. . ..

G\

0 .. ..

:) e 0

eft .. Gl

"" "" N I . ·" ID

"" .. Ill ID • .n I ..

I I" i ' IC .. .. • ' · J:

' ... ~

.. .. • » 0

~ .• .. .. .. .. • • ~ 1. • ~

. .

. ·

... ·-·- . .. ~ · · . . . S:/,3 .... I 1 • 1 \ , · · /.•'S r~ wr411 L aJ:. 1 ,,. i:.~ L.l .. tJ lt<Uiit'tH.•~ I ''L l'hl.i "'- . J-wN ""'~ 'Si tc: ~JAL""'~d';,..c..T"-.__

al\!.uu •• ; '"''· ••' ;:u•"0 Break: S.J . Other: I •

. ·, UttiCl ut • 5U"ID 1111~11 AhU Lfiii,H"Lh'- f III ... 'Coh:il

Mr. Barry w. Muller Chief, Dfvlaion of Air • Hazardous Materials Rhode I•land Department of

Environmental Manage•ent •1 1S Davia Street - 204 Cannon Building Providence, Rhode Island 02~0d ~

Dear Mr. Mullera

Thank you for your ldtter of October 26, 1984, concerning th• Western San~ and Gravel Site R~~ur~ of Deciaion (ROO). Th• concttrnli •nd ·recOIIIkndations that your httttr presents in referttnc_. to the ROD itself and the process t~at the Agency used to arrive at it "'er~ con::~lderod in the duv~luLJ~~unt of thu final kOO. Sin\!u your conc•rns vero avecifically addr~aaed in the Octubur 24, ~~~4, Meting at .Region 1 with State, Regional, 1nd Headquarters staff, I would like to emphasi~tt that the results of the tirst ROO process were the authorization of re•edial action to prot•~t public health and the deteraination to evaluate 1 co.prehensive approach for the· total remediation of this site. These results aru in k~e~in~ vith thd nationdl objectivwli of thtt tiupwrtund ~ · progra•, and •artt not just thd product of chanying Superfun~ policies. R~ther they are the ruaulta of ~rowing Ayency oKperienc_. in the acoping, study, and reaediltion of uncontrolled ha~arduuli w1ate aitea.

Thtt d~ta ddveloped 1nd ptdSdnted in thd reaedial invoati~atiQn/ . feasibility study •nd draft ROD was lnco.plete. We had lnliufficlent inforaatlon to aupport'the rocu~ndation th•t off-aite diapo,~l of conta•ihated soils 1nd aludyua "'as the cost-effec~i~o solution in preventing the aigrltion of conta•ination to the ground vat•r • An AdditionAl dati collection effort la under develop••nt by ~PA ana your ataff and will be incorporated lnto a ROD on aource control in 11 tl~ely ·a aanner aa poaaible •

Your letter recoaaendod thd exp•nalon·of the exiatlnQ ground wlter recirculation ayatea to contain the off•aite aigrltlon of oontaainanta. Aa part of our d•ta collection to aupplea.nt the ROD for the aouroe control ••••urea, Ca•p Dreaaer • McKee will ev11uat• thw recent repnrt bi Enl/ltonaontal Reanurc-a Aall•>e l.at•• ~ on thtt .. tt .. ctll/•n~•• of the rttcirculation ayatea. ~he State end EPA can approve th• .aapanslon of thw nc\r·culatlon •v•u• U th" 1nalyal1 ahowa thlt 1t 1a coat•elfective 1nd conalat•nt with likely r•••dlea at the elta.

- j, . \,. • ... -·-7

I I

~ I I

I I I I

~.

\ I... -2­

.. The expanalon of the exiating ground water recirculation · eyate• would require~ coat-effective evaluation ln conformance with the National Contingency Plan that demonatrates that the action le conalatent with the overall remedy and ia a coet­effective alternative that adequately protect• public health, welfare and the environment. tf the data that you have accumulated in the operation of the ayetem le aufflclent for the baala of a coat-effectlveneea evaluation, then the Region could provide youwith aaaistance in the development of a draft ROD.

The Region will be evaluating the funding priority of the ground wat~r feasibility atu~y, and other State and Regional project• aa part of the development of the FY 16 Superfund Comprehensive Accompl1ahmenta Plan. Development of the pr~lim1nary plan ahould begin by January 1985.

-- . . I ahare your concern that changing policies can cause delays

ln Superfund cleanups but we must continue to demonatrate that the aame approach and atandarda are being uniforaly lapleaentedthroughout the prograa.

Sincerely youn,

l•i Jaoll W. McGrewL...;...1

.. Lee M. Thoaaa '{i'Aealstant Administrator

.,.

. .

~ t I

\. : ,,

1 y

,. .. 'I I

... . .' .. ...