865 0File: 660.22AS.E.

I~ CC

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDCOVER SHEET

AR File Number________

DEES OISTC (E NONE

OU H PROPORFUD85 1 PLAN~

DATES TO REMEMBER_________________________________

.0 INRDCIO PULCCMNETKIIiyPalsl a dniy tl rl el Nymie Cym rt 0

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ls tGstoPnm wstl om,,epnebI~~atraiePrimneato elhsi o src xenl dNw Ui ao..IPlI~~miatodfo mondse tBt PSI ETN

Stning6.lc neSpl 'ne ihmrd N n 1 m 7d(ISCR lcupdV igih Ti orsd ILkMolaolEdrlae1 m ,tlPrtsNobddoalaorsndI, n opnm td dEdI. "~o," rrPa o idE h rainl rslota h ltFat ryAnyAad chtIdean 1 61,lIb[is flr1 1 sod Pih, is dni ('vs dith Tresrto analyembr6d ecme 2,bus La nvrwh yoptn todpaytcpt Muan dayb p hubh 'm.,Ia irod

3ag naliye for prttin manceiheat al ' at dE~ tin Imetfl U01900, k Family, Propo ed P l

B Htitldiemw with Dcfrn e SplCetr Raiebmundt Dheester ii. V'S .3O1 molsm.a yoPhAone hose 74 1602e uses x ie,sth Pr mn yye ln anar

Ketn 3iin , rthe leadreuiers [ ebaldn as 'bitt prnasse rr n omuiyCn

fiand stlnsrndinwgl Ipatd Virinia heare noee IIbyan f dd l~

r 'esguatcd 25Oerabl, t.nt( or Ahni,o Ofingomto, ( ms the Adm lnlstrav Reord at loun

SDhr ir posd i ong t is Poisoud Phy Sar Do fi ton, eteteeldON Puli Lrbdra y Aoda -r TuSdaR ysc gny N ).te la ~c~ ovenrsrall -noc29 a y~sto6De 9 Eous. EN(,a -9one ~FOop

wenc, h reniedal ad ots ni )5(7kEN ~ KIo nesn a sNTons~i ,I Iagreenicut wIth0 tile FLnu ted,4) Stat s po.nea 2704 she- S03clse SttdayW

S iaii' rtyren A P WRLetiA)on 46 ANganonce(.SbA isamm e I<... sev Sta ~ ~nd 3. the lI drgltr 4 [lid . aW ) ofl sie n EN it. no pbobn akn tbnDeebr2.

I 1w<.½mnrIt olto ir u r2) c er to Pon t se e &,h I

NatironalnE 51St'"ULi il hty (V fouFT). ie tair ot DlndSolyCne Rdmn Viginta eiaetP euatnoR- emrenyblicy( ; 4) F ,ra Irs.. Ofc r (U Rer~t' snrrmre ulr

Post 300) (215)~~~~~~s. kr Tune ff5 o amdLto Poes~

Vqa behe'ledl~~~~~~~OO Jffeso OcrsHlway MrJro Cut050l 1 A isisigti rpsd Pg'Frpbi Ichrn.Vrir ll-~ 2 atMi tet l

S C orirnenttn I trt C pl ion n necoda H C w irs j Z7 inn Ran~oom. virinre ;

S865 2r inail .. pavedilaOperar ble Our nit Faster Rout/ine t SaoS yfrtesev ppka GrnerRgon om ui, I (trailer 200

I his Propsined Plan summnarizes inforiation franc theS01' 10 Re radial rneastiationg (RI). IvenasiIilt Smudll(IS.i adl I-S Addeindunmoreprts as well ars tii hedetiments. [)I.A, lSE['A. and VDE) nchuannel thepublic to review thewe dcountants too gain a rooirlcom plate tol denatuand la or the DSC R instaIlat~ion I rdtlie (YURI f.A activities that liaie been commnduce Rorthis 01<

PhProtlsed Plan haes hearImperipal~ too sumntmarizeDIA A arid USEPA a Practrcad rmaedial actionalternatim C at (U I. OfIhe Prnposodl Plait is clgassifieditob thle AL)ulr in, sections:

0 liilrodtjtottlat0 ~~~ ~~2d Sue Backgrou'nd.

10 Sitecliaralcterisfi e4di Risk Stumnmr,

SM Remiedial Action Olijeel ives6,10 Resjdonse Action

70 Suznniads, of Remedial Action Altrnative0 IT vaitioton of Ah lIeimatys

0 ~~ 9a StiturimaY oldhe Preferred Alemanntives' tOOd Coiunnolily Paricipaian sl

2.0 SITE BACKCIO1t:NDsysetai. i, ... gri. sonilcahme 'ii the D S(CR vricic

bn It laa tederal install oulona (I igure I o'ili I have priv'ate wells (Filial ot fited Rts k/inh0 ~~apprxn'iratl 650 acres licensed ii Chestcrriedd MW *Sorw Ino 2002). which ame used primariy tbr0 ~~( ontrni. V irginia. odout 8 mlres south ofthe Ci ty o landsaPre ireagionl

Rlhodmn'd. hie pridpcrry is owned byv the 1,.iSDepartmentofhe Army and i s ctudied and operated 1)S(9 wa, nominiated for the CF.RCLA National

bow OLA - USeR was tuilt in 1941 as liwo separate Prioil ic, As in (I'I in 1Q84 anid was forminally added0 F~aciitie: he Richmongd (lateral Inepot and the the th i. in lW7 1+> aelion oveurald as a wrcal±t of

Rich inound Holding and Racln iglun men Pamin. Witl DSC R reciin a [ianred Ranking 'Sidiin scoreruthe creation filing Military, enerrial Supply Agencv in made it eligible for the list,1962. the The jlities were gnarled ito becomec tie Defense

S Generacall Supply ( enter. DSC R. DLA s aviation In 1 990. fl-A. JSEPA. anld VlDl*) signed a federlsupply, and deumand chain, manager, received 'ts I acities Agreement thau established D)1A as thle leadctarenr tonm in 1 9Q6 modenil agencY responsil for evdaluaig select Pi.S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~and aexecit ing necessars. hand aibI. andi revasiad hi

