro1;.":d the perimeter' of :'1e site to limit sit: access. Fencing ~'iil be :ombir.ed with
ir.s:itutior.al ::::=ols to also limit f';:'Jl'e sit: use a::d de...:!cpment. Resttictions on land use ~'ill be impie:':1ent:d
by NETC to ;:~event futUre use of the site.
. -
Additional Site Investigations
,) .
Additional sit: investigations whic~ will support the evaluation and determination of rnanageme:1t of migration
remedial ac:ion(s) at the site will be conducted as part or the source control remedial action. These additional
studies will be designed to determine the following:
~ .
. If additional me:?SUres, beyond capping the landfill, must be taken to reduce the amount or ground
v.'a::r in contact with the contaminated materials of the landfill (these studies will evaluate the
pot:ntial for leachate generation due to contact betWeen the landfill materials and ground water,
ir.::uding the pote:uial effectS or daily, monthly, and seasonal tidal fluctUations as ~'ell as flooding
eventS associated with the stOnns);
. Tne natUre and extent or ground water contamination and whether additional measures, beyond
capping the landfill, are necessary to meet federal or state ground water standards and to reduce to
ac:eptable levels any unacceptable risks to human health or the environment from ground water
cor.:amination;
. If the vented landfill gases require treatment to protect human health and/or the environme:n and if
the landfill gas extraction system can also be used to treat potential "hot spotS~ at the site;
. '\Vhe:her "bot spotS", inc!uding Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs), are present within the landfill
and whether they will be addressed by a separate remedial action or by the landfill cap; and
. The nature, extent and location of near-sbore sedimentS wbich may have been affected by site-related
contamination and whether they will be addressed by a separate remedial adon or excavated and
consolidated under the landfill cap.
Such StUdies ~'ould be conducted in association with Phase n Remedial Investigation activities or would be
included in landfill cap design StUdies. Based upon the resultS of these StUdies, the management of migration
operable unit would include the following, as necessary:
. the treatment mndards and remedial alternative(s) for vented landfill gases;
. the cleanup standards and remedial alternative(s) for bot spotS within the landfill materials, if present;
. the cleanup mndards and remedial alternatives(s) for conmminated ground water; and
. the cleanup standards and remedial alternative(s) for conmminated sedimentS.
Operation and Maintenance and Site Monitoring
Post-closure care would be conducted for thirty years, and would consist of the following componentS, in
accorda.i1cc with RCRA requirements (40 CFR Part 264, Subparts G and N):
-------
. Maintaining:::: :nt.:g:-:::; and :ff::::';::::ss of the final cove:-, including Ir.ak:ng :-::li:-s to the :aD
as ne:::ssary ~ COrTe:: :.":: eff:::s c: s::tling. subsidenc:, e:-osion, or othe:- eventS:' .
. Maintaining a::: monit=:-:ng th: grOt.:.::': ..at.::- monitOring sys::m and complyir:gwit:': ::'1e:- appli~::le
requirements of 40 C8 264 Subpa.:: F;
Maintaining and oper.:.:::g the gas c::::rol and monitoring system;
. P:-eventing ru.'l-on and :"~-off from ::oding or otherwise d.a.maging the final cove:-: and
. Prot.:cting and maintti:.;ng surveye:: :::nchmarks used in complying with 40 CFR :64.309.
Long-tenn ground wate: monitOr.::g and stOr=. water discharge monitOring woi=d be con::;:~d follov.ing
capping of the landfill. Tne des:gn of the c:::-,itOring systems would be defined followir.g completion of
additional ground water srudies a::.: site drair.ag: design. The environmental monitOr.ng pr::grun would be
submitted for regulatOry review a::d would ide:::ify the sampling locations and sampling fr:~.lencies. At a
minimum the environmental moni::ring progra=: would be conducted for a period of thirty Y:l..'"S.
The Navy will review the remedi~ action, to tt: extent required by law, to assure that it cor.:''''1ues to prot.:ct
human health and the environmen:. During th:s: periodic reviews, the Navy will consider r:~rements that
are newly promulgated if detennir.:d to be appli:able or relevant and appropriate and necesS2...",:,' to assure that
the remedy is still prote::ive of ht."-.-uI1 health a:::i the environment.
XI. STATh'"I'ORY DETER.\IDiATIONS
The remedial action se!ec:.ed for iI::;:lementttion 2.~ the McAlliSter Point Landfill site is consiste=: with CERCLA
and with the requirements of the NCP. The se!e::.ed remedy is protective of human health and ::e environment,
attains ARARs and is COSt effective. The sele:::.ed remedy uses permanent solutions and al:.e:nate treaanent
technologies or resource recovery ~chnologies to the maximum extent practicable for this si:.e. However, it
does not satisfy the StatUtory prefe:ence for treac:ent which permanently and significantly reduces the mobility,
toxicity or volume of hazardous subStances as a principal element.
A. THE SELECTED RBfEDY IS PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENV1RONMENT
The remedy at the McAllister PoU::t Landfill site will permanently reduc: the risks posed to h1.:IIlan health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing or controlling exposures to human and enviromnental receptors
through engineering controls and ir.stitUtional controls. The plac:ment of a cap will eliminate di.-:ct contact and
incidental ingestion exposure to surficial soil or waste con~mimintS and the implementation of institUtional
controls will prevent exposure to contaminated soil or ground water under futUre site use. The cap will
effectively reduce the infiltration of precipitation through unsaturated waste materials and the resultant generation
of leachate. The seleCted remedy will comply with ARARs and tD-be~DSidered criteria. Fmally, the
implementation of the seleCted remedy will not pose unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media impacts.
B. THE SELECTED REMEDY ~ IT AINS ARARS
This remedy will attain all Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate federal and State requirementS (ARARs) that
apply to the McAlliSter Point Lancfill site and this remedial action. Environmental laws free which ARARs
for the selected source control remedial action are derived, and the specific ARARs are presented in tabular
form in Appendix C and are sumrr.3rized below.
-------
Chem.ical-S:~::fic AR~
No chemical-specific ARARs are applicable to the se!ec~d remedial action.
Location-Sc~::fic AR.1.Rs
D.
.
Executive Order 11988 and 11990; Sta~:r.e:lton Proceedings of Floodplain Management and
Wetlands Protection (40 CfR 6, Appendix A)
~ .
,) "
. Clean Water Act Section 404 (40 CFR 230.10) Requirements for Discharge of Dredge
or Fill Ma~rial
. Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10) Prohibition of Filling a Navigable Water
. F:sh and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 U .S.C. 661) Protection of Wildlife Habitats
. E~dangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531) Protection of Endangered Species
. National HiStOric Preservation Act of 19c6 (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.) Protection of Historic
Lands and StrUctures
. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (132 CFR 229 & 229.4,43 CFR
i & 7.4); HistOric Sites, Building and ADtiquities Act
. Rhode Island Wetlands Laws (RIGL 2-1-18 et seq.); Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management Rules Governing the Enforcement of the Freshwater Wetlands Act - as amended Dec.
21, 1986
. Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Law (RIGL, Title 46, Chapter 23) and
Regulations
Action-Specific ARARs
. RCRA (40 CFR 264) Subtitle C Requirements:
40 CFR 264.10-264.18 Subpart B - General Facility Standards
40 CFR 264.30-264.37 Subpart C - Preparedness and Prevention
40 CFR 264.50-264.56 Subpart D - Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
40 CFR 264.90-254.101 Subpart F - Ground Water Protection
40 CFR 264.110-118 Subpart G - OosurelPoSt Cosure Requirements
40 CFR 264.301-264.310 Subpart N - T .andfil1 Requirements
. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712)
. Oem Water Act Section 404 (40 CFR 230.10) Requirements for Discharge of Dredged or Fill
Material
. Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10) Prohibition of Wetland Filling
-------
. C:l:: Ai: Ac::
5::::on 5.171 through 178, 42 use 99 7471-7478 (Requirements for Non-Attai:'_'nent Areas)
5e::::on 5-160 Co".:ough 169A - Pr:';::1tion of Significant Deterioration Provisions
. C!:l:1 Water Act (~O CFR 1::2-125) ~;ational Pollutant Discharge Elimir.ation Sys::m (NPDES)
P::::-it R:quir:mems .
. RI Hazardous Waste Mar.ag:ment .:'.:t of 1978 (RIGL 23-19.1 et s:q.) Hazardous Waste
Ma.."'.ag::nent Rules and Reg'~ations a::: Proposed Amendments: .
