"~\ O ^ t & t ^ A L ^
SDMS DocID 2122438
EXPLANATION OF SIGNBFICANT DIFFERENCES
FOR
ACID NEUTRIUZATION PIT SOILS
(OPERABLE UNIT 5)
DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Prepared By
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers '
Huntsville Division
4820 University Square
HuntsvUle, AL 35816
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
n . SUMMARY OF SITE HISTORY, CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS AND SELECTED REMEDY 3
A. Site History • • • • 3
B. Contamination Problems 6
C. Selected Remedy 10
m . DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AND THE BASIS FOR
THOSE DIFFERENCES 11
rv. SUPPORT AGENCY REVIEW 15
V, AFFIRMATION OF THE STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 15
VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVniES 16
Vn. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 16
1538-3104.04
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
OPERABLE UNIT FIVE
Defense General Supply Center Chesterfield County, Virginia
Septeinber 1995
I. E^TRODUCTION
This Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) is issued in accordance with Section 117(c)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9617(c), and Section 300.435(c)(2) of the National OU and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. § 300.435(c)(2), which
requires the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to publish an explanation of significant differences
where a remedial action is taken that will differ in any significant respect from the fmal remedial
action selected and described in the Record of Decision with respect to the scope, performance,
or cost.
The Defense General Supply Center (DGSC) is located in Chesterfield County, Virginia,
approximately 11 miles south of the city of Richmond and 16 miles north of the city of
Petersburg (Figure 1.1).
DLA has served as the Lead Agency for both the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) and the Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA). The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region HI and the Virginia Department of Environmental (Quality
(VDEQ) have been the support agencies. This ESD relates to remedial action specified in a
Record of Decision (ROD) between EPA and the DLA signed in March 1992 and concurred
with by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Remedial design for the remedy began in September
1992 and was completed in March 1993.
FIGURE 1.1-DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER
AND SURROUNDING AREA RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
SCALE IN M i l ES
TftODUCED FflOM: LAW ENVJROMMEKTAL, WC, OCTOBER 1t91
This ESD is issued as a result of information generated during pilot plant operations and pre-
design field explorations performed as part of the remedial design of 0U5. The results support
the recommendation to eliminate the installation of the full-scale vapor vacuum extraction
system. This document is issued by the DLA to disseminate information concerning superfund
remedial activities to the public. The public is encouraged to review all documents contained
in the DGSC Administrative Record to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the DGSC
site and the ESD contained herein.
n . SUMMARY OF SITE HISTORY, CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS AND SELECTED REMEDY
A. Site History
The Bellwood Estate was purchased by the United States Department of the Army. DGSC was
constructed in 1941 and 1942, and has on-going construction to date. The installation formerly
consisted of two separate facilities: the Richmond General Depot and Richmond Holding and
Reconsignment Point. In 1962, the installation became known as the Defense General Supply
Center. At the time, the mission of DGSC was to organize, direct and accomplish the
management of supplies in assigned federal supply groups; to operate a Defense Supply Agency
storage facility; to account for and coordinate receipt to store and distribute designated civil
defense materials; to accomplish the management and supply support for overseas requirements
for decentralized and non catalogued items identifiable to material assignments of DGSC; to
provide supply support to civil agencies on a basis that would not adversely affect the
performance of the primaiy mission; and to direct and accomplish other supply and
miscellaneous missions as assigned.
Since that time the mission of DGSC has continued to expand, with its main assignment being
to manage and fiimish military general supplies to the Armed Forces and several federal civilian
agencies. Today DGSC manages more than 300,000 general supply items at a facility valued
at $100 million and encompassing 640 acres.
1538-3104.04 3
Based on the Hazard Ranking System evaluation and in accordance with EPA policy, in October
1984, EPA proposed DGSC for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). DGSC was
promulgated to the NPL in August 1987. In September 1990, DGSC entered into a Federal
Facilities Agreement (FFA) with the U.S. EPA and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Subsequently, it was decided that in order to expedite the implementation of remedial action, the
DGSC was divided into nine operable units. This document pertains only to operable unit five
(0U5), the Acid Neutralization Pits (ANP) source area.