S 1)5(DSC is a maorpo irdurlusy it,( Ches Id (YMlLI,IV erverfirdi actions to assure protection of Itualian healthI and uii it lacres stirarLnd irg DSCR is proI liar iv and thle ln' j rn ment Letr relac es at DM C I hieresdtitiM bit also iansetes retail atcres pa PdE II g Un imronnmenial Restoration P'rowarni at )S( R is be iii

0 m~id ustry. I he areas to tile non hesas' east, and sou I if cnndiwted it olde r (1 FRO A, as atmended -anrd Int woben'S( Ft have b~een desvetopcd as loth single-family and ofteaniwrld inpt, 13 Cris. iiw~eludin o sourcse &oh i 'udltinfamily housing. water s supplied to residencies 3groundater OftT5. and I gsiuadwetter intierim aton

and businiesses by the Citry wof ichmtonld water supply ()L

0,5K)22.U1

S8 65 3Olusoic I ½'nit :,f,& ul d ass s ..S fefrse NI1,14, (tneven fkircmona, I oit,i 18 Ochober 2)06

I he 13 Of areas Cotlws soulhd/southwes, to the storm sewecr system. whichS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~eventually discharges to Fallin (rccK rInhutarv

IL JI Open Storage Area liorrlatesl orfh Pu istalIlal niol(tt 2 Area 50 Courcs AreaOiU 3 SAIIordaI (odad Source Area(II 4 F ire *Inrining Source Area Ae jad-0') 5 Acid Neutralization Pits Source Ae(A 6 Area $0/Oped SItoage Arakticnrilorat ol

-Area (.1rotundwatesan i~nwtO 7 Fire T nnin jg Area G~ron',dwaterOU 8 Acid Neutralizntinn Pits Ae rudae

IR I9 Internd Actonn for 01. 60 iOR -0 Fourmer Building 68

0 OU(AlI I S 202O i 12 Former BuingWll 112

0 OU J 3 P 1+1veve lie Aro~mat ic II drncarbim (PA H)Area

Firto Records of Icceision (RODs) have been issure 0 k~~Fr 0' Is h. 3. 4, 5. and 1 2. Final elemental actionsy hae0 r~~ead inlapleie nteal at OUh 1I 3 land 5S *Thv ROD) Cor , ts

OL.' cal kd hr no fahther action. A ]inal ROD) wit I0 ~an inakero remedy was isstid hor OUl 9: mien 0 remediral Wactio fr 01. 6 grevndalier SI

Implemented as PU 9. A remroval action has tencompleted ai 0OI I A ROD) fr (1,. 8 has been dritical

0 11w ili r 12 reamead in act on cv'istrct ion wo

0 ~~complneted in Septeiamber 2006W

0 ~~Since 2for, T)SC R has heen integraling investigations0 ~~and KsN for sogarc, and groundwater O(. s Os pan of"a rout 1951 to 1972. bluilding fig uAs used ilir joist

compehesiv. hataknivrwitt atriiclu ~aadecvontarol operations red as a seorugo sec for pesticidesHas reoa is he interdependence of soil and ta eeshdldfrdgs,[obidn a

0 r'uqrdwatcr ETi.~t. RohIs irtg O k brick structural with aproxcimate dincensions of 20 Fetthis'Incng ivolvby '0 Feei and was surroundeld b, a gravel left.olimnarating or redueing continuins soutrces I C e - -

th rough remoavl or treatnient I, contrmollJing con stitucill Beginnoing fI, J72. this gri ci IoI wns ... d r stora ecrmnownleent in the en vi ronmotit. and con trolling of electricl 21 ansfn ormners aijl as a parking; nrea Co

0 ~~exposure lo com unvtrds 'hat could pose all trttceks. A tnatchanornr soil spill Ennui ningunlaccepable hunarn health or evological risk. Robvchlorinated biphenybs PKiSs) OecLirCd i J tlMci as i idado under ti~s smuge deral silepeformAdce 190. Stmedci surface soils in ilie area of tlie oilf

0 criterian for D)L.A to ar"l nremedial Car n foa ricenrle asew NuhsequanIly retrieuvalt and disposed ofkRA~s) iii an effective and cfrtcieq' munner. MY- islSllation. Ihe buildine ouiS ren Lsead 0l

tevrnarduraril inshuse 55-gra I dI imew cu onnimers'0 At~O 10 is in the northern pad of DS(.I~ at 1,e impacted soills, l'Tcntiiglinks, anda frocntect'0 i~ntersetionr of Road A and North h Sitreet within clhothingtderived duryingtdie '(:1 spill remnediala i tn.

D~efense Dolan Richmond Virginia (a retricted 05CR building was stjhseqoesit~ used to store wveigh tstiationarea erieba bird fcincing and lCokd or guardedol cutest itemr forlBinlding 20.is ulii 8wsdmhsidi0as shown in Figu 2 Surfaesc raiiarge from oil to in (sccemcro 2002. th entire Pt; 10 surface argea is

0ef~z1

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~865 4* ~~Final Proposed Plan

Operable Unit 10 Former Building 68 Soil* ~~Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia 18 October 2006

0 ~~covered by gravel, and sparse vegetation is between the Two metals, 14 PAHs, and 4 pesticides in sediment* ~~gravel. exceeded residential soil RBCs or ecological criteria;

however, only PAHs were above DSCR backgroundThe Proposed Plan for OU 10 is to implement all soil concentrations.