Section 7
Sedon 8
Sedon 9
Section 10
. RI Rules and Regulations for Solid Was-..c Management Facilities
Section 14.12 (relating to landfill ~ver permeability ~dards)
. RI Clean Air Act (RIGL, Titl: 23, Chz;:::r 23) General Air Quality and Air Emissions Requirements
RI Air Pollution Control Regula::ons, RI Dept. of Health, Div. of Air Pollution Control,
effective 8/2/67, amend:d 5/20/91
- Regulation No.1 - Visible Emissions
- Regulation No.5 - Fugitive Dt:St
- Regulation No.7 - E:nissions Detriment!! to Person or Property
- Regulation No. 15 - Control or Organic Solvent Emissions
- Regulation No. 17 - Odors
-. Regulation No. 22 - Air Toxies
. RI Water Pollution Control Act
RI Water QUality Regulations for Water Pollution Control (RIGL 46-12 et seq.)
RI Regulations for the Pollutant Discharge Elimination SYStem (RIPDES) (RIGL 46-12 et seq.)
The following action-specific policies, criteria and guidelines were also considered:
. RCRA Proposed Rule 52 FR 8712 - P:cposed Amendments for Landfill Oosures
. EPA Technical Guidance Document: Fmal Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface
Impoundments (EP A 530-SW -89-047)
. Oem Air ACt (40 CFR 50) New Sour:: Performance Standards (NSPS) Proposed Subpart WWW
56 FR 24468-24528 (5130191)
. Oem Air Act (40 CFR 61) National E:nissions Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPS)
Federal Location-Specific R~lations - The f:Cera! location-specific regulations mat apply Ie me selected
remedy are mainly based on the site's location adjacent to Narragansett Bay. Executive Orders 11988 and
11990 require the avoidance of long- and short-ter::1 impacts associated with the destruction of wetlands and the
occupancy and modifications of floodplains and wedands whenever there is a practicable alternative. Similarly.
-------
D -
Sec:ion .:~ of :.':: Clean Wat:r A:: ;:~::-.ibits :b: djsc;-.z:g~ of dredg~d or fill m.:.t::ial ::; a wat:: :f th: Unit:d
Stat:s if ther: is a pr.lc:icable alt:::-.a-:ve whi::: poses less of an adverse impact or if it causes significant
d:gracia::ion of the '\I.'at:r. The R;\'e::s and Ha::
-------
Landfill cap construction and c1oS"~: monito~::g ~'ill be conducu:d in accorda...-::: with to!:: l~?licabi: portions
of Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of d:: Rhode Is;",-:: Hazardous Wast: Manage:::e:'lt Rules l:.: Reg'.l1ations and
P~oposed AJn:nd!nen~.
Portions of Section 5 of the Clel:: .-\ir Act !7..?Y be applicable or relevant and appropr.a:= to the ve:lting of
landfill gas from the siu:. MonitC~::g and mc.::ling ~'ou1d be required to de:.:r:':1ine if d::s: require:'l'!en~ are
applicable or relevant and appropr:au:. Ven:::::g of landfill gases will also be conducu:: ::1 accordanc: with
Regulations 1, 5, 7, 15, 17 and :: of the Rbcce Island Air Pollution Control Regulations.
Clean Water Act NPDES requirem::1~ and Rhcce Island Water Quality Regulations for Wa:=~ Pollution Control
and RIPDES requirements will be applicable :0 the discharge of storm water from the si:=. A storm water
monitoring program will be developed to me:: :hese requirements.
It is also nou:d that, although the r:~iremen~. smbination. The
relationship of the overall effectiveness of this remedial alternative was determined to be proportional to its
costs. The costs of this remedial action are:
.
Estimated Capital Cost: ~,200,000
Estimated Operiition and Maintenance CoStS (net present worth):. $2,300,000.
Estimated Total Cost (net present worob): $8,000,000.
.
.
. The net present worth is based on a 5 % discount factor and 30 years of operatioI:; the estimated total
cost includes a 20 % contingency factor.
The selection of this alternative represents a re3.SOnable value in regard to the degree of protectiveness offered
by the alternative in comparison with the other alternatives evaluated. While the selected alte:native is the most
expensive alternative, it will be the most effective alternative in limiting future leachate g::::ration as a result
of infiltration of precipitation. While the need for remediation of ground water contamimtion will be evaluated
on tbe basis of additional site investigations within the management of migration operable unit for the Site, it
is anticipated that if a remedial action is required under that operable unit, tbe overall effort and expense
associated with that action will be reduced if infiltration is effectively removed as a source of leachate
seneration. Therefore, the incre3SCd capital cost associated with this alternative may be offset later by a
decrease in the overall operation and maintenance cost of a management of migration re::::dial action.
-------
D. THE S=!..ECTE!:> RE!vfEDY UTILIZES PE:e.1A~=~T SOLUTIONS AND AL TER."A TTVE
TRE.~,T\1E~T OR RESOURCE RECOv=~Y -r=CH~OLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
PRAC:!CABLE
"'.
Or.c~ the Sa'.;.' ide:1rified those alte...a.tives that a:-~in A.~~ and that are protective of h:.::nan health and the
e:1vironr.::::~. the Navy identified that alternative which ~:ilizes penna."lent solutions and alternative treatmer.t
tec:molog::s or resource recovery technologies :0 the i.mmum exte:1t practicable. This dete:mimtion was
made by c:c:ding v...hich one of the identified so\;..":e cor.=ol alternatives provides the best balance of trade-offs
among al!.C,-~tives in terms of: 1) long-term eF.ec:iver.ess and permanence; 2) reduction of toxicity, mobility
or volume t'-.rough treatment; 3) short-term effec:veness: 4) irr.plementability; and 5) coSt. The balanc:ng test
e:nphasiz~d long-term effectiveness and permane:.ce and ~he re:uction of toxicity, mobility and volume through
treatment; L"ld considered the preference for tr:atment as a principal element, the bias against off-site land
disposal of untreated waste, and community and state acceptance. Tne selected alternative provides the best
balance of trade-offs among the alternatives.
D -
~ -
Tn~ selec~::i alternative offers the greatest degree of lor.g-term effectiveness and permanence based on its use
of a multi-layer barrier to prevent Infiltration of precipitation. Due to the nature of the site (i.e., the
implemer.:ability problems and prohibitive costs ';I..hich v,'ould be associated with treatment of the entire landfill
area), treat:ne:1t was not found to be a practicable source control option at the site. Therefore, none of the
source cont:'ol alternatives evaluated in the FFS includec a treatment component to reduce mobility, toxicity or
volume. Tne selected alternative is comparable to the other alternatives in terms of short-term effec:iveness,
and althcug.i it is slightly more difficult to imple:nent and is slightly more costly than the soil cap alternative,
it was found to provide the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives considered, with long-term
effectiver.ess and permanence being the ~jor de~rmir.ing factor in the selection process.
E. ~ SELECTED REMEDY DOES NOT SATISFY THE PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT WHICH
~\1.~NENTL Y AND SIGNIFIe;ANTL Y REDt:(;ES THE TOXICITY. MOBILITY OR VQUJME 0)'
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selec~d remedy does not satisfy the Statutory preference for treatment as a principal element due to me
impracticability of treating the landfill area (i.e., the implementability problems and prohibitive coStS which ..
would be associated with treatment of the entire landfill). The selected remedy includes the provision for
conducting additional site investigations which will provide the basis for determining if treatment of principal
weats (e.g., hot spot areas or contaminated seCiments), landfill gas or ground water is required. .
XII. DOCtJ~~'T.A'I10N OF NO SIGNIFICA1~ CHA.~GES
On August 4, 1993, the Navy released the Proposed Plan for the source control ~medial action at the McAllister
Point Landfill site. The preferred alternative included the capping of the landfill area with a RCRA Subtitle C
multi-layer cap, landfill gas management, surface controls, fencing and institutional controls, additional site
investigations, and operation and maintenance and site monitoring. Since the remedial action is identical to me
remedy proposed in the Proposed Plan, no significant changes need to be addressed.
XIIL STATE ROLE
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) has reviewed the various alternatives
and has indicated its support for the selected remedy. The State has also reviewed the Remedial Investigation
Technical Report and the Focused Feasibility StUdy to determine if the selected remedial action is in compliance
Vrith applicable or ~levant and appropriate State environmental laws and regulations. In response to State
-------
comme::rs on the P:oposed Plan, the pe::neability s':l.::dards of Sec:ion 14.12 of the R:.cee Islane Solid Waste
Manage:nent Reg';lations have been inccrpor.ued I:e::in as an ARAR. As a party to the FFA, ~ode Island
concurs with the selected re:::edy for the source COI::-:JI action at the McAllister Point lz:dfill sit:. A copy of
the le:-..:: of con::.:..'"!Cnce is attached as Appendix E.
