PB95-963707
EPA/ROD/R01-95/107
February 1996
EPA Superfued
Record of Decision:
Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Sites 5 and 8, Davisville, RI
9/18/1995
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
SITES 05 AND 08
FORMER NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER
DAVISVILLE, RHODE ISLAND
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Sites Of and 08
Former Naval Constru::ion Battalion Center
Davisville. Rhode Island
. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page Number
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION i
I. SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 5
A. SITE USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY , 5
B. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY 3
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
IV. . SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 10
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 10
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 17
VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE 25
VIII. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 25
IX. STATE ROLE 25
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Sites 05 and 08
Naval Consimc::on Battalion Center
Davisville. Rhode Island
TABLE OF CONTENTS .Continued^
Appendices
APPENDIX A - RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
APPENDIX B - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX C - RIDEM LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX D - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page Number
1 NCBC Davisviile Site Location Map 2
2 Site 05 - Site Location Map 3
3 Site 05 - Study Area .... 7 4
4 Site 08 - Site Location Map 6
5 Site 08 - Study Area 1
6 Site 05 - Phase I Sampling Locations 12
7 Site 05 - March 1993 Sampling Locations 13
8 Site 08 - Phase I Sampling Locations 15
9 Site 08 - Phase H Soil Sample. Monitoring Well, and Test Boring Locations 16
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Sites 05 and 08
Naval Construction Battalion Center
Davisville, Rhode Island
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Site 05 - Transformer Oil Disposal Area
Sice 08 - Defense Property Disposal Office (DPDO) Film Processing Disposal Area
Former Naval Construction Baaalion Center (NCBC)
Davisville. Rhode Island
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the no action decision for the soils operable unit at Site 05 -
Transformer Oil Disposal Area and Site 08 - Defense Property Disposal Office (DPDO) Film
Processing Disposal Area, developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and in accordance with the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based upon the
contents of the administrative record file for Sites 05 and 08. The administrative record is
available at the former Naval Construction Battalion Center Administrative Building (Building
404), located on Davisville Read in North Kingstown. Rhode Island.
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) concurs with the no action
decision for the soils operable unit.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
For Site 05 and 08, the selected remedy for the soils operable unit is no further action.
DECLARATION
*
The Department of the Navy and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
with the concurrence of RIDEM have determined that no remedial actions are necessary with
respect to the soils operable unit at Sites 05 and 08 to ensure protection of human health and the
environment. Pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) and Section
300.430(fK4)(ii) of the NCP, since this no action decision does not result in hazardous substances.
pollutants or contaminants remaining at the sites above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, a five-year review of this action is not required.
-------
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by die Department of the Navy and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence of die Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management. Concur and recommend for immediate implementation:
U.S. Department of the Navy
Date:
PhilipSTotis
Title:
Philip S. Otis, P.E.
BRAC Environmental Coordinator
Northern Division - Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Lester, Pennsylvania
-------
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the Department of the Navy and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence of the Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
By: .7.^ Ib /ii'.-.j'/- Date:
Lmda M. Murphy / '
Title: Linda M. Murphy
Director. Waste Management Division. US EPA. Reaion I
111
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The former U.S. Naval Construction Battalion Center (NCBC) Davisville is a National Priorities
List
-------
\
NAVAL CONSTRUCTION UATTALION CKNIliK
DAVISVILI E. RHODE ISLAND
Figure 1.
Site Location Map
-------
Exeter Street
n
I LSI
38
TRANSFORMER
OIL DISPOSAL AREA
NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER
DAVISVII.I I.. 11111)1)1 ISI AND
Figure 2.
Site 05 - Location Map
-------
-*-
-*-
-H-
-K-
-H-
-*-
Ridge
Dirt Road
,-
TRANSFORMER
OIL DISPOSAL STUDY AREA
I
NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CEN ItH
DAVISVILLE. RHODE ISLAND
Figure 3.
Site 05 - Study Area
-------
It is located outside of the fence line surrounding NCBC Davisville but within Navy property.
A north-south ridge consisting of exposed shale bedrock and boulders is located on the eastern
side of the site.
Site 08 is a flat, grass-covered area to the east of Building 314 at West Davisville (see Figures 4
and 5). The site, approximately 80 feet by 40 feet in area, was likely to have received runoff
from a reported waste disposal area. A 10-foot wide asphalt road passes through the center of the
site. A fence delineating the NCBC Davisville property line forms the eastern border of the site
and Building 314 forms the western border of the site.
A more complete description of the sites can be found in the Site 05 ; Transformer Oil Disposal
Area Data Transmirtal Report (TRC 1993) and in the Site 08 - DPDO Film Processing Disposal
Area Remedial Investigation Report (TRC. 1994).
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. SITE USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY
Site 05
Site 05 is located adjacent to an area historically used for storage of materials and equipment
awaiting shipment but is located outside of the fence line surrounding the NCBC Davisville
facility. In 1968 or 1969. approximately 30 gallons of transformer oil containing poiychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) were reportedly disposed of on the ground within an identified 1.500 square foot
site area. In October 1984. Navy personnel collected a surface soil sample from the area which
indicated the presence of PCBs at 6 pans per million (ppm). No removal or remedial response
actions have been conducted at the site.
Site 08
For a six-month period during 1973, the Defense Property Disposal Office (DPDO) recovered
silver from photographic wastes. This silver recovery operation was operated as a batch system
with a 15- to 20-gallon capacity. Waste liquids from this recovery process were reportedly
discharged during rainfall events onto the pavement outside of Building 314 and were allowed to
drain from the pavement. The waste liquids which were generated consisted of photographic
compounds, such as sodium thiosulfate and hydroquinone. and liquids containing small
concentrations of formaldehyde, acetic acid, potassium hydroxide and sulfuric acid. No
information on the disposal frequency or total discharge -was available from interviews or record
searches: however, the amounts were reportedly small. No removal or remedial response actions
have been conducted at the site.
-------
Mike Street
/j
\
V
Bldg.
317
Bldg.
316
Bldg.
315
Bldg.
314
^/
^M
«»
/
s
' /
FILM h
"l^ PROCESSING!
Ji DISPOSAL 1
AREA |
NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER
DAVlSVIt IE. RHODE ISLAND
Figure 4.
Site 08 - Defense Property
Disposal Office Location Map
-------
Building 314
Paved Road
i
-x-
-x-
PPPQRJLM
PRiOCESSiNG
DISPOSAL
STUDY AREA
-x-
-x-
-x-
-x-
-x-
-x-
NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER
DAVISVILLE. RHODE ISLAND
Figure 5.
Site 08-Study Area
-------
A derailed description of the sire use and response histories :in be four.i in the Si;; Qj. ;
Trar.;::nner Qil Disposal Area Para Transminal Repon. pp. 2-3 'IRC. 1993 and in the Site Q8
DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area Remedial Investigation Report. Secticn 1.2 (TRC. 1994).
B. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
In response to the environmental contamination which has occurred as a result of -the use.
hanclins. storage, or disposal of hazardous materials at numerous military installations across the
United States, the Department of Defense (DOD) has initiated investigations and cleanup activities
under rhe Installation Restoration iIR) Program. The IR Program parallels the Superfund program
and is conducted in several stages, including:
1. Identification of poter.rial hazardous waste sites:
2. Confirmation of the presence of hazardous materials it the site:
3. Determination of the type and extent of contamination:
-. Evaluation of alternatives for cleanup of the site:
5. Proposal of a cleanup remedy:
6. Selection of a remedy: and
~. Implementation of rhe remedy for the cleanup of the site.
As a pan of the IR Program, an Initial Assessment Study (.LAS'i '.vis completed in 1984. detailing
historical hazardous material usage and waste disposal practices ar NCBC Davisville. Following
the IAS. a Confirmation Study
-------
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings which involve community representatives), press
releases and public meetings.
In April 1989. the Navy held a public information meeting at NCBC Davisville prior to the start
of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in order to present a status report and
fact sheet to the community. In May 1989. the Navy released a Community Relations Plan which
outlined a program to address community concerns and to keep citizens informed about and
involved in remedy selection and other remedial activities.
In August 1994. the Navy issued a Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08 which proposed limited
action in the form of site use restrictions for future use of both sites. A public information
meeting was held on August 16. 1994 to present the Proposed Plan and solicit public comments
on the proposed action. However, based on the Navy's consideration of public comments on the
Proposed Plan, the Navy is performing a comprehensive basewide ground water inorganic
background study to define ground water chemistry upgradient of the facility and to determine the
background levels of inorganic constituents in the ground water, prior to determining if site use
restrictions with respect to ground water are required. Therefore, the Navy has separated Sites
05 and 08 into two operable units, one for soils and one for ground water, and is currently
proposing No Action with respect to the soils operable unit at Sites 05 and 08. Ground water
beneath Sites 05 and 08 will be evaluated under the basewide ground water smdy. A ROD wil
be issued for the ground water after completion of the RI/FS process.
The Administrative Record is available for public review at the former Naval Construction
Battalion Center Administrative Building (Building 404) located on Davisville Road in North
Kingstown. Rhode Island. An Information Repository is maintained at the Norm Kingstown Free
Library in North Kingstown. Rhode Island. The Navy published a notice and brief analysis of
the Proposed Plan on May 19, 1995 in the Providence Journal Bulletin and on May 25. 1995 in
the North Kingstown Standard Times and made the plan available to the public at the North
Kingstown Free Library. A Fact Sheet announcing the availability of the Proposed Plan was also
mailed out to members of the Restoration Advisory Board and to the community members that
have been on the general mailing list. A Proposed Plan was mailed to any Fact Sheet recipient
who requested a copy of the Proposed Plan.
On May 31. 1995, the Navy held an informational meeting to discuss the results of the field
investigations and to present the Navy's Proposed Plan. Also during this meeting, representatives
from the Navy. BA Engineering, Science, and Technology. TRC Environmental Corporation. US
EPA. and PJDEM were available to answer questions from the public about Sites 05 and 08 as
well as the proposed No Action alternative. Immediately following the informational meeting on
May 31. 1995. the Navy held a public hearing to accept formal comments on the Proposed Plan.
A transcript of this hearing is included in the attached Responsiveness Summary. From May 23.
1995. to June 21. 1995. the Navy held a 30-day public comment period to accept public comment
on the No Action recommendation presented in the Proposed Plan and on any other documents
previously released to the public.
-------
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
Based upon the risk assessments conducted for Sites 05 and 08 soils, '.vhich are discussed in more
ieiail in ;he following sections, the Navy has determined that nc CERCLA remedial action is
reauired at the Sites 5 and 8 soils operable unit. The levels of contaminants in the soils do not
rose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Site L£ ; Transformer Oil Disposal Area Pat? Transmirtal Report (TRC. 1993) contains an
overview of the site investigations conducted at Site 05. A sumcary of the site investigations
:cnduc:ed at Site 08 is presented in the Executive Summary of the Site Q& - DPDO Fjlm
Recessing Disposal Area Remedial Investigation Report (TRC, 1994). The significant findings
of the site investigations are summarized below.
Site 05
In October 1984. Navy personnel collected a surface soil sample frcrn Site 05 which indicated the
presence of PCBs at 6 pans per million (ppm). As pan of the Confirmation Study. 22 soil
samples were collected in March 1985 and March 1986 from the reponed disposal area. The
laboratory analyses detected the presence of pesticides in the samples, but did not detect PCBs.
A Phase I Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted at Site 05 in 1989 to define the nature and
extent of contamination in the site soils. The Phase I RI included the collection and analysis of
surface and subsurface soil samples. Low concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCsi
were detected sporadically across the site in both surface and subsurface soils. Polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs) compounds were detected at concentrations of up to 4.3 ppm in
surface soils but were detected in only one subsurface soil sample. The presence of these PAH
compounds may be attributable to a weathered asphalt layer which is present over the surface of
the site. Pesticides were present in both surface and subsurface soil samples at concentrations
ranging from 0.022 ppm to 3.3 ppm and PCBs were detected in only one soil sample at a
concentration of 0.33 ppm. Inorganics were detected in both surface and subsurface soils at
concentrations exceeding facility background concentrations. Figure 6 presents the Phase I RI
sample locations. For a detailed assessment of the Phase I RI investigation refer to Volume I of
the Draft Final Phase I Remedial Investigation Repon (TRC. 1991), which is included in the
Administrative Record.
An additional round of surface and subsurface soil sampling was conducted in March 1993 to
confirm the Phase I RI results. The March 1993 sample locations are provided in Figure 7.
VOCs were detected at low concentrations in surface soils but were not detected in subsurface
soils. Care was taken during diis round of sampling to eliminate asphalt fragments from the soil
10
-------
samples. As a result, no PAHs were detected in the site soils. The pesticides DDE and DDT
were detected in both surface and subsurface soils, but PCBs were not detected in any of the
samples. Inorganics were present at concentrations exceeding facility background concentrations.
11
-------
Distance from break
In loncu (In tool)
)( Xi )( )(
-XX-r-X X
\t f\r w \t
~~7t /\~l7t 7t~
X X XX XX X XX
- 0-G- & 2' doptlis
-OG'dopllis
MAVAI CONSTRUCTION OATTAl ION CENTHR
I1AVISVH I li, HI IOOI: ISI AND
Figure 6.
Site 05 - Phase I Samplino
Locations
-------
Distance Iroin broak
In lonco (In loul)
o
HHKH HX X X X
LEGEND
____ Samplos al:
"
-------
A ieiaiied assessment of the March 1993 sampling round is provided in the Si:; Q5_ ; Transformer
0:1 Disposal Area Data Transmirtal Report (TRC. 1993) which is included in ie Administrative
Record.
A Confirmation Study iCS) including environmental surface soil sampling was conducted at Site
03 from 1985 to 1986 to identify the presence of contamination at the site. During the first
sampling round of the CS in 1985. a single composite surface soil sample was collected. The
analytical results indicated that silver was present at a concentration (0.15 ppm.) similar to
naturally occurring levels in the soil. A grab surface soil sample was collected in March 1986 as
pan of the second CS sampling round and was analyzed for full US EPA Priority Pollutants. The
results of the laboratory analysis indicated no elevated levels of US EPA Pricriry Pollutants. The
Priority Pollutants are the compounds or elements listed as the Toxic Pollutants list under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 44 FR 44502. July 30, 1979 as amended in 46 FR 2266.
