PB94- 963927
EPA/ROD/R03-94/192
February 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Weapons Station
(O.U. 1) Site 5, Yorktown, VA
9/29/1994
-------
Final
Record of Decision
Operable Unit No. 1
Site 5
Surplus Transformer Storage Area
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown
Yorktown, Virginia
September 1994
\
o
/
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS iv
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION A-l
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION . 2-1
3.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTTVTnES 3-1
4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 4-1
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNIT RESPONSE ACTION 5-1
6.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6-1
6.1 Land Use 6-1
6.2 Meteorology 6-1
6.3 Topography 6-1
6.4 Geology and Hydrogeology 6-2
6.5 Ecology 6-2
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7-1
7.1 Fate and Transport 7-1
7.2 Toxicity and Exposure Assessment 7-2
7.3 Risk Characterization 7-3
7.4 Conclusion 7-4
8.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE 8-1
9.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 9-1
9.1 Selected Newspaper Notices 9-2
9.2 Public Meeting Attendance Roster 9-4
9.3 Panel of Experts 9-5
9.4 Independent Sampling Investigation 9-6
10.0 REFERENCES 10-1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Location of Naval Weapons Station 2-2
2-2 Location of Site 5 - Surplus Transformer Storage Area 2-3
3-1 Previous Surface Soil Sample Locations (Site 5 - Surplus Transformer Storage Area) 3-4
3-2 Round One Remedial Investigation Surface Soil, Concrete Chip, Soil Boring, and
HydroPunch™ Sampling Locations (Site 5 - Surplus Transformer Storage Area) ... 3-5
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
3-1 Soil Analytical Results of Previous Investigations at Site 5 .._... 3-2
3-2 Soil Analytical Results of Round One Remedial Investigation at Site 5 3-6
111
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ARAR
bgs
CERCLA
CLP
COPC
CSF
DoN
FS
FFA
'F
ffl
IAS
ICR
IRIS
IRP
MI
msl
NCP
NPL
OU
PCB
PRAP
RBC
RCRA
RfD
RJ
ROD
SARA
SOW
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Below Ground Surface
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980
Contract Laboratory Program
Chemical of Potential Concern
Carcinogenic Slope Factor
Department of the Navy
Feasibility Study
Federal Facilities Agreement
degree Fahrenheit
Hazard Index
Initial Assessment Study
Incremental Cancer Risk
Integrated Risk Information System
Installation Restoration Program
Mobility Index
Mean Sea Level
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Operable Unit
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Proposed Remedial Action Plan
Risk Based Concentration
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Reference Dose
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Statement of Work
IV
-------
TAL Target Analyte List
TCDD 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TCL Target Compound List
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WPNSTA Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown
Hg/kg Microgram Per Kilogram
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site Name and Location
Operable Unit No. I
Site 5, Surplus Transformer Storage Area
Naval Weapons Station
Yorktown, Virginia
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents a determination that no remedial action is necessary to protect
human health and the environment for Operable Unit No. I, the Surplus Transformer Storage Area,
Site 5, at the Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia (WPNSTA Yorktown). This
determination was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This no action decision is supported by documents contained in the
Administrative Record.
The Commonwealth of Virginia concurs on this action.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The Remedial Investigation (RI) and the Risk Evaluation conducted for Site 5 support a no-action
remedial alternative. The RI and Risk Evaluation addressed all media at the site, and therefore, no
other actions will be considered for Site 5.
Declaration
The no-action decision is based upon the fact that the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination
at WPNSTA Yorktown Site 5 was found in small quantities with estimated risks within the USEPA's
target risk range. The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
Contaminant levels detected in the media at the site were found to present minimal risk to human
health and the environment. A five-year review will not be necessary for this site.
A-l
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
(Name)
S.W.DELAPLANE,CAPT,USN
Commanding Officer
Naval Weapons Station
;,CAI
Date
• ? y
(Name)
ER H. KOSTMAYER
Regional Administrator
USEPA Region m
Date
A-2
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On October 15, 1992, WPNSTA Yorktown was included on the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) National Priorities List (NPL). The
Department of the Navy (DoN) has been granted the authority to be the lead agency at WPNSTA
Yorktown under Executive Order 12580 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA), Title n. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the
Commonwealth of Virginia have authority at WPNSTA Yorktown as support agencies. USEPA
Region IE, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the DoN are in the process of finalizing a Federal
Facilities Agreement (FFA) for WPNSTA Yorktown. The primary purpose of the FFA is to ensure
that environmental impacts associated with past disposal activities at WPNSTA Yorktown are
thoroughly investigated, and appropriate CERCLA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) corrective action alternatives are developed and implemented to protect public health and
the environment.
