RECORD OF DECISION (RODS) - United States ... of Decision Site 5—Building 73 and Site 16—Former Mercury Removal Area Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. Naval Facilities Engineering

EPA/ROD/R20060300013422006

EPA Superfund

Record of Decision:

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD EPA ID: DC9170024310OU 06WASHINGTON, DC09/29/2006

FFA Final

Record of Decision Site 5—Building 73 and

Site 16—Former Mercury Removal Area

Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C.

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Washington

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region III

District of Columbia Department of the Environment

July 2006

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................v 1. Declaration .................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Site Name and Location ...............................................................................................1-1 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose ..................................................................................1-1 1.3 Description of the Selected Remedy...........................................................................1-1 1.4 Statutory Determinations.............................................................................................1-2 1.5 Authorizing Signature..................................................................................................1-2

2. Decision Summary....................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description........................................................................2-1 2.2 Site History, Enforcement Activities, and Previous Investigations...................................2-1

2.2.1 Site History .......................................................................................................2-1 2.2.2 Enforcement Activities ....................................................................................2-2 2.2.3 Previous Investigations...................................................................................2-3

2.3 Community Participation ............................................................................................2-7 2.4 Scope and Role of the Response Action.....................................................................2-8 2.5 Site Characteristics........................................................................................................2-8

2.5.1 Physical Setting ................................................................................................2-8 2.5.2 Conceptual Site Model ....................................................................................2-9 2.5.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination............................................................2-9

2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Resource Uses........................................2-10 2.7 Risk Summary .............................................................................................................2-11

2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment Process ............................2-11 2.7.2 Site 5 HHRA Results......................................................................................2-11 2.7.3 Site 16 HHRA Results....................................................................................2-18 2.7.4 Ecological Risks..............................................................................................2-23

2.8 Selected Remedy .........................................................................................................2-24 2.9 Documentation of Significant Changes ...................................................................2-24

3. Responsiveness Summary.......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Overview........................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Background on Community Involvement ................................................................3-1 3.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period, Navy

Responses.......................................................................................................................3-1 4. References ..................................................................................................................................4-1

5. Glossary ......................................................................................................................................5-1

WDC042670002.ZIP III

RECORD OF DECISION, SITE 5—BUILDING 73 AND SITE 16 - FORMER MERCURY REMOVAL AREA

Appendixes

A DDOE Letter of Concurrence B Public Meeting Transcript—December 7, 2005 C Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Initial Site 5 HHRA D Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Initial Site 5 HHRA – Lead Evaluation E Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Updated Site 5 HHRA – Lead Evaluation F Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Initial Site 16 HHRA G Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Updated Site 16 HHRA- Mercury

Evaluation

Figures (Figures are located at the end of each section.)

2-1 Facility Boundary and Locations of Sites 5 and 16 2-2 Site 5 Detailed Layout 2-3 Site 16 Detailed Layout 2-4 Site 5 Sample Locations and Concentrations of Lead 2-5 Site 16 Sample Locations and Concentrations of Mercury 2-6 Site 5 Conceptual Site Model for Potential Human Exposures 2-7 Site 16 Conceptual Site Model for Potential Human Exposures

IV WDC042670002.ZIP

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ALM Adult Lead Model AOC Area of Concern

bgs below ground surface BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

COC constituent of concern COPC constituent of potential concern CSF cancer slope factor CSM conceptual site model CTE central tendency exposure

DDOE District of Columbia Department of the Environment DPT direct-push technology

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EPC exposure point concentration

FFA Federal Facilities Agreement FRI Final Remedial Investigation FS Feasibility Study HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables HHRA human health risk assessment HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient

IEUBK Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model IFI Initial Findings Investigation IR Installation Restoration IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

LID Low Impact Development

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

Navy United States Department of the Navy NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NDW Naval District Washington NPL National Priorities List

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PA Preliminary Assessment PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

WDC042670002.ZIP V


PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PEL Permissible Exposure Limit