January 8. 1981. and 46 FR 10724. February 4. 1981.
The Navy conducted two phases of RI field activities at Site 08 in 1989 and 1993. The Phase I
RI included the collection and analysis of surface soil and subsurface soil samples while the Phase
II RJ included the coilection and analysis of soil gas. surface soil, subsurface soil, and ground
water samples. Phase I RI and Phase II RI sample locations are provided in Figures 8 and 9.
respectively. The results of these analyses identified the presence of low concentrations of VOCs.
PAHs. phthalates. pesticides, and PCBs in soils across the site. Thirteen inorganics were detected
at levels exceeding facility background concentrations in either the Phase I or Phase n RI. Silver
was detected in only one of ten samples at a concentration of 28 ppm in the Phase I RI and in only
one of fifteen samples at a concentration of 0.47 ppm in the Phase U RI. When the sample
location which exhibited the 28 ppm silver level was resampled during the Phase n RI. silver was
not detected at that location. These results indicate that silver, a potential contaminant associated
with the historic on-site silver recovery process, is not present at consistently high levels
throughout the site soil and that its identification at an elevated level during the Phase I RI was
not representative of a hot spot of soil contamination. The one sample of silver above ecological
screening levels, but below human health screening levels may be viewed as an anomaly, since
23 of the other 25 samples did not contain detectable silver levels and the other detected
concentration of silver was below both ecological and human health screening levels.
Sampling of the ground water indicated the presence of low concentrations of VOCs 'and a
semivolatile organic compound (SVOC), bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Several inorganic analytes
were also detected in the ground water. Ground water at Site 08 will be addressed within a
separate operable unit after completion of the basewide ground water inorganic background study.
For a detailed assessment of the Phase I and Phase n RI investigations, refer to the Site QS -PPDQ
Film Processing Disposal Area Remedial Investigation Report. Volume I (TRC. 1994).
14
-------
BUILDING 314
Suilaco Soil samplo location
4' doplh
lance
STUDY AREA
NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER
DAVISVILLE. RHODE ISLAND
Figure 8.
Site 08-Phase I Rl
Sampling Locations
Exlont of Study AIOQ has boun updutoil
for Ilia Plioso II Invosllgolion nclivilioi.
-------
LEGEND
6 Monitoring Well Location
Test Boring Location
Surface Soil Sample Location
(S) Shallow Well
(D) Deep Well
BUILDING 314
STUDY AREA
flAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER
OAVISVIUE. RHODE ISLAND
Figure 9.
Site 08 Phase II Soil Sample,
Monitoring Well & Test Boring
Locations
*-*
* Exlonl of Study Aroa ha* boon updolod
lui III* Pliata II luvuillilullun «cllvlllot.
SS-16
0 1O 70
6cil» In l
-------
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A Human Health Risk Assessment was conducted for Sites 05 and 08 in 1991 on the basis of the
Phase I RJ results, and was presented as Volume II of the Draft Final Phase I Remedial
Investigation Report (TRC. 1991). During the supplemental sampling conducted at Site 05.
contaminant levels were less than those detected during the Phase I RJ (as described in more detail
below;. Since the estimated risks associated with exposure to the most contaminated portion of
the site would not be affected by the inclusion of the supplemental sampling data, a revised HHRA
was not prepared for Site 05. However, a revised Human Health Risk Assessment was conducted
for Site 08 which incorporated the Phase II RJ results and updated exposure assumptions. This
revised HHRA is presented in the DP DO Film Processing Disposal Area Remedial Investigation
Report. Volume II - Human Health Risk Assessment (TRC. 1993). An addendum to the HHRA
is included in Appendix I of Volume I of the Site Q8_ -DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area
Remedial Investigation Report (TRC. 1994). A facility wide Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA)
was conducted as part of the Phase II RI and is presented as Volume III of the Draft Final
Remedial Investigation Technical Report (TRC. 1994). A site-specific ERA was conducted in
May 1995. entitled Draft Final Ecological Risk Assessment for Sites 05 and 08. These reports
are available for review at the Information Repository at the North Kingstown Free Library.
The risk assessments were conducted to estimate the probability and magnitude of potential
adverse human health effects from exposure to constituents associated with site use. The Human
Health Risk Assessment followed a four step process: 1) constituent identification, which
identified those hazardous substances which, given the specifics of the site, were of significant
concern: 2) exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure pathways.
characterized the potentially exposed populations, and determined the extent of possible exposure:
3) toxicity assessment, which considered the types and magnitude of adverse health effects
associated with exposure to hazardous substances, and 4) risk characterization, which integrated
the three earlier steps to summarize the potential and actual risks posed by hazardous substances
at the site, including carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks. Ecological risks were assessed
based on an evaluation of potential receptors at Site 05 and Site 08. and the detected levels and
bioavailability of contaminants in environmental media. Risks to terrestrial populations were
characterized based on site-specific biological observations and surface soil data. Risks to aquatic
populations were not assessed because of the absence of surface water at both Site 05 and Site 08.
A "weight of evidence" approach was used in which information generated from exposure and
ecological effects assessments, field observations and a hazard quotient evaluation are evaluated
together to provide an overall indication of the ecological risk posed by the contamination found
at these sites.
Specific details on the Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment conducted
for Sites 05 and 08 are provided by site below.
17
-------
Site 05
The constituents of potential :cr.:em selected for evaluation in the human health risk assessment
of exposures to soils at Site 05 are listed in Table A-l found in Appendix A rf this Record of
Decision. These constituents of potential concern were identified through an evaluation of the
data for surface soils and subsurface soils sampled at the site and constitute a representative subset
of the 51 constituents identified at the site during the Phase I Remedial Investigation. The
constituents of potential concern were selected to represent potential site-related hazards based on
constituent type, toxicity. concentration, frequency of detection, and mobility ind persistence in
the environment. No additional contaminants were detected during the supplemental sampling at
Site 05 and detected contaminant levels were below the maximum levels detected during the Phase
I RI. A summary of the range of concentrations in each media, including the supplemental
sampling results, is provided in Table A-2 of this Record of Decision, while a summary of the
health effects associated with each of the constituents of potential concern can be found in
Appendix B of Volume n of the Draft Final Phase I Remedial Investigation Report (,TRC, 1991).
Potential human health risks associated with exposure to the contaminants of concern were
estimated quantitatively or qualitatively through the development of several hypothetical exposure
pathways. These pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exr:sure to hazardous
substances based on the present uses, potential future uses, and location of the site. Base worker
exposure and trespassing were Lie two current land use scenarios evaluated in ±e risk assessment.
Future land uses which were considered plausible during the development of ±e risk assessment
include residential use of the site and on-site construction activities. The following is a brief
summary of the exposure scenarios evaluated in the risk assessment. A more thorough description
of these scenarios can be found in Section 4.3 of Volume n of the Draft Fir.2: Phase I Remedial
Investigation Report (TRC. 1991). which presents risk analyses for all of the sites investigated
under the Phase I RI at NCBC Davisvtlle.
Under the current trespassing scenario, it was assumed that children aged 9 to 18 years and living
widiin the immediate vicinity of the site may be exposed to constituents while trespassing on the
site. Exposure was assumed to occur through incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with
surface soil at a frequency of 39 days per year (i.e., approximately one day per week during the
spring, summer, and fall) for a period of 10 years. A soil ingestion rate of 100 mg of soil per day
and a dermal contact rate of 500 ma of soil/day were used-to evaluate these two pathways,
respectively.
Under the current base worker scenario, it was assumed that an adult working at the facility 40
hours per week. 50 weeks per year, may be exposed to constituents while at the site. Based on
the current lack of site development and the physical location of the area between a fenceline and
'a rocky ridge, future site development options would be limited and daily site use under current
or future conditions would be unlikely. Therefore, exposure was assumed to occur through
incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with surface soil at a frequency of 78 days per year
(i.e.. two days per week for 39 weeks during the spring, summer, and fall). A soil ingestion rate
18
-------
of 100 mg of soil per day and a dermal contact rate of 500 mg of soil/day were used to evaluate
these two pathways, respectively.
Under the future residential use scenario, risks to children and adults were evaluated separately.
Children (aged 0 to 6 years) and youth, adults (aged 7 to 70 years) were assumed to receive
exposures to constituents in surface soil through incidental ingestion and dermal contact.
Residents were assumed to be exposed to surface soils for a life-time of 70 years. It should be
noted that US EPA generally assumes an exposure duration of 30 years for a resident as a
reasonable maximum estimate. The Navy assumed a 70 year exposure, which is relatively more
conservative, and therefore, revisions to the original risk assessment were not required by US
EPA. The frequency of exposure to the surface soils was based on information from US EPA
guidance and an analysis of the climate and likely activity patterns in the NCBC Davisville area.
The three US EPA guidance documents used for this evaluation include: 1) Supplemental Risk
Assessment Guidance for the Superfund Program. Draft Final. US EPA 901/5-89/001; 2) Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume L Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A),
Interim Final. US EPA 540/1-89/003; and 3) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume
IL Environmental Evaluation Manual. Interim Final. US EPA 540/1-89/001. It was assumed that
a small child would spend five days per week outdoors during the summer season (13 weeks) and
three days per week during the spring and fall months (26 weeks) for a total of 143 days of
potential exposure per year. It was assumed that the youth/adult would spend two days per week
outdoors in contact with the soil during the spring, summer, and fall (39 weeks) for a total of 78
days per year. The duration of exposure was 6 years for the small child and 64 years (age 6 to
70) for the youth/adult. Soil ingestion rates of 200 mg/day for the small child and 100 mg/day
for the youth/adult and a dermal contact rate of 500 mg/day were used to evaluate these two
pathways, respectively.
Under the future construction scenario, it was assumed that construction workers involved in
routine excavation work would be exposed to site constituents through incidental ingestion of and
dermal contact with site subsurface soils. Exposure was assumed to occur for 10 days per year
over 30 years. A soil ingestion rate of 100 mg of soil per day and a dermal contact rate of 500 mg
of soil/day were used to evaluate these two pathways, respectively.
For each exposure pathway and land use evaluated, an average (previously referred to in the Phase
I RI as "most probable case") and a reasonable maximum exposure estimate (RME, previously
referred to in the Phase I RI as "worst-case") was generated for each constituent of potential
concern corresponding to exposure to the average (geometric mean) and the maximum
concentrations detected in the relevant medium during the Phase I RI. As previously discussed.
the maximum contaminant levels detected during supplemental sampling were less than those
detected during the Phase I RI. Therefore, the estimated RME risks would not be affected by
inclusion of the supplemental sampling data. It should be noted that the US EPA prefers the use
of the arithmetic mean in exposure assessments; however, since the risks associated with the
maximum soil concentrations were within US EPA's acceptable risk range. US EPA did not
require the Navy to recalculate the mean chemical concentrations. "
19
-------
Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway by multiplying the
exposure level by the ccnstiruent-specific cancer slope factor. Cancer slope factors have beer.
developed by US EPA rrom epiderr.iological or animal studies to reflect a conservative "upper
bound" of the risk posed by potentially carcinogenic constituents. That is. the true risk is unlikely
:o be greater than the risk predicted. The resulting risk estimates are expressed in scientific
notation as a probability e.g. 1 x 10"' for 1/1.000.000) and indicate fusing this example), that an
averase individual is no: iixely to have greater than a one in a million chance of developing cancer
over "0 years as a result of site-related exposure as defined to the constituent at the stated
concentration. Curren: US EPA practice considers carcinogenic risks to be additive when
assessing exposure to a mixture of constituents.
The hazard index (HI) was also calculated for each pathway as US EPA's measure of the potential
for non-carcinogenic health effects. The HI is a sum of the constituent-specific hazard quotients
iHQsi which are calculated by dividing the exposure level by the reference dose (RfD> or other
suitable benchmark for non-carcinogenic health effects for an individual constituent. RfDs have
been developed by US EPA to protect sensitive individuals over the course of a lifetime and they
reflec: a daily exposure level that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of an adverse health
effect. RfDs are derived from epidemiological or animal studies and incorporate uncertainty
factors to provide margins of safer/ between the RfD and the observed effect level. The hazard
quotient is often expressed as a single value (e.g. 0.3) indicating :he ratio of the stated exposure
as defined to the reference dose value (in this example, the exposure as characterized is
approximately one third of the target exposure level for the given constituent). The hazard
quotient should only be considered additive for constituents that have the same or similar toxic
endpoint (for example, the hazard quotient for a constiruent known to produce liver damage
should not be added to a second constiruent whose toxic endpoint is kidney damage). Separate
calculations were performed for acute and chronic effects.
Risk estimates were evaluated using US EPA's established target risk range for Superfund
cleanups (.i.e.. cancer r.sk range of 10"° to 10a) and target HI value (i.e.. HI less than or equal to
1). A conservative approach was taken where risks from all exposure pathways and all
constituents were summed to yield the total site risk for a given receptor. The risk estimates for
the Site 05 soils operable unit were within or below the target risk range and below the HI value
of 1. All risk summary tables referenced below present risk estimates as they were presented in
Volume II of the Draft Final Phase I Remedial Investigation Report (TRC. 1991).
Table A-3 depicts the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk summary for exposures to
constituents of potential concern in soil under current trespassing at the site. Both the average and
RME estimates of total risk fell below or within the target cancer risk range for Superfund
cleanups established by US EPA (i.e.. 10'0 to 10"1) and below US EPA's target HI value of 1.0.
Table A-4 depicts the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk summary for exposures to
constituents of potential concern in surface soil under the base worker scenario. Both the average
20
-------
;nd RME estimates of total risk fell within the target cancer risk range for Superfund cleanups
established by US EPA (i.e., 10" to 10~) and below US EPA's target HI value of 1.0.
Table A-5 depicts the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk summary for exposures to
constituents of potential concern in surface soil under the future residential use scenario. Both the
average and RME estimates of total risk fell within the target cancer risk range for Superfund
cleanups established by US EPA (i.e.. 10-0 to 10'4) and below US EPA's target HI value of 1.0
for both small children and adults.
Table A-6 depicts the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk summary for exposures to
constituents of potential concern in subsurface soil under the future construction scenario. Both
he average and RME estimates of total risk fell below the target cancer risk range for Superfund
cleanups established by US EPA (i.e.. 10'° to 10'4) and below US EPA's target HI value of 1.0.
