Superfund Record of Decision Us Navy Ships Parts Control Center Site 1 Carter Road Landfill Mechanicsburg PA


                                   EPA/ROD/R03-98/148
                                   1998
EPA Superfund
     Record of Decision:
     NAVY SHIPS PARTS CONTROL CENTER
     EPA ID: PA3170022104
     OU03
     MECHANICSBURG, PA
     09/30/1998

-------
EPA 541-R98-148

DECLARATION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Carter Road Landfill ("Site 1 " or "the site") is located at the Naval Inventory Control Point (NAVICP),
formerly the Navy Ships Parts Control Center (SPCC) in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the selected action for Site 1 at NAVICP in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania,
which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, and to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is
based on the administrative record for this site.

The Department of the Navy (DoN) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly selected the
remedial action for Site 1. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, represented by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), concurs with the selected action.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened release of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing the
limited action as detailed in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

The Navy, PADEP, and EPA recommend that institutional controls be implemented at Site 1 since there is the
potential for unacceptable risk to human health if the land use were to change to residential use.

Institutional controls will include the preparation of a site plat containing a note that residential use is
prohibited within the boundaries of the site. The Navy will file a plat of the site containing a note
describing the land use restriction with Northern Division's real estate division (Code 24) within 90 days of
signing this ROD. NAVICP will also incorporate these restrictions and include the plat with any real property
documents necessary for sale or lease in the unlikely event that the Navy transfers the property.
The real property document will also include a discussion of the National Priorities List (NPL) status of the
site as well as a description of the contaminants of concern in soil.

Within 90 days of signing this ROD, the NAVICP installation commander shall prohibit residential use (i.e.
houses, schools, nursing homes, recreational facilities, and other residential-style facilities) of the site
by issuing an order or directive. The NAVICP installation commander shall be responsible for enforcing the
prohibition on residential use.

The installation commander will provide annual certification to EPA and PADEP that there have been no
violations of these restrictions by annual monitoring/inspection of the site. If a violation occurs, a
description of the violation and corrective actions to be taken will be reported immediately to EPA and
PADEP. As early as possible, but at least ninety days prior to an anticipated major land use change or
property transfer (by sale or lease), EPA and PADEP will be notified.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

-------
DECISION SUMMARY

SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

Site 1, Carter Road Landfill, is located at the Naval Inventory Control Point (NAVICP), formerly the Navy
Ships Parts Control Center (SPCC) as shown in Figure 1. The NAVICP occupies approximately 824 acres in
Hampden Township and the Borough of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Land usage encompasses open storage areas,
buildings/warehouses, roads, railroads, and improved grounds.

Site 1 is currently a cleared, flat, grassy site, with no visual evidence of its past use as a disposal area
(Figure 2). Three compacted aggregate pads cover most of the site. The total elevation change across the site
is 5 ft with the high points along the railroad tracks, sloping to the northeastern area near the
intersection of Ball and Carter roads. Soil at Site 1 is classified as Urban Land Hagerstown Complex.

The Preliminary Assessment (PA) (Fred C. Hart Associates 1984) identified the bedrock under Site 1 as a
limestone belonging to the Rockdale, Run Formation. The aguifer underlying the site is unconfined (water
table) and recharged by rainwater infiltration. Depth to the water table at Site 1 varies seasonally and is
typically below the bedrock surface (EA 1990). The Mechanicsburg Water Company withdraws water from the
aguifer at a well located approximately 3,500 ft from the southwest corner of the NAVICP, which is
approximately 4,200 ft west of Site 1. Ground water enters Site 1 from the west and north and flows south and
east to Cedar Run (Figure 3).

As there are no surface water bodies on the NAVICP, there are no aguatic ecosystems at or near Site 1.

Within the NAVICP, there is minimal naturally occurring vegetation due to the industrialized setting. Most of
the existing vegetation (lawns, shrubs, trees) has been planted. Site 1 is a flat grassy area, only 4.5 acres
in size, with limited habitat. Given the limited available habitat, documented wildlife on the NAVICP is
minimal and can be classified as species typically found in urban settings. There are no known threatened or
endangered species on the NAVICP (EA 1993).

The land use in the areas surrounding the NAVICP is mixed. To the north, along U.S. Route 11, there are
industrial, recreational, commercial, and residential areas. To the east and southeast are primarily
residential areas with some commercial areas, including a fuel storage area. To the west are industrial,
residential, and recreational areas. Site 1 is located along the southwest boundary of the NAVICP. Use
directly outside this boundary is industrial and/or commercial.

The Borough of Mechanicsburg is located immediately to the southwest of the NAVICP. Mechanicsburg has a
population of approximately 9,452 residents.

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

Site 1 is a former disposal area located along the installation's southwest boundary. According to the
Preliminary Assessment (PA) Report (Fred C. Hart Associates 1984), the site was used from 1950 to 1962 for
the disposal of construction rubble and some medical supplies (dextrose and glucose solutions) and gas mask
canisters. Now the site is a flat, cleared area covered with grass, compacted aggregate and bituminous
pavement. It is currently used for temporary storage. The NAVICP Master Plan identifies future land use at
Site 1 as temporary storage.

The Installation Restoration (IR) program at NAVICP began in 1984 when the Navy completed an Installation
Assessment Study (IAS), which is eguivalent to a PA under CERCLA. The IAS (PA) was done to obtain existing
information regarding potential waste disposal sites and determine whether additional action was reguired. In
response to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), the IR Program was reformulated to be
consistent with the CERCLA/SARA format and evaluation of NAVICP continued under the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).

The PA recommended that a Site Inspection (SI) be performed at Site 1. Plans to conduct the SI were completed
in Spring 1989. SI studies at Site 1 were completed in October 1990 and a Remedial Investigation (RI) was
recommended. The Phase I RI Report was completed in March 1993 (EA 1993). SPCC (now NAVICP) was placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) on May 31, 1994, which led to a re-evaluation of Site 1 data prior to the
issuance of the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan was issued in August 1998.

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

A public meeting was held at the Hampden Township Building in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania on September 2,
1998. The Proposed Plan and Administrative Record were made available for public review at the Mechanicsburg
Area Public Library and at the NAVICP-Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. The opportunity to submit oral and/or
written comments was made available at the public meeting. Additionally, written comments could be submitted

-------
to NAVICP. The 30-day public comment period was from August 17, 1998 to September 15, 1998. These activities
comply with the public participation requirements of CERCLA sections 11 3(k)(2)(B)(I-v)  and 117. No comments
were received during the public comment period or public meeting.

SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION

This ROD documents the selected remedy for ground water, surface soil, and subsurface soil at Site 1. The
selected remedy for Site 1 is institutional controls. Site 1 is one component of a comprehensive
environmental investigation and cleanup being performed under the IR Program at NAVICP.  Protectiveness of
this action will be evaluated during the 5-year review process.