.....
-------
~ .
APPE.'.'"DIX A
RISK ASSES~IENT TABLES
Site 01 - McAllister Point Landfill
NETC - Newpon, Rhode Island
D -
-------
- --. -
INORGANICS
PCSs
. -
Anlimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chrcmium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
: -
,/
VCLATILES
Benzene
Brcmodichlorcr::ethane
Brcmofcr::1
Carbon Tenc:.-ioride
Chlorcbenz!!!'\e
Chlorcfor::1
Chlorcmea-ane
Oibromochlorcmelhane
Oichlorcethane.1.2-
Oichloroethene, 1.1-
Cichloroethene. 1.2-
Oichlorcprcpane.1.2-
E!tIylbenzene
Hexanone.2-
Styrene
Tetrachloroethane. 1.1.2.2-
T etrachlorce::1ene
Toluene
Trichlorcethane,1,1,1-
Trichlorcethane.1.1.2-
Trichlorcett-.ene
Vinyl chIonee
Xylenes
S:'AIVCLAiILES
Acenaphthene
A:;enaphtl"lylene
Anthracene
~r.z~(a)antJ'lracene
Senzo(a)pyrene
=e~zo(b)fluoranthene
=enzo(5h~perylene
=el"'~(k)lluoranthene
Eis: 2 ethylhe xyt) phthalate
5 :'1'Jlbenzytphthalate
Chrysene
Oibenzoluran
C ::e!'\ZC (a.h )anthracene
Cic.":Iorcbenzene, 1.4-
Cic::icrcbenzidine.3,3'-
CicMlorcphencl.2.4-
Oielhylphthalate
Cimelhylphthalate
Di-n-butytphthalate .
C ion -oc:ytphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lneeno( 123cd)pyrene
Melhylnapthalene. 2-
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
iric."1Iorcphencl.2.4,5-
PESTICIDES
Aldrin
SHC. alpha-
SHC, beta-
SHC, delta-
SHC, gamma.
Chlordane, alpha-
Chlordane, gamma.
00D,4.4'-
ODE,4,4'.
00T,4,4'-
Ceildrin
Endosullan I
Endosutfan II
Endosullan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin ketene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Melhoxych1or
Toxaphene
~
ti
~
AttIelcr.1016 ~
AttIclcr-1221 Ii
AttIeler. i 232 !I
AttIelor- i 242 :1
AttIctor-1248 . P.
AttIclor.1254
-------
...-'---.w.-.:-.r_..,. """""1._.-._-
, I
! I F.":-NGe OF RANGe OF = ANGE CF
" I St.:~~":-Ce SOIL I Sl.:ESUAFACe SCIL G~:~mD WAiER
"
I CCN::=~~ATlONS I C::~~CENTRAT10NS C::~;:eNTRAiIONS
i! '
,
' !~clkc\ (meIKc', (mol1\
,
,i , i I
1.
~ INCRGANICS i I i
I I
II I
I ':'::::TIony i ~.0.91 3.5.167 0.022~.25 :
i ':':senic I 1.9-20 2-23 0.0021.0.089
Ear/Ilium 0.16-1.7 0.33-2.0 0.002.0.013
I Ca::TIium I 0.8.2.0 0.57-8.6 0.003.0.057
C~romium 5.2-59 4.7-78 0.017~.25
I C:calt 3.6-20 1.5-28 0.022.0.74
C::per 13~070 11-1760 0.057-3.2
Lead ;.3-1980 2.1-886 0.003-4.8
Manganese 217~78 45-1300 0.058-21
Mercury 0.14-1.6 0.11-2.9 C.::0032~.0084
~::i
-------
- _.- -
- -- --
R;.M~E OF i
SUF\~':':E SOIL I
CONCE~;i'FIAT10NS !
'",,:~'1<0\ I
F.;'~;GE OF
SUSS;';~~ACE SOIL
CONCE~RATIONS
(/:1(:1',(0)
RA~~E OF ~
GROUNO WA'iE;:\ I
C:::NCE~'jRATICNS I
(~I:.'1\ ,
t" ...
j , d
5 EMIVCLA TILES i i
" : I
" ;
!I I I
A:e~i:hthene C.: '.3.8 i 0.:57.5.8 0.OC::;~.045
~ I
Ace~i:hthylene i 0.".0.052 i 0.058.2.7 X 0.01
Ar.:::~cene I 0.:44~.8 0.057.2.7 0.00::;~.01
6er.::, a)anlhra::ane I 0.:52.19 0.044-3.7 X 0.01
6e::::(a)pyrene 0.44-16 0.073-3.2 X 0.01
Ser '::1, b )ftuoranlhene 0.~2.15 0.05.2.7 X 0.01
Eer.%:(gni)perytene 0.2-8.4 0.067-2.7 X 0.01
6er.%:,k)ftuoranlhene O. ~2.14.0 0.052.2.9 X 0.01
6 is, 2 e :nylhexyt)phlhaJate 0.44-7.9 0.11-12 X 0.01
e ::=:;.:-e nzytphlhaJate 0.44-7.9 0.31-2.7 X 0.01
Ci':r'fsene 0.:72.18 0.05-3.6 X 0.01
I Cicl!rzofuran 0.:5.2.8 0.043-4.0 0.01~.019
CiceroZo(a.h)anmracene 0.:i4.7.9 0.3.2.7 X 0.01
Dic:-:icrobenzene. 1.4- X 0.44 0.05.2.2 0.01
Oic:':icrobenzidine, 3,3'. X 0.Ei.16.0 X 0.78.5.4 X 0.02
Oic:-:icrophenol, 2.4- X 0.44 0.054.2.7 NO
Die':1y1phlhalate 0.27 0.045.2.7 0.001~.01
Cime:.',ytphlhalate X 0.44 X 0.39-2.7 X 0.01
Ci.n.:ulytphthaJars 0.44 0.0~~.7 X 0.01
Oi -n -o<::ytphthaJars X 0~7.7.9 X 0.096-2.7 X 0.01
Fiucranlhene 0.17-46 0.047.5.9 0.002~.01
Fiu c re ne 0.09-4.7 0.044-4.4 0.00::;~.025
Inceno( 123cd)pynlne 0.16-8.9 0.21-2.7 X 0.01
Me!.'' ytnaplhaJene. 2- 0.:99- 1 . 1 0.05-4.5 0.001~.043
Na!=n:haJene 0.044-3.0 0.047-3.0 0.003~.24
Phenanthrene 0.::060-26 0.06-8.2 0.003~.021
P!".enol X 0.44 0.15-2.7 NO
Pynlne 0.:98-27 0.045-4.4 0.001~.01
Tric~Jcrophenol, 2.4,5- X 2.2 0.11-14.0 ND
PESTICIDES
Aldrin X 0.0095 X 0.0085~. 1 NO
Alpha-SHC X 0.0095 X 0.OO85~.1 ND
Alpha-chlordane X 0.095 X 0.084-1.0 NO
Seta.aHC X 0.0095 X 0.0085~. 1 NO
000,4,4'- O.o19~.19 0.0033~.2 NO
OOE. 4,4'- 0.011~.024 0.0023-0.2 NO
OOT, 4,4'- 0.C07-1.8 0.0~.3 NO
Cailorin X 0.019 X 0.017~.2 NO
Celta.SHC X 0.0095 X 0.008~. 1 NO
Endosulfan I X 0.0095 X 0.0085~. 1 NO
Endosulfan II X 0.019 X 0.017~.2 NO
Endosulfan Sui- X 0.019 X 0.017~.2 NO
Endrin X 0.019 X 0.017~.2 NO
Endrin utane X 0.019 X 0.017~.2 NO
Gamma-BHC X 0.0095 X 0.00~.1 NO
Gamma-chlordane X 0.095 X , 0.0M-1.o NO
Heptachlor X 0.0095 X O.o~.1 NO
Heptachlor epoxide X 0.0095 X 0.0085~.1 NO
Methoxychlor X 0.095 X 0.084-1.0 NO
'Toxaphene X 0.19 X 0.087-2.0 NO
PCBs
Aroc!or-1016 X 0.095 X 0.084-1.0 NO
Aroc!or-1221 X 0.095 X 0.084-1.0 NO
Aroclor-1232 X 0.095 X 0.084-1.0 NO
Aroc!or-1242 0.095 0.044-1.0 NO
Arodor-1248 X 0.095 0.084-1.0 NO
Arod:r.1254 0.13~.61 0.025-2.0 NO
Aroc!or-1260 X 0.19 X 0.17-2.0 NO
X : Values renec= 'W' llieoaalao
qual IVY
NO: Not det8C:8d: "U- qualified data only
-.