Lead, a soil contaminant of concern for which no toxicity values are available, was evaluated
qualitatively. While US EPA has not identified any slope factors for lead, it considers lead a "B2"
- probable human carcinogen. Despite the toxicity associated with lead, concentrations of lead
in Site 05 soils are not extremely elevated. The average lead concentration in surface soil (62 ppm
based on the arithmetic mean) falls within the Rhode Island Rules and Regulations for Lead
Poisoning Prevention (as amended October 1994) definition of lead -free soils (defined as having
a concentration of less than 150 ppm).
The Navy also evaluated potential ecological risks associated with Site 05. This was done by
identifying organisms (receptors) representative of those potentially present at the site, determining
the degree to which they are potentially exposed to site-related chemicals, and quantifying the
potential effects of this exposure. The ecological receptors identified for risk assessment were
shrews (representative of small mammals), rabbits (representative of medium-sized mammals).
robins (representative of songbirds), and hawks (representative of raptors). Ecological risks are
quantified by comparing chemical concentrations onsite (represented by modeled chemical dose)
with the concentration of each chemical not likely to be associated with harmful effects for a
particular receptor (toxicity reference value). The result of this comparison is a hazard quotient
(HQ). which is calculated as the ratio of the chemical dose to the toxicity reference value (TRVV.
ChemicalDose
HQ -
HQ values greater than 1.0 indicate that the TRY is exceeded, while values below 1.0 reflect a non-
exceedance. In general, the greater the exceedance the greater the concern for potential risks. At
Site 05. HQ calculations exceeded 1.0 for shrews exposed to lead (HQ = 4.28) and the pesticide
DDT (HQ = 1.04). Therefore, there is a slight potential for ecological risks to small mammals due
to the presence of lead and. to a much lesser extent. DDT. HQs for rabbits, robins, and hawks were
21
-------
_-.2n 1.0 for all chemicals. Therefore, songbirds, medium-sized mammals, and raptors are not
expected :o be at unacceptable risks due :o exposure to chemicals at Site 05.
To evaluate the potential for adverse effects resulting from combined chemical exposures. HQs were
summed for those chemicals having similar effects on a receptor. The resulting sum is referred to
2s a hazard index (HD. If the HI was iess than or equal to 1.0. cumulative exposure was judged
unlikely to result in an adverse effect. If the HI was greater than 1.0 for a particular receptor.
cumulative exposure could potentially result in adverse effects to the particular biological population
represented by that receptor. HI calculations were performed for two groups of chemicals: rnetals
and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons i PAHs). HI calculations indicated potential risks to small
mammals such as shrews (HI = 4.24.. largely the result of lead concentrations. Risks to other
receptors are not expected since His were less than 1.0 for metals and PAHs.
Although HQ and HI calculations exceeded 1.0 for shrews, the potential for adverse population
effects to shrews and other small mammals within Site 05 should result in minimal effects on the
small mammal population and the biological community as a whole, due to the small size of Site 05
relative to the size of the ecosystem as a whole.
Based on the human health and ecological risk assessments conducted for Site 05. the levels of
contaminants in the soils at Site 05 do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment.
Site 08
The constituents of potential concern selected for evaluation in the risk assessment for Site 08 soils
are listed in Table A-7 found in Appendix A of this Record of Decision. These constituents of
potential concern were identified through an evaluation of the data for surface soils and subsurface
soils and constitute a representative subset of the 44 constituents identified at the site during the
Phase I and Phase II RIs. While risks were initially evaluated on the basis of the Phase I RI
results, the risk assessment was revised to incorporate both Phase I and Phase n RI results as well
as the Comprehensive Base Reuse Plan and revised risk analysis procedures. The constituents of
potential concern were selected to represent potential site-related hazards based on constituent
type, toxicity, concentration, frequency of detection, and mobility and persistence in the
environment. A summary of the range of concentrations in surface soils and subsurface soils is
provided in Table A-8 of this Record of Decision, while a summary of the health effects
associated with each of the constituents of potential concern can be found in Appendix B of the
DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area Remedial Investigation Report. Volume II - Human Health
Risk Assessment (TRC. 1993).
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the contaminants of concern were
estimated quantitatively or qualitatively through the development of several hypothetical exposure
pathways. These pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure to hazardous
substances based on the present uses, potential future uses, and location of the site. Base worker
22
-------
and trespassing were the two current land use scenarios evaluated in the risk assessment. Future
land uses which were considered plausible during the development of the risk assessment include
residential use of the site, on-site construction activities, and commercial/industrial site use. The
following is a brief summary of the soil exposure scenarios evaluated in the risk assessment.
Exposures to ground water were evaluated under the current base worker and future residential
exposure scenarios but are not presented herein since they are not relevant to the soils operable
unit. A more thorough description of these scenarios can be found in Section 4.1 of the DPDO
Film Processing Disposal Area Remedial Investigation Report. Volume II - Human Health Risk
Assessment (TRC. 1993).
Under the current trespassing scenario, it was assumed that children aged 9 to 18 years and living
within the immediate vicinity of the site may be exposed to constituents while trespassing on the
site. Exposure was assumed to occur through incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with
surface soil at a frequency of 39 days per year (i.e., approximately one day per week during the
spring, summer, and fall) for a period of 10 years. A soil ingestion rate of 100 mg of soil per day
and a dermal contact rate of 500 mg of soil per day were used to evaluate these two pathways.
respectively.
Under the current base worker and future commercial/industrial worker scenario, it was assumed
that an adult working at the facility 40 hours per week, 5.0 weeks per year, may be exposed to
constituents while at the site. Exposure was assumed to occur through incidental ingestion of and
dermal contact with surface soil at a frequency of 250 days per year for 25 years. A soil ingestion
rate of 50 mg of soil per day and a dermal contact rate of 500 mg of soil per day were used to
evaluate these two pathways, respectively.
Under the future residential use scenario, risks to children and adults were evaluated separately.
Children (aged 0 to 6 years) and youth/adults (aged 7 to 30 years) were assumed to receive
exposures to constituents in surface and subsurface soils through incidental ingestion and dermal
contact. Residents were assumed to be exposed to these constituents 350 days/year for a period
of 30 years. Soil ingestion rates of 200 mg/day for the small child and 100 mg/day for the
youth/adult and a dermal contact rate of 500 mg/day were used to evaluate these two pathways.
Under the future construction scenario, it was assumed that construction workers involved in
excavation work would be exposed to site constituents through incidental ingestion of and dermal
contact with site subsurface soils, and inhalation of suspended subsurface panicles. Exposure was
assumed to occuf for 250 days for a 1 year period. A soil ingestion rate of 480 mg of soil per day,
a dermal contact rate of 1,000 mg of soil per day, and a panicle inhalation rate of 20 cubic meters
per day were used to evaluate these three pathways, respectively.
For each exposure pathway and land use evaluated, an average and a reasonable maximum
exposure estimate (RME) were generated for each constituent otpotential concern corresponding
to exposure to the average (geometric mean) and the maximum concentrations detected in the
relevant medium. It should be noted that the US EPA prefers the use of the arithmetic mean in
23
-------
exposure assessments but since the risk estimates we:: below risk levels of concern at the
maximum concentrations. US EPA did not require the average values 10 be recalculated. All risk
summary tables referenced below present risk estimates is they were presented in Volume II of
the DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area Remedial Ir.vestigation Report. Volume II - Human
Health Risk Assessment (TRC. 19931.
Like the risk assessment performed for Site 05. with respect to Site 08. excess lifetime cancer
risks were determined for each exposure pathway by multiplying the exposure level by the
constituent-specific cancer slope facior.
Risk es:imates were evaluated using US EPA's established targe: risk range for Superrund
cleanups (i.e.. cancer risk range of 10"° to 10~) and targe: HI value '.i.e.. HI less than or equal to
1). A conservative approach was taken where risks from all exposure pathways and all
constituents were summed to yield the total site risk for 2 given receptor. The risk estimates for
the Site 08 soils operable unit were within or below the target risk range and below the HI value
ofi.
Table A-9 depicis the carcinogenic and non-careincgenie risk summary for exposures to
constituents of potential concern in surface soil under current trespassing at the site. Both the
average and RME estimates of total risk fell below ±e :arget cancer risk range for Superrund
cleanups established by US EPA (i.e.. 10'" to 10~) and reiow US EPA's target HI value of 1.0.
Table 'A-10 depicts the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk summary for exposures to
constituents of potential concern in surface soil under the current base worker scenario. Both the
average and RME estimates of total risk associated with exposures to soil fell below or within the
target cancer risk range for Superrund cleanups established by US EPA (i.e.. 10'6 to 10"*) and
beiow US EPA's target HI value of 1.0.
Table A-11 depicts the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk summary for exposures to
constituents of potential concern in surface soil and subsurface soil under the future residential use
scenario. For exposure to site soils, both the average and RME estimates of total risk fell within
the target cancer risk range for Superrund cleanups established by US EPA (i.e., 10'6 to 10J) and
below US EPA's target HI value of 1.0 for both small children and adults.
Table A-12 depicts the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk summary for exposures to
constituents of potential concern in subsurface soil under the future construction scenario. Both
the average and RME estimates of total risk fell below the target cancer risk range for Superrund
cleanups established by US EPA (i.e.. 10"6 to IQ^) and below US EPA's target HI value of 1.0.
For lead, a soil contaminant of concern for which no toxicity values are available, a qualitative
assessment was conducted with regard to its potential carcinogenic and oral non-cancer effects.
Although lead is quantitatively evaluated in the non-cancer inhalation assessment, exclusion of this
inorganic from the other evaluations may underestimate risk to some degree. While US EPA has
24
-------
not identified any slope factors for lead, it considers lead a "B2" - probable human carcinogen.
Despite the toxicity associated with lead, concentrations of lead in Site 08 soiis are not extremely
elevated. The average lead concentration in surface soil (31 ppm based on the arithmetic mean;
falls within the Rhode Island Rules and Regulations for Lead Poisoning Prevention (as amended
October 1994) definition of lead -free soils (defined as having a concentration of less than 150
ppm).
The Na\y also evaluated potential ecological risks at Site 08. based on HQ and HI calculations for
shrews, rabbits, robins, and hawks. HQ calculations exceeded 1.0 for shrews exposed to lead (HQ
= 1.86'). indicating a slight potential for risks to small mammals. HQs were less :han 1.0 for rabbits.
robins, and hawks. Therefore, songbirds, medium-sized mammals, and raptors are not expected to
be at unacceptable risk as a result of chemical exposure at Site 08.
HI calculations were performed for two groups of chemicals: metals and PAHs. HI calculations
indicated potential risks to small mammals such as shrews (HI = 2.05). largeiy the result of lead
concentrations. Risks to other receptors are not expected since His were less than 1.0 for metals and
PAHs.
Human disturbance in the form of fencing, paved roads, and periodic mowing reduce the value of
habitat at Site 08. Although HQ and HI calculations exceeded 1.0 for shrews, the potential for
adverse effects to shrews and other small mammals within Site 08 should resu':: in minimal effects
on the small mammal population and the biological community as a whole, due :o the small size of
Site OS relative to the size and habitat quality of the overall ecosystem.
Based on the human health and ecological risk assessments conducted for Site 08. the levels of
contaminants in the soils at Site 08 do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative for the soils operable unit at Sites 05 and 08 is No Action. No
construction or monitoring activities will be undertaken.
VIII. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
On May 23. 1995. the Proposed Plan for the soils operable unit at Sites 05 and 08 was released.
The plan proposed No Action with respect to soils at Sites 05 and OS. Since the no action decision
presented hereiiys identical to the Proposed Plan, no significant changes need to be addressed.
IX. STATE ROLE
The State of Rhode Island Depanment of Environmental Management (RIDEM) has reviewed the
Proposed Plan and has indicated its support for the selected remedy. As a party to the FFA.
Rhode Island concurs with the selected remedy for Sites 05 and 08. A copy of the letter of
concurrence is attached as Appendix C.
25
-------
APPENDIX A
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Site 05 - Transformer Oil Disposal Area
Site 08 - DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area
NCBC - Davisville. Rhode Island
-------
TABLE A-1
CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SITE 05 - TRANSFORMER OIL DISPOSAL AREA
Surface Soils
Volatiles
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Semivolatiles
Acenaphthene '
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)/Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzole acid
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
PCB-1248
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Subsurface Soils
Volatiles
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Semivolatiles
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)/Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDT
Inorganics
Beryllium
Manganese
Nickel
-------
TABLE A-2
RANGE CF CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONSTITUE'.TS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SITE := - TRANSFORMER OIL C:E=OSAL AREA
C'nemicsl
Detected
Y:.a:;!es
Circcr, tetrachlcrice
2 - rrcr'crrr,
'.'ir.yiene Cinlcrlde
Si.T.ivclatiles
-:=-.s:hme.-e
-~'.~.rac5.n.e
E;'z:;a)ar.'.r.racene
E = -z::a)pyrene
= i.-":i)/E=nzc::<)HUCTamnene
5e"c:g,h.i;peryiene
: $ 2-E'.hylhexyi)phthaiste
Z.-r/sene
r'.crar, there
:.-:=r.c(1,2.2-cd)pyrene
?-=nanthrene
\ * r.e
=="-;c ac:a
Fssticides/PCBs
4.r-CDT
'-.-'-DDE
4..1--DDD
F33-1248
Ir.crganics
Arsenic
= :.- -Ilium
Chromium
L=3d
'.'ar.csnese
.3-a::um
Surface Soils
Concentra'J:."i
Detecticn Range
Frequency (ppm)
2/17 0.001-0.::=
6/17 0.01-0.'-
11/17 0.006-0.:-
2/17 0.062-0. r:
3/17 0.039-0. '12
6/17 0.037-0." 2
5/17 0.11-0.7::
i 5/17 0.23-3.:
2/17 0.072-0.22
7/17 0.074 - 0.:5
8/17 0.1-1.63
,7/17 0.14-5.622
'2/17 0.055-0.: 24
2/17 0.085-0.22=
6/17 0.14-1.6=5
8/17 0.08-3.522
7/17 0.13-0.7=
14/17 0.022-3.3
12/17 0.0037-0.46
5/17 0.023-0.14
1/17 0.33-0.33
17/17 0.64-6.7
17/17 0.17-1.4
17/17 5.2-71.2.