RAB Restoration Advisory Board RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund RBC risk-based concentration RfD reference dose RFI RCRA Facility Investigation RI Remedial Investigation RME reasonable maximum exposure ROD Record of Decision SA Site Assessment SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SEFC Southeast Federal Center SI Site Investigation SVOC semivolatile organic compound UCL upper confidence limit of the mean UST underground storage tank

VOC volatile organic compound WNY Washington Navy Yard

VI WDC042670002.ZIP

SECTION 1

Declaration

1.1 Site Name and Location Site 5—Building 73 and Site 16—Former Mercury Removal Area Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. CERCLIS ID No. DC9170024310

1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedy for soil at Sites 5 and 16 at the Washington Navy Yard (WNY), Washington, D.C. The selected remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on information contained in the Administrative Record file for the WNY.

The Department of the Navy (Navy) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected the remedy and the District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE) concurs with the selected remedy. A letter from DDOE indicating concurrence with the selected remedy is provided in Appendix A.

The decision contained in this document is based on information and analysis currently available as a result of a thorough investigation at these sites. The decision does not preclude further review of the sites should additional information be identified.

1.3 Description of the Selected Remedy No further action is the selected remedy for the soil at both Sites 5 and 16. The no further action remedy selection is based on the remedial investigations (including the baseline human health and ecological risk assessment) of soil at Sites 5 and 16, which indicate that there are no unacceptable risks based on current site conditions, even if future residential use is assumed. No further action under CERCLA is necessary to protect human health, welfare, or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment from the soil at Sites 5 and 16.

Sites 5 and 16 are two of 15 sites at the WNY and are included in the Navy’s WNY Installation Restoration (IR) Program. Separate investigations and assessments are being conducted at each site in accordance with CERCLA. This ROD applies only to the soil at Site 5 (specifically the soil around Building 73) and Site 16 (specifically the soil within the bounds of the site).

WDC042670002.ZIP 1-1

SECTION 2

Decision Summary

2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description The WNY (EPA ID No. DC9170024310) covers 63.3 acres and borders the Anacostia River in southeastern Washington, D.C. (Figure 2-1). Commercial and vacant commercial properties along M Street border the facility on the north, commercial properties and a former industrial area along 11th Street on the east, the Southeast Federal Center (SEFC) on the west, and the Anacostia River on the south.

The WNY consists primarily of buildings and other impervious surfaces with little vegetated area. The WNY’s role throughout its two centuries of operation has been primarily ordnance production and research, but it also has included shipbuilding and repair, industrial development, and heavy equipment manufacturing. After World War II, the WNY’s role shifted from manufacturing to administration. Currently, the WNY includes administrative, supply, and storage buildings; residences; training facilities; and museums. Buildings and other impervious surfaces cover approximately 95 percent of the WNY.

Site 5 is located in the northwestern portion of the WNY, encompassing the soil around Building 73, and Site 16 is located in the south-central portion of the WNY, adjacent to the Anacostia River (Figure 2-1). These sites are described in greater detail below, and in the FFA Final Focused Remedial Investigation Report for Site 5 (CH2M HILL, 2003) and in the FFA Final Investigation Report for Site 16 (CH2M HILL, 2002), hereafter referred to as Site 5 FRI and Site 16 RI, respectively.

2.2 Site History, Enforcement Activities, and Previous Investigations 2.2.1 Site History Site 5 primarily encompasses the soil around Building 73 (Figure 2-2). Building 73 was constructed between 1898 and 1901 on the former site of Jeffers Square and Building 26. Building 73 originally served as the Secondary Mount Shop and contained machinery for assembling gun mounts and other miscellaneous activities. Starting in 1915, a portion of Building 73 was used to manufacture tubes that were used to launch torpedoes. Torpedoes themselves were not manufactured at this building. These manufacturing activities continued until the building was converted into the Boilermakers Shop Annex in 1949. The Boilermakers Shop Annex fabricated metal items such as girders, shields, and magazine guide tubes for rocket launchers. In 1952, a Welding Shop was added to the operations in Building 73. The Welding Shop in Building 73 housed transformers, generators, and an electric furnace. An aluminum shed was added to the building in 1955 to store oxygen and acetylene tanks. In the late 1950s, Building 73 was used as an aluminum cleaning facility. Ten tanks, approximately 6 feet wide, were located on the first floor of the building along the southern wall of the building. The degreaser tank, used as the first step of the aluminum cleaning process, was mounted in a pit approximately 4 feet below the concrete floor near