Although the RI identified contamination in one ground-water sampling location, Site 1 does not appear to be
the source of contamination. A separate investigation will attempt to find the source, if it exists on NAVICP
property.

                                       SITE CHARACTERISTICS

KNOWN SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION

Sampling of the subsurface soil and ground water was completed as part of the SI and the RI.  No surface water
or sediment exists at Site 1 and the surface soil is comprised of clean fill. These media are not expected to
pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environment and were therefore not evaluated in the human
health risk assessment or the ecological risk screening.

SUBSURFACE SOIL

Twenty test borings, were completed during the SI (EA 1990), with a total of 35 samples submitted for
laboratory analyses (Figure 4). Four metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, and beryllium)  were found to be
elevated  (with respect to published background values) in the subsurface soil at Site 1. Several semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOC),  pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) were detected in soil samples.
Trichloroethene (TCE)  was detected in one subsurface soil sample.

During the RI, two test pit excavations were completed at the two SI boring locations where waste fill was
identified (Figure 4)  and six samples were collected and submitted to the laboratory to obtain additional
subsurface soil data.  Volatile organic compounds  (VOC),  SVOC, pesticides and PCB were detected in subsurface
soil. Virtually all metals tested for were detected in the waste/fill samples at concentrations above
background levels for soil. VOC found in subsurface soil include TCE and benzene. TCE levels ranged up to 10
parts per billion (ppb);  only trace levels of benzene (4 ppb) were detected in waste/fill samples.

GROUND WATER

During the SI, four of the test borings were advanced below the overburden/bedrock to a depth of
approximately 40 ft below grade and completed as monitoring wells (Figure 4). Ground-water-flow direction
within Site 1 appears to be east-southeast. The wells were sampled three times for the SI and once for the
RI.  Results for the SI sampling are summarized in Table 1 and results for the RI sampling are summarized in
Table 2.

-------
TABLE 1.  SITE INSPECTION INVESTIGATION, SUMMARY OF WELLS  EXCEEDING MCLs
  Contaminant of        Total
 Potential Concern     Samples
       (COPC)
Trichloroethene  (TCE)    12
     Benzene             12
    Beryllium            12
     Nickel              12
    Chromium             12
               MCL
    Well
                (ppb)
   S01M03        5
   S01M01       4.5
S01M02/S01M04    4
   S01M01       100
   S01M01       100
Concentration
     (ppb)

   5.3/8.1
     21
   4.1V4.5
     142
     102
 Number of
Exceedances (b)

     2
     1
     2
     1
     1
S01M01 - upgradient well
* Filtered sample  (dissolved)
Metal concentrations are unfiltered  (total) unless noted
(a)  Maximum Contaminant Level  (MCL).
(b)  Sample concentration above MCL.
TABLE 2.   REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, SUMMARY OF WELLS EXCEEDING MCLS
       COPC
      Benzene
  Trichoroethene  (TCE)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
        (BEHP)
      Cadmium
     Beryllium
       Lead
Total
Samples
4
4
: 4
4
4
4
MCL (a)
Well
S01M03
S01M03
S01M04
S01M02
S01M02
S01M01/S01M02
(ppb)
5
5
6
5
4
*5
Concentration
(ppb) E>
20
4
29
11.2
1.9
17.6/24.2
Numbe
cceeda:
1
0
1
1
0
2
                                                                                        (b)
* Denotes PADEP Action Level
Metal concentrations are unfiltered  (total) unless noted
(a) Maximum Contaminant Level  (MCL).
(b) Sample concentration above MCL.

-------
The SI samples were consistent in detecting TCE in well S01M03, with two of the three samples above the 5 ppb
drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL). TCE was not detected in the upgradient well or any other Site
1 water sample. Benzene was detected in one sample (S01M03) at 21 ppb, which exceeds the MCL (5 ppb), in
round one, but not in subseguent rounds. Benzene was not detected in the upgradient well or
in the subsurface soil samples. No other organic compounds were found to exceed an MCL in ground water.

Beryllium, nickel, and chromium were found at levels exceeding their respective MCLs (Table 1).

Bromodichloromethane and chloroform, at concentrations ranging from 1 to 10 ppb, were detected in a few
ground-water samples. These compounds, which are typically found in chlorinated water, were also present in
the source water for drilling operations and cleaning of sampling gear.

The RI ground-water sample from S01M03 was reported to contain 20 ppb benzene and 4 ppb TCE. PCB were not
detected. One pesticide (endosulfan at 0.5 ppb) was reported in one sample (S01M02). SVOC were reported in
two samples. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (MCL = 6 ppb) was reported in the S01M04 sample (29 ppb).
Acenaphthene (6 ppb) and naphthalene (6 ppb) were reported in the S01M03 sample.

No dissolved metal concentration was found to exceed an MCL in ground-water samples. Four total metal values
were reported to exceed the MCL for cadmium (5 ppb) or the PADEP action level for lead (5 ppb). These were
cadmium in the S01M02 (11.2 ppb) sample and lead in the S01M01 (17.6 ppb), S01M02 (24.2 ppb),
and S01M04 (6.6 ppb) samples.

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The source of the TCE found in ground water during the SI sampling could not be determined. Subsurface soil
was not a likely source as TCE was detected in only one sample (S01B07-06), which did not appear to be
located upgradient of S01M03. VOC detected during the RI in both waste/fill subsurface samples and
ground-water samples include TCE and benzene. TCE levels in the waste/fill sample ranged up to 10 ppb and
in the ground-water sample from S01M03 was 4 ppb. For benzene, only trace levels (4 ppb) were detected in the
waste/fill subsurface samples. Benzene was reported to be 20 ppb in the ground-water sample from SOI M03. PCB
and pesticides identified in the RI waste/fill subsurface samples were not reported in the RI ground-water
samples. One pesticide reported in one sample of ground water was not found in the waste/fill
subsurface samples.

On the basis of data obtained during the SI and RI, presented above, there is no firmly established cause and
effect relationship between the subsurface material at Site 1 (including the waste/fill samples collected
during the RI) and the guality of ground water downgradient of Site 1. That is, the TCE and benzene do not
originate from Site 1.

TCE levels in the downgradient monitoring well may have resulted from the source at Site 3 (Figure 4), as
suggested by the results of the ground-water tracing study (EA 1993) . The source of benzene in the ground
water is unknown. The source(s) will be further evaluated during separate investigations.

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

To evaluate risks to human health and the environment, several reports were prepared: a human health risk
assessment (EA 1994), an addendum to the human health risk assessment (EA 1997), a memo responding to EPA
comments on the human health risk assessment and addendum (U.S. Navy 1997a) and an ecological risk screening
(U.S. Navy 1997b).