17/17 5.1-303
17/17 64.9-255
17/17 4.8-29.1
17/17 6.4-42.9
:
i
Subsurface Soils
Concentra:;cn
Detection Ranee
Frequency (ppm;
1/10
2/10
1/10
8/10
1 MO
1 MO
1/10
1/10
1 MO
1/10
1/10
2/10
V
10/10
10/10
9/10
0.006 0. 06
0.002-0. 03
0.063-0. 53 '
0.028 -C. 73
0.053 - :.:=3
0.055 - G.:c3
0.19-0.-.3 '
0.16-0. :6
0.66 - 0.55
0.24 - 0.24
0.34 - 0.24
0.013-0.044
0.45- 1.5
108-565
10.3-24.9 i
-------
TAUI.1-: A-3
SUMMARY ()!' KISK I-STIMATI-S
TKI'SI'ASSIN'> TO IK YI-AUS
SITI-05-TKANSRMMI-K Oil. DISPOSAL AKI-iA
Average
Total III
Acute
Soil"0 0.0006
Incidental digestion of Soil 0.0005
Dermal Contact with Soil 0.00003
Chronic
'Total
Cancel Kisk
KMT:
Total III
Acute Chronic
0.003 8 x |0' 0.002 0.009
0.003 7 x |0 7 0.002 0.008
0.0002 1 x H)7 0.00008 0.001
Total
Cancer Kisk
3 x 10"
3 x |0"
6 x |() 7
(a) Subsurface soil.
-------
TAIH.I- A-1
SUMMARY 01- UISK I !S I IMA 11 S
IJASI-: WOUKI-K(CUUKi;NI ) ADI II. I
SHI-05 TKANSrOKMI-K Oil. DISPOSAL AHLA
Average
Tola! Ill
Acute
Soil"1 0.000-1
Incidental Ingestion of Soil 0.0004
Dermal Contact with Soil 0.00002
( 'luonic
0.005
0.004
00001
Tola!
( 'ani-er Risk
UMI'l
Tolal III
Acnle Chronic C;mrcr Risk
4 x |0" o.ooi o.oi | - |0"
3 x |0" o.ooi 0.01 1 x |0 5
6 x |0' 0.00005 0001 1 x |0"
(a) Subsurface soil.
-------
TAIJI.IiA-5
SUMMARY OF RISK KSTIMATliS
RI-SIDI-NTIAL (I-UTUKI-) Cl IILD AND ADULT
SITIi 05 TRANSFORMER Oil. DISPOSAL AUI-A
Average
Total III
Child Adult
Acute Chronic Acute | Chronic
Total Cancei-
Risk Lifetime
RMI-;
Total III
Child Adult Total Cancer
Acute Chronic Acute Chronic '^k '-'I^Hnie
Soil1"1 0.003 0.07 0.0004 0.005 2x|o> n.OI (),2 0.001 0.01 8 x UP
Incidential 0.003 0.07 0.0004 0.004 2x|05 0.01 ().2 0.001 0.01 7* 10s
Inyeslion of Soil
Dermal Contact 0.00008 0.003 0.00002 0.0003 2 x 10 6 0.0003 0.01 0.00006 0.001 |x)0s
with Soil
(a) Surface soil.
-------
I AIM.I- A-d
SI IMMAK V < )l KISK I SI IMA I IS
CONSTRUCTION WOKKI-K (I UTUKL) ADULT
si IT; 05 IKANSI-OKMLK on. DISPOSAL AUI-A
Averaye
Total III
Acute
Soil'"' 0.0002
Incidental digestion of Soil 0.0002
Dermal Contact wild Soil 0.00001
i nun
Chronic Cam-cr Kisk
UMI-:
Total III
,Acntc Chronic
0(1001 1 x |() "' 0.0004 0.0003
0.0001 2 x |(V (MHHM 0.0003
0.00000') A x |0" 0.00002 0.00002
Total
Cancer Risk
2 x |0'
2 x |07
1 x |0"
(a) Subsurface soil.
-------
TABLE A-7
CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SITE 08 - DPDO FILM PROCESSING DISPOSAL AREA
Surface Soils
Volatiles
Acetone
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Semivolatiles
Benzo(a)anthracene
8enzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)/Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h.i)perylene
bis(2-E:hy!hexyl)phthaiate
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a.h)amhracene
Fluoranthene
lndeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzole acid
Pesticides/PCBs
4.4'-DDT
PCB-1260
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Cyanide
^ Lead
Nickel
Subsurface Soils
I Volatiles
| Chloroform
! Methylene chloride
i
Semivolatiles
Benzo(b)/Benzo(k)fluoranmer
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzoic acid
Pesticides/PCBs
PCB-1260
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
-------
7A5LEA-8
RAr.GE CF CCr.CENTRATiCNS FCR CONSTITUENTS CF POTENTIAL 33NCEF.N
S;TE oa - CFDO FILM FROCESSING DISPOSAL AREA
Cherriiai
Surface Soils
Concentration
Detectcn Range
Frequency (ppm)
Subsurface Sciis
Ccncsr.'."a;ion
Oetecr.cn Range
Frequency (ppm)
Volatiles
Acetone
CJV.orofcrr.
Vetnyiere Zt:
212-
4/24
5/2-
0.075-O.C89
O.G01-O.CQ3
0.004 - O.C07
1/12
1/12
o.c:- -O.C01
o.c:=-ioo6
Semivoiatiles
ssnzoia :y.-srs
Ee.izci:: .5sr.:c < ^uoran:r.e.-
= 3nzcig.r..::5sr..3r.s
::S(2-E:.--...-exy :-.tnaiaie
C;benzc:3."':ar-j::acene
piyorairr.ere
r henantrrere
ryrene
Eenzoicacc:
10.2-
10,2-
1C , 2-
-1/2-
10,2-
10,2-
2/2-
10/2-
512-
9 / 2-
11,2-
4/10
O.C45-0.41
O.C47 - 0.32
O.C86 - C.55
O.C28-0/.9
0.04-0.2=
O.C65-0.50
0.14-0. '.9
0.093-0.57
0.04-0.20
0.046 - 0.1 1
0.081 -0.-J8
0.049-0.13
4/12 Z '2C47
1/12 O.C42-1C42
1/12 O.C46-0.046
1/12 0.17-0.17
1/12 O.C57-0.057
1 / 5 O.C45 - 0.045
Pesticides/PCSs
4.4--ODT
FC3-1250
Inorganics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Ccbalt
Cooper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Manganese
Yanadiu~
2/24
8/24
24/24
24/24
24 / 24
2/24
18/24
18/24
0.0029 - 0.029
0.02 - 0.45
0.51-2.6
0.29-1.4
2.5-15.5
0.23 - 0.39
6.8-171
2.2 - 30,8
1/12
10/12
11 /12
12/12
1/12
8/12
4/12
0.023-0.023
_0.26 - 0.84
0.34-1.4
1.4-11.6
0.4 - 0.4
2.5 -13.4
2.4 - 5.8
-------
TABLE A-9
SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES
TRESPASSING (CURRENT) - YOUTH AGED 9 TO 18 YEARS
SITE 08 - DPDO FILM PROCESSING DISPOSAL AREA
SOIL (a)
Incidental Ingestion of Soil
Dermal Contact with Soil
Average
Total HI
0.0008
0.0008
0.000002
Total
Cancer Risk
5x10~7
4-XlO~7
6x10~8
RME
Total HI
0.002
0.002
0.000007
Total
Cancer Risk ;
1 x 1 0~6
9xio~7 :,
2x10'"
(a) Surface Soil
-------
TABLE A-10
SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES
BASE WORKER (CURRENT) - ADULT
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL WORKER (FUTURE) - ADULT
SITE 08 - DPDO FILM PROCESSING DISPOSAL AREA
SOIL (a)
Incidental Ingssticn of Soil
Derma! Ccntsct with Soil
Averaae
Total
. Total HI Cancer Risk
0.002 ' 3x10~6
\ 0.002 2x10~6
0.00001 7x10'"
i
I RME
| ; Tctal
! Total HI Cancer Risk
! 0.005 7x 1Q-6
i
0.005 5x10"*
; 0.00003 2xlO"6
-------
TABLE A-11
SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES
RESIDENTIAL (FUTURE) - CHILD & ADULT
SITE 08 - DPDO FILM PROCESSING DISPOSAL AREA
SOIL (a)
Incidental Ingestion of Soil
Dermal Contact with Soil
Average
Total HI
Child
0.04
0.04
0.00009
Adult
0.004
0.004
0.00005
Total
Cancer Risk
Child
1 x 10~s
1x10~5
1X10~6
Adult
7x 10~6
6x10-°
1 x10~6
RME
Total HI
Child
0.1
0.1
0.0002
Adult
0.02
0.02
0.00005
V
Total
Cancer Risk
Child
3x 10~5
3x10~5
3x 10~6
Adult
1 x 10~5
1 x10"s
2x 10~6
(a) Surface and Subsurface Soils (0-10 feet)
-------
TABLE A-12
SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES
CONSTRUCTION WORKER (FUTURE) - ADULT
SITE 08 - DPDO FILM PROCESSING DISPOSAL AREA
SOIL (a)
Incidental Ingesticr, sf Soii
Dermal Contact witn Soil
Inhalation of Panicuiates
Average
Total HI
0.01
0.01
0.00001
Total
Cancer Risk
5x 10-7
5x10'7
3x10~8
RME
Total HI
0.02
0.02
0.00001
1 1
0.0000' i 6x10~10 ! 0.00002
I 1
Total
Cancer Risk
8x1Q-7
8x10~7
3x10~3
1 x10~9
(a; Subsurfacs Soil (2 - 10 fss:)
-------
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Site 05 - Transformer Oil Disposal Area
Site 08 - DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area
NCBC - Davisville. Rhode Island
-------
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Soils Operable Unit
Sites 05 and 08
NCBC - Davisville, Rhode Island
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to review public response to the Proposed Plan for
no action with respect to the soils operable unit at Sites 05 and 08 at the former Naval Construction
Battalion Center in Davisville. Rhode Island. In addition, it documents the Navy's consideration
of public comments during the decision-making process and provides answers to any major
comments raised during the public comment period.
The Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following sections:
'Overview - This section briefly describes the remedial alternative recommended within the
Proposed Plan, and any impacts on the Proposed Plan due to public comment.
Background on Community Involvement - This section provides a summary of community interest
in the proposed remedy and identifies key public issues. It also describes community relations
activities conducted with respect to the area of concern.
Summary of Major Questions and Comments - This section summarizes verbal and written
comments received during the public meeting and public comment period, respectively.
Remedial Design/Remedial Action Concerns - This section describes public concerns which are
directly related to design and implementation of the selected remedial alternative.
OVERVIEW
In the Proposed Plan issued for public comment in May 1995, the Navy proposed a No Action
alternative for the soils at Sites 05 and 08. The preferred alternative was selected in coordination
with the US EPA and PJDEM. No written or verbal comments were received on the preferred no
action alternative.
»
Public comments received on a previous Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08, however, influenced
the current selected no action alternative for soils at Sites 05 and 08. In August 1994. the Navy
issued a Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08 which proposed limited action in the form of site use
restrictions for future use of both sites. A public informational meeting was held on August 16.
1994 to present the Proposed Plan and solicit public comments on the proposed action. Based on
the Navy's consideration of public comments received on the August 1994 Proposed Plan, the Navy
separated Sites 05 and 08 into two operable units, one for soils and one for ground water, which led
to the development of the current Proposed Plan for the soils operable unit. Since comments
B-l
-------
received on the August I9v- ?::pc:r_ Plan have :.:: been previously addressee, response: :: verbal
and wr.rten comments re;;;-, ei or. L'.e July 199- Proposed Plan are addressed r.ersin.
BACKGROUND ON CONfMUXITY INVOLVEMENT
Throughout the remedial investigation activities, the Navy. RIDEM. and US EPA have beer, directly
involved through proposal ar.d project review and comments. Periodic meetings have been held to
maintain open lines of communication and to keep all parties abreast of current activities.
Local input to the selection of the preferred remedy has come primarily through informational
meetings including Technical Review Commirtee :TRC) meetings and Restoration Advisory Board
(RABi meetings which involve communiry representatives, press releases and public meetings. In
April 1989. the Navy heid a public information meeting prior to the start of the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study activities in order to present a status report and fact sheet to the
community. In May 19S9. the Navy released a Communiry Relations Plan, which outlined a
program to address comrnuoiry concerns and to keep citizens informed and involved in remedy
selection and other remedial activities. Throughout the site investigation process, the Navy has
maintained a mailing list of interested local parties.
As stated in the previous section, a Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08 was originally issued in
August 1994. Based on public concerns regarding the degree of protection offered by the proposed
remedy as well as potential impacts of the remedy on property transfer, the Navy divided the site
into t\vo operable units, one addressing soil and one addressing ground water.
A Fact Sheet announcing the availability of the Proposed Plan for the soils operable unit was mailed
out to members of the RAB and to the community members on the general mailing list. A copy of
the soils operable unit Proposed Plan was mailed to any Fact Sheet recipient who requested.it.
Notices of the availability of the Proposed Plan appeared in the Providence Journal Bulletin on 19
May 1995 and in the North Kingstown Standard Times on 25 May 1991. The notices summarized
the site investigation process and the preferred no action alternative. The announcements also
identified the time and location of a public meeting to be held to discuss the proposed action, the
location of the administrative record and information repository, the length of the public comment
period, and the address to which written comments could be sent.
A public meeting was held on May 31. 1995. at 7:00 p.m. at the Administrative Building (Building
404) located at the former Naval Construction Battalion Center in Davisville. Rhode Island. The
site investigations concerning Sites 05 and 08 as well as the proposed no action alternative for the
soils operable unit were discussed. Representatives at the meeting included: Phil Otis. BRAC
Environmental Coordinator. U.S. Navy Northern Division: Nicholas A. Lanney. representing EA
Engineering. Science, and Technology. Inc.: Jean M. Oliva. representing TRC Environmental
Corporation (TRC): Christine Williams. Remedial Program Manager. US EPA-Region I: Judith
Graham. Project Manager. RIDEM. The informational meeting was immediately followed by a
public hearing, at which public comments for the record were solicited.
