Mr. David Friedman

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Re: Petition for Delisting of Hazardous Wastes (Feb. 21, 2003)

Dear David:I wanted to share with you the enclosed June 3, 2003 letter from Thomas Henderson, South

Central Regional Director for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, concerninggroundwater downgradient of BWXT’s Final Effluent Ponds. You will recall that our VPDES

permit required a plan to assess (1) any risks to human health and the environment due to

groundwater impacts, (2) appropriate mixing zones and/or site-specific standards, and (3) the

feasibility of corrective measures; and required an implementation schedule. Our March 1998

Corrective Action Plan concluded that groundwater impacted by the final FEP does not pose a

risk to human health and the environment and that no further actions are warranted.

Although DEQ approved the Plan in 1998, because of the open-ended nature of the approval,we asked DEQ to confirm its earlier determination. Mr. Henderson’s letter confirms that

BWXT’s Corrective Action Plan demonstrated no significant impact to groundwater or surface

water. Although DEQ has not formally established a mixing zone downgradient of the FEP5,

DEQ’s determination that no risks are presented combined with the authorization for fluoride

discharge in the permit confirms that the current groundwater condition is not a matter that

requires further action within the VPDES program.

You will also recall that the delisting petition included a legal analysis that concluded that

impacts to groundwater from fluorides are not a relevant factor in the delisting decision under

EPA’s regulations. Notwithstanding this, DEQ’s confirmation should give EPA additional

assurance that human health and the environment are not being adversely impacted by the

petitioned wastes, and that DEQ is addressing any groundwater issues with respect to the FEPs

through the VPDES program.

Please let me know if any additional information would be helpful.

Sincerely,

John M. Storton

Advisory Engineer

cc: D.C. Ward
(434) 582-5120 Fax (434) 582-5125

www.deq .state.va.us Thomas L. Henderson Regional Director

June 3, 2003

Mr. Roger L. Coats, Manager

Environmental Protection

BWX Technologies, Inc.

P. 0. Box 785

Lynchburg, VA 24505-0785RE: BWX Technologies, Inc.-NPD, VPDES Permit VA0003697 Ground Water Risk Assessment

Dear Mr. Coats:

I appreciate you and Mr. Jack Storton meeting with us on May 28, 2003. We discussed the

previously submitted ground water risk analysis conducted for the two (2) final effluent ponds. The

original approval ofthe risk analysis results was by letter dated May 13, 1998, but contained a caveat that

the assessment would be revisited once the DEQ finalized the ground water guidance on which they wereworking. By letter dated August 3, 1998, you were notified that the quarterly ground water monitoring

for the final effluent ponds could be discontinued and the need for further monitoring would also be

reviewed once the ground water guidance was finalized.

This is to advise you that the ground water guidance that was finalized does not change the above

determinations. The guidance notes that if ground water monitoring results show a statistically significant

increase from the upgradient to the downgradient wells, further action would be warranted. Basically, if

any monitored unit has contaminated the ground water, a corrective action plan would be required. It also

notes that based on the extent of contamination, a risk analysis may be required. BWX Technologies

completed these items. According to the submitted report, the state ground water quality standards and

criteria were being exceeded and there was a statistically significant increase from the upgradient to thedowngradient wells for the parameters of fluoride, foaming agents, nitrite, nitrate and sodium.

An Agency ofthe Natural Resources Secretariat
James River. In that regard, the resulting concentrations ofpollutants were then compared to the state’s

surface water standards for aquatic and human health, at the point of ground water interception with the

James River, with the exception of fluoride which has no surface water criterion. The resultant ground

water and surface water mix showed no significant impact.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Thomas L. Henderson

Regional Director

cc: SCRO File

Rick Weeks, DEQ-CO

Karen Sismour, DEQ-CO