The ANP area is located in the northern section of DGSC at the end of warehouse 65 (Figure
1.2). This area is the site of two former concrete settling tanks which received wastewater from
metal cleaning operations conducted at warehouse 65. The two tanks were located in a fenced
area approximately 25 feet northwest of the warehouse. The primary pit had a capacity of
14,600 gallons; the secondary pit had a capacity of 3,000 gallons. The primary and secondary
pits were each approximately 6.5 feet in depth.
The metal cleaning operations in Warehouse 65 included cleaning (paint and rust removal) and
repainting steel combat helmets and compressed gas cylinders. These activities were in
operation from 1958 to the early 1980's. The metal cleaning system consisted of first immersing
the items in a boiling caustic bath of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to remove paint followed by a
hot-water rinse dip to remove residual caustic solution and paint residues. The items were then
immersed in a 20 percent hydrochloric acid (HCL) solution to remove rust and treated with a
neutralization solution consisting of sodium hydroxide, surfactant and sodium bicarbonate.
During the 1960's and until the mid-1970's, these dip tanks were also used to remove paint and
rust from various other metal items such as 55-gallon drums and 5-gallon metal cans.
Spent cleaning solutions were discharged to the settling tanks every 1-2 months. The intervals
varied depending on frequency and duration of use. In the settling tanks, the solids separated
and collected in the bottom of the tanks as sludge. The pH of the wastewater was adjusted by
manually adding lime prior to discharge. From 1958 to the late 1970's, wastewater was
1538-3104.04 4
FIGURE 1.2 ACID NEUTRALIZATION PITS AREA
DGSC. RICHMOND. VIRGINIA
M r i n
U \
I ^ \
V
WARCMMAC M
ACIO NCWTMAUIAIIOM
Pits
"¥•
I 1 • M l •oou
J L
0
r\
««acNO«nc • )
riKXHiCCO raoMi u « I I M » O N W C H I « L INC. O C I O M I I « « I r i } noo«
ENCINEERINC-^riENCE
discharged from the primary pit to the storm sewer. With the addition of the secondary pit in
the late 1970's, wastewater discharge was connected to the sanitary sewer.
While the pits were in operation, sludges were jjeriodically removed and disposed at the
Chesterfield County Landfill. The U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency analyzed leachate
from the sludge in 1979 using the Extraction Procedure Toxicity (EP Tox) method. Based on
the analysis of the EP Tox results, the sludges were not characterized as hazardous waste. The
pits were closed in 1985. The remaining sludges were removed for off-site disposal, the bottoms
of the pits were washed clean of residual sludges, and the pits were filled with clean soil.
During closure activities, the concrete sides and bottoms of the pits were observed to be broken
and cracked. These cracks and holes may have served as migration routes for contaminants in
the pits to the surrounding soils.
B. Contamlliatinn Prnhlemy
Previous remedial investigations performed in November 1988 consisting of borings, monitoring
wells, and piezometers (Figure 1.3) revealed volatile organic contamination in the soil and
ground water surrounding the pits. The soils were the apparent source of VOCs in the ground
water at the ANP area. Low levels of VOCs, including tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and
trichloroethylene (TCE), were detected in the soil boring from the secondary settling tank at
the site. Although VOCs were not known to have been used in the metal cleaning operations
in warehouse 65, the ANPs were not covered during the time they were in operation and
therefore could have been used for undocumented disposal of chemicals and solvents used in a
variety of industrial operations at DGSC.
A baseline risk assessment was conducted for the ANP area as documented in the RI Report.
The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the potential human health and environmental
risks posed by soil and ground-water contamination detected at the ANP area. The results of
the baseline risk assessment as they pertain to the ANP Source Area (i.e., contaminated soils)
are briefly summarized below.