B-2
-------
SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTION'S AND COMMENTS
While no verbal commems were received during the public hearing held on May 31, 1995 for the
soils operable unit, one verbal comment was received during the public hearing held for the previous
Proposed Plan on August 16, 1994. Copies of the transcripts of the May 31. 1995 and August 16,
1994 public hearings, including the verbal comment, are included as Attachments A and B.
respectively, to this Responsiveness Summary.
No written comments on the preferred no action alternative for the soils operable unit were received
during the 30-day public comment period from May 23. 1995 to June 21. 1995. Three sets of
written comments on the previous Proposed Plan were received during the public comment period
which ran from August 8. 1994 to October 21. 1994.
Presented below is a summary of the comments received during the comment period on the August
1994 Proposed Plan and the Navy's responses to those comments.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Verbal comments were received from a citizen of North Kingstown. Rhode Island, while written
comments were received from a citizen of Harrington. Rhode Islar.d.
Verbal Comments
Comment 1: A careful evaluation should be made of certain sites at NCBC Davisville and in the
general surrounding area that historically have had uses that are not commonly
known, and that may affect future development.
Response: The Na\y has identified potential .areas of contamination within the former NCBC
Davisville facility through extensive background investigations which have included
interviews with former employees and file searches. Orher sites in the general vicinity
of the former NCBC Davisville facility have also been the subject of environmental
investigations which are under the revie\v of the US EPA and/or RIDEM.
Written Comments
Comment 1: A 30-day extension was requested to allow the opportunity to further review the
information contained within the Information Repository.
»
Response: A 45-day extension was granted by the Navy, extending the public comment period from
September 6. 1994 to October 21, 1994. No addmonai written comments were received
during the extended public comment period., The Xa\y will also keep the public
informed of the results of the 5-year revie\vs with press releases and fact sheets mailed
out to the general public and with a fact sheet kept at the information repository and in
the Administrative Record.
B-3
-------
Comment 2: The Augus: '.f94 PropostJ Plan stated thr. manginese dro'-t :r.e r.oncarcinogenic
hazard index ratio value of 3 for ground watt: ingesticr.. '.vh:ch exceeds the
acceptable unir/ value of 1. It also suited thii the presence of manganese may be due
to the geologic formation rather than site related conditions. Why is ground water
use being restricted if the geologic formation is responsible fc: the detected level of
manganese. This restriction could place in unnecessary burden on the industrial
property purchaser.
Response: At the rime of:he Angus: 1994 Proposed Plan, the .\'a\y could >:ot stare with certainty
that the presence of manganese was due to geologic conditions. However, in response
to this commer.: and other public comments, the \:a\y is conducting additional
investigations of background ground water qualir: to determine if the presence of
manganese in :he ground water at Site OS as well as at o'her sites undergoing
investigation can be attributable to natural conditions. TJie need for implementation of
site use re*:ric:ions will be re-evaluated based on those results and the proposed
remedial ac::on with respec: to ground \vc:er will be preserved within a separate
Proposed Plan -: a later da:e.
Comment 3: The August 1994 Proposed Plan states that ~lo\v concentrations of VOCs and a
semivoiatiie organic compound <'SVOO. bisil-ethyihexyl'ipr/Jiaiate. were detected
in ground -.va:er samples. Several inorganic analyses were also detected in ground
water. The detected concentrations of these compounds and inorganic analytes did
not exceed established State of Rhode Island ground water quality standards or
federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)." If State and rederai standards were
not exceeded, how can it be explained that there is a risk with the ground water and
that restriction of ground water use is required?
Response: Manganese was detected at lr;els ranging from 361 parrs per bi'.'.ion ippb) to 1,300 ppb
in ground water samples collected at Site 08. TJie text refer-ed :o the fact thai no
enforceable Primary Maximum Contaminant Levels iMCLs) were exceeded (there is no
Primar: MCLfor manganese). A Secondary Maximum Conmr.inar.: Level (SMCL) of
50 ppb has been established for manganese. SMCLs are federal non-enforceable levels
which were established to limit contaminants in drinking water which may affect the
aesthetic qualities and the public's acceptance (e.g.' taste and odor). This standard is
not based on toxicity, however. Tlierefore. a toxicity-based standard has not been
established for manganese and the risk assessment process was used to determine if
manganese in the ground water poses a potential human health risk.
TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN COMMENTS
Written Comments
Comment 1: After reviewing the Proposed Plan and background material, the Town does not
believe that sufficient information has been presented to affirm that the "Limited
Action" alternative is acceptable as presented. North Kingstown objects to the
proposed plan for the following reasons:
B-4
-------
1. The Proposed Plan distributed to the public tails to demonstrate that the
development and screening of remedial action technologies were considered.
There is no discussion in the proposed plan regarding the various remedial
action technologies which were considered for Sites 05 and 08. A
comprehensive evaluation of various potential clean-up options would be
particularly heipful from the Town's perspective in determining whether the
"Limited Action" alternative is the most appropriate. The plan should
clearly document the basis on which the "Limited Action" alternative is
chosen.
Response: When the risk assessment provides the basis for concluding that the
conditions at a site pose no current or potential threat to human
health or the environment, the Na\y may determine that its authority
under CERCLA Sections 104 or 106 to undertake a remedial action
to ensure adequate protection need not be invoked. Therefore, for the
no action recommendation for the soils operable unit, no
consideration of potential clean-up options was required. If the
results of additional ground water monitoring indicate that Limited
Action in the form of site use restrictions is still appropriate with
respec: to the ground water operable unit, the basis on which the
Limited Action alternative was chosen, including other clean-up
options considered, will be demonstrated.
2. The Proposed Plan fails to describe the proposed five year review for these
sites. Although the Plan indicates that a five year review will be incorporated
into the Record of Decision, the implications of the five year review are not
explained. Could the five year review lead to a reconsideration of the
"Limited Action" alternative and on what basis? For example, if the deed
restrictions result in the property being unmarketable, would the "Limited
Action" alternative be reconsidered? In addition, how is the public notified
of the results of the five year review?
Response: Five year revie\vs are not required for a no action decision. If a
remedial action which requires a five-year review is proposed for the
ground water operable unit, the Proposed Plan will describe the five
year revie\v. In general, as defined in the Federal Facility
Agreement, a five year review consists of a review of a remedial
action at least every five years after the initiation of the selected
action to assure that human health and the environment are being
protected bv the remedial action. If, upon such revie\v, it is
concluded tfiat additional work is appropriate at the site, the Navy is
required to implement such additional work. Five year revie\vs are
required for a remedial action which results in any hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant remaining at the site at levels
exceeding those which would allow for unrestricted use of the site.
As stated in OSWER Directive 9355.7-02FS1, Structure and
B-5
-------
C:-»rnner.:: ~r' Five-Y^i- .^vteu-v.':-'.e five-vear "en?.-, reoon will be
made jvG/:jr:V to the p:^.:; :hrous-: :he adnnr.:::rati\e record file for
the site. 77:5 Navy will -'.:o keep the public informed of the results of
men\e\ecr revie\vs u;;.-': press releases and foe: sheets inailed out to
the zenerc'. public and with a foe: sheet kept at the information
repository and in the administrative record.
3. The Health Risk Assessment bases its conclusions and recommended action
of the future use of the site being limited to industrial/commercial. The
future use is based 'on the Base Reuse Plan. In order to determine what
would be an acceptable future level of risk, it is important to know the
difference in risk associated with industrial, commercial development relative
to other types of land use. How is the health risk associated with
industrial commercial land use defined? Associated or support uses such as
day care may be desirable in an industrial area. Has the risk associated with
such activities beer, considered!1
Response: Tie currer: no action Proposed Plan for the soils operable unit is
based on :i:e deiermincr.on thai soils do not pose unacceptable risks
10 human health, e>:sr. under a future residential use scenario.
Tnerefore. ±e soils wc:i!d not be e::pected to pose unacceptable risks
under a da~; care site use scenar.o. which would involve shorrer
exposure periods. Hie -.sks associated with exposures to site ground
water will be re-eval:ic:ed pending the results of the additional
ground wc:er monitoring being conducted at the former NCEC
Davisville facility.
4. The Proposed Plan does not include continued environmental monitoring for
these sites. In particular, Site 08 lies in West Davisville proximate to the
Hunt Aquifer and as such it is critical that the movement of contaminants
through the ground water be monitored. While the Hunt Wellhead
Delineation Study prepared by GZA. Inc. for the Town of North Kingstown
shows that this site is outside of a wellhead area, it is important to realize that
the ground water modeling effort includes a proposed well site. The actual
location of a future well may change thus changing the wellhead line and
possibly the movement of contaminants off this site. Also, the area west of
Site 08 includes a number of private wells. Only with 'monitoring
contaminant movement will there be some assurance of protection for these
wells.
Response: Tlie soils at Sites 05 and 08 have been determined to pose no
current or potential threats to human health or the
environment. Tnerefore, under the no action alternative for
the soils operable unit, no continued monitoring of the soil is
necessary. As stated in the Proposed Plan, ground \vaier will
be addressed within separate operable unit. Tills comment
B-6
-------
H//7 be considered in the development of a revised Proposed
Plan for the ground water operable unit.
Finally, given the proximity of these sites to residential areas, the Navy owes
the community a stronger effort in reaching out to the community and
presenting convincing evidence that the proposed plan for Sites 05 and 08
will ensure protection of public health and the environment for future uses of
these sites.
Response: The lack of public comment received on the No Action
Proposed Plan for the soils operable unit indicated that
sufficient evidence of proteaiveness was provided to the
public. "Die additional ground water monitoring being
conducted by the Na\y will further define ground water
quality and will provide additional evidence to support a
Proposed Plan for the ground water operable unit. Hie Na\y
will continue to involve the public in its decision-making
processes through the publication of Fact Sheets, the
involvement of the public in Restoration Advisory Board
meetings, and the announcement of the availability of
Proposed Plans, public comment periods and public meeting
dates in local ne\vspapers.
NAKRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE COMMENTS
Written Comments
Comment 1: The approach proposed for the sites can be summarized as follows: allow the
remaining low levels of contamination to remain and protect the public by applying
deed restrictions on the future use of the property. Various criteria were listed in the
plan against which this proposal was tested. The Narragansett Indian Tribe asserts
that an important criterion has not been applied, that is. the inhibiting effect this
approach will have on the disposal of the property.
For the Tribe in particular, we have had preliminary indications from the BIA that
any residual contamination will prohibit taking the land into Trust for the Tribe.
AJso. the land to be taken into Trust must be clear of any encumbrances. Since we
have requested the parcel which includes Site 08, carrying out the proposed plan will
have the effect of blocking the Tribe from acquiring the site. If this approach reflects
a general DOD policy towards remediation, it will have an impact on the applications
of all tribes at decommissioned DOD facilities.
We would point out that concerns about acquiring property with residual
contamination may not be limited to the Federal Government through the BIA. but
B-7
-------
any potential mcr.r-ge lender on property o\vr.er. goverrjr.ental :: private. Thus the
"feasible" solu::;:. may leave 'Jie Navy with a '".vhite elephant" and no c-yers.
The Tribe is funr.:: concerned chat the proposed us of prohibitive deed restrictions
was not anticipated in the Federal Facilities Agreement signed by :he Secre:ary of the
Navy and the US EPA Regional Administrator in March of 1992. CERCLA Title
42 USC *9620ih . referenced in Section 36 of ihat Agreement, requires thai deed
covenants treat crjy disclosure, notification and responsibility for future clean up
activities. The use of deed restrictions controlling future land use. as the navy
proposes, seems an attempt to expand the use of deed restrictions beyond the scope
of their intended use as expressed in the statute and by inference in the Federal
Facilities Agreement.
We have been in contact with representatives from the BIA for their assessment of
the proposed piir.. but with vacations and other delays they have not ye: been able
to respond to us. We therefore as for an extension of the comment period, and a
delay in issuing i-.e Record of Decision, until these parties can be heard rrorh.
Response: T"-:e Proposed Plan for the soils operable unit does nor include deed
restrictions since soils ai Sires 05 and 08 do nor oose unacceptable
-.:-:s :o human health or the environment. Tne need for implementing
died restrictions to limit future use of 'he ground water MY'// be re-
i'.aluated pending the results of additional ground water
investigations being conducted at the facility, \\7iile the Navy is
f.are of the potential impacts of deed restrictions on property
transfer, at times the most practicable alternative is the
implementation of site use restrictions based on the balancing of
irzde-offs among alternatives that is conducted during :he remedy
selection process. At these sites the Na\y is continuing site
investigations on the ground water and has not implemented any site
use restrictions.
UTr/z respect to the suitability of employing deed restrictions as pan
of a remedial action, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency-Plan (NCP) [40 CFR 300) provides the
organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and
responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, and contaminants including procedures for undertaking
response action pursuant to CERCLA. as required by Section 105 of
CERCLA. Section 300.430(a) (1) (Hi) (C) of the NCP states that, in
developing appropriate remedial alternatives. "US EPA expects to
use institutional controls such as water use and deed restrictions to
supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short- and long-
term management to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Institutional controls may
ct used during the conduct of the remedial investigation, feasibility
B-8
-------
i::idy (RI/FSi and implementation of the remedial action and,, where
necessary, as a component of the completed remedy. The use of
institutional controls shall not substitute for active response measures
'e.g., treannent and/or containment of source material, restoration
of ground Caters to their beneficial uses) as the sole remedy unless
such active measures are determined not to be practicable, based on
the balancing of trade-offs among alternatives that is conducted
during the remedy selection process." Any future proposed use of
deed restrictions will be based on the results of a remedy selection
process conducted in accordance with the NCP, as described above.
A 45-day extension to the public comment period (from September 6,
1994 to October 21, 1994) was granted.
REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION CONCERNS
No remedial action concerns were raised with respect to the no action remedy for the soils operable
unit for Sites 05 and 08. as described in the May 1995 Proposed Plan.
The remedial action concerns voiced during the August 8. 1994 to October 21. 1994 public comment
period on the August 1994 Proposed Plan are summarized below. The specific comments and Navy
responses were provided in the previous section. The public concerns were mainly related to:
Impacts of the implementation of deed restrictions on- future transfer and use of the property
as well as the suitability of the use of deed restrictions given the wording of the Federal
Facilities Agreement and the section of CERCLA (42 USC 9620(h)) which describes the
application of CERCLA to the transfer of properties by Federal Agencies.