-------
___.'Ir...._.. .:-.~_.-I"'\.......tI...... _..nr.='.'IIJ- 1\wI'"""n"~;"""':J ,,,,,,,,.0 lC,/'\:-.,,:;)
MCALL.IS7E::I FCINT LANDFILl
:! ! I
! Aver.!ce RME '!
i I Total i I Total i
I
:1 Tota! cancer ! Total Cancer I
:1
HI Risk HI Risk I
" :
SOIL (a) 0.0043 1.2 x 10~ 0.064 1.8 x 10.5 ,
il !
I
I Incidental Ingestion of Soil 0.00~2 1.1 x 10" 0.064 1.Bx1o-5 I
I I
, I
I Dermal Comad with Soil 0.00017 3.2 x 10" 0.00039 7.3 x 10"
I
I '
I
,
-------
MCA~:S7=;:. POINT LANDFill
~
, I I 1
'
I Averaoe RME
! i I Total I Tc:al I
i Tctal Cancer Total Ca::cer
I HI Risk HI F.:SK
.
SOIL (a) 0.025 8.7 x 10-6 0.36 ,... . -c. .
>1.3 x 10..:0'.
Incidental Ingestion of Soil 0.024 8.4x10" 0.36 j:~x 104..(6)
Dermal Comac: with Soil 0.00098 2.4 x10-' 0.0022 5.5 x 10-'
".
" -
. ..
. I . Cancer Risk ;;-1 x 10'"
(a) Surface soil
f:o"'..'.":
(b) Senzc(a)arnhracene:
Benzc(a)pyrene:
Senzo (b )fluoranthene:
Benzo(k)fluoranthene:
Chrysene:
Dibenz(a,h)arnhracene:
Indeno(1.2.3-<:d)pyrene:
2.5 x 10"
2.1 x 10"
2.0 x 10"
1.8 x 10"
2.3 x 10"
1.0 x 10"
-------
-- -- ,-
MCAU.ISTE~ ?OINT LANDFILL
,
"
I
:1
"
;1
,
!
!
j Incidental Ingestion of Soil
I Dermal Contact with Soil
I
I
I Inhalation of Fugitive Dust
SOIL (a)
(a) Soil to a depth cf 12 feet
(b) Antimony: 2.0
Average
I Tctal
I Total i Cancer
I
HI I Risk
I '
0.13 3.7 X 104
0.13 3.7 x 10~
0.0014 1.6 x 10-'
0.00067 1.7 x 10-10
Total
HI
.2.5
. :,':";::;; ~5 "(b) ":'~:,::~.:L
0.011
0.0026
I."U
RME
I
I
2.3 X 10-5
Tota!
Cancer
Risk
2.2 x 1 1)"5
1.2 x 1 ~
1.1 X 11)"'
-------
S:=NARIO 4. COMME::;.C ':''''''INCi..:5,niA~ (FuI.=.:1 . Aui,j~ I
MCAL!..IS7:=. POIN7 LANDFILL
Total
HI
':"/erace
Total
Cancer
Risk
RME
I
Total
Cancer
Risk
lotal
HI
-.
SOIL (a)
0.27
"'.
, Inc:dentaJ Ingestion of Soil
: Dermal C:ntact with Soil
GROUND WATER
0.019
0.016
0.001~
..1.8
: Ingestion ct Drinking Water 11.e (c)
I
1.4 X 10.5
, "","'''' ,jl
,2.1x,1004, 11
. ....-.. ....'.-.-.'..
2."'i,10~"b jl
,.......,......U,L
1.7x1Q4 I
1.3 x 10"
0.27 '
7.4 X 10.7
0.0032
1.8x1 0-3,:: '
1'3::::'::,:;;:::::::::3:7. ~jo~t:!
I
13(~r"E:::::::'i7~:{iF(d)'''ji
!I
. .:'1"j3 ~"1(t~.'(d) :.: .
(aj Surlace scil
,"'.:'
(1:) Benzo(a)ar:thracene:
8enzo(ajpyrene: '
8enzo(b)tluoranthene:
Benzo(k)f:uoranthene:
Chrysene:
Dibenzc (a,h)anthracene:
Indenc(1.2.3-cd)pyrene:
(c) Antimony:
Manganese:
(d) Arsenic:
.Beryllium:
Benzo(a)anthracene:
Benzo(a)pyrene:
8enzo(b)fIuoranthene:
Benzo(k)fluoranthene:
3.8 x 10"
3.2 x 10"
3.0 x 10"
2.8 x 10"
3.6 x 10"
1.6 x 10"
1.8 x 10"
! . Cancer Risk> 1 x 1 Q-'
cr HI > 1.0
f..
0.91 (avera;e) to 6.3 (maximum)
0.31 (aver~e) to 2.1 (maximum)
1.7 X 1Q4 (average) to S.S x 1 Q4 (r.:aximum)
3.4 x 10" (average) 101.9 x 1Q-' (maximum)
2.2 x 10'" (average) 10 4.0 x 1Q-' (rnaximum)
2.2 x 1Q-' (average) 10 4.0 x 1Q-' (rnaximum)
2.2 x 10'" (average) 10 4.0 x 1Q-' (rnaximum)
-------
~- :."""nl... ; . ...::S.Oc:.7IAL. (F:.iiUF.E, . C,.UL.O & A'::UL. T
MCALL.IS7E~ POINT LAN: FILL
:; I
~ SOIL (a) ,
~ I
, Incidental Ingestion of Soil I
~ Dermal Contact with Soil I
I"~ Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 'I,
GROUND WATER ...
1,0..",001 D"",""9 Wat., II
Inhalation of Volatiles
(a) Surface soil
(b) Antimony:
Copper:
Zinc:
7ctal
HI
Child ! Ac:ult
0.52 0.056
0.S1 0.OS3
0.013 0.0027
0.0013 0.00025
9.1 :..:5.0
"9.1'(d) :S.O Cd) :.'
0.018 0.0037
3.0
2.0
1.3
I
Totai I
Cancer Risk
C~;;d I Adult I
i 8.6 X 10.5 14.5 X 10.5
I
I 8.S x '0.' 4.4 x 10.'
! 1.2x104 1.2x104
i
Averaae
Child
. . . ......
...7.7..):-::
;::.77 (bf::::::
0.079
! 2.S x 10" 2.6 x 10"'
i
:'. ! 2.i X 10~':: ..6:0'"ij~::;::::I::::"64:':::)::;::::::
0.0024
Total
HI
I
/':;:.;It
RME
I
I
Total
Cancer Risk
C~ild I Ac:.;1t
0.82
0.50
0.016
O.C-cOS 1
:i.3 x:10.3: ,7.0 xJO~ ;
..3 i10.J.(c) ..;0 X10~ {c}:
2.7 x 104
2.8x104 :.
1.1 X 1cr'
1.2 X 10.1
36 :':::.I:}:4~5i1 0.3:1 :2"x1 0-% :
! :.
:' r-2:i10:~tdjl ~~::;:1.~1 (d)::::?:~4.:{df::::r: :::m::::::~5'{d}?::r; :;$.:i)o.~1.(~' 1~.X'1~ (~) r
! 9.3x104 9.6x104 0.10 0.021 1.6x1cr' 1.6x10.s,
I .
(c) 8enzo(a)anthracene:
8enzo(a)pyrene:
Benzo{b)fluoranthene:
Benzo(k)fluoranthen8:
Chrysene:
Dibenzo( a.h)anthracene:
Indeno(1.2.3-c:d)pyrene:
(d) See Table A-a
Child: 2.S x 1~ and Adult: 1.3 x 1~
Child: 2.1 x 1~ and Adult: 1.1 x 1~
Child: 2.0 x 1~ and Adult: 1.0 x 1~
Child: 1.8 x 1~ and Adult: 9.5 x 1cr'
Child: 2.3 x 1~ and Adult: 1.2 x 1~
Child: 1.0 x 1~ and Adult: 5.3 x 1cr'
Child: 1.2 x 1~ and Adult: 6.0 x 1cr'
.'
k:.::::.;' .
:1- Cancer Risk> 1 x 1~
-------
SCENA;:;.iO 5 - ~;;.:ENT";;. (FiJTURE) - CHILD & AOULT
MCA:..;..!SiE.=. ~CINT LANDFILL
Ave!;! :e
~~.~=
..