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-1


the southwest corner of Building 73. Building 73 was converted to Administrative Offices in 1961. In 1965, the building was converted into storage space. After 1965, a classified disintegrator was installed in Building 73 to shred paper. During the 1970s or 1980s, the building served as a recreational facility and housed indoor tennis courts. In 1998 renovations began as a part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) — Naval Sea Command project, which involved converting Building 73 back to office space. It is anticipated that future use of Building 73 will remain as office space. The 1998 BRAC renovations included constructing the parking garage (Building 28) that is presently south of Building 73. The parking garage construction involved the demolition of two buildings (former Buildings 26 and 143). The entire area, including part of what is now Site 5, was excavated to varying depths, the soil was replaced with clean fill, and the surface was landscaped with mulch and shrubbery.

Site 16 is a high-traffic area that is predominantly covered with asphalt, concrete, and buildings. Building 71 and the surrounding paved areas serve as restrooms and parking for visitors to the Navy Museum (Figure 2-3). The site also provides access to the adjacent Pier No. 2, where the display ship U.S.S. Barry is docked (IES, 1997). Site 16 encompasses Building 71 and its former petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs), stormwater lines traversing the site, and an area where free-phase mercury was discovered in the subsurface soil.

At one time, 13 petroleum USTs existed at Site 16, within and surrounding Building 71. Between November 1993 and March 1994, these USTs were either removed or abandoned in place. The USTs ranged in size from 550 to 10,000 gallons and contained waste oil, gasoline and diesel fuel. Currently, a corrective action plan (CAP) is being implemented at the Building 71 site under the Naval District Washington (NDW) UST Program through coordination with DDOE UST Division. The CAP involves free-product removal and long-term groundwater monitoring. The stormwater lines that run through the site terminate at Outfalls 5 and 6 (EPA, 1999).

The main area of interest within Site 16 is a 12- x 12-foot (ft) area where free-phase mercury was discovered in 1996 in the subsurface soil and removed pursuant to the time-critical removal action performed in June 1999 (Figure 2-3). The area where free-phase mercury was discovered in the subsurface is in the area of the former Building 146, which was built in 1916 and demolished in 1983. At various times throughout its existence, Building 146 housed an Airplane Motor Testing Shop, was used as a shipwright’s shop, a diving school, and a public garage, and housed Navy administrative offices (CH2M HILL, 2002). The specific source of mercury release is unknown; however, gauges associated with diving apparatus may have contained mercury.

2.2.2 Enforcement Activities On July 16, 1997, the EPA and the Navy entered into a Consent Order to perform a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) at the WNY to determine the nature and extent of potential releases of hazardous wastes, solid wastes, and/or hazardous constituents at or from the WNY. The EPA’s jurisdiction to issue the Consent Order derived from authority vested in EPA by Section 7003 of the RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.

2-2 WDC042670002.ZIP

SECTION 2—DECISION SUMMARY

Pursuant to CERCLA authorities, on March 6, 1998, the EPA proposed the WNY for listing on the Federal Facilities section of the National Priorities List (NPL) by publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register (volume 63, number 44, pages 11,340–11,345). The Federal Register notice announced EPA’s public comment period for the proposed listing of the WNY (and several other sites) from March 6, 1998, through May 5, 1998. The WNY was added to the NPL through a final rule in the Federal Register on July 28, 1998 (volume 63, number 144, pages 40,182-40,188).