A CERCLA remedial action is often divided into Operable Units. As defined hi the National Oil
and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan (NCP), an "Operable Unit means a discrete action that
comprises an incremental step toward comprehensively addressing site problems. This discrete
portion of a remedial response manages migration, or eliminates or mitigates a release, threat of a
release, or pathway of exposure. The cleanup of a site can be divided into a number of operable
units, depending on the complexity of the problems associated with the site. Operable units may
address geographical portions of a site, specific site problems, or initial phases of an action, or may
consist of any set of actions performed over tune or any actions that are concurrent but located in
different parts of a site." This Record of Decision (ROD) presents a determination that no further
remedial action is necessary to protect human health and the environment at Operable Unit No. I
(OU I), which consists of Site 5, the Surplus Transformer Storage Area located at Naval Weapons
Station, Yorktown, Virginia (WPNSTA Yorktown). This ROD has been prepared to summarize the
remedial alternative selection process and to present the selected remedial alternatives. The no-
action decision at Site 5 is the first of several potential discrete actions at WPNSTA Yorktown;
1-1
-------
hence, Site 5 has been designated OU I. The no-action decision is the final action for OU I. Other
operable units will be defined by separate investigations.
The no-action decision is based on a recently completed Round One Remedial Investigation (RI)
(Baker/Weston, 1993) and Site 5 Risk Evaluation Report (Baker, 1993). In the Risk Evaluation
Report, it was determined that Site 5 soils posed no current or future potential, unacceptable human
health risks and that site-associated contamination has not affected underlying groundwater quality.
Additionally, the relatively small size of Site 5 and its distance from critical environmental habitats
preclude significant effects on the surrounding ecology. Therefore, the conditions at Site 5 do not
require further action to be protective of human health and the environment.
As stated previously, OU I has been the subject of an RI. A feasibility study (FS), which normally
develops and examines remedial action alternatives for a site, will not be performed at Site 5 since
the results of the RI and Risk Evaluation indicate that no remedial action is required at the site.
1-2
-------
2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
WPNSTA Yorktown is a 10,624 acre installation located on the Virginia Peninsula in York and
James City Counties and the City of Newport News (Figure 2-1). The installation is bounded on the
northwest by the Naval Supply Center Cheatham Annex, the Virginia Emergency Fuel Farm and the
future community of Wittaker's Mill; on the northeast by the York River and the Colonial National
Historic Parkway; on the southwest by Route 143 and Interstate 64; and on the southeast by Route
238 and the community of Lackey.
WPNSTA Yorktown, originally named the U.S. Mine Depot, was established in 1918 to support the
laying of mines in the North Sea during World War I. For twenty years after World War I, the depot
received, reclaimed, stored, and issued mines, depth charges, and related materials. During World
War II, the facility was expanded to include three additional trinitrotoluene loading plants and
torpedo overhaul facilities. A research and development laboratory for experimentation with high
explosives was established in 1944, and a quality evaluation laboratory was added in 1947 to
monitor the design and development of advanced underwater weapons. On August 7, 1959, the
Depot was redesignated as the U.S. Naval Weapons Station. The primary mission of WPNSTA
Yorktown is to provide ordnance, technical support, and related services to sustain the war-fighting
capability of the armed forces in support of national military strategy.
OU I, Site 5, Surplus Transformer Storage Area, is located near Barracks Road in the northeastern
portion of the facility adjacent to the south end of Building 76. Building 76 was constructed in 1922
and has housed a standby electrical generator since its completion. Use of the property at OU I
before Building 76 was constructed is unknown. The OU I is approximately 1,000 square feet in
size and is fenced and covered with gravel. Figure 2-2 shows the location of Site 5 and its proximity
to Building 76. OU I was used to store surplus polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing electrical
transformers from 1940 to 1981. After 1981, only non-leaking transformers were stored at this
location. Currently, no transformers are stored at the site.
2-1
-------
\,i,
V, 4TATC WMA I --'VU
8333
209106
1 inch = 8333 ft.
FIGURE 2-1
LOCATION OF NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
-------
E FIGCWES
3-1 AND 5-2
SAMPL
tOCATIONS
200
•
, inch « 400 ft
BOUNDARY
DRAINAGE
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
2. £. MARSH
RAIUVMO
FENCE
=> STRUCTURE
REMEDIAL
F=IGURE2-2
LOCATION OF SITE 5
SURPLUS TRANSFORMER STORAGE AREA
NAVAL WEAPON STATION YOrtCTOWN. VBQMA
2-3
-------
This study area is the first operable unit located within WPNSTA Yorktown. Separate investigations
are being conducted to define other operable units. All media at the site are represented by the
operable unit.
2-4
-------
3.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
An estimated 300 pounds of PCB-containing fluid leaked from transformers stored at OU I over
time. A cleanup effort conducted under the direction of the Navy in December 1982 included the
removal of contaminated soils. The amount of soil removed from the site is not known. No State
or Federal involvement with the removal action or any other action at OU I has been documented.