0 ~~remedial actions necessary for reliable long-termprotection of current and future receptors potential ly Groundwater assessments conducted in 2001 and 2002

* ~~impacted by this OU and to complete remedial actionsincae flwtth nohas. Oyatmn,in a reasonable time for a reasonable cost to taxpayers. mangianese andt chloroorrmheret detcte abtiove,

3.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS background concentrations and tapwater RBCs.* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~However, manganese is an essential nutrient, and* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ingestion of 2 liters of water per day with the maximum

The first soil assessment was a pesticide monitoring concentration detected would be within acceptable* ~~study conducted in 1986. Total pesticide ranges based on human health. Antimony and

concentrations in the three samples collected ranged chloroform were well below drinking water standards.from 3 to II17 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). One Therefore, groundwater was not determined to besample had PCBs of 8 mg/kg. Pesticide and PCB adversely impacted.

0 ~~concentrations from a storm sewer sediment sample* ~~were 0.32 and 0.21 mg/kg, respectively. A Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment (HHBRA)

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~was conducted in 1997. The estimated carcinogenic

Ten surface soil samples were collected in 1992. risk to a hypothetical future resident from soil andSemnivolatile organic compounds were at or below groundwater exposure combined (4x I 4) marginally

* ~~approximately 8 mg/kg, pesticides were at or below 1.1I exceeded the lI XI 4 risk level allowed under the NCPmg/kg, and PC~s were not detected. at 40 CFR Section 300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)(2). PA~s and0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~arsenic were the primary contributors to carcinogenic

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~risk in soil, and arsenic was the primary contributor inIn 1995, a remedial investigation was initiated. Four groundwater, although arsenic was well below the

0 ~~groundwater and 20 additional soil samples were federal drinking water maximum contaminant levelcollected as part of the RI. Soil samples were collected (MCL). However, future residential site use is not

* ~~at depths up to 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). In anticipated and is not consistent with OSCR's mission.soil, four metals (aluminum, arsenic, iron, and

0 ~~manganese), five PAHs (benzo(a)anthracene, Etmtdrs ocretadftr nst okrbenzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b) fluoranthene, Etmtdrs ocretadftr nst okrdibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene), and recreational waders was acceptable.and one pesticide (dieldrin) were found above Nonearcinogenic hazards for future construction

* ~~residential soil screening values (USEPA Region 3 workers (hazard index [HI] of 2), future adult residents* ~~Risk-based Concentrations [RBCs]) and maximum site (9), and a future residential child (20) were above the

background concentrations. The maximum PAH USEPA departure value of I. Noncarcinogenic0 ~~concentration detected was 17 mg/kg, and the impacts were acceptable for current and future on-site0 ~~maximum pesticide was <1 mg/kg. In groundwater, workers.

eight metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, chromium,cobalt, iron, manganese, and vanadium) exceeded Ecological risks were assessed to be low. Little habitat

* ~~tapwater RBCs. is available for terrestrial receptors given the industrial* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nature of the installation. In addition, the entire OU 10

* ~~Surface water and sediments from Falling Creek surface area is covered by gravel with sparse* ~~Tributary were sampled in 1995 and 2000. Only vegetation between the gravel. Sediments in storm

aluminum exceeded ambient water quality criteria in drains represented the maximum exposure potential for* ~~surface water, but OU 10 was not thought to be the ecological receptors in Falling Creek Tributary.

source because upstream concentrations were higher. Benthic macroninvertebrate surveys showed no

050022.11 4

865 5Final Proposed Plan

0 ~~Operable Unit 10 Former Building 68 Soil* ~~Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia 18 October 2006

0 ~~impairment at the location closest down stream from from potential installation impacts to Failing Creek* ~~the storm sewer outfall. Food web modeling indicated Tributary.* ~that adverse impacts were unlikely for wildlife

associated with Falling Creek Tributary. A CMP was conducted from 2001 to 2004. Monitoringincluded Falling Creek Tributary, which receives

Conditions at CU 10 were assessed to be protective of stormwater discharge from CU 10. PAHs exceeded* ~~huma n health and the environment if the land use sediment screening levels in upstream as well as

remained nonresidential. Institutional controls to downstream locations and were associated withrestrict access and prevent residential exposure were stormwater runoff. Levels detected were not expected

* ~~recommended in the Final Feasibility Study (FFS) to pose an unacceptable risk to potential ecologicalReport (2000). receptors. No adverse impacts to Falling Creek

Tributary from DSCR activities were indicated basedIn response to USEPA comments received in May on bottom-dwelling (benthic) community abundance,2002, additional studies were performed, including an species diversity, growth rates, or reproduction.HHBRA of the creeks adjacent to DSCR and a Overall, creek communities were diverse, numerous,three-year creek monitoring program (CMP). These and well-balanced. The presence of fish and

* ~~reports were finalized in 2006 (June and September, amphibians was another indicator that Falling Creekrespectively) to incorporate agency comments. Tributary provides suitable habitat and is a productive

stream.* ~~The purpose of the creeks HHBRA was to determine* ~~whether constituents related to historical installation 4.0 RISK SUMMARY

activities and detected in surface and sediment posedan unacceptable human health risk. In Falling Creek The original HHBRA completed in conjunction with

* ~~Tributary surface water, four PAHs [benzo(a)pyrene, the RI (1997) was revised and submitted in the FFS* ~~benzo(b)fluoranthene, chrysene, and indeno( 1,2,3- Addendum Report (2006). The HHBRA was updated

cd)pyrene] were identified as constituents of potential because land use at the installation is expected to0 ~~concern (COPCs) based Virginia Surface Water remain industrial, and a residential exposure scenario* ~~Quality Standards (VWQSs) or Virginia MCLs and was originally considered. An on-site residential

tapwater RB3Cs (where VWQSs or MCLs were not exposure scenario is unlikely in the foreseeable future* ~~available). One PAH, benzo(a)pyrene, was identified of this property according to the current and future land* ~~as a COPC in sediment based on comparison to use scenario detailed in the 2005 DSCR Master Plan.* ~residential soil RBCs (with an Hi of I and a

carcinogenic risk level of Ilx I0O). The revised HHBRA considered current and future on-site industrial workers and future on-site construction

Noncarcinogenic hazards were not evaluated because workers. There is no current construction at CU 10.toxicity data for these COPCs are based on Potential soil exposure routes considered in thecarcinogenic effects. The potential cancer risk for HHBRA to all worker receptors were incidental

0 ~~children and adults combined (6x 10-6 which represents ingestion, dermal contact, and dust inhalation. Current* ~~a 6 in 1,000,000 probability for adverse effects) was industrial workers could be exposed to shallow soils,

within the acceptable range of I xl o 0 to I xl O' defined and future industrial workers could be exposed to* ~~by the USEPA. In addition, the risk associated with surface and subsurface soils. In addition to surface and

potential exposure to surface water is likely an subsurface soil exposure, future construction workersoverestimate due to infrequently detected constituents could ingest or come into dermal contact with(I detection in 24 samples), and the risk associated groundwater during trench excavation.