The degree to which other potential remedial actions were considered.
Impacts of a five-year review on future site use.
Potential development of the sites as day-care facilities, which could result in exposures of
the site to children, which was not considered under the commerciai/'industrial site use risk
assessment scenario.
The lack of continued around water monitoring.
«*
B-9
-------
ATTACHMENT A TO
APPENDIX B
TRANSCRIPTION OF PUBLIC HEARING
HELD MAY 31. 1995
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Site 05 - Transformer Oil Disposal Area
Site 08 - DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area
NCBC - Davisville, Rhode Island
-------
1
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
*******************
*
PROCEEDINGS AT HEARING IN RE: *
*
PROPOSED PLAN SITE 05 - TRANSFORMER *
OIL DISPOSAL AREA and SITE 08 - *
DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL OFFICE, *
FILM PROCESSING DISPOSAL AREA *
*******************
10 i Naval Construction Battalion
Center
Building 404
Davisville, Rhode Island
12
14
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
31 May 1995
6:45 p.m.
BEFORE: Philip Otis, BRAC Environmental Coordinator
Nicholas A. Lanney, EA Engineering, Science and
Technology, Inc.
Jean M. Oliva, TRC Environmental Corporation
Christine Williams, Remedial Program Manager
Judith Graham
Richard Gottlieb, Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
ORIGINAL
ALLIED COURT REPORTERS, INC.
115 PHENIX AVENUE
CRANSTON, RHODE ISLAND 02920
(401) 946-5500
ALLIED COURT REPORTERS, INC. (401) 946-5500
-------
IS
1
IS
19
20
2
(PU3IC HEARING COMMENT COMMENCED)
MR. OTIS: We would r.ow like to start
the informal public hearing for the proposed remedial
ac-ion for Site 05, Transformer Oil Disposal Area, and;
Sirs 08, the Film Processing Disposal Araa.
6 ! First, we will call the names of those of who you
whs signed or. the register. When you are called,
please stand up, and state your naze and address, and
your affiliation prior to your comment. Please speak
clearly and slowly for the benefit of cur
stenographer.
If anyone who has not signed up would like to
speak, raise your hand after the registered speakers
are finished, and we will call on you individually.
Are there any persons who would like to nake a
comment?
(PAUSE)
MR. OTIS: There being no response,
written public comments will be accepted through
June 21. Following that date, the Navy will prepare
the Record of Decision document including the
Responsiveness Summary.' It is that record that the
recorded decision will be finalized in August, and as
mentioned earlier its finalization and availability
ALLIED COURT REPORTERS, INC. (401) 946-5=00
-------
3
1 will be announced and placed in your local newspapers
2 (HEARING CLOSED 7:40 P.M.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 !
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ALLIED COURT 'REPORTERS, INC. (401) 946-5500
-------
1 C-Z-r.-T-I-F-I-C-A-7-Z
2 I, BRZNDA 2. P. KAN'NA, do hereby certify that the
3 foregoing is a true, accurate and complete transcript I
4 of r.y notes taker, at the above-entitled hearing.
5 IN WITNESS WKZRZC7, I have hereunto set r,y hand this
6 3 1st day cf May, 1995.
1
8
9 ! Er.ZNDA D. ?. KANNA, NOTA3Y
CZP.TI7IZD COURT REPCHTZ?.
i
10 .
ir, ?.Z: Proposed Plan for Site 05, Trar.sfcrr.er Cil
Disposal Area and Site OS, Defense Property
disposal Office, Fila Processing Disposal Area
DATZ: :i May 1595
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2Q
21
22
21
24
ALlIir COURT F.ZPORTZKS , INC. (401' 946-550C
-------
ATTACHMENT B TO
APPENDIX B
TRANSCRIPTION OF PUBLIC HEARING
HELD AUGUST 16, 1994
Site 05 - Transformer Oil Disposal Area
Site 08 - DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area
NCBC - Davisville. Rhode Island
-------
1
2
PUBLIC MEETING
3
4
RE: SITE 05 - TRANSFORMER OIL DISPOSAL AREA
5 | SITE 08 - DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL OFFICE (DFDO
_ FILM PROCESSING DISPOSAL AREA
6
10
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER
DAVISVILLE, RHODE ISLAND
DATE: August 16", 1994
TIME: 7:00
PLACE: Naval Construction Battalion Center
Davisville, Rhode Island
PRESENT:
Leo Torr.asetti, Public Affairs Officer
Robert Xrivinskas, Remedial Project Manager
Robert C. Smith, TRC Environmental Corporation
Jean M. Oliva, TRC Environmental Corporation
Christine Williams, Remedial Program Manager, USEPA
Richarc Gottlieb, Project Manager, RIDEM
ALLIED COURT REPORTERS
115 PHENIX AVENUE
CRANSTON, RHODE ISLAND 02920
(401) 946-5500
ALLIED COURT REPORTERS (40*) 946-5500
-------
IS
i o
:o
C-:I.-.= :::G COMMENCED AT 7:oo p.-.)
M?.. TCMASZ77I: Is there anybody that would
like to ask any questions, please raise ycur ha.-.d?
M£. ilZ"J5E?.7: My name is Marguerite Neubert,
N-E- -*- = -Z-?.-7. I have no specific question new
because durir.c the discussion period that followed the '
presentation, it saer.s that my basic concern is about
parrels cf land that are just outside the area of
Secti s that's under discussion tonight, but becaus
everyone is here because of their concern about the
use :f the property and the possible ccnta.-ir.an-~ in
certain parts cf these properties, I =.~ r
a very careful evaluation be made cf certain
sit=s that historically have had uses that are net
car.r.-r.ly -cnovn, that may affect the future
developr.sr.t, that the appearance of the property new
may look as though investigation is net particularly
needed, but as a person who intends to spend the rest
of r.y life in this area, with whatever development
doe- occur, I will be happy, if the investigation of
these various sites is done carefully and thoroughly
sc that we dor.'t have questions when the work is
ccT.cls-sc and the okay is given. I have no other
scerific co.T.r.er.t at this time. Thank vcu.
-------
Ar.y c.r.er c:
rr.vicr. icr cc:
TOMASETTI: Thar./, you, Mrs . Neubert.
-.er.ts from anyone else? Thank you very
:c. This ci-cluces tonirr.-'s prcgrar..
:.:NG ADJOUR:;ZD AT =:oo c.n.)
15
IS
1 Q
20
-------
APPENDIX C
RIDEM LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Site 05 - Transformer Oil Disposal Area
Site 08 - DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area
NCBC - Davisville, Rhode Island
-------
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
.18
19
20
21
22
22
24
C I R T I F I C A T E
I hereby certify that I am expressly
approved as a person qualified and authorized to take
depositions pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure i
of the Superior Court, especially but without
res-rictions thereto, under Rule 30 (e) of said rules;
that the witness was first sworn by me; that the
transcript: contains a true record of proceedings .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set r.y
'-\vx f
hand this I - day of v- / .. ^ ,.^->^ , 19 = 4
PATRICIA A. QUIRK
NOTARY PUBLIC/CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
ALLIED C2URT REPORTERS (401) 945-5500
-------
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
$>
Department of Environmental Management
Associate Director for Air. Solid Waste & Hazardous Materials
291 Promenade Street
Providence. R.I. 02908-5767
13 September 1995
Mr. Phil Otis, P.E., Remedial Program Manager
US Department of the Navy
NAVFACENGCOM- Northern Division
Code 1823, Mail Stop #82
10 Industrial Highway
Lester, PA 19113-2090
RE: Record of Decision:-Soils-Operable Unit
Site 05 - Transformer Oil Disposal Area and
Site 08 - DPDO Film Processing Area
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Davisville Rhode Island
Dear Mr. Otis:
On 23 March 1992, the State of Rhode Island entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement with
the Department of the Navy and the Environmental Protection Agency.- In accordance with
Section 17.3 of said agreement, the State of Rhode Island offers its concurrence with the selected
remedy of No Further Action for soils at the above referenced Installation/Restoration (IR) sites.
As detailed in the August 1995 Record of Decision, groundwater at Site 05, the Transformer Oil
Disposal Area, and Site 08, the DPDO Film Processing Area, will be addressed under the Base-
wide Groundwater Study and will culminate in a separate Record of Decision for the groundwater
beneath these sites.
The Department will continue in its endeavor to assist the Navy in expediting the studies and
clean-up of the base and looks forward to a rapid resolution to the environmental problems
currently associated" with the Naval Construction Battalion Center.
James W. Fester, P.E., Associate Director for Air, Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials
Department of Environmental Management
-------
P. Otis
13 September 1995
Page Two
cc: Warren Angeil, Supervising Engineer, DEM/DSR
Claude Cote, Esq., Legal Counsel, DEM
John DeVillars, EPA Region I
Terrence Gray, Chief, DEM/DSR
Timothy Keeney, Director, DEM
Linda Murphy, EPA Region I
Mary Sanderson, EPA Region I
-------
Final
Administrative Record Index
Installation Restoration Program Sites 5 and 8
Naval Construction Battalion Center
Davisville, Rhode Island
Contract No. 62472-92-D-1296
-Contract Task Order No. 0015
Prepared for
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Northern Division
10 Industrial Highway
Lester. Pennsylvania 19113-2090
Prepared by
EA Engineering. Science, and Technology
2 Commercial Street
Sharon, Massachusetts 03067
- (617) 784-1767
September 1995 Protect So .'9^ 0015
-------
NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER
DAVISVILLE. RHODE ISLAiND
SITES 5 AND 8
INTRODUCTION
This document is the Index to the Administrative Record developed for Sites 5 and 8 at the
Naval Construction Battalion Center (NCBC). Davisville pursuant to requirements in the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). as
amended by the Superfiind Amendments and Reauthorization Act- (SARA).
On 11 November 1989. NCBC was placed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(US EPA) National Priorities List (NPL). a compilation of national priority sites among the
known sites with releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants. A Federal Facilities Agreement for NCBC Davisville was signed on 23 March
1992.
The materials contained herein were considered or relied upon in selecting the appropriate
response actions for these two sites. The documents listed in the index are either site- specific
documents/correspondence or are guidance documents used in selection of the response action.
All other guidance documents are incorporated by reference and are available for review as
pan of US EPA's Compendium of Guidance Documents maintained by US EPA Region I at its
Boston office.
The Administrative Record is set up in sections that follow the stages of the Navy's
Installation Restoration i.IR) Program and the Administrative Record Index. Each section has
the documents and correspondence pertaining to that phase of the IR Program.
(
In addition to this Administrative Record, an Information Repository is maintained at the
North Kingstown Free Public Library at North Kingstown, Rhode Island.
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page:
Seme~:er 1995
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM SITES 5 AND 8
1000 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1100 Initial Assessment Reports Preliminary Assessment
1101 - "Initial Assessment Study of Naval Construction Battalion
Center." Naval Energy and Environment! Support Activity.
September 1984.
1200 Verification Step/Confirmation Study
1201 - "Field Sampling Plan. Naval Construciicn Batuiion Center.
Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC Envircrjnentai Consultants. Inc..
7 March 1985.
1202 - "Site Safety Plan. Naval Construction Eanalion Center.
Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC Envircnmentai Consultants. Inc..
7 March 1985.
1203 - "Executive Summary, Verification Step. Confirmation Study,
Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode Island."
TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
1204 - "Draft Report. Verification Step. Confirmation Study, Naval
Construction Banalion Center, Davisviiie. Rhode Island." TRC
Environmental Consultants, Inc., 11 July 1986.
1205 - "Final Report. Verification Step, Confirmation Study, Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC
Environmental Consultants, Inc., 27 February 1987.
2000 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
2100 Phase I Work Plan
2101 - "RI/FS Work Plan. Naval Construction Battalion Center.
Davisvilk. Rhode Island." TRC Environmental Consultants. Inc.
September 1988.
NCBC Davisvii!; Adm:r.:s::r.:ve Reccrd Index. Sites 5 and S
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 3
Seoiembc;- .995
2102 - "RI/FS Work Plan (Revision 2), Naval Construction Battalion
Center, Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC Environmental
Consultants, Inc.. August 1989.
2200 Phase I Remedial Investigation
2201 - "Draft Final Report Remedial Investigation (Volume 1), Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode Island." TRC
Environmental Consultants. Inc., May 1991.
2202 - "Draft Final Report Remedial Investigation (Appendices A-H),
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Davisville. Rhode Island."
TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.. May 1991.
2203 - "Draft Final Report Remedial Investigation (Appendices I-J),
Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode Island."
TRC Environmental Consultants. Inc.. May 1991.
2204 - "Draft Final Report, Risk Assessment (Volume II), Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode Island." TRC
Environmental Consultants. Inc., May 1991.
2205 - "Draft Final Report, Risk Assessment (Appendices A-D), Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode Island." TRC
Environmental Consultants. Inc., May 1991.
2206 - "Addendum No. 1: Response to Comments - Draft Phase I
Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment Report, Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode Island." TRC
Environmental Corporation. Inc., January 1993.
2207 - "Final Report, Risk Assessment (Volume II), Revision No. 1 -
Addendum, Naval Construction Battalion Center, Davisville,
Rhode Island," TRC Environmental Corporation, Inc., January
* 1993.
2208 - "Final Report, Geophysical Investigations and Soil Gas Survey
_ Summary Report. Naval Construction Battalion Center.
Davisville, Rhode Island," TRC Environmental Corporation, Inc.
undated.
NCBC Davisville Administrative Record Index. Sites 5 and 8
-------
Revis-.cn: FINAL
Page 4
Sec:err.be: 1995
2300 Phase I Remedial Investigation Correspondence
2301 - Letter to Mr. Russell Fish. Northern Division, from Ms. Carol
Cody. US EPA. re: Identifying questions and. or concerns during
US EPA's review dated 10 August 1991.
2302 - Letter to Mr. Russell Fish. Northern Division, from Ms. Carol
Keating. US EPA. re: Request to review Phase I PJ data, dated
14 January 1991.
2303 - Letter :o Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
Ms. Linda Wofford. RIDEM. Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, re: Preliminary review of NCBC Draft Remedial.
Investigation, dated 29 July 1991.
2304 - Letter to Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
Ms. Carol Keating. US EPA. re: Comments on Draft Remedial
Investigation (RT.> Report, dated 2 August 1991.