1538-3104.04 6
FIGURE 1.3 SOIL BORING/WELL LOCATIONS ACID NEUTRALIZATION PIT AREA
DGSC RICHMOND. VA
WAREHOUSE 65
SANO BLAST I ROOM
t
OMW-30A
LAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION
OMS-ao a ^ 0 M W - 2 } a
1 \ri OMSSI I
0MW-24a
l>> AGIO
> NEUTRALIZATION PITS
O WAREHOUSE 64
0MS-7S
LEGEND
# BORINQ
© MONITORINO WELL
A PIEZOMETER
M 100
SCALE INf tET
TH
The potential exposure pathways which were considered in the baseline risk assessment included
the following:
Ingestion and dermal contact with ground water.
Ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated soils.
Inhalation of vapors and dusts.
Ingestion and dermal contact with surface water.
Ingestion of fish and game.
Ingestion of crops and other plants.
Each of these pathways were evaluated for both on-site and off-site receptors, under both current
and future conditions. A complete exposure pathway includes a source, release mechanism,
environmental transport route, recqptor, and exposure route. Of the 44 exposure pathways
considered in the baseline risk assessment, only nine were considered to be complete. There
were no current exposure pathways considered to be complete at this site. The potential future
exposure pathways which were considered to be complete are summarized below:
• Future inhalation of dust and dermal contact with soils during excavation activities by on-site workers.
• Future ingestion and dermal contact with ground water by off-site residents.
• Future inhalation of dust, ingestion of soil and dermal contact with soUs from excavation activities by off-site residents.
• Future ingestion and dermal contact with surface water recharged by contaminated ground water by off-site residents.
The potential carcinogenic risks from all future on-site exposures to soils were estimated to be
2 X 10"*. This is approximately equivalent to the standard point of departure for evaluating
1538-3104.04 8
carcinogenic risks which is 1 x 10̂ or one excess cancer in a million people exposed to the site
contaminants.
The potential noncarcinogenic hazard index from all future on-site exposures to soils was
estimated to be 6 x 10'\ This value is far below the threshold value of 1.0 which represents
a potentially unacceptable risk to human health from systemic toxicants
Risk-based soil action levels for protection of ground water were calculated in the Focused
Feasibility Report for 0U5 - Acid Neutralization Pits Source Area, November 1991. The action
levels are shown in Table 1. As may be seen, only tetrachloroethylene exceeded its risk-based
soil action level. This occurred in only one isolated sample at one location.
TABLE 1
Soil Action Levels for the Protection of Ground Water Acid Neutralization Pit Source Area
Operable Unit 5
- -
Chemical
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethylene
Maximum Concentration (mg/kg)
November 1988 March 1993
1.5
0.036
0.015
NA
0.18
0.11
••.
Ground-Water MCLs (mg/L)
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.07
Calculated Soil Action Level
(mg/kg)
0.58
0.20
0.022
1/3
1538-3104.04
C. Selected Remedy
At issue herein is OUS and the 0U5 ROD issued by DLA in March 1992. The remedial
objectives as identified in the Focused Feasibility Study for 0U5 are:
• Prevent ingestion/direct contact with soil having constiments in excess of risk-based Soil Action Levels.
• Prevent inhalation of dusts having constituents posing excess cancer risk levels of lE-06.
Prevent inhalation of dusts having constituents at levels resulting in intakes greater than Reference Doses.
Prevent migration of constituents that would result in ground-water contamination in excess of MCLs.
The major components of the selected remedy specified in the ROD include:
• Installation of a vapor extraction system, including extraction and vent wells, a manifold system, a utility building, and vapor phase emission control;
• Construction of covers over the pits to prevent their further use and the infiltration of rainwater;
Continued operation and maintenance of the vapor extraction system for approximately four (4) years until tests indicate the contaminants are no
longer present at levels that threaten ground water; and
Analytical sampling of the affected media (soil) at the end of the clean-up period to evaluate the effectiveness of contaminant removal.