The Initial Assessment Study (IAS) conducted at WPNSTA Yorktown (C. C. Johnson & Associates,
Inc., and CH2M Hill, 1984) states that PCB 1260 was detected in a soil sample obtained in the
vicinity of Building 76. The exact location of the soil sample is unknown. The purpose of the LAS
was to identify areas of sufficient threat to human health and/or the environment to warrant
additional investigation. Site 5 was one of the 15 sites recommended for further study from this
evaluation. Following this recommendation, environmental data were collected during the first
round of sampling, and results were presented in the Round One Confirmation Study Report (Dames
and Moore, June 1986). A second round of sampling was conducted during the investigation, but
OU I was not included (Dames and Moore, June 1988). In July 1991, a RI Interim Report (Versar,
1991) was submitted, which combined and summarized the data from the two Confirmation Study
Reports.
During the Round One Confirmation Study (Confirmation Study), ten soil samples were collected
and analyzed for all PCB congeners and dioxin (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin [TCDD]) at
OU I. These data are presented on Table 3-1 and the sampling locations are presented in Figure 3-1.
Only one PCB congener, Aroclor-1260, was detected in four of the ten samples collected. The
detected results ranged from 242 to 1,920 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg). TCDD was not
detected in any of the soil samples.
In 1992, additional investigations were conducted at WPNSTA Yorktown. The results of these
sampling efforts are presented in the Round One RI Report (Baker/Weston, 1993). During the
investigation at OU I, 24 soil samples were collected. Of these soil samples, 16 were collected at
depths of 0 to 12 inches, including two duplicate samples; six were collected at depths of 12 to
24 inches; and two were obtained from a 10-foot boring. The two boring samples were collected
from 0 to 12 inches and from 9 to 10 feet. The soil boring was located in the vicinity of the highest
3-1
-------
TABLE 3-1
SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AT SITE 5
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254 .
Aroclor-1260
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD)
Sample No.
5S01
(Hg/kg)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
5S02
(Hg/kg)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
5S03
(Hg/kg)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
*
5S04
(ng/kg)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
550
*
5S05
(Hg/kg)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
5S06
(Jtg/kg
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
466
<50
5S07
frg/kg)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
5S08
(Hg/kg)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
242
<50
5S09
(Hg/kg)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<50
5S010
(Hg/kg)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
1920
<50
U)
NJ
Notes: <10 - Not detected at or above the detection limit of 10
* - Interference
Source: Versar, 1991
-------
PCB value detected during the Confirmation Study. Additionally, four concrete chip samples were
collected from the concrete pads upon which the transformers had been stored, and one groundwater
sample was collected using a HydroPunch™, also at the location of the highest value detected during
the Confirmation Study. The approximate locations of these samples relative to Building 76 are
presented in Figure 3-2. These samples were analyzed for all PCB congeners. Table 3-2 presents
the results of this soil sampling effort.
Aroclor-1260 was the only PCB congener detected; this Aroclor was detected in 17 soil samples.
Concentrations detected in these soil samples ranged from 16 to 1,400 ng/kg. In only one soil
sample (5S04, depth of 0 to 12 inches, and concentration of 1,400 fig/kg) was Aroclor-1260 detected
at a concentration slightly greater than the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) "clean soil"
concentration of 1,000 fig/kg. All the other detected values were below 1,000 ug/kg. PCBs were
not detected in either of the samples from the soil boring. Detectable concentrations of Aroclor-
1260 were reported in the concrete chip samples, but the levels were lower than those detected in
the soils. Groundwater samples did not display detectable concentrations of PCBs.
The concrete pads have been eliminated from further consideration under the remedial action
because Aroclor-1260 was only detected in concrete samples at low levels and because potential
exposure to soils is more likely than potential exposure to contact with concrete. Exposure to soils
can occur by the inhalation of fugitive dusts, ingestion, and dermal contact. Exposure to concrete
would likely be limited to dermal contact under current and future land use scenarios. Groundwater
also has been eliminated from further consideration because PCBs were not detected.
The Risk Evaluation only considered all available OUI analytical data collected. Only the most
recent data (generated during the Round One RI) were used in the quantitative evaluation of risk.
Data collected prior to the Round One RI may not have undergone data validation, therefore, its
quality and usability for risk assessment purposes is questionable. The PCB congener, Aroclor-
1260, detected during the Round One RI, was identified in only one sample above the TSCA "clean
soil" concentration of 1,000 ug/kg. After the Risk Evaluation was conducted, it was determined that
the concentration of Aroclor-1260 does not present a significant risk to human health or the
environment. Based on the analytical data, no source areas of contamination have been identified
at Site 5.
3-3
-------
INSET SCALE
0 28
1 inch = 25 ft
,5S09
";;/;Vv
' / LJ ffi
V \(
400
200 400
1 inch = 400 ft
aker
Baker Environmental.