2305 - Letter :o Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
Ms. Linda Wofford. RIDEM. Division of Air and Hazardous
Material, re: Comments on Volume H (Risk Assessment') of die
Remedial Investigation, dated 21 October 1991.
2306 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from
Mr. Robert Smith. TRC. re: Addendum No. 1 to the Draft
Remedial Investigation, dated 18 January 1993.
2307 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers, Northern Division, from
Mr. Jeffrey Crawford, RIDEM, Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, re: Draft Phase I Remedial Investigation. Addendum
No. 1. dated 5 March 1993.
2308 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers, Northern Division, from
Mr. Michael Daly, US EPA. re: Phase I Remedial Investigation
Addendum No. 1. Responses to Comments, dated 8 March 1993.
2400 Phase II RI/FS Work Plan
2401 - "Draft Report: Phase H RI/FS Work Plan. Naval Construction
Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC Environmental
Corporation. Inc.. February 1992.
NCBC Davisville Administrative Record Index. Sites 5 and 8
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 5
September 1995
2402 - "Phase II RI/FS Work Plan, Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Davisville, Rhode Island." TRC Environmental Corporation, Inc..
August 1992.
2403 - "Draft Report - Scope of Work. RI/FS Activities, Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode Island," TRC
Environmental Corporation, Inc.. December 1992.
2404 - "Draft Final - Scope of Work, RI/FS Activities, Naval
Construction Battalion Center. Davisville, Rhode Island," TRC
Environmental Corporation, Inc.. April 1993.
2405 - "Final-Scope of Work, RI/FS Activities, Naval Construction
Battalion Center, Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC Environmental
Corporation. Inc., October 1993.
2500 Phase II Remedial Investigation Work Plan Correspondence
2501 - Letter to Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
Ms. Linda Wofford, RIDEM, Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, re: Comments on Draft Phase II RI/FS Work Plan.
dated 26 March 1992.
2502 - Letter with attachment to Mr. Robert Smith. TRC Environmental
Consultants, from Mr. F. LaGreca, Northern Division, re: US
EPA Comments of 30 March 1992 on the Draft Phase II RI/FS
Work Plan for NCBC Davisville. dated 1 April 1992.
2503 - Lener to Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
Mr. Robert Smith, TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. re:
Response to Review Comments; Draft Phase n, dated 15 May
1992.
2504 - Letter to Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
* Mr. Michael Daly, US EPA, re: US EPA Comments on Draft
Phase II RI/FS Work Plan, dated 10 June 1992.
2505 - Letter to Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
Mr. Jeffrey Crawford. RIDEM. Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, re: Draft Phase II RI/FS Work Plan, dated 24 June
1992.
NCBC Davisville Administrative Record Index.'Sites 5 and 8
-------
Rivisior.: FINAL
Page 6
September 1995
2506 - Letter :o Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
Mr. Michael Daly. US EPA. re: Identifying remaining Navy
responses to US EPA on Phase n RL'FS Work Plan, dated 15 July
1992.
2507 - Letter to Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
Mr. Robert Smith. TRC Environmental Consultants, re:
Responses to US EPA and RID EM Phase H RI Comments, dated
20 July 1992.
2508 - Letter to Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
Mr. Robert Smith. TRC Environmental Consultants, re:
Submission of Final Phase n RL'FS Work Plan and Responses to
Additional US EPA and RID EM Phase n RI/FS Comments, dated
11 August 1992.
2509 - Letter to Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
Mr. Jeffrey Crawford. RID EM. Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, re: Concurrence with Phase II RI Work Plan - Final.
dated 4 September 1992.
2510 - Letter to Mr. Francisco LaGreca. Northern Division, from
Mr. Michael Daly, US EPA. re: Phase H RI/FS Work Plan.
dated 14 September 1992.
2511 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from
Mr. Michael Daly, US EPA. re: Draft Scope of Work RI/FS
Activities.,dated 4 February 1993.
2512 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from
Mr. Jeffrey Crawford. RIDEM. Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, re: Draft Scope of Work RI/FS Activities, dated
5 February 1993.
2513 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers, Northern Division, from
Mr. Jeffrey Crawford. RIDEM. Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, re: Comments on Draft Final Scope of Work. RI/FS
Activities, dated 20 April 1993.
2514 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from
Mr. Jeffrey Crawford. RIDEM. Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, re: Approval of Phase II RI Work Plan Modifications.
dated 8 June 1993.
NCBC Davisvii'.i Administrative Record Index. Sices 5 and 8
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page "
Semember 1995
2600 Data Transmittal Report - Site 5
2601 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from
Mr. Robert Smith, TRC Environmental Corporation, re: Data
Transmittal Report, Site 05, Transformer Oil Disposal Area, dated
30 September 1993.
2602 - "Data Transmittal Report - Transformer Oil Disposal Area
(Site 05), Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisville, Rhode
Island." TRC Environmental Corporation. Inc.. November 1993.
2603 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers, Northern Division, from
Mr. Robert Smith, TRC Environmental Corporation, re: Data
Transmittal Report, Transformer Oil Disposal Area, dated
29 December 1993.
2604 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from Ms.
Judith Graham, RIDEM. re: Comments on the Transformer Oil
Disposal Area, Site 05, Data Transmittal Report. 30 March 1994.
2700 DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area Remedial Investigation
2701 - "Volume I - DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area Remedial
Investigation Report, Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Davisville, Rhode Island." TRC Environmental Corporation, Inc..
April 1993.
2702 - "Volume I - DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area Remedial
Investigation Report, Appendices A-I, Naval Construction
Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode Island," TRC Environmental
Corporation, Inc., April 1993.
* 2703 - "Volume II - DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area Remedial
Investigation Report: Human Health Risk Assessment, Naval
Construction Battalion Center. Davisville, Rhode Island." TRC
Environmental Corporation, Inc., April 1993.
2704 - "Draft Final - Volume I - DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area
Remedial Investigation Report: Technique Report, Naval
Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC
Environmental Corporation, Inc.. November 1993.
NCBC Davisville Administrative Record Index.- Sites 5 and S
-------
f. ision: FIN-._
Pag; i
StDtember ;9r:
2705 - "Dran Final - Volume I - DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area
Remedial Investigation Report:. Appendices A-I, Naval
Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC
Environmental Corporation. Inc.. November 1993.
2706 - "Final Draft - Volume II - DPDO Film Processing Disposal .Area
Remedial Investigation Report: Human Health Risk Assessment
Technical Report and Appendices A-C, Naval Construction
Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC Environmental
Corporation. Inc., May 1993.
2707 - "Final Draft - Volume I - DPPO Film Processing Disposal .Area
Remedial Investigation Report. Naval Construction Battalion
Canter. Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC Environmental
Corporation. Inc. May. 1994.
2800 DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area Remedial Investigation
Correspondence
2801 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, frcm
Mr. Michael Daly, US EPA. re: Comments on Draft Phase II
Remedial Investigation Report. Site 8. dated 14 June 1993.
2802 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from .
Mr. Jeffrey Crawford. RIDEM. Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, re: Comments on DPDO Film Processing Area.
Site 08, Remedial Investigation Report - Volume I, Human Health
Risk Assessment - Volume II. dated 6 July 1993.
2803 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from
Mr. Robert Smith, TRC Environmental, re: Response to Draft
Phase n RI Report Comments. DPDO Film Processing Disposal
Area, dated 3 September 1993.
2804 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from
Ms. Christine Williams. US EPA. re: Draft Final Remedial
Investigation Report for Site 8. DPDO Film Processing Disposal
Area, dated 14 February 1994.
2805 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from Ms.
Judith Graham. RIDEM, re: Comments on the Draft Final DPDO
Film Processing Disposal area. Site 08 Remedial Investigation
Report. 30 March 1994.
NC3C Divisviile Admtmstracive Record Index. Sites 5 ar>: s
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 9
Seotember 1995
3000 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
3100 Report
3101 - "Draft Ecological Risk Assessment for Sites 05 and 08. Naval
Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode Island". EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology. Inc.. February 1994.
3102 - "Draft Final Ecological Risk Assessment for Sites 05 and 08.
Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode Island"
EA Engineering. Science, and Technology. Inc.. May 1995.
3900 Correspondence
3901 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division, from Mr.
Richard Gottlieb. P.E.. RIDEM. re: Comments on the Draft
Ecological Risk Assessment for IR Sites 05 and 08. 20 March
1995."
3902 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division, from Ms.
Christine Williams. US EPA, re: Comments on the Draft
Ecological Risk Assessment for Sites 05 and 08. 21 March 1995.
3903 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas, Northern Division, from Dr.
Stephen Storms, EA Engineering. Science, and Technology, Inc..
re: Responses to US EPA Comments on the Draft Ecological Risk
Assessment Report at Sites 05 and 08. 3 April 1995.
3904 - Letter Mr. Robert Krivinskas, Northern Division, from Dr.
Stephen Storms, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc..
re: Red-lined Revisions to the Draft Ecological Risk Assessment
for Sites 05 and_08 - NCBC Davisville, RL, 20 April 1995.
3905 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division, from Dr.
Stephen Storms, EA Engineering. Science, and Technology, Inc..
re: Additional Red-lined Revisions to the Draft Ecological Risk
Assessment for Sites 05 and 08 at NCBC Davisville. RL, 30 April
1995.
3906 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division, from Ms.
Christine Williams. US EPA. re: Comments on the Redlined
Version of the Draft Ecological Risk Assessment Report at Sites
05 and 08, Former Naval Construction Battalion Center.
Davisville. Rhode Island. L2 Mav 1995.
NCBC Davisv.ile Administrative Record Index'. Sites 5 and S
-------
Revision: FINA
Pigs :
Sec:s.r.oer :9
4000 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4300 Report
4301 - "Draft Phase I Feasibility Study. Groups I (Sites 5. 6. 13). II (Site
8). m (Sites 12 and 14) and VI (Site 10) Sites. Naval Construction
Battalion Center. Davisville, Rhode Island, dated 11 December
1992.
4502 - "Draft Final - Initial Screening of Alternatives (Groups I. EL HI.
and VI) Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode
Island. TRC Environmental Consultants. Inc.. April 1993.
4400 Proposed Plan
01 - "Draft Proposed Plan - Sites 05 and 08. Naval Construction
Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC Environmental
Corporation. Inc.. 23 March 1994.
i^02 - "Draft Final Proposed Plan - Site 05 Transformer Oil Disposal
\ Area and Site 08. DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area. U.S.
Department of the Navy, Installation Restoration Program.
NCBC-Davisville." 15 July 1994.
4-i03 - "Proposed Plan - Site 05 Transformer Oil Disposal Area and Site
08-DPDO Film Processing Disposal Area. U.S. Department of the
Navy Installation Restoration Program. NCBC-Davisville. Rhode
Island. "26 July 1994.
4404 - "Draft Proposed Plan, Soil Operable Unit. Site 05 -Transformer
Oil Disposal Area. Site 08 - DPDO Film Processing Disposal
Area." TRC Environmental Corporation. Inc.. 2 February 1995.
4405 - Draft Final Proposed Plan (with Red-lined revisions) and
Response to Regulator Comments to the Draft "Proposed Plan.
Soil Operable Unit. Site 05 - Transformer Oil Disposal Area. Site
08 - Defense Property Disposal Office (DPDO) - Film Processing
Disposal Area. Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisville.
Rhode Island." TRC Environmental Corporation. Inc.. March
1995.
NC3C Davisviile Administrative Record Index: Sites 5 and 3
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 11
September 1995
4406 - Response to US EPA Comments on the Draft Proposed Plan and
Enclosed "Final Proposed Plan, Soil Operable Unit. Site 05 -
Transformer Oil Disposal Area and Site 08 - Defense Property
Disposal Office (DPDO) - Film Processing Disposal Area. U.S.
Department of the Navy. Installation Restoration Program.
Former Naval Construction Battalion Center, Davisville. Rhode
Island", April 1995.
4407 - Final "Proposed Plan. Soil Operable Unit. Site 05 - Transformer
Oil Disposal Area, Site 08 - Defense Property Disposal Office
(DPDO) Film Processing Disposal Area. U.S. Department of the
Navy. Installation Restoration Program, Former Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode Island". May
1995.
4408 - Revised pages to the "Final Proposed Plan - IR Program Sites 05
and 08. NCBC Davisville. RI", 15 May 1995.
4900 Correspondence
4901 (- Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers, Northern Division, from
Mr. Jeffrey Crawford, RIDEM, Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, re: Comments on Draft Phase I Feasibility Study,
dated 25 January 1993.
4902 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers, Northern Division, from
Mr. Michael Daly, US EPA, re: Comments on the Draft Phase I
Feasibility Study Report. Groups I. II, III, and VI Sites, dated
12 February 1993.
4903 - Letter to Marilyn Powers, Northern Division, from Jean Oliva,
TRC Environmental Corporation, re: Draft Initial Screening of
Alternatives, Group I, II, III, and IV Sites, NCBC-Davisville,
dated 6 April 1993.
*
4904 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers, Northern Division, from
Mr. Jeffrey Crawford, RIDEM, Division of Air and Hazardous
Materials, re: Response to RIDEM Comments on Draft Initial
Screening of Alternatives. Groups I. II, III, and VI, dated 26 May
1993.
4905 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers, Northern Division, from
Mr. Michael Daly, US EPA, re: Comments on Draft Final Initial
Screening of Alternatives (ISA) dated 27 July 1993.
NCBC Davisville Administrative Record Index. Sites 5 and 3
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 12
Sesteir.rer 1995
4906 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from Ms. Jean
Oliva. TRC Environmental, re: Draft Response to Comments on
the Draft Final Initial Screening of Alternatives Reports. Group I.
H. IE. and IV Sites. Group IV. V, and Vn Sites, dated
20 September 1993.
4907 - Letter to Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from Jean Oliva
TRC Environmental Corporation, re: Response to Comments on
Draft Final Initial Screening of Alternatives Report, Group I. U.
UI. IV. V, VI, and VH Site's. NCBC Davisville. dated 29
November 1993.
4908 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from
Ms. Christine Williams. US EPA, re: Comments on Draft
Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08, dated 4 May 1994.
4909 - Letter :o Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division from Ms.
Christine Williams. US EPA. re: Additional Comments on Draft
Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08. dated 17 June 1994.