An Interagency agreement (Federal Facilities Agreement [FFA]) between EPA Region III, the District of Columbia, and the Navy was signed on June 30, 1999 (EPA, 1999). In accordance with Executive Order 12580 and the NCP, the Navy functions as the lead agency for the management and cleanup of the WNY IR sites under CERCLA. EPA, the Navy, and the DDOE work together as part of the WNY cleanup team. Effective September 27, 1999, the FFA superseded the July 16, 1997 RCRA Order.

2.2.3 Previous Investigations 2.2.3.1 Site 5 Previous Investigations A summary of the previous investigations performed at Site 5 is presented below. Figure 2-4 shows the sampling locations and concentrations of lead in soil at Site 5.

Site Investigation The Navy conducted a facility-wide Site Investigation (SI) in June 1995 at the WNY (Baker, 1996). The SI Report recommended further investigation for Site 5 based on lead contamination in the subsurface soil. Three subsurface soil samples were collected in June 1995 within the Site 5 boundary. This investigation is also referred to as the Phase I SI.

Pre-Construction Characterization Sampling In 1998, soil from the north end of Building 28 (within the Site 5 boundary) was excavated during BRAC construction of the Building 28 parking garage. Characterization soil samples were collected for health and safety purposes, as well as for waste characterization. The pre-characterization BRAC soil samples in 1998 demonstrated that the soil removed from Site 5 was non-hazardous (i.e., was not hazardous by characterization). During the construction of the Building 28 parking garage (over the footprint of former Buildings 26 and 143, which were demolished) in 1998, soil between Building 73 and former Building 143 was removed and replaced with bedding material and clean fill. While the entire extent of previous soil removal is not specifically documented, the footprint excavated for the Building 28 parking garage in 1998 included the area where the three 1995 soil samples (WS05-DS01, WS05-DS04, and WS05-DS05) were collected during the SI.

Initial Findings Investigation On the basis of the recommendation for Site 5 in the 1996 SI report, the Navy conducted further investigation activities at Site 5. The Navy conducted an Initial Findings Investigation (IFI) from July 1999 through March 2000 (CH2M HILL, 2000). During the investigation, five direct-push technology (DPT) groundwater samples were collected within the Site 5 boundary to help determine if the soil at Site 5 represented a potential source of groundwater contamination. All five samples were analyzed for total and

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-3


dissolved metals; two samples were also analyzed for the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs). This report concluded that additional investigation of the site would be necessary for VOCs and metals.

Phase II Site Investigation The Navy conducted the second phase of the SI at Site 5 in December 2001 and September 2002 through November 2002. Three DPT subsurface soil samples and two monitoring well groundwater samples were collected within the Site 5 boundary during this Phase II Site Investigation. The soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals while the groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), total and dissolved metals, and hexavalent and trivalent chromium. The three monitoring well groundwater samples were collected from wells installed during this Phase II SI. The soil and groundwater samples collected during this investigation are discussed and presented in the FRI report.

Remedial Investigation An RI was performed at Site 5 (CH2M HILL, 2003b). The objectives of the Site 5 RI were to determine if past activities at Building 73 affected environmental media at the site, characterize the nature and extent of any environmental impacts, determine if sampling results indicate that a human health risk assessment (HHRA) would be necessary at the site, and identify people, plants or animals that are or might be exposed to site-related chemicals. Soil and groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals to characterize the nature and extent of contamination at Site 5 during the RI. The soil analytical results were also used to assess risk and to determine if the site is a source of contamination. The RI included an evaluation of six soil samples, including three from areas that had been removed during the excavation and construction of the parking garage. Given the presence of lead in the three samples from the undisturbed areas (detected concentrations ranged from 25 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg] to 9,230 mg/kg at a depth of 8 to 9 feet below ground surface) and the potential risk associated with exposure to lead by future residents, the RI recommended that a Feasibility Study (FS), including additional sampling, was warranted at Site 5.