* ~~with sediments is also likely to be an overestimate dueto minor amounts of or lack of sediment observed in For soils, a conservative screening process wasthe creek bed. No further action was recommended as performed using industrial soil RBCs. Soil COPCsa result of the creeks HHBRA to protect human health based on direct contact were arsenic, iron, dieldrin,

050022.11 S

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~865 6* ~~Final Proposed Plan

Operable Unit 10 Former Building 68 Soil* ~~Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia 18 October 2006

benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b) carcinogenic risk was estimated for current or future0 ~~fluoranthene, and indeno(1I,2,3-cd)pyrene. Soil COPCs industrial workers or future construction workers.that exceeded soil-to-groundwater screening levels(USEPA Region 3 generic soil leaching levels) were Based on human health risk, the lead agency's currentshown to pose no unacceptable risk to groundwater judgment is that the preferred alternative identified inusing an OU-specific leaching model because predicted this Proposed Plan, or one of the other measuresconcentrations for all constituents were below drinking considered in the Proposed Plan, is necessary to protectwater standards. public health or welfare or the environment from actual

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the

Five groundwater constituents [tetrachloroethene, environment.* ~~bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, chloroform, antimony, and 50 RMDA CINOJCIE* ~manga nese] exceeded Region 3 tapwater RBC 50 RMDA CINOJCIE

screening criteria. Given a groundwater depth of 15 to The RAOs for OU 1 0 are to:0 ~~25 feet bgs, on-site receptors would not be expected to

come into direct contact with these COPCs. Since I . Prevent future on-installation residentialconcentrations of these constituents on the installationexouetimaedsl;anwere less than Virginia MCLs, groundwater impactsexouetimaedsl;an

0 ~~were assessed to be minimal. Therefore, if in the most 2. Prevent future on-installation potableconservative scenario constituents were to migrate off groundwater use.the installation to the nearest residential receptor

* ~~(approximately 950 feet east), concentrations would 6.0 RESPONSE ACTION* ~~still be below drinking water standards. In addition,

residences are connected to the municipal water supply After this Proposed Plan has been reviewed during thesystem.' Volatile organic compounds (VOC) public comment period and public comments have beenconcentrations were below USEPA risk-based evaluated, the preferred alternative for OU 10, the basisscreening levels for indoor air both on and off the for selection, performance expectations, andinstallation. Therefore, this pathway was determined to contingency planning will be presented in a ROD. Abe insignificant. No COPCs in groundwater exceeded Responsiveness Summary that addresses publicVDEQ inhalation screening values for a construction comments also will be incorporated in the ROD.worker in a trench.

7.0 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION* ~~The risk characterization evaluated both ALTERNATIVES

noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects. The HI-,which estimates systemic or noncarcinogenic risk, was Two remedial action alternatives were developed andat or below I for all receptors (current and future evaluated in the FS with respect to effectiveness,

0 ~~industrial workers and future construction workers). A implementability, cost, and meeting RAOs. Costscumulative HI of I has been established as the include capital, annual operation and maintenanceacceptable benchmark for all risk assessments under (O&M), and total present worth (PW). (Total PW

* ~~CERCLA pursuant to the NCP at 40 CFR Section represents the sum of capital and O&M costs* ~~300.430 (e)(2)(i)(A)(I). The majority of discounted to a base year. Total PW allows a

noncarcinogenic risk was due to arsenic and iron in comparison of alternatives with expenditures made insoil. Carcinogenic risk was at or below I1X10 4 for all different periods.) These remedial actionreceptors (current and future industrial workers and alternatives are described briefly below.future construction workers). The majority of risk wasdue to arsenic in soil. The upper-bound acceptable Alternative 1: No Actioncarcinogenic risk goal Of lIX04 was established for

0 ~~receptors on the installation in accordance with the CERCLA requires that "No Action" be evaluated toNCP. Therefore, no unacceptable noncarcinogenic or establish a baseline for comparison to other remedial

050022.11 6

* ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~86 5 7Final Proposed PlanOperable Unit 10 Former Building 68 Soil

* ~~Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia 18 October 2006

0 ~~alternatives. No action leaves the impacted soils in Overall Protection of Human Health and the

0 ~~place without measures to prevent exposure. Environment

The only costs considered for this alternative were for Overall protection of human health and the0 ~~the mandatory CERCLA five-year reviews. The environment is the primary objective of remedial

estimated costs were based on a 20-year period and a 5 action. Alternative I does not satisfy thepercent annual discount rate. protectiveness criterion since it does not limit potential

exposure at OU 1 0. Alternative 2 limits exposure* ~~Estimated Capital Cost: $0 through institutional controls and provides annual* ~~Estimated Five-Year Review Cost: $11,300 inspections to confirm that conditions remain

Estimated Total PW Cost: $11,300 protective.