1538-3104.04 10
m. DESCRIPTION OF SIGNDICANT DIFFERENCES AND THE BASIS FOR THOSE DIFFERENCES
A remedial design was initiated in September 1992 for the selected remedy of the ROD. In
order to develop an effective remedial design, a pilot test was necessary to obtain additional
design parameters. The vapor extraction pilot study consisted of two separate tests: a hydraulic
influence test and a hydrocartwn removal test. The hydraulic influence test was run over a 24-
hour period followed by the 10-day hydrocarbon removal test. During the 10-day test, the gas
stream from the well contained no BTEX constituents, with the exception of toluene
concentrations which appeared during the furst day's samples at relatively high levels. ES and
Tracer Research personnel determined that the source of the toluene was a sealant used to make
the connections with the wellhead airtight. Subsequently, all components of the flow system
having contact with the sealant were replaced, and flexible rubber couplings were used to
provide an air-tight seal. As a result, toluene concentrations dropped immediately and were
below detection limits by the fourth day of sampling, where they remained for the duration of
the test. This is indicated by the Total Volatile Hydrocarbon Concentrations (TVHC) m Table
2. Detectable levels of PCE, TCE, and TVHC were present throughout the test. Concentrations
of these constituents detected during the test are presented in Table 2. The maximum removal
rate calculated was 2.1 x 10^ Ib/hr.-
Based on the very low hydrocarbon removal rates and to substantiate pilot test results, 19
additional soil samples were collected and analyzed from beneath the pits. The samples from
beneath the pits were obtained from locations. Pit 1 to 6 (Figure 1.4). The samples from the
three borings in the smaller pits (Pit 1, Pit 2, Pit 3) had results below method detection limits.
The highest contaminant concentrations of 0.11 mg/kg for TCE and 0.18 mg/kg for PCE were
found in the deepest samples from location. Pit 6. Those concentrations are below the "soil
action levels" for TCE and PCE presented in Table 1 and excerpted from the ROD for 0U5.
Based upon the vapor extraction pilot study and the subsequent additional soil sampling results,
1538-3104.04 11
TABLE 2 AIR SAMPLE R£SULTS FROM T H E HYDROCARBON REMOVAL TES ••'
WELLHEAD SAMPUNO-fORT
I DATE
pi-Doc-^2
p2-D€e-92
p3-D«:-92
W-Doc-92
1
p5-D«e-92
p6-D«:-92
TIME
02:52 PM
02:5« PM 03:03 PM
03:35 PM
04:07 PM
.05.02 PM
-05:20 PM
'05:56 PM
09:56 AM
02:00 PM
02:43 PM
04:09 PM
05 01 PM
. 05:49 PM
01:4SPM
02:16 PM
04:54 PM
12:58 PM
01:51 PM
02:42 PM
03:51 PM
04:53 PM
05:45 PM
0S:42 AM
09:38 AM
10:25 A M
11:15 AM
12:13 PM
0 l :0«PM
02:29 PM
03:55 PM
109:01 AM
09:59 A M
12:21 PM
01:59 PM
02:33 PM
03>*8 PM
05:19 PM
(36:53 PM
SAMPLE
NAME
I - l - l
1-2-1
l ->- l I-4-I
1-5-1
»-«-l I-7-I
I-8-1
2-1-1
2-2-1
2-3-1 2-4-1
2-5- !
2-6-1
3-1-1
3-2-1
3-3-1
4-1-1
4-2-1
i - 3 - l 4-4- !