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS

The scope of the human health risk assessment was limited to the analysis of potential risks for ground water
and subsurface soil. This decision was based on the fact that there is no surface water or sediment at Site
1, and the surface soil is clean fill.

Ground Water Human Health Risk Analysis

Data from analyses of ground-water samples were used to guantify risks to humans posed by contaminants of
potential concern (COPC) in four classes at Site 1: VOC, SVOC, pesticides and PCB, and inorganic analyses,
mostly metals. At least one analyte in each of these four groups was detected in ground-water samples from
Site 1. A list of COPC in ground-water samples at Site 1 was developed using U.S. EPA Region Ill's Risk-Based
Concentrations (RBCs). The final list of COPC developed included 22 analytes (Table 3) (EA 1997).

The purpose of an exposure assessment is to determine the populations that potentially may be exposed to
site-related COPC, the pathways by which exposure may occur, and the magnitude, freguency, and duration of
these potential human exposures.

-------
Mechanicsburg and the NAVICP both are served by a public water supply. In addition, one privately owned well
exists near the NAVICP boundary south of Site 1. This well, at an auto sales facility,  is not used as a
source of drinking water. Another privately owned well in the vicinity, which was used for irrigation at a
Garden Center, was destroyed during demolition of the Garden Center.

The continuing use of the site is open-air storage of industrial eguipment. It is extremely unlikely that the
area will ever become residential property. However, the default exposure assumptions of a residential
exposure scenario were used to assess the ground water at Site 1 because this scenario includes the highest
intake of water and the greatest amount of direct contact and is, therefore, a conservative scenario. If risk
under this scenario is acceptable, then other scenarios with less potential for exposure will also result in
risk estimates which are acceptable. A residential exposure scenario includes exposure of adults to ground
water via ingestion, dermal contact when showering,  and inhalation of volatile compounds when showering.
Considering the current and planned uses at Site 1,  described above, there is little to no chance of human
contact with ground water. However, in order to assess the potential risk from ground water,  a conservative
approach was adopted and a residential scenario was assumed.

-------
TABLE 3.  CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN  (COPC) IN GROUND
          WATER FOR SITE 1  (CARTER ROAD LANDFILL), SCREENED FOR
          FUTURE RESIDENTS
     Analyte
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Trichloroethene  (TCE)
INORGANIC ANALYTES  (Dissolved)
Beryllium
Copper
Manganese
Thallium  (1)
INORGANIC ANALYTES  (Total)
Aluminum
Arsenic

Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium  (2)
Copper
Lead  (3)
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Max.
Cone.
(Ig/L)

29
20.6
3.34
9.97
7.22
4.1
151
120
1.4
57,100
6.9

377
4.5
11.2
102
158
24.2
1,300
142
25.1
1.6
104
Risk-
Based
Cone.
dg/L)
4.8 C
0.36 C
0.17 C
0.15 C
1.6 C
0.016 C
1,500 N
840 N
2.9 N
37,OOON
11 N
0.045 C
2, 600 N
0.016 C
18 N
180 N
1,500 N
15
840 N
730 N
180 N
2.9 N
260 N

Max>
RBC?

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Freguency
    of
Detection
  10/16

   2/16
   1/16
   2/16
   4/16

   2/16
   13/16
   4/16
   3/14

   11/15
   4/16

   12/12
   6/16
   3/16
   7/16
   9/13
   4/13
   13/14
    8/16
    1/13
    5/15
    5/16
Freguency
    of
Detection
   Yes

   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
   Yes

   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
   Yes

   Yes
   Yes

   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
  Additional    COPC
Considerations   ?
                 YES

                 YES
                 YES
                 YES
                 YES
 >l/10th RBC
 >l/10th RBC
 >l/10th RBC
 >l/10th RBC

 >l/10th RBC
 >l/10th RBC
 >l/10th RBC
 >l/10th RBC
 >l/10th RBC
 >l/10th RBC
 >l/10th RBC
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
C   Risk-Based Concentration is based on cancer effects.
N   Risk-Based Concentration is based on noncancer effects.
ND  Not detected.
(1) RBC for thallium carbonate, thallium chloride, or thallium sulfate  (the more  toxic  thallium compounds)  was  used
    for thallium.
(2) RBC for hexavalent chromium, the most toxic form of chromium, was used.
(3) Safe Drinking Water Act Action Level of 15 Ig/L was used to screen lead in ground water.
(4) Comparison for non-carcinogens is to one-tenth the RBC.

-------
It is necessary to know the concentrations of COPC in each medium in order to estimate potential human
intake. Concentrations from the four rounds of samples taken of the four monitoring wells installed at Site 1
were used to estimate the concentrations hypothetical future residents may encounter in their domestic water
supply. In this risk assessment, the concentrations in ground water were measured directly, but
concentrations of volatilized compounds in air during showering were modeled from measured ground-water
concentrations (see EA 1994, Appendix A).

Future adult residents were assumed to weigh 70 kg, have a body surface area of 20,000 CM 2 , reside in one
location for 30 years, and be present at this location for 350 days per year of residence. They were assumed
to ingest 2L/day of drinking water, shower once per day for 12 minutes (0.2 hr), and inhale at a rate of 0.6
m 3/hr while showering. Averaging time was assumed to be 30 years to assess noncarcinogenic effects and 70
years to assess carcinogenic effects. Risk from dermal contact and inhalation of volatilized compounds while
showering was assumed to substantially overshadow risk from other opportunities for dermal contact and
inhalation of volatilized compounds, so exposure while showering was the only source of exposure considered
for the dermal and inhalation exposure pathways (EA 1994, 1997).

Characterization of Cancer and Noncancer Risks

Excess lifetime cancer risks: When excess cancer risks are based on dissolved concentrations for inorganic
analyses, the total cancer risk is 8 x 10 -5 (incidence of cancer is predicted at eight additional cases per
100,000 people exposed). When risks are based on total concentrations for inorganic analyses, the total
excess lifetime cancer risk is 2 x 10 -4. For total analyte concentration, this cancer risk is attributable
to ingestion of beryllium (1 x 10 -4) and arsenic (5 x 10 -5) in ground water.

The interpretation of the significance of this cancer risk estimate is based on the appropriate EPA guidance
(U.S. EPA 1990).

For known or suspected carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels are generally
concentration levels that represent an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to
an individual of between 10 -4 and 10 -6.

Therefore, on the basis of EPA standards, no excess lifetime cancer risks, using dissolved analyte
concentrations, are anticipated for future adult residents. However, excess lifetime cancer risk using total
analyte concentrations slightly exceeds the acceptable range.