* ~~Alternative 2: Institutional Controls Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and

Institutional controls are non-engineered, legal AporaeRqieetmeasures to limit exposure. The OU 10 land use will Chemical-specific applicable or relevant and

* ~~be solely for industrial purposes until conditions allow appropriate requirements (ARARs) were not identifiedfor unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. for soil, but industrial RBCs were "to be considered"

* ~~Institutional controls will be attached to the property criteria in the FS. Both alternatives leave constituentsdeed to restrict groundwater use and prohibit in place above industrial RBCs. However, Alternativeresidential or childcare-related land use, should the 2 provides for restricted access and limits exposure.property change ownership in the future. Federal and state MCLs were identified as chemnical-

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~specific ARARs for groundwater. As summarized inAlternative 2 also includes maintenance of the Section 4.0, MCLs are not exceeded.vegetative/gravel cover to limit potential futuremigration of constituents in soil to the storm sewer Location-specific ARARs include state and federal

* ~~system. endangered species acts. As noted, OU 10 has little* . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~habitat available for ecological receptors. Endangered

The estimated costs include annual inspections for a plants, animals, or insects have not been observed at20-year monitoring period, 5-year reviews, and a ou l0.5 percent annual discount rate.

Estimated apital Cot: $5,000Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

* ~~Estimated O&M: $61,070 Alternative I is not effective because exposure to soils* ~~Estimated Total PW Cost: $66,070 above industrial RBCs on the installation is not

restricted. Under Alternative 2, institutional controls* ~~8.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES can be very effective in limiting exposure and,

therefore, in managing risk. Annual inspections areThis section describes the nine CERCLA evaluation required as part of Alternative 2 to ensure continued

0 ~~criteria and summarizes the more detailed analysis effectiveness.* ~presented in the FS for the two remedial action* ~~alternatives. The evaluation includes threshold criteria Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume

(requirements which must be met), balancing criteria through Treatment* ~~(used to weigh trade-off's), and modifying criteria* ~~(anticipated agency and public acceptance). Treatment is not provided by either alternative.

Therefore, constituent toxicity and volume remainunchanged. With Alternative 2, constituent mobility is

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~reduced by maintaining the vegetative/gravel cover* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~over impacted soils. The potential for future soil

050022.11 7

* ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~86 5 8* ~~Final Proposed Plan

Operable Unit 10 Former Budlding 68 Soil* ~~Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia 18 October 2006

0 ~~migration through the storm sewer to Falling Creek inspections will be conducted to confirm that RAOs are* ~~Tributary is reduced with Alternative 2. being met.

Short-Term Effectiveness Community Acceptance

Short-term effectiveness is used to evaluate risk to on- Community acceptance of the preferred alternative willsite workers and the nearby community during be evaluated based on comments received during the

0 ~~remedial action implementation. This criterion does public comment period for this Proposed Plan. A* ~~not apply to Alternative I in the absence of any Responsiveness Summary will be included in the* ~~construction. Under Alternative 2, institutional OU 10 ROD. Community acceptance is anticipated,

controls are administrative restrictions and are since Alternative 2 should be protective of public* ~~effective immediately. Alternative 2 is not expected to health.

adversely impact workers or pose a risk to the* ~~community. 9.0 SUMMARY OF THE PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE* ~~Implementability

Based on the evaluation of alternatives, DLA considersAlternative I is simpler to implement. No Alternative 2, institutional controls and a vegetative

0 ~~construction, specialized equipment, or materials are cover, to be the preferred alternative to addressused. Only agency approval of five-year reviews is impacted soils near former Building 68 (designated as

* ~~required. With Alternative 2, institutional controls will OU 1 0). Alternative 2 is selected because it:require some coordination with USEPA, VDEQ, and

0 ~~local/county agencies. However, institutional controls * Is protective of human health and the* ~~should be straightforward to implement. Maintenance environment

of the vegetative/gravel cover will utilize standardequipment which is readily available. a Limits exposure to soil constituents above

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~industrial RBCs

Cost ~~~~~~~~~~~~* Provides annual inspections to document that0 ~~The cost comparison is based on total PW, which conditions remain protective

includes capital and O&M costs. PW costs were 0 Rdcsptnilcnttetmblt ncalculated using a 5 percent annual discount rate and * Rdcsptnilcnttetmblt n20-year timeframe for 5-year reviews. Alternative 11 potential migration through the storm sewer to

0 ~~No Action, has a lower cost than the institutional Falling Creek Tributary (through maintenancecontrols provided with Alternative 2. However, of the vegetative/gravel cover)Alternative 2 is more protective. * Is straightforward to implement with no

* ~~Alternative I Total PW Cost: $11,300 adverse short-term impactsAlternative 2 Total PW Cost: $66,070 * Is expected to have regulatory agency and

* ~~Regulatory Agency Acceptance community acceptanceAlternative 2 consists of the following institutional0 ~~Alternative I does not prevent potential exposure or controls and requirements:

provide annual inspections to ensure that conditions* ~~remain protective. Therefore, Alternative I is not * Filing a deed restriction that prohibits* ~~preferred. USEPA and VDEQ support Alternative2 2rudae s ntlltow o oal

because it will be protective of human health and the gurpoundwater use instlaioenwide for potdable0 ~~environment. As part of Alternative 2, annual purposesi and froprt residetialsforecidcr

050022.11 8

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~86 5 9* ~~Final Proposed Plan

Operable Unit JO Former Building 68 Soil* ~~Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia 18 October 2006

* Notification to USEPA and VDEQ of major A DSCR Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) was* ~~~~land use changes at OU 10 established in January 2002. The RAB currently holds

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~monthly meetings to exchange information among* Conduction five-year CERCLA statutory community members and government agencies. These

0 ~~~~reviews to ensure that the chosen remedy meetings are generally the second Monday of each0 ~~~~continues to provide adequate protection of month. RAB meetings are open to the public. For* ~~~~human health and the environment (until Soil additional information regarding RAB meeting

constituents no longer remain at concentrations schedules and locations, contact the DSCR Public* ~~~~that preclude unlimited use and unrestricted Affairs Officer at (804) 279-5896.

exposure) ~ ~~~~~The public comment period for this Proposed Plan* * ~~~Maintenance of the vegetative/gravel cover to offers the public an opportunity to provide input to the* ~~~~limit potential future transport of impacted OU 10 remedial action planning process. The

soils through the storm sewer to Falling Creek Proposed Plan is available in the Administrative0 ~~~~Tributary Record (see "Dates to Remember" on page I of this

Proposed Plan). The public comment period will begin* Assessment by the DSCR environmental group on November 6, 2006 and end on December 20, 2006.