BOUNDARY
DRAINAGE
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
MARSH
RAILROAD
FENCE
STRUCTURE
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
SITE
1SOI
SURFACE SOU SAMPLE
FIGURE 3-1
03NRRMA710N STUDY SURFACE SOL
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SITE 5 - SURPLUS TRANSFORMER STORAGE AREA
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YOnCTOWN. VRGJNA
-------
INSET SCALE
0 39
1 inch - 25 ft
5S09
5St5 ®5S810
5S.U
80WWRT
DRAMAGE
GDCe OF MWEMCMT
MARSH
IWJtOfO
STOUCTURE
H
ROUND ONE HYPROFVNCH
ROUND ONE SOB. IORMC
*?* ROUND ONE COHCRCTt OflP
ROUND ONE SOL SAMPlf
ROURE3-2
RCXJND ONE Ri SURFACE 8OL CONCRETE CHP,
SOL BORhNG AND HYDROPUNCH SAMPLE LOCATIONS
STTE 5 - SURPLUS TRANSFORMER STORAGE AREA
NAVAL H6APONB STATION VQOCTOMM. WONA
-------
TABLE 3-2
SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF ROUND ONE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AT SITE 5
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Surface Soil Samples
Concrete Samples
Sample No.
5SO 1-001
5S02-001
5S03-001
5S04-001
5S04-002
5S05-001
5S06-001
5S06-002
5S07-001
5S08-001
5S08-002
5S09-001
5S09-101
5S1 1-001
5S 11-002
5S12-001
5S 12-002
5S13-001
5S13-002
5S13-101
5S 14-001
5S15-001
5S 16-001
5S17-001
Aroclor-1260 fcg/kg)
ND
ND
36J
1,400
54
36
1,000
950
34J
170J
16J
230J
150J
400J
ND
380
33J
570
17J
380
ND
ND
440J
70
Sample No.
SCO 1-001
5C02-001
5C03-001
5C04-001
Aroclor-1260 G*g/kg)
41J
ND
ND
12J
Soil Boring Samples
Sample No.
5SB10-001
5SB 10-002
Aroclor-1260 0/g/kg)
ND
ND
HvdroPunch™ Samples
Sample No.
5HP10
Aroclor-1260 (Mg/kg)
ND
J = Estimated Value
ND = None Detected
-001 = 0-12 inch sample
-002 = 12-24 inch sample
-101 = Duplicate 0-12 inch sample
Source: Baker/Weston, Round One RJ Report,
July 1993
3-6
-------
4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Risk Evaluation Report and Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for OUI were released to
the public on May 31,1994, and June 5, 1994, respectively. These two documents are included in
the Administrative Record file and were made available for public review at the following locations:
WPNSTA Library, Building 705
(804) 887-4720
Naval Weapons Station
Yorktown, VA 23691
Hours: Mon.& Thurs 8-6
Tues&Wed 8-8
Fri&Sat 9-5
York County Public Library
(804) 890-3377
8500 George Washington Highway
Yorktown, VA 23692
Hours: Mon thru Thurs 10-9
Fri 10-6
Sat 10-5
Sun 1-5
Jamestown-Williamsburg Public Library
(804) 229-7326
515 Scotland Street
Williamsburg, VA 23186
Hours: Mon thru Thurs 10-9
Sat 10-5
Sun 1-5
Newport News City Public Library
(804) 247-8506
Griffon Branch
366 Deshazor Drive
Newport News, VA 23602
Hours: Mon thru Thurs 9-9
Fri&Sat 9-6
Sun 1-5
The notice of availability of the Risk Evaluation and the PRAP documents was published in The
Daily Press on June 5,1994. A public comment period was held from June 5 through July 20, 1994.
In addition, a public meeting was held on June 29,1994 to present the PRAP for Site 5 and to answer
questions and receive public comments. The public meeting minutes have been transcribed and a
copy of the transcript is available to the public at the aforementioned libraries. A Responsiveness
Summary, included as part of this ROD, has been prepared to respond to the significant comments,
criticisms, and new relevant information received during the comment period. Upon signing the
ROD, WPNSTA Yorktown and DoN will publish a notice of availability of this ROD in The Daily
Press, and place the ROD in the Administrative Record located in the libraries mentioned above.
4-1
-------
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNIT RESPONSE ACTION
The proposed remedial action identified in this plan for OUI is the No Action Alternative. Operable
units were established for WPNSTA Yorktown based primarily on geographic locality, types of
contaminants, contaminated media, and potential future remediation activities. OU I was so
designated because of its location with respect to other Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites,
historical practices, and the limited number of chemicals of potential concern detected in
environmental media. The no-action decision at OU I is the first of several discrete actions at
WPNSTA Yorktown. Other OUs will be addressed by separate investigations.