The U.S. Navy, PADEP, and EPA have determined that organic and inorganic contaminants in ground water at Site
1 do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Excess lifetime cancer risk (2 x 10
-4) for future residential use of Site 1 slightly exceeded the acceptable range when total concentrations
were used. Most of this excess lifetime cancer risk is attributable to beryllium and is likely to be
overestimated (EA 1997). Cancer potency estimates for beryllium are likely to be overestimated due to the use
of a 1976 cancer study for estimation of oral risk. The cancer hazard characterization and dose-response
assessment of beryllium is currently being re-evaluated as part of U.S. EPA's cancer risk assessment
reassessment program.

This analysis is consistent with EPA guidance on risk assessment at Superfund sites. See Role of the
Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Decisions in OSWER Directive 9355.0-30 (April 22, 1991) wherein, "The
boundary of the risk range is not a discrete line at 1 x 10 -4.... A specific risk estimate around 10 -4 may
be considered acceptable if justified based on site specific conditions."

Noncancer risks: Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single medium is
expressed as the hazard guotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the estimated intake derived from the contaminant
concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's reference dose). By adding the HQs for all contaminants
within a medium or across all media to which a given population may reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index
(HI) can be generated. The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of
multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across media. Reference doses (RfDs) have been
developed by EPA for indicating the potential adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting
noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are
estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals. Estimated intakes of
chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water)
can be compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which
uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data to predict effects on
humans). These uncertainty factors help ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the potential for adverse
noncarcinogenic effects to occur.

The hazard index (HI), combining individual hazard guotients (HQ) for noncancer effects for each COPC, is
0.6, using dissolved analyte concentrations. Because the HI is less than 1.0, no adverse noncancer effects
are anticipated to occur under the specified conditions of exposure to ground water. However, when noncancer

-------
risks are estimating using total analyte concentrations, the HI is 3.0. Most of this HI is attributable to
ground-mrater exposure via ingestion, not via dermal contact or inhalation. When the HI is equal to or
greater than one, there is concern for potential adverse health effects, and toxicological evaluation of the
likelihood of additivity (compounding effects on target organs) of adverse health effects other than cancer
is warranted (U.S. EPA 1989a). The COPC contributing most to the total HI are: manganese (HQ = 0.9),
aluminum (HQ = 0-6), thallium (HQ = 0.4), arsenic (HQ = 0.2), cadmium (HQ = 0.2), and chromium (HQ = 0.2).
Based on target organs which may be affected, additivity is not anticipated for any of these COPC. The target
organs of aluminum, arsenic, and cadmium noncancer toxicity are gastrointestinal tract, kidney, and skin,
respectively. Neither chromium nor cadmium exhibit any systemic toxicity; regulatory toxicity values for
these metals are based solely on the highest dose tested in animal experiments. Therefore, under the
specified conditions of exposure, adverse noncancer health
effects are not anticipated for future residents.

Subsurface Soil Human Health Risk Analysis

Potential human health risks associated with exposure to subsurface soil were evaluated. Comparing subsurface
soil data with appropriate risk-based concentrations indicates that potential risks to commercial/industrial
and construction workers at Site 1 are within acceptable limits (U.S. Navy 1997a).

For future residents, the calculated risk of excess cancers from incidental ingestion of subsurface soil is
approximately 1.0 x 10 -4, due to arsenic. The risk calculation for the residential scenario is at the
precise upper bound of U.S. EPA's target range for managing cancer risks (10 -4 to 10 -6) . For noncancer
risks, the calculated value of 1.7 for arsenic is marginally greater than the benchmark of <1.

A qualitative evaluation of RI test pit soil sample data revealed that PCB were detected at up to 33 mg/kg.
Given the maximum detection, this roughly translates to an excess cancer risk in the high 10 -5 to low 10 -4
range for residential receptors assuming the contaminated soil is available for direct contact. Several
metals were observed in excess of residential risk-based concentrations: antimony (up to 500 mg/kg-which is
not supported, however, by the duplicate sample), arsenic (up to 35 mg/kg), lead (up to
14,300 mg/kg), and manganese (up to 12,000 mg/kg). If residential risks were calculated for antimony,
arsenic, and manganese, each would likely have an HQ greater than 1. Also for arsenic, the incremental cancer
risk would be in the mid to high 10 -5 range. For lead, 400 mg/kg is the EPA screening level for residential
soil.

For the foregoing reasons, subsurface soil at Site 1 could be a human health concern to future residents
should the land use change from its current industrial usage to residential usage.

ECOLOGICAL RISK SCREENING

The environment at Site 1 is dominated by three rectangular compacted aggregate pads (Figure 2), originally
constructed in the late 1980s as foundations for storage structures. Part of this construction was the
placement of clean fill over the existing surface soil. The habitat is limited to sparse grass growth on the
pads and dense grass ground cover in the swales between the three pads and on the periphery of the site. A
series of evergreens lines the northeast border along Ball Road. Potential receptors at
the site include groundhog, ground-feeding robins, cowbirds and grackles.

An ecological risk screening of Site 1 data was conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA Regional guidance. The
conceptual she model for Site 1 identifies the primary exposure source to be soil. Because the surface soil
is clean fill, ecological screening was conducted on the shallow subsurface soil. An analyte is considered to
be a COPC if the Maximum concentration exceeds the screening value, that is if the Environmental Effects
Quotient (EEQ) is greater than 1 (EEQ=maximum concentration/screening value). Of the organic compounds,
fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and pyrene had EEQs greater than 1 (Table 4). These were all less than 2 and
occurred in the same sample (S01B08-02). One PCB, Aroclor-1260, had an EEQ greater than 10 (Table 4). A food
uptake model was run and the resulting hazard quotient was less than 1, indicating that risk is minimal (U.S.
Navy 1997b). While several metals had EEQs greater than 1, they
were generally less than 10 indicating only a small potential for environmental effects. In these cases the
actual data were usually near the detection limit and were qualified as estimates. Only EEQs for lead
(10.84), mercury (33.0), and zinc (28.8) were greater than 10; these EEQs all occurred at sample location,
S01B05 (U.S. Navy 1997b).

Evaluation of Site 1 data reveals that the habitat is limited to sparse grassy areas. The data indicate that
incidences of EEQs greater than 7 occur at only 2 sampling locations out of 20. Furthermore, the
bioavailability of the COPC is limited because there is 1 to 2 ft of clean fill over the landfilled material.
The Navy, EPA, and PADEP have agreed, based on overall weight of evidence, that there are no potential
ecological risks which warrant remedial action.