Feasibility Study Evaluation An evaluation was performed in 2004 to determine the necessity of performing a FS at Site 5 (CH2M HILL, 2005a). This evaluation considered the additional soil data collected at Site 5 in June 2004 and included an HHRA using the June 2004 soil data. This updated HHRA did not include any samples of soil from areas that had been removed during the parking garage construction. Thirty-three subsurface soil samples were collected from nine locations from up to four depth intervals in June 2004 in support of the FS and evaluation of potential risks from lead exposure. These samples contained lead at concentrations ranging from 9.8 mg/kg to 862 mg/kg. When combined with the three RI soil samples from unexcavated areas discussed in the previous section, detected concentrations of lead exceeded the EPA’s screening level for residential soil (400 mg/kg; EPA, 1998) in 4 out of 36 samples. The updated risk assessment concluded that the site-wide average concentration of lead at Site 5 (351 mg/kg) is less than the EPA screening level for residential contact with soil (400

2-4 WDC042670002.ZIP


mg/kg), and therefore there would be no unacceptable risk to receptors exposed to subsurface soil at Site 5.

2.2.3.2 Site 16 Previous Investigations Initially, investigation activities at Site 16 included all constituents and environmental media within the site boundary. Based on the Final RI (CH2M HILL, 2002), the investigation approach was modified as follows:

1. Potential contamination associated with the fill material will be addressed separately under the ongoing facility-wide fill investigation (Site Screening Area [SSA] 12).

2. Potential contamination associated with the groundwater will be addressed separately under the ongoing facility-wide groundwater investigation – Operable Unit 1 (OU-1).

3. Potential contamination associated with petroleum constituents from the former petroleum USTs is being addressed by the NDW UST program through coordination with the DDOE UST Division. Inquiries about the ongoing UST investigations should be made through the NDW UST Program.

Therefore, this section only presents information from investigations at Site 16 that are related to constituents in soil that are under the purview of the CERCLA program, primarily the area within the former mercury removal area. Figure 2-5 depicts the soil sampling locations and concentration of mercury collected during the investigations discussed below.

1996 Site Assessment A Site Assessment (SA) was conducted in the Building 71 area in 1996 to identify the nature and extent of contamination found during previous UST-related investigations. In July 1996, during the SA investigation, free-phase mercury was detected on sampling equipment withdrawn from the subsurface in the southeastern portion of Site 16 (OPTECH, 1996). No free-phase mercury was observed at any other sampling location.

1999 Removal Action During June 1999, a time-critical removal action was conducted to remove soil impacted with free-phase mercury discovered during the SA field activities (OHM, 1999a, 1999b). Soil in a 12- x 12-ft area was excavated to a depth of 6 ft bgs. The soil containing elemental mercury was estimated to be within a 4- x 4-ft area and between a depth of 3 and 4 ft bgs. After the removal action, four discrete sidewall samples were collected from a depth of three feet below grade, and a four-point composite sample was collected from the bottom of the excavation, to assess the effectiveness of the removal action. Concentrations of mercury in all post-excavation samples were below EPA Region III risk-based concentrations (RBCs) for soil in an industrial setting (610 mg/kg).

1996, 1998-2001 Storm Sewer Assessment and Rehabilitation In 1996, an assessment of the storm sewer lines, manholes, and inlet structures at WNY was performed. The assessment consisted of cleaning the lines, followed by televising and videotaping the lines and structures to view the structural conditions (OHM, 1996). Following the assessment, the Navy replaced or rehabilitated the storm sewer lines across the entire WNY between 1998 and 2001 (OHM, 2001), including those lines within the Site

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-5


16 area. The storm sewer lines were repaired and the manholes, inlets, and trench drains leading to outfalls to the Anacostia River were inspected and repaired or replaced. This rehabilitation eliminated a possible pathway of contaminants to the Anacostia River. While there were no known sources of contaminant discharge to storm sewers within Site 16, this action helped eliminate any potential pathways.