A soil removal action was conducted by the Naval Weapons Station at OU I in 1982, however, the
results of the action and the volume of soil removed were not documented. Subsequent
investigations indicate that the removal action was effective in reducing soil PCB concentrations to
levels at or below the TSCA definition of "clean soils" (i.e., containing less than 1,000 ug/kg total
PCBs) for nonrestricted access areas. Furthermore, deeper subsurface soils and shallow groundwater
have not been affected by contamination associated with past activities at OU I. PCBs in concrete
were detected at low levels, but because of the relative immobility of PCBs, concrete should pose
a minimal threat to human health and the environment Soil and groundwater should be minimally
affected in the future if no further remedial action is taken. Therefore, OU I presents a minimal risk
to human health and the environment without further action.
5-1
-------
6.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A brief overview of the site characteristics related to OUI is presented below. Site characteristics
include land use, meteorology, surface features, geology and hydrogeology, and ecology.
6.1 Land Use
With respect to land use, there are no housing areas near or within the boundaries of Site 5. The site
is 1,000 square feet hi area and is surrounded by a fence. OU I is located near Barracks Road in the
northeastern portion of the facility and is adjacent to the south end of Building 76. Building 76 was
constructed in 1922 and has housed a standby electrical generator since its completion. OU I and
Building 76 are not currently being used. A gas station and a gymnasium are situated just south of
the site.
6.2 Meteorology
The climate of the Virginia Peninsula is maritime and is influenced by the moderating effects of the
Atlantic Ocean. WPNSTA Yorktown's average annual precipitation is 44.15 inches, with the
summer months being the wettest and the winter months being the driest. Average monthly
temperatures in the area range from approximately 38.8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January to 77.4°F
in July. Winds are highly variable in the area of WPNSTA Yorktown. Prevailing winds are usually
from the south-southwest, but north-northeasterly winds are common in winter months.
63 Topography
The topography of OU I is predominately flat. The ground surface elevation is 55.8 feet above mean
sea level (msl) based on information from previous soil boring logs.
The terrain around OU I indicates that surface water drainage would be toward the York River. The
site is approximately 1,100 feet from the York River and 12 miles northwest of the York River's
outlet into the Chesapeake Bay.
6-1
-------
6.4 Geology and Hydrogeology
With respect to geology, OUI is underlain by unconsolidated sediments of the Quaternary system.
The soils have been classified as belonging to the Dogue, Pamunky, and Uchee Association. The
soils of this association were deposited on stream terraces and are deep, moderately-well and well-
drained loam and sandy loam soils that have clayey, loamy, and sandy loam subsoils (Hodges, et al.,
1982).
There is a shallow aquifer system at WPNSTA Yorktown which consists of the Columbia aquifer
and the Cornwallis Cave aquifer. They are separated by the Cornwallis Cave confining unit.
Groundwater flow is inferred to be toward the northeast in the general direction of the York River.
During drilling activities, the depth to groundwater was determined to be approximately 10 feet
below ground surface (bgs) to the Columbia aquifer and approximately 25 feet bgs to the Cornwallis
Cave aquifer.
6.5 Ecology
Aroclor-1260 is the chemical of potential concern at OU I and was detected primarily in soil samples
obtained from within the fenced area. The source of Aroclor-1260 in OU I Site 5 soils was the
presence of electrical transformers stored at the site until 1981. The maximum concentration of
Aroclor-1260 detected during the Round One RI was 1,400 Mg/kg- With respect to ecology, OU I
has no wetlands, any protected or endangered species, nor any other sensitive environments
identified within the site boundaries.
6-2
-------
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A Risk Evaluation was conducted for OUI subsequent to the Round One RI. The Risk Evaluation
considered all available site data, but focused quantitatively on the most recent PCB data collected
in 1992. The only congener of PCBs detected, Aroclor-1260, was selected as the chemical of
potential concern (COPC) because of site history and its prevalence in Site 5 soils.
7.1 Fate and Transport
The term PCB refers to a mixture of a variety of individually chlorinated biphenyl isomers, each
consisting of two "aromatic" six carbon rings and up to ten chlorine atoms. Mixtures of these
isomers are known by the commercial designation Aroclor, which is followed by a four digit
number. The first two numbers indicate the number of carbon atoms present in the parent structure
(i.e., 12 = biphenyl). The last two numbers indicate the approximate weight percent of chlorine in
the mixture (i.e., 60 = 60 percent chlorine by weight). PCBs are environmentally-persistent, man-
made chemicals that were used as insulating materials in electrical transformers and as lubricants.
Because of their persistence and toxicity in the environment, their manufacture was discontinued
in the United States in 1977. However, PCB equipment manufactured before 1977 is currently in
use and regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
PCBs are very stable chemically and tend to persist in the environment. Persistence and
bioaccumulation in living organisms occur due to the high lipophilicity (i.e., lipid and/or fat-loving
characteristics) of these compounds.