-------
TABLE 4. ECOLOGICAL SCREENING OF CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN  (COPC)  IN
         SUBSURFACE SOIL FOR SITE 1  (CARTER ROAD LANDFILL)
    Analyte
                      Detected
                  Max        Units
Screen
Value
  NAVICP
Subsurface
   Soil
Background
Screening Level Source
                                                              EEQ
COPC? (1)
  Maximum
  Exceeds
   NAVICP
Background
METALS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium

37,400
13.6
173
196
3.9
26.1
226,000
58.7
18.9
406
60,300
542
18,100
2,290
3.3
28.2
2,070
2
4.5
233
10.7

mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg

NC
5
42
412.5
10
3
NC
10
130
100
NC
50
NC
330
0.1
30
NC
1
2
NC
1
                                                            17.82
                                                            25.64

                                                             8.95
                                                             7.2

                                                            67.55

                                                            59.25

                                                           133.31


                                                             0.27

                                                            56.25


                                                             6.11


                                                             0.9
                                  NC
                                  Will and Suter  1995
                                  Dutch  1994  (mean)
                                  Dutch  1994  (mean)
                                  Will and Suter  1995
                                  Will and Suter  1995
                                  NC
                                  Oak Ridge 1996
                                  Dutch  1994  (mean)
                                  Will and Suter  1995
                                  NC
                                  Oak Ridge 1996
                                  NC
                                  BTAG 1995
                                  Oak Ridge 1996
                                   (earthworm)
                                  Will and Suter  1995
                                  NC
                                  Will and Suter  1995
                                  Oak Ridge 1996
                                   (plant)
                                  NC
                                  Oak Ridge 1996
                                   (plant)

2,
4,
0,
0,
8,

5,
0,
4,

10,

6,
33,
0,

2,
2,
NC
.72
.12
.48
.39
.70
NC
.87
.15
.06
NC
.84
NC
.94
.00
.94
NC
.00
.25
NC
(8)
(4)


(1)
NC
(16)

(1)
NC
(5)
NC
(12)
(10)

NC
(4)
(1)
                                                                            no
                                                                           yes

                                                                            no
                                                                           yes

                                                                            no

                                                                           yes

                                                                           yes


                                                                           yes
                                               NC
                                                         NC

-------
         Analyte
 Vanadium

 Zinc
PCB
 Aroclor-1260
PAH
 Acenaphthene
 Acenapthylene
 Anthracene
 Benz(a)anthracene
 Benzo(a)pyrene
 Benzo(b)fluoranthene
 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
 Chrysene
 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
 Fluoranthene
 Fluorene
 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
 Naphthalene
 Phenanthrene
 Pyrene
 Total PAH (detects)
SVOC
 2-Methylnaphthalene
 4-Methylphenol
    Detected
Max        Units
 1,440
 4,300
 1,100
                             210
ing/kg

ing/kg

Ig/kg
Ig/kg
           Ig/kg
              Screen
               Value
   20

   50

   51
240
100
660
1,400
1,200
980
870
1,000
1,400
370
3,200
310
770
920
3,200
3,400
19,131
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
4,000
2,050
             1,000
         NAVICP
Subsurface    Screening Level Source
   Soil
Background

              Oak Ridge 1996
              (earthworm)
 221.63       Oak Ridge (plant)

              Dutch 1994 (mean)
                                                     EEQ
COPC? (1)
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
Dutch
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
              Dutch 1994
              (Naphthalene
              surrogate)
              Quebec 1988
3
28
84
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
4
.54
.80
.31
.12
.05
.32
.68
.59
.48
.42
.49
.68
.18
.56
.15
.38
.45
.56
.66
.78
(12)
(13)











(1)



(1)
(1)
(4)
                                                                              0.54
                                                                                                        0.21
          Maximum
   Exceeds
   NAVICP
Background?
               yes

               yes

-------
             Analyte
    Detected
Max        Units
Screen
 Value
  NAVICP
Subsurface
   Soil
Background
Screening Level Source
                    Maximum
EEQ    COPC? (1)     Exceeds
                    NAVICP
                 Background?
 Di-n-butylphthalate
 Di-n-octyl phthalate
 Dibenzofuran
 Diethyl phthalate

 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine

 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate  23,000
52
2, 600
250
39
54
3,000
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
Ig/kg
3,005
3,005
NC
3,005
20,000
3,005
                                                  Dutch 1994
                                                  Dutch 1994
                                                  NC
                                                  Dutch 1994

                                                  Oak Ridge 1996
                                                   (earthworm)
                                                  Dutch 1994
(mean)
(mean)

(mean)
996
(mean)
0.02
0.87
NC
0.01
0.00
7.65
                                                             NC
                                                                                       (1)
NC = No screening level available.
(1)  The number in the COPC column is the number of detections in soil samples at concentrations greater than the Environmental Effects Quotient
    (EEQ).  If a value is shown, the parameter is a COPC.

-------
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Three alternatives were considered in the Focused Feasibility Study for Site 1 soil (EA
1998). First, a "No Action" alternative was considered as required by the NCP. The
FFS also included an evaluation of institutional controls (land use restrictions) and site
remediation through soil excavation and disposal.

Alternative No. 1: No Action

Present Worth Cost: $15,400 (Net present worth of estimated administrative cost
of 5-year review of remedial action over a 30-year period)
Time to Implement: 0

The NCP requires that a "No Action" alternative be considered to establish a baseline or
reference point aqainst which each of the alternatives can be compared. In the event
that the other identified alternatives do not offer substantial benefits in the reduction of
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the COPC, the "No Action" alternative may be considered
a feasible approach. This alternative leaves the subsufface fill and debris undisturbed.
Potential future risks to potential future residents would remain.

Alternative No. 2: Institutional Controls

Present Worth Cost: $23,250 (Estimated administrative cost associated with
preparation of deed notice, annual monitorinq and certification
over a 30-year period, and 5-year review of remedial action over
a 30-year period)
Time to Implement: Within 90 days of siqned ROD

This alternative will prohibit the use of the property for residential (i.e. houses, schools,
nursinq homes, recreational facilities, and other residential-style facilities) purposes.
Within 90 days of siqninq this ROD, the Navy will send a plat of the site containinq a
note describinq the land use restriction to the Northern Division's real estate division
(Code 24) and a request to document the institutional controls (i.e. residential
restrictions) on the NAVICP summary map. In addition, NAVICP will incorporate these
restrictions and include the plat with any real property documents necessary for
transferrinq property interests, in the unlikely event that the Navy transfers any part of
the site by sale or lease. The real property document will also include a discussion of
the NPL status of the she as well as a description of the contaminants of concern in soil.

Within 90 days of siqninq this ROD, the NAVICP installation commander shall prohibit
residential use (i.e. houses, schools, nursinq homes, recreational facilities, and other
residential-style facilities) of the site by issuinq an order or directive. The NAVICP
installation commander shall be responsible for enforcinq the prohibition on residential
use. A copy of the site plat will be kept on file with the NAVICP Public Works Department.