2002 Remedial Investigation An RI was performed at Site 16 in 2002 (CH2M HILL, 2002). The objectives of the Site 16 RI were to define the extent of free-phase mercury, if any, remaining in soil in the southeastern portion of Site 16; determine if the stormwater lines and their surrounding bedding material traversing Site 16 were preferred pathways for contaminant migration across the site; and assess potential current and future risks to human health and the environment caused by the presence or release of site-related contaminants. The RI concluded that, after the 1999 removal action, no additional free-phase mercury had been identified and that the gravel bedding along the stormwater lines did not provide preferential groundwater flow pathways across the site. The RI recommended that an FS at Site 16 was nevertheless warranted because of the historical presence of free-phase mercury and dioxins in the subsurface soil. The RI also concluded that the fill was the likely source of dioxins detected in soil samples and that an investigation was warranted before the FS to identify any remaining mercury in the Site 16 subsurface soil.

2003 Feasibility Study Soil Sampling Based on a detailed review of the post-excavation sampling performed during the 1999 removal action, the WNY Cleanup Team agreed to collect additional soil samples to better determine the mercury concentrations at the base of the removal action area (CH2M HILL, 2003a). Five additional subsurface soil samples were collected within the footprint of the former removal action area and analyzed for total mercury in July 2003. The results indicated mercury concentrations ranging from 0.04 mg/kg to 394 mg/kg. No free-phase mercury was observed during this investigation.

2004 Feasibility Study Technical Memorandum Based on the one soil sample with elevated mercury (394 mg/kg) collected during the 2003 investigation, the WNY Cleanup Team agreed to perform additional soil sampling. The additional sampling was defined in the Work Plan for Additional Subsurface Soil Sampling at Site 16, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC (CH2M HILL, 2004a). The objectives of the investigation were to further discover the vertical and horizontal extent of mercury in the subsurface soil, update the HHRA, and assess the need for an FS for remediation if risks to human health were still found to be unacceptable.

Soil sampling conducted in 2004 consisted of the collection of 27 samples from 9 locations concentrated around the west side of the removal action area (Figure 2-5). At each location, samples were collected at three depth intervals: 6–8 ft bgs, 8–10 ft bgs, and 10–12 ft bgs. Concentrations of mercury in these samples ranged from 0.05 mg/kg to 141 mg/kg. No free-phase mercury was observed during the sampling. The results of the July 2004 sampling were presented in the FFA Final Site 16 Feasibility Study Soil Sampling and Necessity Evaluation (CH2M HILL, 2005b). The July 2004 sampling, combined with previously analyzed subsurface soil samples (1999, 2002 and 2003), delineated the vertical

2-6 WDC042670002.ZIP


and lateral extent of mercury contamination in the subsurface soil. The revised HHRA concluded that current and future site conditions present no unacceptable human health risks (CH2M HILL, 2005b).

2005 Supplemental Feasibility Study Necessity Evaluation Technical Memorandum Additional sampling activities were recommended for mercury at sample location WS16-DS01 (Figure 2-6) from the 8-10 ft bgs and 10-12 ft bgs intervals to better characterize the vertical extent at the location where the greatest concentration of mercury had been found (394 mg/kg in 2003) and to confirm that no free-phase mercury is present. These two soil samples (and one duplicate) were collected in July 2005. No free-phase mercury was observed in these samples. The results of the combined sampling events at Site 16 performed from 1999 through 2005 indicate that the three-dimensional extent of mercury is well defined, with higher concentrations of mercury generally confined to the 6-8 ft bgs interval in the western half of the former mercury removal area (area of approximately 8 ft by 16 ft). The revised HHRA is documented in the FFA Final Supplemental Soil Sampling Results and Feasibility Study Necessity Evaluation for Site 16 Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2005d). The HHRA concluded that exposure to current and future site conditions present no unacceptable human health risks.

2.3 Community Participation A Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) made up of community members, Navy, EPA, and District of Columbia representatives, meets several times each year. The RAB is designed as a forum for the exchange of information between WNY and the local community regarding IR activities.