Experimental data suggest that PCBs are strongly adsorbed to soils. Materials that are strongly
adsorbed to soils are considered to have a low mobility index (MI). For PCBs, water solubility and
vapor pressure directly impact Mis. Water solubility and vapor pressure of PCBs decrease with
increasing chlorine content. Mis for PCBs range from immobile (Aroclor-1232) to very immobile
(Aroclor-1260). Thus, at OU I, the PCB congener detected (i.e., Aroclor-1260) would not be
expected to migrate from the soils in which they are currently present.
7-1
-------
The overall widespread distribution of PCBs in the environment suggests that the major route of
constituent transport is through the atmosphere by way of particulate matter. Degradation of PCBs
in the environment is also dependent on the degree of chlorination. In general, the more chlorinated
the PCB, the more environmentally persistent. Factors which determine the biodegradability of
PCBs include the amount of chlorination, concentration of PCBs, types of microbial populations,
viability of the microbes, availability of nutrients, and temperature.
7.2 Toxicitv and Exposure Assessment
Inhalation and dermal routes are the main routes of exposure to PCBs in occupational settings;
however, for the general population, the oral route is the major route of exposure. It is thought that
PCBs will initially accumulate in the liver, due to the organ's high perfusion rate; however, there are
additional indications that the skin and thyroid may also be target organs, which can contribute to
the chronic toxicity. There is also evidence that links carcinogenicity to PCB exposure in rats and
mice.
Potential ecological effects associated with the presence of PCBs in the environment are related to
their hydrophobic character. PCBs can partition significantly from water to aquatic organisms such
as fish; thus, there is evidence that PCBs will biomagnify in the food chain to higher tropic levels
of aquatic organisms and in several species offish-consuming predators. As such, the relationship
between the dose of a compound (i.e., amount to which an individual or population is potentially
exposed) and the potential for adverse effects resulting from exposure to that dose, is an important
component of the toxicological evaluation; standard reference doses (RfDs) and/or carcinogenic
slope factors (CSFs) have been developed for a variety of chemicals, including PCBs, to assess this
dose-response relationship.
An RED is developed for chronic and/or subchronic human exposure to chemicals and is based solely
on the non-carcinogenic effects of chemical substances. It is defined as an estimate of the daily
exposure level for the human population, including sensitive subpopulations (i.e., children and the
elderly), at which no appreciable risk of adverse effects is likely to occur during a lifetime. An RfD
value is not currently available for PCBs.
7-2
-------
CSFs are used to estimate an upper-bound lifetime probability of an individual developing cancer
as a result of exposure to a particular level of a potential carcinogen (USEPA, 1989). This factor
is derived through an assumed low-dosage, linear, multi-stage model and an extrapolation from high
to low dose responses determined from animal studies. An oral CSF value of 7.7 (mg/kg-day)'1 for
PCBs has been published in the USEPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS, 1994) database
and is the toxicity value used in this evaluation.
The slope factor is also accompanied by a weight-of-evidence classification that designates the
strength of the evidence that a particular chemical is a potential human carcinogen. The USEPA
weight-of-evidence classification for PCBs is Group B - probable human carcinogen based on the
evidence of liver cancer in three strains of rats and two strains of mice. However, studies on
exposed human populations suggest that PCBs are, at worst, very weak initiators of carcinogenesis.
It is, therefore, important to note that cancer in rodents does not indicate clear predictive evidence
of PCB carcinogenicity in humans (Safe, et al., 1987).
The primary potential human exposure pathway considered in the Risk Evaluation for OUI was the
incidental ingestion of contaminated soils. Evaluating the ingestion of soils at OU I as a potential
human exposure pathway is a conservative approach, given the size and relative inaccessibility (i.e.,
the site is fenced) of the site. For the purposes of the Risk Evaluation, it was assumed that soil
ingestion would occur by incidental oral contact with hands, arms, or food items to which soil
particles have adhered. Station personnel, future construction workers, and future residents were
considered to be the populations most at risk.
73 Risk Characterization
The Aroclor-1260 concentrations detected in soil samples during the Round One RI were compared
to USEPA Region III Risk Based Concentrations (RBCs) for Aroclor-1260 considering
commercial/industrial and residential property use. Because RBCs are derived from standard
USEPA risk algorithms, worst case Incremental Cancer Risks (ICRs) and Hazard Indices (His) were
derived by dividing the maximum detected concentration of Aroclor-1260 by its corresponding RBC
value. The commercial/industrial RBC value represents the current potential exposure to Station
employees who may contact affected soils during the course of their daily work activities. The use
7-3 -
-------
of the residential RBC value represents the future potential development of the property.
Corresponding ICR values for commercial/industrial and future residential property use were
4x10"* and 2 x 10'5, respectively. These values fall within USEPA's target risk range of 1 x 10"6 to
1 x 10"1 which the USEPA generally considers to be "acceptable".