4-5-1
4-6-1
5-1-1
5-2-1
, 5-3-1 1 5-4-1
5-5-1
5-6-1
J-7-1
S-l-1
^ l - I
fr-2-J
6-3-1 6-4-1
6-5-1
6-6-1
6-7-1
6-8-1
VACUUM
•H20
70
70
70
&S 44
35
3S
.35
35
70
M 50
50
50
90
90
70
90
90
90
90
90
90
88
88
1 " ' 8»
88
88
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
TEMP
F
50
50
50
- ^ 50
50
50
50
52
55
61
53
50
50
46
49
47
56
61
61
56
52
50
43
43
43
49
SI
45 48
37
'27
29
40
43 4«
40
40
40
TVHC
PP»»
322670.9
46934.0
52800.7
63590.1 43570.4
20195.0
31886.8
23915.1
5602.1
2073.5 1164.1
557.0
830.7
553.8
2165.9
622.5
262.5
63.1
31.9
31.9
31.6
31.3
31.2
< 61.1
< 61.1
< 61.1
< 61.9
< 62.1 < 61.4
< ' 62.1
< 60.8
89.3
89.7
< 91.7
92.3
92.8
91.7
91.7
91.7
TCA
PP*>
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.2
O.i
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
TCE
Pf*
< t . l
< O.I
< O.I
< O.I
< O.I
< 0.1
< O.I
< 0.1
< O.I
• 0.4
0.4
0.6
0 6
0 6
0.2
0.1
0.2
4.6
2.3
2.3
4 6
• 4.6
4 5
4.4
4.4
6.7
< 4.5
6.8
, *-5 6.8
6.6
< lO.S
10.9
15.6
15.7
13.5
15.6
15.6
20.0
PCE
pr*>
1.2
15.2 1.7
3.3
< 3.1
4.6
4.6
4.6
7.7
10.2 S 4
11.2
U.2
11.2
5.4
3.6
5.0
54.6
36.7
36.7
54.6
54.1
36.0
70,5
70.5
70.5
71.3
71.6
1 ' ° ' 89.5
70.1
120.2
120.7
176.3
177.3
124.9
158.6
158.6
176.3
NOTE: High eoneeaiiatjoai of TVHC during (b« fifJi three dayi w« likely due to (be «cal«nt which mu uaed.
12
TABLE 2 (CONT) AIR SAMPLE RESULTS FROM THE HYDROCARBON REMOVAL TEST
WELLHEAD SAMPLING PORT
DATE
07-D«c-92
08-D«c-92
D9-D<»:-92
IO-Dce-92
•
II-D«e-92
TIME
10:55 AM
12:00 PM
01:01 PM
02:09 PM
02.46 PM
04:05 PM
04:55 PM
(}5:55 PM
08:32 AM
09:36 AM
11:44 AM
12:31 PM
01:15 PM
02:19 PM
03:15 PM
04:13 PM
08:28 AM
10:00 AM
11:01 A M
12:35 PM
01:39 PM
02:39 PM
03:29 PM
04:14 PM
08:03 AM
09:03 AM
10:31 A M
11:34 A M
12:25 PM
01:47 PM
02:47 PM
03:33 PM
08:37 A M
10:44 A M
11:31 A M
12:15 PM
01:08 PM
02:04 PM
02:57 PM
04:02 PM
SAMPLE
NAME
7-1-1
7-2-1
7-3-1 7-4-1
7-5-1
7 - * - !
7-7-1
7-8-1
8-1-1
8-2-1
8-3-1 8-4-1
8-5-1
8-6-1
8-7-1
8-8-1
9-1-1
9-2-1
9-3-1 9-4-1
9-5-1
9-6-1 9-7-1
9-8-1
l O - M
10-2-1
I0-3- I
10-»-l
I0-5- I
10-6-1 I0-7- I
I0-8- I
1 1 - M
11-2-1
11-3-1
11-4-1
n-5-i 11-6-1
n-7-i 11-8-1
VACUUM
•H20
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
90
90
88
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
71
85
90
90
90
90
9»
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
TEMP
F
53
52
53 54
53
50
43 41
37
37
42
43
41
41
40
38
29
32 47
45
45
48
44
43
38
37
39
46
50
52 54
•53
42 44
44
a a 45
41
40
TVHC
P I *
623.4
1556
623.4
156.2
155.9
154.9
152.8
152.2
243.1
152.0
152.5
2IS.3 214.4
153.2
152.9
152.3
299.0
300.8
310.0
308.8
308.8
310.6
308.2
307.6
288.1
299.2
152.6
< 92.8
< 93.6
< 93.9
< 94.3 < 94.1
, 276.3 277.4
216.6
155.3
155.3 154.4
153.2
152.9
TCA
PJ*
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.6
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.3
1.3
0.9
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.7
1.7
I.I
l . I
1.6
1.1
I.i
2.2
1.8
I.O
0.9 0.4
0.2 0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.7
1.3
0.9
< 0.2
0.4
0.9
TCE
P I *
45.4
22.6 22.7
22.7
45.4
45.1
22.2
22.2
22.1
44.2 44.4
22.4
44.6
44.6
< 445
44.3
65.3
43.8
90.2 67.4
44.9
45.2
44.9
895
41.9
43.5 44.4
15.8
6.8
2.3
2.1
1.8
22.3 22.4
22J
45.2
45.2
13.5
22.3
44.5
PCE
P I *
3594
3587
3594
180.1
3594
357.3
176.2
175.5
175.2 350.4
351.7
IT7.3
3532
3532
352.5
351.1
517.2
346.9
536.2 534.1
356.0
358.2
355.3
3546
332.2
3*5.0
175.9
53J
360
18.0
18.1
18.1
177.0
IT7.7
178.4
358.2
358.2
89.0
176.6
352.5
13
TlGURE 1.4
WELL & BORING LOCATIONS DGSC VACUUM EXTRACTION SYSTEM
AGIO NEUTRAUZATION PITS
© NORTH 4TH STREET
I. i : II
I I !