NAVICP shall conduct annual field inspections of the site to determine whether current
land use remains protective and consistent with the restrictions on residential use
selected in this ROD. The installation commander shall certify continued compliance
with the residential use restriction in an annual report to the Chief of the Federal
Facilities Branch, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division at the EPA and the Chief of the
Hazardous Sites Cleanup Section, Environmental Cleanup Proqram at PADEP. If a
violation occurs, a description of the violation and corrective actions to be taken will be
reported immediately to EPA and PADEP.

NAVICP shall qive notice to EPA and PADEP, and obtain their written concurrence,
whenever NAVICP anticipates a "major chanqe in land use" (defined below) at the site.
The facility should notify the requlatory aqencies as soon as a major land use chanqe is
anticipated in order to allow sufficient time for requlatory review and amendments to
remedy selection documents, such as this ROD. Such notifications should be made to
the requlatory aqencies at least 90 days prior to a major chanqe in land use and shall include:

(a) an evaluation of whether the anticipated land use chanqe will pose
unacceptable risks to human health or environment or neqatively impact the
effectiveness of the remedy,

(b) an evaluation of the need for any additional remedial action resultinq from the
anticipated land use chanqes, and

-------
(c) a proposal for any necessary changes to the selected remedial action, and
identification of procedural requirements for the proposed changes (e.g.,
amending this ROD).

NAVICP shall notify EPA and PADEP immediately upon discovery of any unauthorized
major change in land use at the site.

NAVICP shall give advance (at least 90 days) notice to EPA and PADEP in the event
NAVICP contemplates transfer, by sale or lease, of any portion of the site.

For purposes of this ROD, the following are considered "major changes in land use":

a. A change in land use that is inconsistent with the exposure assumptions in
the risk assessment that is the basis for the land use control objectives above
(either human health or ecological risk assessment). Any change from industrial
or commercial land use to a more sensitive land use, such as housing, schools,
hospitals, day care centers or recreational land is a major change in land use.
Any change in land use that has been prohibited in order to protect the
environment is also a major change in land use.

b. Any action that may disrupt the effectiveness of the remedial action.

c. Any other action that might alter or negate the need for land use controls. An
example is any plan to actively remediate any part of the site in order to allow
unrestricted use.

This alternative addresses the exposure pathway by preventing residential use. This
alternative seeks to establish procedures for the future prevention of risk.

Alternative No. 3: Site Remediation (Soil Excavation and Disposal)

Present Worth Cost: $178,000
Time to Implement: 6 months

Under this alternative, subsurface waste fill would be excavated and transported offsite
for subsequent disposal at a licensed residual waste facility. Following excavation and
removal of approximately 1,750 yd 3 of waste fill, the excavation would be backfilled with
clean soil. This procedure eliminates the exposure pathway, thereby eliminating the risk.

SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Each of the three (3) alternatives summarized in the FFS have been evaluated with
respect to the nine (9) evaluation criteria set forth in the NCP, Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(e) (9). These nine criteria can be categorized into
three groups: threshold criteria, primary balancing criteria, and modifying criteria.

THRESHOLD CRITERIA

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

A primary requirement of a selected alternative is to be protective of human health and
the environment. A remedy is protective if it reduces current and potential risks posed
by each exposure pathway at the site to acceptable levels.

Alternative No. 1 (No Action) would not effectively reduce future risk to human health at
Site 1 because it would allow unrestricted future use of the land. Potential future
residents on the site could possibly be exposed to unacceptable human health risks if
exposed to subsurface soil. Because this alternative does not meet the threshold
criteria of protection of human health and the environment, it will not be considered
further in this analysis.

Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 are protective of human health and the environment. Both
alternatives reduce the potential for exposure to site contaminants, but each does so in
a different way.

Alternative No. 2 prohibits residential use of the site as it presently exists. In addition,

-------
the installation commander of NAVICP will provide annual certification to EPA and

PADEP that there have been no violations of these restrictions by annual
monitoring/inspection of the site.

Alternative No. 3 removes the contaminated soil and debris and backfills the area with clean soil.

Although Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 are both effective in protecting human health and the
environment, each involves different trade-offs as to other factors such as
implementability and cost which are discussed below.

Compliance With Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements

Alternative No. 2 (Institutional Controls) will ensure that human health risks from the site
are kept within acceptable limits (e.g., excess cancer risk between 10 -06 and 10 -04 and
HI less than or egual to 1.0). This alternative will comply with Federal and State
reguirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate.

Although not the selected remedy, the action associated with Alternative No. 3 would
comply with the ARARs presented in the FFS (EA 1998).

PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA

Long-Term Effectiveness and Performance

Alternative No. 2 does not remove the contaminated soil at the site. Effectiveness and
permanence is based on preventing residential exposure to the subsurface material.
In addition, annual inspection and certification to the U.S. EPA and PADEP will ensure
that these restrictions are not violated. If a violation has occurred, a description of the
violation and corrective actions to be taken will be provided. These safeguards are
what guarantee that the restrictions will be effective in the long-term.

Alternative No. 3 provides a more permanent and effective long-term remedy by
removing impacted soil from the site. Alternative No. 3 removes all impacted soil, fill,
and debris from the site, thereby eliminating the possibility of any risks to future
residential users at the site.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

Section 121.(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Section 9621 (b), and 40 CFR
Section 300.430 (e) (a) (iii) (D) establish a preference for remedial actions which include
treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contaminants.

The contaminants at Site 1 were found to be relatively immobile and not migrating away
from the site in ground water. Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 would not reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume through treatment. Alternative No. 3 would remediate (excavate
and dispose) the 1,750 yd 3 of fill and debris. Therefore, it would reduce the toxicity and
volume of contaminants onsite through removal, not treatment.

Short-Term Effectiveness

Alternative No. 2 best achieves the remediation goals for this site. It will reduce risk to
human health within 90 days of signing this ROD and, in addition, it poses no short-term
health risk because it does not involve site disturbance.

Alternative No. 3 could pose an increased short-term health risk to onsite construction
and maintenance workers and other onsite personnel during earth-moving activities
during remediation. These activities have the potential to make subsurface soil
available for exposure. These short-term risks would be minimized using standard safety measures.

Implementability

This evaluation criterion addresses the difficulties and unknowns associated with
implementing each alternative, including the ability and time necessary to obtain
reguired permits and approvals and the availability of services and materials.

-------
Alternative No. 2 would pose no implementability problems other than those associated
with preparing the site plat and a description of the land use restriction, annually
inspecting the site, annually certifying compliance, and, in the unlikely event of sale or
lease, preparing real property documents that will ensure the site is not used for
residential purposes by any person in the future, unless appropriate remediation is first
completed.