7.4 Conclusion
Based on the results of the Risk Evaluation, known concentrations of Aroclor-1260 in soils do not
pose unacceptable human health risks to even the most potentially sensitive exposed individuals,
which are future residents. Based on current data, neither deeper subsurface soils nor groundwater
have been impacted by the release of PCB-containing fluids at OU I. Furthermore, significant
ecological effects are not expected to occur because of the limited size of the site, its distance from
critical habitats, and the relative immobility of PCBs. Therefore, further response actions at OU I
are deemed unnecessary to protect human health and the environment.
7-4
-------
8.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
From an analysis of all available and pertinent information for OU I, it is concluded that remedial
actions are not necessary for the protection of human health or the environment. Therefore, the
selected alternative for OU I is the No Action Alternative. This alternative will consist of leaving
the site intact. No additional sampling or monitoring will be necessary because no future potential
threats to human health or the environment exist as a result of the prior removal action, the current
low levels of residual contamination, and the acceptable levels of risk to both human health and the
environment. In a June 21, 1993 meeting, representatives of the USEPA and the Commonwealth
of Virginia were apprised of the proposed No Action Alternative for OU I and concur with this
decision. This remedial alternative will have no associated costs.
8-1
-------
9.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to provide the public with a summary of citizen
comments, concerns, and questions about OU I, Site 5, Surplus Transformer Storage Area at
WPNSTA Yorktown. A public meeting was held on June 29, 1994, to present the Proposed Plan
and answer questions and receive comments. No written public comments were received during the
June 5, through July 20, 1994 comment period.
The Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following sections:
• Selected newspaper notices announcing dates of the public comment period and
location and time of the public meeting
• Public meeting attendance roster
• Panel of experts
• Independent Sampling Investigation
All comments and concerns summarized in this document have been considered by USEPA in
making a decision regarding the selection of the No Action alternative at OU I. In addition to public
comments and concerns, USEPA has undertaken an independent sampling investigation to confirm
the extent of potential contamination at the site. Results of the independent sampling investigation
are presented herein.
9-1
-------
9.1 Selected Newspaper Notices
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY INVITES COMMENT AND PUBLIC >
MEETING PARTICIPATION ON THE "NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE"
PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE INSTALLATION RESTORATION OR) PROGRAM
SITE 5, OPERABLE UNIT I, THE SURPLUS TRANSFORMER STORAGE AREA
AT THE NAVAL WEAPONS STATION YORKTOWN
In accordance with the Department of the Navy IR Program, the National Oil and Hazard-
ous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), and the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund), the
Department of the Navy invites public comment on the "No Action Alternative" Proposed
Plan at IR Site 5, Operable Unit I, the Surplus Transformer Storage Area at the Naval
Weapons Station Yorktown. The site does not pose any adverse impacts to human health or
to the environment based on previous studies, therefore, no additional study or cleanup is proposed.
A public information meeting will be held at the York County High School, 9300 George Washington Highway,
Yorktown at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, June 29, 1994, to present the proposed "No Action Alternative" plan to the
community. Representatives from the Navy and its consultants will be available to respond to questions at this time.
The Navy will hold a 45-day public comment period from June 5 through July 20, 1994. The comment period can be
extended by an additional IS days, upon timely receipt of such a request from the public. During the public comment
period, the public is invited to review the "No Action Alternative," presented in the Final Proposed Remedial Action
Plan (PRAP). The PRAP and the Administrative Record index are available for public review at each of the following
information repositories during normal business hours:
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown Newport News City Public Library
(804) 247-8506
Grissom Branch
366 DeShazor Drive
Newport News, VA 23602
Library, Building 705
(804) 887-4720
Naval Weapons Station
Yorktown, VA 23691
Jamestown-Williamsburg Public
Library (804) 229-7326
515 Scotland Street
Williamsburg, VA 23186
Gloucester Public Library
(804) 693-2998
P.O. Box 367
Main Street
Gloucester, VA 23601
The York County Public Library
(804) 898-0077
8500 George Washington Highway
Yorktown, VA 23692
Interested citizens may provide written comments on the "No Action Alternative" from June 5,1994 through July
20, 1994 to:
Mr. Thomas Black, Public Affairs Officer
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown (Code P)
P.O. Drawer 160
Yorktown, VA 23691-0160
Phone: (804) 887^444 Fax: (804) 887^596 '
9-2
-------
Change of Naval Weaons Station Yorktown Public
Meeting Time and Location
The Department of the Navy announces a change of
location and time for the June 29, 1994 public infor-
mation meeting. The meeting was advertised on page
3 of the June 5, 1994, Daily Press as being held at
the York County High School at 7:00 PM. The meeting will be held at
the York County Library meeting room located on George Washington
Highway. An open house will begin at 6:00 PM followed by a formal
presentation at 7:00 PM. Representatives from the Navy, its consult-
ants, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be available to
respond to questions at this time. The Navy invites public comment on
the "No Action Alternative* Proposed Plan at Site 5, Operable Unit I,
the Surplus Transformer Storage Area at the Naval Weapons Station
Yorktown. The site does not pose any adverse impacts to human health
or to the environment based on previous studies, therefore, no addi-
tional study or cleanup is proposed. Interested citizens may provide writ-
ten comments on the "No Action Alternative* from June 5,1994 through
July 20, 1994 to:
Mr. Thomas Black, Public Affairs Officer
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown (Code P)
P.O. Drawer 160
Yorktown, VA 23691-0160
Phone: (804) 887-4444 Fax: (804) 887-4596
9-3
-------
9.2 Public Meeting Attendance Roster
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
OPERABLE UNIT I
SITE 5, SURPLUS TRANSFORMER STORAGE AREA
JUNE 29,1994
YORK COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 7:00 P.M.