"
I I j I 4.5 X 10-3~.~ X 10-2:'
! INGESTION OF 9.1 I 5.0 2.2 X 10-36.0 X 10-3 64 36
GROUND WATER i i I
I I
I ; !
I I
I Antimony 4.15 2.5 I 32 115 I
Arsenic 1.4 0.715 i 4.4 2..: ! I
Cadmium I 0.25 i 0.14 I 2.15 1.6
I I
Chromium 0.30 I 0.17 2.5 1.4 i
;
Copper 0.1e 0.099 i 3.9 2.2
I I !
Manganese 1.15 O.BB ! 10 5.e j
Zinc I 0.14 0.077 I 3.0 1.7 i I
I i
Arsenic I i 2.1 X 10-4 5.9 X 10-4 : 6.7 x '0-4 1.15 X 10-3 I
Beryllium I I I ':.1 X 10-5 1.1 X 10-4 i 2.3 X '0-4 6.5 X 10-4
Vinyl chloride I I ':.3 X 10-5 1.2 X 10-4 : 15.1 X 10-5 2.2 X 10-4
Dichlorobenzidine. 3.3- I 2.1 X 10-5 5.7 X 10-5 I 3.15 x 10-5 1.1 X 10-4
Benzo(a)anthracene I 2.6 x 10-4 4.9 X 10-4 I 7.2 x 10-4 1.4 X '0-3
Benzo (a) pyrene I 2.6 x 10-4 4.9 X 10-4 I 7.2 X 10-4 1.4 x 10-3
Senzo(b)fluoranthene 12.l5x10-4 4.9 X 10-4 17.2 X 10-4 1.4 X 10-3
Senzo (k)fluoranthene 2.6 x 10-4 4.9 X 10-4 7.2 X 10-4 1.4 x 10-3
Chrysene 2.6 x 10-4 4.9 x 10-4 I 7.2 x 10-4 1.4 x 10-3
Dicenzo (a.h)anthracene 2.6 x 10-4 4.9 X 10-4 . 7.2 x 10-4 1.4 x 10-3
Indeno(1 .2.3-cd)pyrene 2.15 x 10-4 4.9 X 10-4 I 7.2 x 10-4 1.4 x 10-3
I I
Child
Adult
Total
Car-cer RisK
Chile I Adult
Child
Total
HI
I
ACI.::t
Total
Cancer Risk
Chll::: I Acurt
Te~1
HI
'.
I = Cancer Risk> 1 X 10-4
-------
SUMMARY OF L:AD UF7 AK;.=,::K:NE~:C MCDEL RESULTS
SCENARIO 5. RESIDENiiAL (Fi..'TURE). CHILD
MCALLIS'iER PCINT LANDFILL
Ii
I Mean '/0 Children I
Soil Lead Blood Lead wI Blood Lead;
Concentration I' Concentrauon I Concentration I
( m) em >10u dl!
Mean Soil Lead 99 2.7 0.01
for Entire Site
Mean Soil Lead 634 8.2 27
for "Impacted" Zone
Maximum Soil Lead 1,980 22 98
for "Impaded" Zone
-------
APPE.'.1>IX C
ARARs ASSES~"
- ~te 01 - McAllister Point Landfill
NETC - Newpon, Rhode Island
".
-------
TABLE C-1
FEDERAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TRCs
RECORD OF DECISION
McALLISTER POINT LANDFILL
NETC - NEWPORT
RCRA SUBTITLE C MULTI-LAYER CAP
WITH SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
.. .
,',~E6~;i1~~j~,;i~~i'if~~#tI~~:"'" m., '...
....
..
MEDIA'.
WetiandsIWater Resources..
executive Order 11988 end
11990; Statement on
Proceedinos 0' Floodplain
Management and Wetlands
Protection (40 CFR 6,
Appendix At
Cleen Weter Act Section
404 (40 CFR 230.10)
Requirements 'or
Discharge 0' Dredoe or Fill
Material and Rivers end
Harbors Act (Section 10)
Prohibition 0' Filling 8
Navigable Water
Ash and Wildli'e
Coordination Act 0' 1958
116 U.S.C. 66,.
Protection 0' Wildli'e
Habitats
. SYNOPSIS
Applicable
Requires action to avoid whenever possible
the lono- and short-term impacts
associated with the destruction 0' wetlands
and the occupancy and modilications 01
floodplains and wellands whenever there is
a practicable alternative which promotes
the preservation and restoration 0' the
nntural onel honolit:lal villuos 0' wollalllis
and floodplains.
Applicable
Prohibits the discharge 0' ctredood or IiII
material to a water 0' the United States if
there is 8 practicable alternative which
poses less 0' an adverse Impact on the
aquatic ecosystem or if it causes
significant degradation 0' the water.
Rivers and Harbors Act prevents 'illing a' a
navigable water.
Applicable
Requires consultation with 'ederal and state
conservation anencies durino planning anrt
doclsion-makinUluocoss whid, mav
Impact wator hodies, including wellands.
Measures to prevent, mitigate or compensate
'or losses o' lish and wildlj'e will be given
dlle cons..lollltion whonovor n modificnlion
o' e woter body Is proposod.
r
c
, .
.
.
"
.-----.- ..--.-.----..... .... _.
APPLICABILITY TO SITE CONDITIONS
Will be applicable if iml)lcmentation 01 the CDI'
or associated shoreline protection impacts COOl
or on-shore wetlands.
AI)I"icahio to tho construe:lion "' a CIII' 111111
associated shoreline protection alono Narragal'
Bay. If durino the design process it is determi,
that cap construction cannot be limited to are.
within the toe print ot the existing landlill, mitil'
0' any Impacted wetlands will be required and
mitigation plan will be developed and distribute
public comment prior to implementation.
If the Implementation 0' a remedial action reSl1
in an impact to a water hody, consultation wil
11.5. nsh allli Wildli'o 51:rvir.u. IIIIH.M. ,111,1111
lederal and stato aocnr.ies involvt:l' in lish an,
wildli'e mailers is required. AnA" 'or construe
0' a cap and associated shoreline protection al
-------
TABLE C-1 (Continucd)
FEDERAllOCA TION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
RECORD OF DECISION
McALLISTER POINT lANDFILL
NETC - NEWPORT
RCRA SUBTITLE C MULTI-LAYER CAP
WITH SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
MEDIA'" .
..
'.' . SYNOPSIS
------.p-..-'-'..-----""'''' ~...__.. 0'-- ---
. . . .
. ..n ."
.. ..'.'REOUI~EMEN.!.r.r:\;..~.,:.\;::~::i.;:;'\:.:::.:::~[.:.:;.t~! "TU~.:':".':
..
'. .
.. .-_.. . .--....
.........._....-."
..
.. .
APPLICABILITY TO SITE CONDITIONS
Endangered Species--
Endangered Species
Act of 1973
116 U.S.C. 15311
Protection o' Endangered
Species
Cultural Resources--
National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966
116 USC 470. et seq.)
Protection of Historic
Lands and Structures:
Archaeological and Hlsto,lo
Preservation Act of 1974
1132 CFR 229 & 229.4,
43 CFR 7 & 7.4): Hlstorlo
Sites. Building and
Antlqultle. Act.
Applicable
Restricts activities In areas Inhabited
bV registered endangered species.
.--------
Information supplied bV the RlDEM Naturaillci
Program, Division 01 Planning and Dovclol)lUall
a letter dated August 3, 1993 indicates that RI
was not aware of anv rare plants or animals a.
ecologlcallv significant natural communities in
vicinity of the McAllister Point Landfill. The U.
and Wildlife Service will also be contacted d"ri
Phase II RI to further deline the potential prese
of endanoered specires.
Remedial actions must be coordinated with
preservation aoencies and societies to minimil
los5 01 significant scientific. luehisto.ic. hislOIi,
archaeological data. ARAR lor cap constructiu
Applicable
Several statutes which govern the
preservation 8t historic, scientilic and
archaological sites and resources.
Includes action to recover and preserve
artifacts. preserve historic properties and
minimize harm to National Historic
Landmarks. .
-------
o .
.
.
. .
TABLE C-2
STATE lOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TOCs
RECORD OF DECISION
McALLISTER POINT LANDFILL
NETC - NEWPORT
RCRA SUBTITLE C MULTI-LAYER CAP
WITH SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
MEDI':1:>~.;n~;m~"-~~~II'~1~11~i.A~~: ..
------__'_0_0.... ..
"
: SYNOPSIS
APPLICARIUTY TO SITE £:ONOITIONS
,',
, ,
Wetlands--
Rhode Island Wetlands laws
(RlGl 2-1-18 et seq.t: Rhode
Island Department 01
Environmental Management
Rules Governing the
Enlorcement 01 the Fresh-
water Wetlands Act - as
amended, Dec. 21, 1988.