Excavation of wastes, described in Alternative No. 3, is a straightforward process.
Additional sampling and waste characterization would be necessary to determine the
boundaries of waste fill to be excavated and the appropriate landfill(s) for disposal.
Because of the large volume of waste involved (1,750 yd 3), transportation costs could
substantially increase if appropriate landfill facilities with capacity for the waste can only
be located at a significant distance from the site.

Cost

Evaluation of costs of each alternative generally includes the calculation of direct and
indirect costs, calculated on a present worth basis. The total present worth of
Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 has been calculated for comparative purposes and is
presented below:

Estimated Cost of Alternatives

Alternative Total Present Worth Cost

2 $23,250
3 $178,000

Direct capital costs include costs of construction, eguipment, building and services, and
waste disposal. Indirect capital costs include administrative expenses, engineering
expenses, startup and shutdown, and contingency allowances.

MODIFYING CRITERIA

State Acceptance

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, represented by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), concurs with the selected remedy.

Community Acceptance

Community acceptance of the preferred alternative was evaluated after the public
comment period, which ended on September 16, 1998. There were no comments from
the public on the Proposed Plan. From this, it appears that the public does not oppose
the selected remedy.

SELECTED REMEDY

Based on the comparison of the nine evaluation criteria for each of the alternatives in
the FFS, the Navy, PADEP, and EPA recommend the use of Alternative No. 2:
Institutional Controls. Alternative No. 2 meets the threshold criteria of overall protection
to human health and the environment. In considering the balancing criteria, the Navy
believes Alternative No. 2 can be readily implemented and minimizes short-term
impacts at a reasonable cost. The Navy considers this alternative to be the most
appropriate for short- and long-term management to prevent or limit exposure to COPC
in subsurface soil. Based on the balance of trade-offs among alternatives and the need
to handle potentially contaminated waste fill soil only if excavation or grading is reguired
for future residential development, Alternative No. 2 is also the most practical. Under
current and future use conditions, this future residential development scenario is
unlikely. NAVICP is an active military installation with no plans for closure in the
foreseeable future. In addition, a land use restriction, annual inspection, and
certification procedures will, over time, achieve long-term effectiveness and performance.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment given the
current industrial land use. There are no ARARs for the selected remedy. Land use

-------
will not change without notice to, and concurrence of, EPA and PADEP. The selected
remedy complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial action. This remedy is the most cost-effective
of the alternatives considered in the FFS. This remedy uses permanent solutions and
alternative treatment  (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent
practicable for this site. However, because treatment of the principal threats of the site
was not found to be practicable, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference
for treatment as a principal element. Because this remedy will result in hazardous
substances remaining onsite above health-based levels, a review of the remedy and its
protectiveness will be conducted every 5 years after the commencement of the remedial action.

                                EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

A Proposed Plan for Site 1 was released for public comment on October 14, 1997. The
public comment period was conducted from October 14, 1997 through September 13,
1997 along with a two-session public meeting on October 21, 1997. While preparing
the initial ROD, the need to recalculate risks to human health using a larger database
became evident. This re-calculation along with comments from the EPA required the
Proposed Plan to be re-issued. The second Plan was made available for public
comment from August 14, 1998 to September 15, 1998.

                                      RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

The selected remedy for Site 1 is the implementation of institutional controls by
restricting residential development. No written comments, concerns, or questions were
received by the Navy, U.S. EPA, or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the
public comment period from August 14, 1998 to September 15, 1998. A public meeting
was held on September 2, 1998 to present the Proposed Plan for Site 1 and to answer
any questions on the Proposed Plan and on the documents in the information
repositories. No questions were asked during the meeting concerning the selected
remedy for this site. Based on this, the public has no comment on the selected remedy.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, representing the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, concurs with the selected remedy.

-------
REFERENCES

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1990. Final Report: Site Inspection
Studies, Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Northern
Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Philadelphia, PA.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1993. Final Report: Phase I Remedial
Investigation, Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Lester, PA.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1994. Draft Report for Human Health
Risk Assessment at Site 1: The Carter Road Landfill, Navy Ships Parts Control
Center, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Northern Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Lester, PA.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1997. Addendum to Draft Report for
Human Health Risk Assessment at Site 1: The Carter Road Landfill, Navy Ships
Parts Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Northern Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Lester, PA.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1998. Focused Feasibility Study for
Site 1: The Carter Road Landfill, Naval Inventory Control Point (formerly NSPCC),
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Lester, PA.

Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. 1984. Initial Assessment Study, Navy Ships Parts
Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Naval Energy and Environmental
Support Activity, Port Hueneme, CA.

Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (Dutch). 1994.
Intervention values and target values: soil guality standards. Circular from the
Minister, Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Directorate-General for
Environmental Protection, Department of Soil Protection. Ref. DBO/07494013. 9 May.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). 1996. Screening Benchmarks for Ecological
Risk Assessment, Version 1.5 (January 1996). IBM-compatible software program
(bench.exe). Prepared by Environmental Sciences and Health Sciences Research
Divisions, ORNL. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Quebec Ministry of the Environment (Quebec). 1988. Contaminated Sites
Rehabilitation Policy. Directorate of Dangerous Substances. National Library of
Canada, National Library of Quebec, Envirodog 880100. ISBN 2-550-18630-3.
Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada. February 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Region III BTAG Screening
Levels. Tables of conservative guidelines for the evaluation of sampling data at
Superfund sites. Prepared by U.S. EPA Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. August.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 1990. National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Final Rule. Fed. Reg. 55(46) :8848. March 8.

U.S. Navy. 1997a. Memorandum: NAVICP-M IR Team Consensus and Response to
EPA Comments, Draft Site 1 Risk Assessment Report, NAVICP Mechanicsburg.
Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Philadelphia, PA.

U.S. Navy. 1997b. Memorandum: Ecological Risk Screening for Site 1 Carter Road
Landfill, NAVICP Mechanicsburg. Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Philadelphia, PA.

Will, M.E., and G.W. Suter II. 1995. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants. U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), ES/ER/TM-85/R2.

-------
GLOSSARY
Acenaphthene:  A semivolatile organic
compound used in manufacturing of
Pharmaceuticals, pesticides and
plastics. It is also found in the
environment as a result of incomplete
combustion of organic matter.

Administrative Record: A body of
documents that form the basis for the
selection of a CERCLA response action
and which demonstrates the public's
opportunity to participate and comment
on the selection process.