1. Allen Simmons
2. Jeffrey Harlow
3. Lisa Ellis
4. Valerie Walker
5. Jennifer Loftin
6. Rhonda Shanks
7. Barry Moss
8. Melissa C. Davidson
9. Rich Hoff
10. Brenda Norton
11. Tom Black
12. Robert Thomson
13. Carolyn Neill
9-4
-------
93 Panel of Experts
Tom Black, Public Affairs Officer, WPNSTA Yorktown
Jennifer Loftin, Head, Solid Waste Division WPNSTA Yorktown
Valerie Walker, Environmental Protection Specialist, WPNSTA Yorktown
Jeff Harlow, Environmental Engineer, WPNSTA Yorktown
Brenda Norton, Navy Technical Representative and Remedial Project Manager, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Atlantic Division
Robert Thomson, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Lisa Ellis, Remedial Project Manager, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Rich Hoff, Risk Assessment Specialist, Baker Environmental
Melissa Davidson, Community Relations Specialist, Baker Environmental
9-5
-------
9.4 Independent Sampling Investigation
Black and Veatch Waste Science, Inc. (June, 1994) was tasked by USEPA Region III to perform a
limited Independent Sampling Investigation at OU I. A total of six soil samples (obtained from three
sampling locations), three groundwater samples, and three sediment samples were taken and
analyzed for target compound list (TCL) volatiles, semivolatiles, pesticides/PCBs, and target analyte
list (TAL) inorganics according to the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Statement of Work
(SOW).
Sample locations were selected considering historical data, the potential for overland drainage as
a result of storm events and subsequent impacts on nearby surface waters (i.e., the drainage ditch
and York River), sediments, and underlying shallow groundwater.
Analytical results for PCBs were consistent with the results obtained during the Round One RI.
PCBs were not detected above quantitation limits in shallow HydroPunch™ groundwater samples
or in sediment samples taken from the drainage ditch located to the northwest of OU I. A shallow
(0 to 6") surface soil sample taken from location SS-2 (located in the vicinity of sample location
5502 presented on Figure 3-2) contained 48 ug/kg of PCB-1260. This concentration is lower than
the corresponding USEPA Region in residential RBC value of 83 ug/kg. PCBs were not detected
above their respective quantitation limits in any other surface or subsurface (18 to 24") soil sample.
9-6
-------
10.0 REFERENCES
Baker Environmental, Inc. 1993. Preliminary Draft Risk Evaluation Report. Site 5. Surplus
Transformer Storage Area. Naval Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia.
Baker Environmental, Inc. and Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1993. Final Round One Remedial Investigation
Report for Site 1-9. 11. 12. 16-19. and 21. Naval Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia.
Black & Veatch Waste Science, Inc. 1994. Site 5: Surplus Transformer Storage Area Independent
Sampling Report for-Naval Weapons Station (NWS') Yorktown. Virginia.
C. C. Johnson & Associates, Inc. and CH2M Hill. 1984. Initial Assessment Study of Naval
Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia.
Dames & Moore. 1988. Confirmation Study Step 1A ("Verification). Round Two. Naval Weapons
Station. Yorktown. Virginia.
Dames & Moore. 1986. Confirmation Study Step 1A (Verification'). Round One. Naval Weapons
Station. Yorktown. Virginia.
Hodges, R. L., P. B. Sabo, M. E. Newhouse, and L. F. Baldwin. 1982. Soil Survey Report Naval
Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in
cooperation with Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Command, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture and Colonial Soil and Water Conservation District.
Integrated Risk Information System. 1994. Database is updated monthly.
Safe, S. 1987. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Mammalian and Environmental Toxicology.
Springer-Verlag. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg. ISBN 0-387-15550-3.
10-1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfiind
Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. December 1989. EPA/540/1-98-002.
Versar. 1991. Remedial Investigation Interim Report Naval Weapons Station. Yorktown. Virginia.
10-2
------- |