4910^ - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division from Richard
Gottlieb. RIDEM, re: Draft Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08
Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. dated 23 June
199-i.
4911 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas, Northern Division from Ms.
Christine Williams, US EPA. re: Review IR Schedule for Naval
Construction Battalion Center. Rhode Island. 13 July 1994.
4912 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas, Northern Division from Mr.
Robert Smith, TRC Environmental Corporation, re: Enclosed
copies of Draft Final Proposed Plan and a summary of US EPA
Comments, 15 July 1994.
4913 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division from Ms.
Christine Williams. US EPA. re: Partial Comments on Draft
Final Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08. 22 July 1994.
4914 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas, Northern Division from Ms.
Christine Williams. US EPA. re: Additional Comments on Draft
Final Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08, 8 August 1994.
NC3C Davisv.He Administrative Record Index. Sites 5 and 3
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 13
September 1995
4915 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division from Mr.
Richard Kerbel, North Kingstown. RI Town Manager, re:
Comments on the Draft Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08. 27
August 1994.
4916 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division from Mr.
Matthew Thomas. First Councilman. Narragansert Indian Tribe,
re: Comments on the Draft Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08, 30
August 1994.
4917 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division from Ms.
Frances McCazvey, Town of Harrington. RI. re: Comments on
the Proposed Plan for Sites 05 and 08. and Request for Extension
of Public Review Period, not dated.
4918 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division from Ms.
Christine Williams, US EPA. re: Comments on the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan for Sites 05 and 08. dated 2 February 1995.
10 March 1995.
4919 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas, Northern Division from Ms.
Judith Graham, RIDEM. re: Comments on Draft Proposed Plan
for Sites 05 and 08 with Enclosed Application for a variance from
the RIDOH Environmental Lead Program. 10 March 1995.
4920 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas, Northern Division from Ms.
Christine Williams, US EPA. re: Comments on the Redlined
Proposed Remedial Action Plan for Sites 05 and 08 Soil Operable
Unit, dated March 1995, 10 April 1995.
4921 - Letter to Mr. Jim Ballin, RIDOH from Mr. Nicholas Lanney, EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., re: Data submittal
for a variance form RIDOH Lead Regulations, 6 April 1995.
* 4922 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas, Northern Division, from Mr.
Richard Gottlieb, P.E., RIDEM, re: Proposed Remedial Action
Plan for Soils Operable Unit, Site 05 - Transformer Oil Disposal
Area and Site 08 - DPDO film Processing Disposal Area, Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville. Document submitted 24
March 1995. letter dated 17 April 1995.
4923 Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas, Northern Division, from Dr.
Robert Vanderslice. RIDOH. re: Application for a Variance. Sites
05 and 08. 21 April 1995.
NCBC Davisville Administrative Record Index. Sites 5 and 8
-------
R.-..,;on: FINAL
Pase U
Ser.err.ber 1995
4924 - Lane: to Mr. Robert Kiivinskas. Northern Division, from Ms.
Christine Williams. US EPA, re: Comments on the Final
Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for Sites 5 and S Soil
Operable Unit (OU), dated April 1995. at the former Naval
Construction Battalion Center. RJ., 28 April 1995.
5000 DECISION DOCUMENTS (PENDING)
5100 Record of Decision
5101 - Draft Record of Decision for a Remedial Action at Site 05 and 08.
Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisviile. Rhode Island.
August 1994.
\ 5102 - "Draft Record of Decision. Soils Operable Unit. Sites 05 and 08.
Forme: Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisviile. Rhode
Island". TRC Environmental Corporation under contract with EA
Engineering. Science, and Technology. Inc.. May 1995.
5103 - "Draft Final Record of Decision, Soils Operable Unit. Sites 05
and 08. Former Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisviile.
Rhode Island". TRC Environmental Corporation under contract
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. Inc.. July 1995.
5900 Correspondence
5901 - Latter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas, Northern Division from Ms.
Christine Williams. US EPA, re: Comments on the Draft ROD for
Sites 05 and 08 at Naval Construction Battalion Center, dated 13
June 1995.
5902 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas, Northern Division from Ms.
Judith Graham, RIDEM, re: Record of Decision. Soils Operable
Unit. Sites 05 and 08. Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Davisviile, dated 20 June 1995.
5903 - Letter to Mr. Phil Otis. Northern Division, from Ms. Christine
Williams. US EPA, re: Comments on the Draft Final Record of
Decision for Sites 5 & 8 at Naval Construction Battalion Center.
RJ. 4 August 1995.
NCBC Davisviile Adnv.r.:strauve Reccrc: Incex. :Siies'5 artel S
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 15
Seotember 1995
5904 - Letter to Mr. Phil Otis, Northern Division, from Ms. Christine
Williams. US EPA, re: Comments on the Red-lined Record of
Decision for Sites 5 and 8 at Naval Construction Battalion Center,
RI. 7 September 1995.
6000 NOT USED
7000 NOT USED
8000 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
8100 Community Relations Plan
8101 - "Community Relations Plan. Naval Construction Battalion Center,
x Davisville, Rhode Island." TRC Environmental Consultants. Inc.,
May 1989.
8102 - "Draft - Community Relations Plan. Naval Construction Battalion
Center. Davisville. Rhode Island." TRC Environmental
Corporation, Inc., November 1993.
8103 - "Mailing List, "NORTHDIV, 6 December 1993.
8104 - "Draft Community Relations Plan, Naval Construction Battalion
Center. Davisville, Rhode Island", EA Engineering, Science, and
Technology, Inc., May 1995.
8300 Meeting Transcripts
8301 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes, 8 April 1988.
8302 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes, 15 June 1988.
8303 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes, 24 August 1988.
* 8304 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 28 September
1988.
8305 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 3 November
1988.
8306 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 11 January 1989.
8307 - Technical Review Committee Meetins Minutes. 15 March 1989.
NCBC Davisville Administrative Record Index. Sites 5 and 8
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 16
Seotember 1995
8308 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 27 April 1989.
8309 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 7 June 1989.
8310 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 19 July 1989.
8311 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 23 August 1989.
8312 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 11 October 1989.
8313 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 16 November
1989.
8314 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 10 January 1990.
8315 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 4 April 1990.
S316 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 20 June 1990.
3317 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 12 September
1990.
8318 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 14 November
1990.
8319 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 13 February
1991.
8320 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 8 April 1991.
8321 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 8 May 1991.
8322 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 12 May 1991.
8323 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes, 19 February
1992.
8324 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 10 June 1992.
8325 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 10 September
1992.
8326 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 1 December
1992.
NC3C Davisville Administrative Record Index. Sites 5 and 8
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 17
September 1995
8327 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 4 February 1993.
8328 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 7 April 1993.
8329 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 16 June 1993.
8330 - Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes. 24 November
1993.
8331 - First Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 1 December
1993.
8332 - Second Restoration Advisor.1 Board Meeting Minutes. 26 January
1994.
8333 - Third Restoration Advisor.' Board Meeting Minutes. 16 February
1994.
8334 - Fourth Restoration Advisor.- Board Meeting (Presentation by
Robert Johnson - no minutes recorded. 5 May 1994.
8335 - Fifth Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 28 July 1994.
8336 - Sixth Restoration Advisory' Board Meeting Minutes. 22 September
1994.
8337 - Seventh Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 10
November 1994.
8338 - Eighth Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 20
December 1994.
8339 - Ninth Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 26 January
1995.
»
8340 - Tenth Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 2 March
1995.
8341 - Eleventh Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 20 April
1995.
8400 Fact Sheet/Press Releases
NCBC Davisviile . Administrative Record Index. Sites 5 and 8
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 18
Seotember 1995
8401 - Fac: Sheet No. 1, Installation Restoration Program Update. Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode Island.
November 1993.
8402 - Fact Sheet No. 2. Installation Restoration Program Update. Naval
Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode Island. August
1994.
8403 - Public Meeting on Proposed Remedial Action Plan (Sites 05 and
08') at Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode
Island. Providence Journal, 8 August 1994.
840-i - Public Meeting on the Proposed Remedial Action Plan for Sites 05
and 08 at NCBC Davisville. RI. Tfie Standard-Times. 11 August
1994.
8405 - Fact Sheet No. 3. Installation Restoration Program Update. Naval
Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode Island.
December 1994.
8406 - Fact Sheet No. 4. Installation Restoration Program. Modification
to Federal Facility Agreement. March 1995.
8407 - Public Meeting on Proposed Remedial Action Plan (Sites 05 and
08) at the Naval Construction Battalion Center. Davisville. Rhode
Island. Providence Journal, 19 May 1995.
8408 - Fact Sheet on the Proposed Plan for Site 05 - Transformer Oil
Disposal Area and Site 08 - Defense Property Disposal Office
(DPDO) Film Processing Disposal Area, Installation Restoration
Program Update. Former Naval Construction Battalion Center.
Davisville, Rhode Island. May 1995.
8900 Correspondence
8901 - Letter to Mr. Russell Fish. Northern Division, from US EPA. re:
Suggested comments regarding community relations activities
associated with the Remedial Investigation, dated 4 October 1990.
8902 - Letter to Mr. Paul Skowron^ Town of North Kingstown, from
S. Saltoun, Department of the Navy, re: Acknowledge
participation in community relations interviews (RI/FS).
distribution, received 14 April 1989.
NCBC Davisville Administrative Record Index. Sites.5 and 3
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 19
September 1995
8903 - Letter to Mr. Bob Driscoll. Chamber of Commerce. North
Kingstown, from S. Saltoun. Department of the Navy, re:
Briefing and tour of Davisville, received 14 April 1989.
8904 - Letter to Standard-Times, North Kingstown, from S. Saltoun.
Department of the Navy, re: Briefing and tour of Davisville,
received 17 April 1989.
8905 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from Ms. Jean
Oliva. TRC Environmental, re: Draft Final Fact Sheet, dated
5 November 1993.
8906 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers. Northern Division, from Jean
Oliva. TRC Environmental Corporation, re: Final Fact Sheet.
No. 1. dated 16 November 1993.
8907 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division, from Jean
Oliva. TRC Environmental Corporation, re: Draft/Slide
Presentation and Public Meeting Agenda Sites 05 and 08. 3
August 1994.
8908 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division, from Mr.
Nicholas Lanney, P.E., EA Engineering, Science, and
Technology, Inc., re: Draft Fact Sheet for the Proposed Plan for
IR Program Sites 05 and 08. 17 April 1995.
8909 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division, from Ms.
Christine Williams, US EPA, re: Comments on the Draft Fact
Sheet for the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for Sites 5
and 8, 25 April 1995.
8910 - Draft Final (with Red-lined Revisions) Fact Sheet on the Proposed
Plan for Site 05 - Transformer Oil Disposal Area and Site 08 -
Defense Property Disposal Office (DPDO) Film Processing
* Disposal Area, May 1995.
8911 - Letter to Ms. Marilyn Powers, Northern Division, from Ms.
Christine Williams. US EPA, re: Draft CRP dated November
1993, NCBC, 31 March 1994.
8912 - Letter to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division, from Ms.
Christine Williams. US EPA. re: Review of Proposed Changes to
Draft CRP dated November 1993. NCBC. 9 March 1995.
NCBC Davisviile Administrative Record Index. Sites 5 and 3
-------
Revision: FINAL
P-zt 20
September 1995
8913 - Lener to Mr. Robert Krivinskas. Northern Division, from Ms.
Christine Williams, US EPA. re: Review of Redlined CRP dated
16May, NCBC. 14 June 1995.
9000 TECHNICAL SOl"RCES AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
9100 State and Federal Guidance Manuals
9101 - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 40 CFR 261.
US EPA Regulations for Identifying Hazardous Waste.
9102 - "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan." Code of Federal Regulations (Title 40. Pan 300), 1990.
9103 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Community Relations in
Superfund. A Handbook (Interim Version) (US EPA/540/G-
88/002), June 1988.
9104 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Guidance on Remedial Actions for
Superfund Sites with PCS Contamination (US EPA/ 540/G-
90/007), August 1990.
9105 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980. as amended 17 October 1986.
9106 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA
(Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and
Liability Acrt Interim Final (US EPA/540/G-89/004), OSWER
Directive 9355.3-01, October 1988.
9107 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory. Guide for Decontamination
Buildings. Structures, and Equipment at Superfund Sites. March
1985.
9108 - Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.
Division of Groundwater and Industrial Sewage Disposal System.
Rules and Regulations for Groundwater Quality. Code of Rhode
Island Rules. Number 12-100-006. as amended Julv 1993.
NCBC Dav;svil!e Administrative Record Index. Sites 5 and 3
-------
Revision: FINAL
Page 2!
Seotember 1995
9109 - Rhode Island Department of Health. Environmental Lead
Program. Rules and Regulations for Lead Poisoning Prevention.
[R23-24.6-PB], as amended October 1994.
9110 - Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), (15 USC..§2601).
40 CFR 761.
9111 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revised Interim Soil
Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action
Facilities. OSWER Directive 9355.4-12.
9112 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Pan B. Development of Risk-Based Preliminary
Remediation Goals'). Interim. US EPA/540/R-92/003, December
1991.
9113 - Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (USC 300g). 40 CFR
141.11-141.16 and 141.60-141.63.
9114 - Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1251-1376); Clean
Water Act, Water Quality Criteria, Section 404 (40 CFR 230)
10000 COORDLNATION WITH STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
10100 Federal Facility Agreement
10101 - "Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA 120." US EPA,
23 March 1992.
10102 - Modification #1 to Section 14.12 of the Federal Facility
Agreement, Deadlines and Schedules for Sites 1 - 15 and Calf
Pasture Point Munitions Bunkers, 17 April 1995.
* 10103 - Consensus Statement for Deadlines and Schedule at Site 9, 1
August 1995.
11000 NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
11100 Notices and Responses
11101 - Letter to Mr. James Valenti. Northern Division, from Ms. Carol
Cody. US EPA, re: Description of Federal Agencies designated
as trustees, dated 18 December 1989.
NCBC Davisviile Administrative Record Index. Si'tes 5 and 8
-------
Rsvi-ion: FINAL
Page::
Ses:ember 1995
11102 - Letter :o Dr. Ken Finkelstein. N'OAA from A.E. Haring.
Northern Division, re: Natural Resources Trustees, dated 17 May
1991.
NCBC Davisville
Administrative Record Index. Sites 5 and 3
------- |