Applicable or Relevant and Appropri-
ate Reguirements (ARARs): Related
federal and state environmental
statutes, laws, or provisions. Applicable
reguirements are those cleanup
standards, standards of control, and
other substantive environmental
protection reguirements,  criteria, or
other limitations promulgated under
federal or state law that specifically
address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance at a
CERCLA site. Relevant and appropri-
ate reguirements are those cleanup
standards, standards of control, and
other substantive environmental
protection reguirements,  criteria, or
limitations promulgated under federal or
state law that, while not "applicable" to a
hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location,
or other circumstance at a CERCLA
site, address problems or situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered
at the CERCLA site that their use is well
suited to the particular site.
Benzene: A volatile organic compound
derived from petroleum and one of the
principal components of gasoline. It is
known to be a toxic compound and
human cancer causing agent.

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaliate: This semi-
volatile organic compound is commonly
used as a plasticizer and, therefore, is
ubiguitous in the environment.

Bromodichloromethane: This volatile
organic compound used as a flame re-
tardant and solvent may also occur as a
byproduct of the chlorination of water.

Carcinogenic: Causing or inciting can-
Chloroform: This volatile organic com-
pound used in anesthetics, pesticides
and solvents may also occur as a
byproduct of the chlorination of water.

Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability
Act(CERCLA): A federal law passed in
1980 and modified in 1986 by the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act  (SARA). The act
created a special tax that goes into a
Trust Fund, commonly known as
Superfund, to investigate and clean up
abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites. Navy compliance with
CERCLA/SARA (see IR Program) is
funded by the Department of Defense
under the Defense Environmental
Restoration Fund.

-------
Contaminants of Potential Concern
(COPC):  Compounds or analytes iden-
tified as a possible source of risk based
upon a comparison between compound
concentrations and established
screening levels (e.g., Federal Drinking
Water Standards).

Endosulfan: A pesticide used to treat
insects on vegetable crops.

Ecological Risk Screening: The guali-
tative evaluation to assess the risk
posed to ecological receptors by the
presence, potential presence, and/or
use of specific COPC.

Exposure Pathway: A way that a per-
son, plant, or animal may be exposed to
a COPC.  For example, water may be
an exposure pathway for fish.

Feasibility Study (FS): Report that
summarizes the development and
analysis of remedial alternatives
considered for the cleanup of CERCLA
sites. Focused Feasibility Studies are
for sites with conditions that allow a
limited number of alternatives to be
considered.
Hazard Quotient  (HQ):  The ratio of a
single substance exposure level over a
specified time period to a reference
dose for that substance derived from a
similar exposure period.

Human Health Risk Assessment: The
gualitative and guantitative evaluation
performed in an effort to define the risk
posed to human health by the presence
or potential presence and/or use of spe-
cific COPC.

Inorganic: A compound that is not
related to a hydrocarbon or a
hydrocarbon-derivative. Often used as
a synonym for metals such as arsenic,
lead, etc.

Installation Restoration (IR) Program:
A component of the Defense Environ-
mental Restoration Program created
under CERCLA regulations and funded
by the Department of Defense. The
purpose of the Program is to identify,
assess, characterize,  and clean up or
control contamination from past
hazardous waste disposal operations
and hazardous material spills at military
activities.
Ground Water: Free water located
beneath the ground surface in pores of
materials such as sand, soil, gravel, and
in cracks or solution features in bedrock.
Often serves as a source of drinking
water.

Hazard Index (HI): A number indicative
of noncarcinogenic health effects which
is the ratio of the existing level of
exposure to an acceptable level of
exposure. A value egual or less than
one indicates that the human population
is not likely to experience adverse
effects.
Maximum Contaminant Levels
 (MCLs):  The enforceable primary
drinking water standards under the Safe
Drinking Water Act  (SDWA) with which
public water systems must comply.

Naphthalene: This semivolatile organic
compound with many industrial and
commercial uses also occurs in the
environment as a combustion
byproduct.

National Priorities List: EPA's list of
the most serious uncontrolled or
abandoned hazardous waste sites

-------
identified for possible long-term
remedial action under CERCLA.

National Oil and Hazardous Substan-
ces Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP):  The federal regulation that
guides determination of the sites to be
corrected under the CERCLA program
and the program to prevent or control
spills into surface water or other
portions of the environment.

Parts per-Billion  (ppb):  A way of ex-
pressing tiny concentrations in air,
water,  soil, food, or other products. A
part per billion is egual to about 1.5 oz
of liguid placed into 12,000,000 gal of
another liguid.

Pesticides: Substances or mixtures of
substances intended for preventing, de-
stroying, repelling, or mitigating any
pest,  e.g., rats, weeds,  or mosguitos.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB): A
group of 209 organic compounds com-
prised of biphenyl molecules on which
two or more chlorine atoms have been
attached. PCB were manufactured for
many years for use as dielectric fluids in
electrical transformers and capacitors
due to their stability, low vapor pressure,
low flammability, high heat capacity, and
low electrical conductivity.

Preliminary Assessment: The
process of collecting and reviewing
available information about a known or
suspected waste site or release.

Record of Decision  (ROD): A ROD is
a public document which explains the
cleanup alternative to be used at a
CERCLA site. The ROD is based on
technical and financial analyses gene-
rated during the RI/FS and on
consideration of the public comments
and community concerns.

Remedial Investigation  (RI): The RI is
prepared to report the type, extent, and
potential for transport of Contaminants
of potential concern at a hazardous
waste site, and directs the types of
cleanup options that are developed in
the FS.

Risk Based Concentrations  (RBCs):
EPA Region III has developed this list of
concentration levels for screening analy-
tical data from CERCLA sites to identify
COPC.

Semivolatile Organic Compounds
(SVOC): A group of organic
compounds composed primarily of
carbon and hydrogen that are
characterized by their low volatility.
SVOC include substances that are
contained in hydrocarbon products like
asphalt, oil, and tar.

Site Inspection (SI): The collection of
information from a property to assess
the extent and severity of hazards
posed by the property.

Target Analyte List  (TAL):  A list of
inorganic analytes including naturally
occurring elements and cyanide which
EPA has identified for use in assessing
potential hazards at CERCLA sites.

Target Compound List  (TCL): A list
of organic compounds including VOC,
SVOC, pesticides and PCB which EPA
has identified for use in assessing
potential hazards at CERCLA sites.

Trichloroethene (TCE): A
manufactured organic compound
typically used as a solvent for
degreasing along with other industrial

-------
applications. It is one of the most widely       Volatilization: Vaporization or
produced and used solvents for                   evaporation.
industry.
                                                 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC):
Upgradient: Since water flows from               A group of organic compounds
high to low elevation, Upgradient is used        composed primarily of carbon and
to define a location from which ground           hydrogen that are characterized by their
water is flowing towards a site (i.e.            tendency to readily evaporate (or
upslope with respect to the water table          volatize)  into the air from water or soil.
surface).                                        VOC include substances that are
                                                 contained in common fuels, solvents,
                                                 and cleaning fluids.

-------