All documents cited in the previous investigations for Sites 5 and 16 were made available to the public. These documents can be found in the Administrative Record file at the following locations:

D.C. Public Library Southeast Branch

D.C. Public Library Washington Highlands Branch

Naval District Washington Environmental Department

403 7th Street, SE 115 Atlantic Street, SW (at South Capitol Street, SW) 1014 N Street, SE Suite 320

Washington, DC 20003 Washington, DC 20032 Washington, DC 20374 Phone: 202-698-3377 Phone: 202-645-5880 Phone: 202-433-7181 www.dclibrary.org www.dclibrary.org

The notice of the availability of the Proposed Plans for Sites 5 and 16 was published in the Washington Post (D.C. Extra Weekly Edition), the Hill Rag, East of the River, and the Washington Informer. A 30-day public comment period on the Proposed Plan was held from November 28 to December 28, 2005. In addition, a public meeting was held on December 7, 2005, to present the Proposed Plans to the broader community.

At this meeting, representatives of the Navy, EPA, and DDOE answered questions about the sites and the proposed decision that no further action for the soil is required to protect human health and the environment. No written public comments were received during the public comment period; this fact is noted in the Responsiveness Summary, Section 3. A copy of the certified transcript for the December 7, 2005, public meeting is attached as Appendix B.

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-7


2.4 Scope and Role of the Response Action Sites 5 and 16 are two of several sites at the WNY included in the WNY IR Program. As a result of the previously undertaken removal actions, no further action is necessary for the soil at these sites to protect human health and the environment. This is the only ROD for the soil at Sites 5 and 16. This ROD considers only soil at Sites 5 and 16; groundwater at the WNY is currently being evaluated under separate investigative documents. Separate investigations and assessments are being conducted for the other IR sites at WNY in accordance with CERCLA, as presented in the WNY Site Management Plan (CH2M HILL, 2005c). Separate RODs and other CERCLA decision documents will be prepared for the other IR sites.

2.5 Site Characteristics 2.5.1 Physical Setting As discussed in Section 2.1, the WNY is heavily developed with buildings and other impervious surfaces, resulting in little vegetated land. The land slopes generally from north to south with ground surface elevation approximately 50 to 55 ft above mean sea level in the facility’s northeastern part to less than 10 along the bulkhead adjacent to the Anacostia River (CH2M HILL, 2003).

The WNY is constructed partially on reclaimed areas of the Anacostia River. Since the late 1700s, the WNY has expanded southward through a series of shoreline expansions into the Anacostia River. The soil underlying WNY consists of artificially placed fill and naturally deposited soil material. The general direction of groundwater flow at the WNY is south toward the Anacostia River.

Within the Site 5 boundary, Building 73 is surrounded on the north, east, and west by concrete sidewalk and asphalt pavement (Figure 2-6). On the south side of Building 73, in the area between Building 73 and Building 28 (a parking garage), a newly installed pedestrian sidewalk is surrounded by grass and landscaped shallow-rooted shrubs (Figure 2-6). There is no exposed natural surface soil at Site 5. During the parking garage construction surficial soil was removed and replaced with clean fill. There is approximately 300 square feet of grass between the sidewalk and the mulch in the entire area.

The ground surface at Site 16 is relatively flat but slopes slightly to the south toward the Anacostia River. The site lies upon filled areas of the Anacostia River created during the expansion of the original WNY shoreline. At least three shoreline expansion events occurred over the Site 16 area to extend the WNY shoreline to its current location. The soil underlying the site consists of non-native and manmade fill and naturally deposited soil material. The fill (composed of clay, silt, sand, and gravel) and manmade material (consisting of construction materials, rein-forced concrete, timbers, asphalt, brick, railroad tracks, and wood planking) underlies the paved surfaces. The fill ranges in thickness from 0 ft to 15 ft at Site 16. The former mercury removal area is located on the parking area at the southern end of the site boundary.

2-8 WDC042670002.ZIP


2.5.2 Conceptual Site Model The conceptual site model (CSM) for the HHRA integrates information regarding the physical characteristics of the sites, potentially exposed populations, sources of contamination, and contaminant mobility (fate and transport) to identify exposure routes and receptors evaluated in the risk assessment for subsurface soil. A well-defined CSM allows for a better understanding of the complete exposure routes and pathways (and therefore also the potential risks at a site) and aids in the identification of the potential need for remediation.