0 ~~~~of proposed construction in the event that A public meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m. on0 ~~~~excavation activities are planned December 11, 2006, at the Bensley Community Center

* Disposed of impacted soils in a permitted to provide an additional opportunity for public* ~~~~facility and replaced with clean fill to prevent comments on the Proposed Plan. All interested parties

exposure in the event that impacted soils are are encouraged to attend and learn more about the OUremoved in the future IC alternatives developed and the elements of the

preferred alternative.0 * ~~Implementation of erosion and sediment

controls to prevent migration to the stormsewer and an annual inspection program in the

* ~~~~event that impacted soils are disturbed in the* ~~~~future

* ~10.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

* ~~DLA provides information to the public regardingongoing Environmental Restoration Program activities

* ~~at DSCR through public meetings and publication of a* ~Community Newsletter and Fact Sheets, the

Administrative Record, the Community InvolvementPlan (September, 2003), and announcements in the

* ~~Richmond Times Dispatch. DLA encourages thepublic to gain a more comprehensive understanding ofOU 10 and CERCL~A activities that have beeno ~~conducted at the installation.

0~~00021

p ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~865 10p ~~Final Proposed Plan

Operable Unit 10 Former Building 68 SoilS ~~~Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia 18 October 2006

p ~~~~~~~~~~~~Glossary of Terms

Specialized terms used in this Proposed Plan are defined below:

Administrative Record - Documents made available to the public including reports used in making remedial actiondecisions.

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) - The federal and state laws that a selected remedyshould meet. These requirements may vary among sites and alternatives.

Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment (HHBRA) - An evaluation of the potential carcinogenic health risks and non-carcinogenic hazards associated with potential exposure of susceptible current and future human or ecological receptors tosite-related constituents in environmental media (i.e., soil, groundwater, air, surface water, and sediment) assuming no actionis taken to remedy conditions at the site.

Cleanup - Action taken to mitigate a release or threatened release of hazardous substances that could affect public healthand/or the environment. The term "cleanup" is often broadly used to describe response actions including phases of remedialand removal actions.

Constituent of Concern (COC)-lIf the chemical-specific risk estimate for aCOPC is greater than an acceptable risk level (i.e.,a hazard index greater than I or a cancer risk greater than I10"), then the chemical is selected as a constituent of concern or COC.Risk-based cleanup levels are developed for CO~s.

Constituent of Potential Concern (COPC) - A chemical that is selected for the risk assessment process because it exceeds ascreening value.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) - A federal law passed in 1980* ~~and subsequently amended. CFRCLA is commonly referred to as the Superfund Law. The act created a special tax (on the* ~~petroleum refining and chemical manufacturing industries). The tax proceeds were placed in a trust fund to investigate and

clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that endanger public health, welfare, or the environment. The* ~~taxing and funding provisions of the Act lapsed in 1995 and have not been renewed by Congress.

0 ~~Five-Year Review - A process to evaluate the remedial action performance and determine whether conditions remainprotective of human health and the environment. CERCLA as amended and the National Contingency Plan specify thatremedial actions that result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at a site above levels that allow for0 ~~unlimited use and unrestricted exposure be reviewed every five years to ensure protection of human health and the

* ~~environment.

Groundwater - Water found beneath the ground surface that fills pores in earth materials such as sand, soil, gravel, or rock.In a productive water-bearing unit (known as an "aquif/er"), groundwater occurs in sufficient quantities that it can be extractedfor drinking water, irrigation, and other purposes.

Hazard Index (HI) - For each non-carcinogenic COPC and exposure pathway included in the risk assessment, the chemical-specific hazard quotients are summed to evaluate cumulative risk for a specific receptor. The sum of the hazard quotients is the

* ~~hazard index.

0 ~~Hazard Quotient - The ratio of the daily dose of a non-carcinogenic, site-related chemical due to onsite exposure divided bythe reference dose for that chemical. The reference dose represents the daily chemical intake that is not expected to causeadverse effects.

* ~~Hazard Ranking System (HRS) - A scoring system used by USEPA to evaluate potential relative risks to public health andthe environment resulting from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. This score is the primary factor used

* ~~to decide whether a hazardous waste site should be promulgated to the National Priorities List.

050022.11

865 iFinal Proposed PlanOperable Unit 10 Former Building 68 Soil

S ~~Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia 18 October 2006

S ~~Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in a public water system. MCLsare defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 141, the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations thatimplement portions of the Safe Drinking Water Act). MCLs are legally enforceable groundwater standards.

National Contingency Plan (NCP) - Also referred to as the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution ContingencyPlan, includes a framework for responding to hazardous substance spills, hazardous waste site releases, and oil discharges.

National Priorities List (NPL) - The USEPA's list of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified forpossible long-term remedial response. The list is based primarily on the score that a site receives under the HRS. TheUSEPA is required to update the NPL at least once per year.

Present Worth Analysis - A method to evaluate expenditures that occur over different periods. By discounting all costs to acommon base year, the costs for different remedial action alternatives can be compared. When calculating present worthcosts for Superfund sites, capital as well as operation & maintenance (O&M) costs are included.

Proposed Plan - A public participation requirement of CERCLA, in which the lead federal agency summarizes the preferredcleanup strategy, the rationale for the preference, the alternatives evaluated in the remedial investigation/feasibility study, and0 ~~any ARAR waivers proposed for site cleanup. The Proposed Plan solicits public review and comment on allalternatives under consideration.

Public Comment Period - A prescribed period during which the public may review and comment on various CERCLAremedial action documents. For example, a minimum 30-day comment period is mandated in the National Contingency Planto allow interested community members to review and comment on a Proposed Plan. Advance notification of the Public

0 ~~Comment Period dates must be published in a local newspaper.

* ~~Record of Decision (ROD) - A public document that identifies the selected remedy, the final remedial action objectives(RAOs), measures to achieve RAOs, the basis for the decision, remedial action performance expectations, metrics to assessRAO progress, and a contingency plan to address unanticipated performance concerns. The ROD is based on the information

0 ~~and technical analysis generated during the remedial investigation/feasibility study, consideration of applicable or relevantand appropriate requirements (ARARs), and consideration of public comments. All information used to make a final remedydecision must be documented in the site Administrative Record.

Remedial Action - The means selected to achieve RAOs; the construction or implementation phase that follows the remedialdesign of the selected cleanup alternative at an NPL site.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) - Investigative and analytical studies performed as the basis for remedialo ~~action decision-making. The RU/FS is intended to:

* Gather information necessary to define the impacted media at and near a site; identify potentially exposed human and0 ~~~~ecological receptors; and determine the type, magnitude, extent, and fate of constituents;* *~~ Identify (or waive) regulatory requirements that will affect the remedial action selection and implementation;

* Establish remedial action objectives (RAOs) and cleanup criteria;

* Identify and screen remedial technologies and develop remedial action alternatives; and0 *~~ Conduct a detailed analysis of alternatives (including cost).

Target Cleanup Level - The acceptable risk-based concentration of a COC. On-site concentrations of COCs exceeding thetarget cleanup level require remediation.

* ~~USEPA Region 3 Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) - Chemical concentrations in v'ater or soil corresponding to acceptablerisk levels (a hazard quotient of I or an excess cancer risk of Ilx I 0k). RBCs are used to screen chemicals and select COPCs.

00

0 ~~050022.1/

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~86 5 1 2* ~~Final Proposed Plan

Operable Unit 10 Former Building 68 Soil* ~~Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia 18 October 2006

FOR MORE INFORMATION

For more information on the environmental program at DSCR or the Proposed Plan, please contact the following:

* ~~~~~DLA Contact: USEPA Contact: VDEQ Contact:

Ms. Kim Turner Ms. Trish Taylor Mr. James CutlerPublic Affairs Officer (DSCR-DSA) Community Involvement Section (3HS43) Virginia Department of Environmental

Defense Supply Center Richmond US Environmental Protection Agency, Quality8000 Jefferson Davis Highway Region 3 Office of Remediation Programs

Richmond, Virginia 23297-5000 1650 Arch Street 629 East Main Street, 40 Floor* ~~~email: Kirn.Turnernadla.mil Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Richmond, Virginia 23219

Fax: (804) 279-6084 email: tavlorntrish ameva.gov email: icteadQvrii.o

* ~~~~COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION DATES TO REMEMBER

0 ~~~Comment on the Defense Logistic Agency's December 11, 2006* ~~~OU I0 Proposed Plan at the publ ic meeting The public meeting for comments on the

or fax, email, or mail your comments to: Proposed Plan will be held

Ms. Kim Turner ~ ~~~~~~starting 7:30 p.m. at the

* ~~~~Public Affairs Officer (DSCR-DSA) Bensley Park and Community Center* ~~~~~Defense Supply Center Richmond 2900 Drewrys Bluff Rd

8000 Jefferson Davis Highway Richmond, VA 23237Richmond, Virginia 23297-5000

email: Kimn.Turnernadla.mnil* ~~~~~~Fax: (804) 279-6084 All comments must be postmarked by

All comments must be postmarked by December 20, 2006 for consideration* ~~~~December 20, 2006 for consideration.

* ~COMMENTS:

0~~00021

S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~865 13Final Proposed PlanOperable Unit 10 Former Building 68 SoilDefense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia /8 October 2006

Mailing Coupon

If you would like to be added to the DSCR mailing list and receive copies of future newsletters and Fact Sheets,please fill out the coupon below and mail it to:

Ms. Kim Turner* ~~~~~~~~~~~Public Affairs Officer (DSCR-DSA)

Defense Supply Center Richmond* ~~~~~~~~~~~8000 Jefferson Davis Highway* ~~~~~~~~~~~Richmond, Virginia 23297-5000

Name:

* ~~Address:

City __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Zip _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* ~~E-mail address

* ~~ADD MY NAME TO THE MAILING LIST fl DELETE MY NAME FROM THE MAILING LISTE

Ms. Kim Turner* ~~~~~~~Public Affairs Officer (DSCR-DSA)

Defense Supply Center Richmond- - ~~~8000 Jefferson Davis Highway

- Richmond, Virginia 23297-5000

0~~00021

0'MACTEC 6engineering and constructing a better tomorrow

18 October 2006

Project No. 6301-05-0022

Mr. Jesse C. PerezHQ AFCEE/IWA - COR3300 Sidney BrooksBrooks City-Base, TX 78235-5112

Contract: Contract No. F41624-03-D1-8606 - TO 93

Subject: Final Proposed PlanOperable Unit 10 - Former Building 68Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR)

Dear Mr. Perez:

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., (MACTEC) is pleased to submit an electronic copy of the above-referenced document. The Proposed Plan was prepared in continued support of the Defense Logistics Agenc\%(DLA) at DSCR.

The final Proposed Plan incorporates agency comments received. Additional copies have been issued asshown in the attached distribution list. If you have any questions or need further information, please contactme at (770) 421-3359 or Steve Youngs at (770) 421-3377.

Sincerely,

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.