Applicable
Defines and establishes provisions for tho
protection 01 swamps, marshes and other
freshwater wetlands in the state. Aclions
required to prevent the undesirable
dralnaoe, excavation, lilling, alteration,
encroachment 01 any other lorm of
disturbance or destruction to a wetland.
neoulation will he aPidicahle if call r.onslfllr.I'
Impar.ts a wetland area.
Coastal Zone--
Rhode Island Coastal'
Resources Management Law,
(RIGl, Title 46, Chapter 23t,
and Regulations
Applicable
Creates Coastal nesources Management
Council and sets standards and authorizes
promuloatlon 01 reoulations lor manaooment
and protection 01 coastal resources.
Since McAliisler Poinl t.amUiII is 10r...101' in ..
area, the lead aoency will coordinale wilh th,
Island Coastal nesourcos Manaoement £:011111
will ensure that all actions are consislenl, to
maximum extent practicable, wilh the Coast;
Management Plan. ARAR lor capping.
-------
TABLE C-3
FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
RECORD OF DECISION
McALLISTER POINT lANDFill
NETC - NEWPORT
RCRA SUBTITLE C MULTI-lAYER CAP
WITH SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
. .. .
.' .. .
AUTHORITYI .::;:.'
ACTION .
. '. ~ . ".' . . . . . .
,;/0.R£Q~~~~A~')~'.1'1;J; STAn;s,~ii~,i1,('if;/'.
'n;; SYNOPSIS
ACTION TAKEN 10 MEET ARA"
r.IPplno
nCRA 140 CFn 264'
Subtitle C Requirements:
40 CFn 204.10-264.18
Subpart B - General Facility
Standards
40 CFR 264.30-284.37
Subpart C - Preparedness
and Prevention .
40 CFR 264.60-284.66 .
Subpart D - Contingency Plan
and Emergency Procedurel
40 CFR 264.90-264.101
Subpart F - Ground Water
Protection
40 CFR 264.110-118
Subpart G - Closure/Post
Closure Requirements
Relevant and
Appropriate
Oullilles speclflcatlolls alii' sli1I11'iIrds for
design, operation, closure and monltorlno
of performance for hazardous waste
storaoe, treatment and disposal facilities.
SlIhslilllilve lIellA 1I:II"lwlIlI:IIIS will III: IIwl .'
adhered to on-site.
1 his re(lllliliioll "'IIV he ill'Jllil:ilhlc III 1I:lIIcdi;11
aCllolls which addless a wasle which is a lisl
characteristic waste under RCRA and which
constilute current trealmenl. sloraoe. Of disp.
as ccrliflcd hV lIellA.
This regulation may be applicable to remedial
actions which address a.wasle which is a lis I-
characleristic was Ie under lIeRA and which
constitule current treatmenl. sioraoe. Of disp'
as certilied by RCRA.
This regulation may be applicable to remedial
actions which address a wasle which Is a lisl
characteristic waste under RCRA and which
constitute current treatment. storaoe, or disp.
as certified by RCRA.
Siudies 1o he condlll:lcd as 1""1 "'Ihis "1":'011
will Include a {Jrmnu' waler lIIollil 01 illll '"1111101
Monilorino slandards will hc IIIci.
!=;lIhstanllve standards and rr:qlllrelllenis willi
Relevant and
Appropriate
General rcqulrements reOiuet!no wosle
analysis, security, tralnlno, Inspections,
and location applicable to a facility which
stores, treats or disposes 01 hazardous
wastes 13 TSDF lacility'.
Relevant and
. Appropriate
Requirements applicable to the design
and operation, equipment, and
communications associated with a TSDF
facility, and to arranoements with local
response departments.
Relevant and
Appropriate
Emergency planning procedures
applicable to a TSDF facility.
Re'evDnt and
Appropriate
Ground waler monitorlno/correcllve al:llon
reqlliremenls; dictates adherence 10 MC'-s
and establishes points 01 cOlllplialll:e.
Relevant onrl
Appropriate
Estnhllshes reqllirements lor the r.losure
and lono-tenn management 0' a
-------
TABLE C-3 (Continued'
FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
RECORD OF DECISION
McALLISTER POINT LANDFILL
NETC - NEWPORT
RCRA SUBTITLE C MULTI-LAYER CAP
WITH SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
o .
c .
c
.
I,
A'Z~~=t";(\;~,!;,~~~~~~*~I~J~~~\.t~iJ.;!,;; ;~i~.:ii!; : " ,
~ !!p.I!!na
Subtitle C Requirement. rCon''':
40 CFR 264.301-264.310:
Subpart N - Lendlill
Requlrementl
RCRA Propolld Rull
&2 FR 8712
Propoled Amendmlntl 'or
Lendflll Clolurel
EPA Technicil Guldence
Document: Final Cover. on
lIezerdou. W,"e Lendfili.
end Sur'ece Impoundment.
rEPA &30-SW-89-0471
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
116 U.S.C. 703-7121
Cilln Weter Act Section 404
140 CFR 230.101
Requlrementl 'or DI.cherge
of Dredged or Fill Melerlel
end Rivera end Herbora Aot
ISectlon 101 Prohibition 0'
Wetlend Filling
"
.. SYNOPSIS.
Relevent and
Appropriate
Placement of cep over hezerdoul w86le
requr.. . cover d..lgned end conltrucled
to comply wllh reoulollonl. Inlloll.lion 0'
IInel cover to provide lono-term
mlnlmlzetlon of InfiJlllllon. R..trlctl
pOlt-clolure ule 0' properly el nece..ory
to provont dRlnnu" 10 covor.
To De Conlld.,ed
Provldol en option for tho ellllilcelloll 01
alt.,nate clolure and pOlt-closura
requlrementl baaed on a conlidorelion of
alte-Ipeclfic condillonl Including elll,ol..,e
palhweYI of concern.
To 8e Conaldered
EPA Technlcel Guidance for lend fill cove,..
Prllentl recommended tlchnlcel
Ipeclllc.tloni for mullileyer lendfill cover
dellon.
Appllceble
Prohibit I hunting. po..e..lng. killing. or
capturing of mlOlllory blrda. birds In
denoer 0' extinction. and tho.. bird a'
eaol or neatl.
Appllcebla
Prohlblte tha dlacharge 0' dredoed or 'ill
meterlal to wetera of Ihe United Slet..
unle.. no other pllcllcel elternetivel ere
eVDllohle which IJOID IDn 01 ..n .ulverGD
Impect on tha equetlc ecoaYltem or If It
ceua.. Ilonllicent deOlldatlon 0' the weter.
Rive" and If"bort Act preventl 'illing of e
nevlgabla weter.
---.-.-'._--"""
ACTION TAKEN TO MEET AnAn
Cep d..lgn will meet reouletory requirement I. Cep
meintenenca will be ettended to. Clolure end
post.clol..,e sllhstnntive rO'1"lr"l11e"ls will ho
compiled with.
Cep nnd post.clol..,e l1Io"ltminu will ho d"loiu"..,1
tekino Into eccount exposure pelhwoYI 0' concern.
Cep conatructlon ahould con'orm 10 Ih..e Ilende"t..
Since construction 'ectlvill.. during Ihe breeding
..e60n mey "toke" birds or their n8lls. ectiona
must be teken to avoid destroying n..11 during
breeding ....on. Pha.. II envlronmenlel
a..e18menl will del ermine II mlgrolory blrdl live
In or-around tho Inndlill area.
Appllcnhle to Ihe construcllon 0' n cnl' Dr,,1
a560cleled shoreline protection olano Nallooenull
noVo "durlno the desion procn.. ilil determined
thnl cnl' cOlu;lrl/ction CIIIIIIO' h.. lil))iln,1 In ..,..n5
wllhln Iho toeprint 0' the elli6li,,0 londlill. ",iliuoli",'
0' eny Impected wetland. will be re'1l/lred and e
milioeilon plan will be devolol'"'' ftrul disl,lhuled 1m
public comment prior to Implementelion.
-------
AUTHORITY' ..
ACTION.
Ycntlno
. .' . .
. .. ...
.. ,','.'. .
. .. . """"', '.:. ,",. . ,"," : ..
. REOUIR.EMENt.\:;::::/:\::.:::.\:::(\:.;..:
. . .. . .