S 5 - ;
s
PIT (
11
' ! «r MA.NHO'.C
-4VVF
A S P H A L "
<
c < ^ :
O , l - > t
3
< 2
15 3C •
VICUUU EXTSACTIOH WEU.
S SOIL BORINC
I <0S VAPOR PROBC I
14
it appears that the contaminant levels in the soil have decreased, probably due to the effects of
natural attenuation and the vapor extraction pilot smdy-r-^Fhusrthe"soils^f'OU5'cio not pose a >\
:Tiskr:to:zhuman—health~or'~the~environmeht,_are„lioIIlg^ —v
^contain in^on-above-MGI^levels--and-do-nQt-need-to-be—remediated~base^ —^
ipresejited-in-the^ROiljniis-document-proposes-the-elimination-of-the-vapGr-vaGuum-extraetion
-syjtem detailed'̂ in thejOD. The permanent cohcrete_pit covers have been installed in
<-accordance-with'the-requirements of the ROD. " ^
IV. SUPPORT AGENCY REVIEW
In accordance with NCP § 300.435 (c) (2), the U.S. EPA and the Commonwealth of Virginia
have been consulted regarding the above described change in the scope of the remedy selected
for 0U5. The Commonwealth of Virginia will indicate its concurrence or nonconcurrence
following the public conunent period for this ESD. The U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager
assigned to DGSC witnessed the confirmatory sampling that was performed on 15 and 16 March
1993. In addition, U.S. EPA's oversight contractor was also present and collected split samples
that were analyzed and found to confirm the conclusions reached by DGSCs sampling program.
V. AFFIRMATION OF THE STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
DLA believes that the remedy selected for 0U5, including the changes documented in this ESD,
remains protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and state
requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to this remedial action, and is cost-
effective. In addition, the remedy utilizes permanent solutions to the maximum extent
practicable for this site. As originally stated in the ROD, because the selected remedy including
these changes will not result in hazardous substances remaining on site above health-based
levels, the five-year review will not apply.
1538-3104.04 15
VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
The Proposed ESD was released for public comment as part of the Administrative Record File
on July 24, 1995. The Proposed ESD and other related documents were made available to the
public in the Administrative Record file located at the Chesterfield Public Library in
Chesterfield , Virginia. The notice of availability of these documents was published in the
Richmond Times-Dispatch on July 24, 1995. The public was allowed forty-five days from the
notice date to submit comments to DGSC. No public comments were received.
v n . 7.0 ADMINISTRATTVE RECORD
A copy of this ESD, together with documentation supporting the changes described herein, has
been included in the Administrative Record file for DGSC. The Administrative Record file for
DGSC is available at the following location:
Chesterfield Public Library
County Courthouse
9501 Lori Road
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Hours: 10:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. (Wednesday, Friday and Saturday)
10:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m (Monday, Tuesday and Thursday)
Closed Sunday
Phone: (804)748-1602
1538-3104.04 16
JANE\^TMAN
Staff Director, Environmental and Safety Office
Defense Logistics Agency
Date DEC 1 0 :^:h
THOMAS C. VOLTAG'
Date j/f/f^
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region HI
1538-3104.04 17