Leslie Blythe Steven R ugSenior Environmental Engineer Chief Scientist

Enclosures ~~~- 2

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.3200 Town Point Drive NW, Suite 100 * Kennesaw, GA 30144 * Phone 770.421.3400 * Fax: 770.421.3486 www~mactec.com

865 .15DISTRIBUTION LIST

FINALPROPOSED PLAN

OPERABLE UNIT 10 - FORMER BUILDING 68

DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER RICHMONDRICHMOND, VIRGINIA

18 October 2006

Mr. Jesse C. Perez Commonwealth of VirginiaHQ AECEE/IWA - COR Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality3300 Sidney Brooks Federal Facilities Project ManagerBrooks City-Base, TX 78235-5112 Office of Remediation Programs(I electronic copy) ATTN: Jim Cutler

629 E. Main Street, P.O. Box 10009Richmond, VA 23240-0009(I copy)

Defense Supply Center Richmond Mr. John FellingerATTN: DSCR-SD, Building 80 (S. Edlavitch) TechLaw, Inc.8000 Jefferson Davis Highway 6 Meghans WayRichmond, VA 23297-5000 Pennsville, NJ 08070(2 copies and I electronic copy) (I copy)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. 3 CommanderATTN: Jack Potosnak (3HS13) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Norfolk District1650 Arch Street ATTN: CENAO-PM-M (Al Opstal)Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 803 Front Street(4 copies) Norfolk, VA 235 10-1096

(I copy)

CommanderDefense Logistics AgencyEnvironment and Safety (DES-F)(ATTN: Lt. Col. Dezell)8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 2639Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221(I copy)

_____ ________ _____ _____ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~865 1 6

0~~~~~~~~~~~

0~~~

0~~~~~~~~~~~

E co~~~~~~~~~~~~0E7

LU

CL OO

*~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~2 Co a

= ~~~~(4l 0

2 00 0 EL

C-, - £ 5 ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 -0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0

C -fl . s 4) 0)~~~~~~~~~) =00 a~~~~~~~~~~~~

a L C 0 (V

0) 0)0) 0 0 EaW0) '0 . =

a' :~~~~~~~L 75 a,

8. ~~~~~~~ 0~ ~CL Ca, 0 eE~l *o 2 .2m8M

E ~~~W .En0r 0)~~~~ . 0 )

~~ 0 S~~~0 0mo''0 0)-5

oU -CC a> Cfl w = 0c'J 9 S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 ~~~~~~- > Ee .

.0 <.~~~~~~~.e 0) - -~~~~~~0

0 M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a0

0 LL Ok z -(iiE

0 0g~- 0) CC

LU CO coo

z 0 U) n-OCCOW 0'. .2 coO C

0 L) M0O 0 ~ 0) .

865 17

2)

0 1

0

0~~~~~~

- L- isOC 0~~ o 4, - a

w 0 a w~~~is 4 V .c 00 -E~~~~~~~~~ z.0.. >~~~~~c~~~r~~ 2 0~1 LID ADoo s4

0 ) 00 o- 0 '= >4uC0 E3o 0 0w~. .o

E 0 ~ 2Ž0 0)

4, .- 0 o,0 L.I~~~.2 0 Lm4 0 > 0

0 t 0 w0 O =c0o-- l- 4= 004, S~ c0 8oz) A a -E0E4

o a *C1 0 00 > >

o ~~"' 8 ~~a 0 EC Z a-O. -

Co 5~~~ ~ O4f..S v. c S 0 4

e0 *----~~~~~~~ 0-o 4, C-c ~~~~~~ ~~= *, C E

4,fl4, 9 0 W . S j0 to Eo.o

CQ 4, E6 > o E0 .0

M 0 - - w0O 0 - W E -4, - ~~~~C'-JC %t "' QCM C= cv 4 S

02) 0 000 ~ , 0 ~- t ~ 0 N

M E M -o < 0 0.E ~ ~ ~ 2 4,a(

LLI .C - L 4Oc C- E 0 - Of

0 ~~-~~=flo 0 a -w~~>

0 16~~~~~~~> 0

:Miw Wg~ 0 O -- C

E E 1:~.--5 8cr. 6 >6EooE CO

2 wM- 0-~~0~~ (0O_

0

= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C=0.2 u 0~~~4 c4CC 0 O0).2 0 0 ~ 'c'C-= C 0 4~ 00Mt C w w =w C '-'C C

-O CO S )Scco CO w- ( coc-0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

co~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4CL a- a- a- a- a- a- 0 EL a- O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

0)

________ _____ _______________ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~8 65 1 8

0,

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

~~~~~~o ~ ~ ~ o

E~~~

;0,

0)

wO)~~~~~~~~L

4' C,

< =U

*0 - =Z - M

0 8 40

2 ,. w 16.

o C~~~~woS

0) 0.~~~~C) DU)La EL~~~~~~~~~

*1I~~~~~DO (0 L IO 00) 0 C~~~~~~~~~MV >)

0)~~~~~~

o 2~~C0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

0) 0) .Q40~~~~~~~~~U

~~*0 0)~~~E0) ~ ~ E 0)0

COO 0)~~~m

- - 'E ) 0

0 a =~~0)w= = =

co~~~~~~~~~~~

LU 0 0 -)404a -

o ~~~~~~~~~E o ~

I.I- L ELLLJ LA. Ca Z

4 t )'A) ELUj 0~~'

0 2 E2CD~~~ac4 0 c 0

LLI u 0) 0 c E O0

U) -~ ~ a

o XS E 0 E

________ ______ __________ ~~~~ ~ ~~~865 19

0

0~~~~~~~~~~~

V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~CL

o .20o

E C~~~~~~~~~~~~~E -0-~~

4., Lw

* 00

0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~co~~~~~~~

= - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WV

V5 (L o M (0 ~ ~ ~ ~

0. 0 0a 0o .r

0 ) (0 (~~~~~~~~0(.04,C

m m ~~~~~~llEl )0 = C

0 i0 (0 04

~~ 0 C~~ 0(0 (0~ ~~~~~~) L

o 0~~~~~~~~~~~

Ow a~ w*n h: V

(0 -~~c 0) 2Do 0

- n~~~~Z a)

0) 0~~~a)LLa

~00CV 0 c c~~~~~~~~~c a. 0 a

M C 5 OVc w

o .~~~~ B-am= 0

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o ~ 5 L4,fl

a -4 , 0' L

LU~ ~ ~~, L o0~J

co X

LL V. L 0-x 0 U) ~~~~~~~0)c0-=

LU ~c *~ (VUa2~~ 0(0 C.)o E)c<

o 4, 0)t

C 0

865 20M

FINAL PAGE

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

FINAL PAGE