. ':'; : :.:<" "::;':::"';':::" ""
Clean Air Act 140 CFR 601
New Source Performance
Standards INSPSI Proposed
Subpart WWW 66 FR 24468-
24628 16/301911
Clean Air Act 140 CFR 611
National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Pollutants
INESHAPSI
Clean Air Act, Section 6
171 through 178,42 USC
II 7471-7478 IRequlrements
fo; Non-Attainment Areasl .
TABLE C-3 (Continued)
FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
RECORD OF DECISION
McALLISTER POINT LANDFILL
NETC - NEWPORT
RCnA SUBTITLE C MULTI-LAYER CA'P
WITH SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
. . . ...
STATUS:;:'>:.::;::
To Be Considered
To De Considered
Applicable or
Relevant and
Appropriate
IDe pending on
Modelling Resuftsl
. SYNOPSIS
..
Requires Best Demonstrated Technology
IBDTI for new sources, and sets emissions
limitations. Proposed Subpart WWW sets a
perlormance standard for non-methane
organic compounds INMOCI emissions 01
160 Mg/yr 1167 tpyl for existing municipal
solid waste landfills.
Establishes emissions limitations lor
hazardous olr ,)(Illulanis and scts IlIIth
regulated sources 01 those pollutants.
RI has adopted State Implementation Plan
ISIPI requirements alllJfOved 111111
enlorcable by EPA which meet the
NSR requirement of the CAA. These
provisions require that new or modi lied malor
sources of VOCs, delined as a source
which has the potential to emit 25 tons per
year, Install equlpmcnt to meet lowest
Available Emissions Rate IlAERl, which Is
set on a case-by-case basis and is either
the most stringent emissions limitation
contained In any SIP lor that cateoory or
source or the 1110st stringent emissions
limitation which is achieved lor the source.
NSR requirements apply to non-attainment
pollutants, which are VOCs and NO.ln Itl.
---~--------_._~ .. ---.
ACTION TAKEN TO MEET ARAR
----_._.~- .
These standards should be considered In the I
01 a landfill gas management system.
Although EPA has not promuloated linal
Mallimum AdllcVllhlc r.onlllli t ct:lllllll"UY IMI
standards for munlclpallandlills, the lead agel
should use air control tedmology to control
emissions 01 halordous olr pollutions. MACT
standards prescribe technology that Is used b,
best 12% 01 Industries In the source category
Monitoring will be conducted to determine if ..
requirements of this stal1llall' arc all111ic:ahle 01
relevant ond oPllrollliate hilscd 011 Ihe cmissill
levels and on the need to be protective 01 hUll
-------
c ,
Q .
<
.
. .
TABLE C-3 (Continued)
FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TOCs
RECORD OF DECISION
McALLISTER POINT LANDFILL
NETC - NEWPORT
RCRA SUBTITLE C MULTI-lAYER CAP
WITH SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
AUTUOR~/' .:./ :i. ::,::,:,: REOUIREiv1~~~::::::::..j::';':':i::.'::.: ST A rUS '....
ACTION . .' .
___..a_-
VentIng
~rl!lnl!gQ
Clean Air Act, Section 6
160 through 169A -
Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions
Clean Water Act 140 CFR
122-1261 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES' Permit Requirements
Applicable or
Relevant and
Appropriate
(Depending on
Modelling Results'
Applicable
SYNOPSIS
ACTION TAKEN TO MEET AnAn
...
- --"----_.. .-.--"U'.-- ..... .
Monitoring will be conducted to determine II
requirements of this standard are apl1licahle I
relevant ami a'lprollrla"~ ha5,~eI on 'hl~ 1~lIIh;si
levels. ..
RI has adopted SIP requirements approved
and enforceable by EPA which meet the
Prevention 01 Slgnllicant Oelerlorallon IPSOI
requirements of the CAA. These Ilrovlsions
require that new or modified malor sources
of VOCs Idefined as a source which has the
potential to emit 25 tons/year' Install
811"1,llIIent to meet 1I05t AVllllahle Conlrol
Technology (OACT,. PSO requirements
apply to attainment pollutants, which are 502,
CO. lead and partlculales In nhoele Islanll.
Permits contain applicable effluent
standards (I.e., technolooy-based and/or
water quality-based), monitoring
requirements, and standards and spedal
conditions lor discharues, Inclullinu starin
water discharges from land disposal
facilities which have received Industrial
waste from Industrial facilities.
Storm water drainage improvcments wOllhll,
desluned to provide comilliance wilh the
substantive requlremenls o'these reOlllallol\'
IIrainaoo would he rnonitorl~1I in cOll1l1lianr:e v
-------
TABLE C-4
STATE ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
RECORD OF DECISION
McALLISTER POINT LANDFILL
NETC - NEWPORT
RCRA SUBTiTlE C MULTI-LAYER CAP
WITH SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
.. . . . .
.. . ..... .....,_.... p" . ........ . ...
A~~~~(~;\:::~::.~:;;:;::.~!)\:;r:?::~~~~{~;I~~\;i'i[.~\\~~.:tl;i\~\~)\!\;.:::;:.\.\.\i:.J:':;~~~~;!~;~\';,:::;::.[;~:~!~::::~J:;'/;;:::'L:.:;:;::;.:::::,,:;;::::::.~~:~?,~S,I.~:
Q!!P'~g
AI Hazardous Wasle Management
Act 0' 1978 (RIOL 23-19.1 ot seq.)
Hazardous Wasle ManaOBment
Rules end Reguladona end
Proposed Amendments:
. Secllon 7
. Section 8
. Secllon 9
. Section 10
AI SoldWasle Management
Fact.dos Aulos and noDulatlons
. Secdon 14.12
Relovant and
AppropJlate
Rolavant and
Appropdalo
f1olovanl and
Appropriate
Relevant and
Appropriate
Relevant and
Appropriate
Aolovanl and
Approprlalo
Aulos and rODulatlons 'or hazardotl9 wmto
genoratlon, transportation, treatment,
storage and dsposal.
nostllcts Iocotlon, doslgn, construction,
ond oporatlon 0' landfills fronl
onduIIUUllnO UluulllJ willur, wulhuutJ or
'Ioodplalns
Oullinos roquhomonls 'or ground walor
proloctlon, {¥meral wasle analysis,
security procedures, Inspections and
sa'ety.
Outlnes operational reqlAremonts 'or
treatment, slorage and disposal 'aciUtles.
OuIDnes design and oporatlons
reqlArements lor land cJsposailadUlles,
Including landfills.
Sots pollormanco slondauJ lor landfill
covers 0' maximum remolded pormeability
coo!lIclont or 11( 10-1 cf!l1soc.
. ACTION TAI
-------
- Regulltlon No.6 - Fugltlva
Duat
. Regulltlon No.7. Eml..lonl
Delrlmentll to rlraon or
Property
. Regulltlon No.1 & - Control 0'
Orglnlc Solv.nt Emla.lon.
. R.gulltlon No. 17 - Odorl
. Regulltlon No. 22 .
Air Toxici
TABLE C-4 (Continued)
STATE ACTION-SPECIFIC AnARs ANO TOCs
RECORD OF DECISION
McALLISTER POINT LANDFILL
NETC - NEWPORT
RCRA SUBTiTlE C MULTI-lAYER CAP
WITH SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
, LJ ,'0
(-
.
. .
SYNOPSIS.
-.--.--..----..---..----.. -.. .-.. ...-." . -... .-.. . -~.. ,-. ...-.. .-
ACTION TAKEN TO MEET ARARS
No IIr contlmlnlnt emlnlonl will be
allowed lor ",ore Iha" 3 11I1,,"loa I" a"y
anI hour which ere oreller Ihan or equal to
20% oplclly.
Appllcabll
Rlqulrel thlt re..onlble preclutlon be
taken to "revent parllclliole mall or Irom
bacomlno elrborne.
. .
A~~~~~.(::-:,:::.[::~.:!-,::.::_!::::j!;-~~~~.~~~~-~~;;i;::::.;::::.:;:;:::::.~-;:;::;.;:l,\'\:::::-::;::::'~T~~!I .
Vlnllna RI Cleln Air Act
IRIOI, TIUe 23, Chlpter 231
Oenerll Air QUlnty Ind Air
Emlllion. R.qulr.mente
RI A" Pollution Control
Regulatlona, RI Dapt: 0' Health,
Div. 0' A" Pollution Control,
eUectlve 812/87, Imlnded &120191
- Regulltlon No.1 - Vllibia Applicable
Emll.lonl
Applicable.
Prohlhltl eml..lonl 01 contlmlnlnla which
may be l"lurlolla 10 hIlIllO". 1,10"1 or Ollllllal
Ille or cluse dlmege 10 properly or which
r8l.onlbly Intar'ere wllh Ihl Inloymanl
0' li'e end proparty.
AppUcebie
Limite the Imount 0' orglnlc lolventl
emitted to the Itmosphere.
Appllclble
Prohlbltl the rllaele of obJactlonable
odora ecroal properly linea.
Appllceble If elr
eml8l10na
conlaln reouilled
aubllancea .
rrohlbltl Ihe aml&&lon 0' &I,acifled
conlemlnlntl It rlla8 which would ra&ult
In ground level concanlrallona ore81er
Ihan Iccepllble ambienl levels or
Icceptlble Imblent levela wllh LAER. II
aet In the reoulltlon.
Air eml8810n8 'rom remedial Ictions will meel
olllluulo" I..volu In rOIlIlI'III"n.
On-aile remadlal Icllona will u&e good I"dullliial
praclice8 10 prevenl ,'allicllialo moUer Irom
bocomino lirborne.
All eml.810n8 from 18ndlill venl. will maol Ihl8
rOIIIlI.OIllO,,1 or II"U UoollIIlIlIl will hlllll'llIilll.l.
If eml..lon8 'rom Ilnd'iII g88 vent8 exceed Iimlt8 In
thl8 regull"on. eml8alon8 conlrols will be
de810ned end Implemenled 10 moel Ihe.e
requiremenl8.
No remedlel Ictlon or air eml88lona will emit
oblecllonable odora beyond Ihe lacililY hOllnd.ry.
e. pracllceble.
II necessery to meel Ihese &101\1101115, eir
emissions control equipmenl will be desioned lor
-------
TABLE C-4 (Continued)
STATE ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
RECORO OF OECISION
McALLISTER POINT lANDFill
NETC - NEWPORT
RCRA SUBTITLE C MULTI-lAYER CAP
WITH SURFACE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
. .
. .
.-.---.--..--.--..---.-.... .-. ,.-.-..-....... _..-.-,- --
. ,:.: . ,..'. :,,;.;:'itr,< ~,E~~!r:~:~.~,~I~:..j;:::.::::::;.\!:)i.':::;\::.:i:\......::~t ~!U~..:.:..::.:q"...'.'
Dr.ll\lol
RI Water Pollution Control
Act
RI Water Quality Regulations
for Water Pollution Control
CRIGL 46.12 et .eq.)
RI neoulatlons for the Pollutant
Discharge Blmlnatlon System
IRiPOESt
(RIGL 46.12 et seq.'
..
. ,".
. SYNOPSIS
..
ACTION TAKEN TO MEET AnARS
.----_u.-----.---..-.......
Applicable
Establishes oeneral requirements and In compliance with these reo"lations, RlPOES
effluent limits for discharoe to area waters. requirements pertaining to storm water discha
will be met.
APlllicuble
Permits contllin oJll1llc:llhlo efllllc:nt
standards lI.e., technology-based and/or
water qllality-hasecl), monltorinll
requirements, and standards and special
conditions for discharge, Including storm
woter cli9c1l11r(Jos 'fllm '"ncl cli:lIICl!lIl'
facilities which have received Industrial
wastes.
Stlllm wllle:r clha:ha,",: Imll,nv.:III':lIt:1 WIII.!,1 ..
desioned to provide comJlliance with these
reOlllations unci cI,oinane wo1l1c1 he monitmccl i
-------
. -
n
APPDIDIX E
RIDDI LEITER OF CONClJRRENCE
Site 01 - McAllister Point Landfill
NETC - Newpon, Rhode Island
a.
-------
.-
I~' I State of Rhode Island and Providence Pla:-::atior.s
"Department of Environment&! Management
Office of the Director
91-1ayesSrreet
i ProYldena. RI 02908
I
i
. -
Q
'-'\.
24 September 1993
Paul Keough
Acililg Regional AdIr.inistraLor
environmental Protection AgC:C"j. Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203.2211
.'
't -
RE:
Record of Decision for th: McA1li.st= Point Landfill,
Naval Education Training Center (NETC). Newport, Rhode Island.
ear Mr. Keough:
On 23 Mnrch 1992. the State of Rhode Islwi ente:ed into a Federal Facilities Agreement with
ttc Depamnent of the Navy aJ:C the Envirc::memal ProteCtion Agency. According to Section
1 i':; of said agreement, the State of Rhode Island offers its conc:um:ncc with the selected remedy
detailed in the September 1993 Record of Decision for the Source ContrOl Remedin1 Acrion fer
Site 01 . McAllister Point LandfiJl at the Naval Education and Traiaing Centc:' located in
ewpurt, Rhude bland. This concum:nce is bwsed upon all aspectS of the abovementioned
Record of Decision being adequately addressed and implemented during design, conmucrion and
operation of the remedy.
Tl1e Department wishes to ~ifical1y emphasize the fonowing aspects of the Record ofDccwon:
.
This source control remt!--liAI action is the first of tWo operable units for the site. A
Record of Decision wilt be issued for the management of migration operable unit.
.
The management of migmtion operable unit will consider clean up levels and remedial
options for contaminated iI'Oundwatc:'. leachate, landfiJ1 las, c:unuuninatcd sediments and
potential hot spot areas including non-aqueous phase liquids.
The Record of Decision will be iss1=i for the management of migration op~le unit
sufficiently prior to the commc:1CCm= of construction of the source conU'OI operable unit
remedial action so that appropriate changes, if necessary. may be implemented in the fmal
remedial design for the first operable unit.
.
Te"'pIIlIO.~~' .177.11-'1. TOO 177-6800, FA:/. 274-7337
-------
P. Keough
24 September 1993
Page Two
.
Tne re::ledy as proposed and implc:n~nted must ensure complian~ with all applicable or
relevant and appropriate State and Fede:-al StatUtes, regulations and policies.
This remedy mUSt identify institutional controls applicnble throughout the remedial action
projecl lif~, which are protective of human health. Also, in the event that the remedial
risk goals cannot be achieved, long-te:m controls must be inStituted to prevent an
unaccei'tablc risk. lo hwnan heclth and the environment.
.
Regnrding the fInal design of the slope proteCtion syStem, the Record of Decision
rc:ferenc:s the Army Corps of Engineers' Shore Prolt:etion Manual which does not appear
in the AdmiDimative Record Index or the reference section of the Focused Fc:asibility
Sludy. As a result, the State has not had sufficienl lime to locate and review ~
gwdancc. Howeve:', we view the remedial design phase as nn interactive process in which
the design Staff wiIl work closely with the reiulatury agencies in order to assure that the
final design addresses the unique cngin=ri.ng considerations for this site.
Finally, the State will continue to participate in the Federal Facilities Agreement and in the
review and approval of aU phases of the remedial dc:sjgn process.
Sincerei y.
I
/Au
Louise Durfee,
Deparuncn1 of En .
r
ental Management
cc:
James Festc', Associate Director, DEM
Merrill IIohman, Di:ector. EPA ReJion I Waste Manqemem Division
Mary Sanderson. Chief: RI Superfund Section .
Tc:m:nce Gray, .Chief: DEM Division of Site R.c:mediation
Claude Cote. Esq. DEM Office of Lep1 Services
Wamn Angell, Supervising Engineer, DE.\{ Division of Site Remediation
mplf.roO'lf
.,'
..
- -
.
-------
.
a-
Am: !cr=gQing.:'::-.~-~ :::e seic::cn cf a r-..=:dial ace:: :y the Depamnent of Ce N~vy ~d :::= t:.'s.
E:M.'"'CIIment!.! ? \0 =:jot. .~~:::-!. Ret.e:: I, wie :...-n:-.::e::c: == the Rllode Island Depar=:::t at E:vir::===:1l
Ma:.al==t. C:-...:.= aX rc::::c::r..d fer imII::diat: i:::pl=-.-~tion:.
~
~~~a
up::1ip. ]. n::n=
Date:
'7/r};c;-j '7:7
I' ;
nue:
Cap:z.in, U.S. :Savy
~2~g C::c:r
Naval E::::::1tic: am 'I'ni:'T.I Ce::1t:r
Newport. R.hc~ Jslami -
.~
. ~-_..
~
-.-
-------
The foregoing repr:sentS the se!e:::i~:: of a !'::::leaal action by the Department or the Navy and the U.S.
Environmental Prot::::ion Agency, Reg:::l I, wi:: conC".:.m:nce of the Rhode Island Depar:nent or Environmemal
Management.
~u
"
By:
R~ ~(l
Paul G. Keou~
Dat::
~ -7." '7 7'3
TItle: . Ac:ing Regioml AdminiStrate:", Regi~ I, USEPA
- -
------- |