Human receptors under the current and future land use scenarios, both at Site 5 and Site 16, include construction workers (workers who may have to dig into the soil), industrial workers (people who work in the surrounding buildings at the WNY), adult and child trespassers/visitors, and hypothetical future adult and child residents. Hypothetical future residential use of the site was evaluated to confirm that no land use controls would be needed at the sites. However, residential development of the two sites is not a likely future land use. The CSM is further discussed in Section 2.7.

2.5.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination 2.5.3.1 Site 5 – Building 73 The following conclusions regarding nature and extent of contamination at Site 5 were made based on data collected in June 1995 during the base-wide SI (Baker, 1996), in December 2001 during the Site 5 RI (CH2M HILL, 2003b), and in June 2004 during the pre-FS Investigation (CH2M HILL, 2005a):

• Metals were detected at concentration greater than the soil screening criteria. No pesticides, VOCs or SVOCs were detected in soil above screening criteria.

• Based on the comparison of Site 5 soils versus background soils, four metal constituents (copper, lead, nickel, and thallium) were detected in subsurface soil at Site 5 at concentrations statistically greater than the subsurface soil background concentrations and above the adjusted EPA Region III residential RBCs. Out of these four constituents, only lead was detected at concentrations greater than the industrial screening criteria.

• Although lead concentrations in subsurface soil were elevated and lead was considered site-related, lead was not detected in any of the filtered monitoring well groundwater samples. Therefore, it appeared that lead concentrations in subsurface soil were not contributing to groundwater contamination.

• Through June 2004, a total of 43 subsurface soil samples (including 4 duplicates) were collected from 15 locations at Site 5. Figure 2-4 shows the locations of the subsurface soil samples. The lead concentrations ranged from 9.8 mg/kg to 9,230 mg/kg. Thirty-three out of the 43 subsurface soil samples were collected from nine locations in June 2004 during the pre-FS Investigation to further characterize the potential risks from lead exposure. These samples contained lead at concentrations ranging from 9.8 mg/kg to 862 mg/kg.

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-9


2.5.3.2 Site 16 – Former Mercury Removal Area The summary of the nature and extent of contamination at Site 16 below focuses on mercury concentrations in soil. Figure 2-5 shows the locations of the previous sampling events for mercury at Site 16.

• Four discrete sidewall samples at a depth of 3 feet below grade and a four-point composite bottom sample were collected during the time-critical soil removal action in June 1999 (OHM, 1999). Concentrations of mercury in all post-excavation samples were less than the 1999 EPA Region III RBCs for industrial worker contact with soils (610 mg/kg).

• In July 2003, five subsurface soil samples were collected from five locations from a depth of 6 to 8 ft bgs within the footprint of the former removal action area and analyzed for total mercury to better determine the mercury concentrations at the base of the 1999 removal action area. The mercury concentrations detected in these soil samples were 0.04 mg/kg, 0.28 mg/kg, 1.4 mg/kg, 39 mg/kg, and 394 mg/kg. No free-phase mercury was observed during this investigation.

• In July 2004, based on the one soil sample with elevated mercury (394 mg/kg) collected during the 2003 investigation, 27 subsurface soil samples from 9 locations concentrated around the west side of the removal action area (Figure 2-6) were collected to further discover the vertical and horizontal extent of mercury in the subsurface soil, update the HHRA, and assess the need for an FS for remediation if risks to human health were still found to be unacceptable. At each location, samples were collected at three depth intervals: 6–8 ft bgs, 8–10 ft bgs, and 10–12 ft bgs. Concentrations of mercury in these samples ranged from 0.05 mg/kg to 141 mg/kg. No free-phase mercury was observed during the sampling.

• In July 2005, two soil samples (and one duplicate) were collected at location WS16-DS01 (Figure 2-6) from the 8-10 ft bgs and 10-12 ft bgs intervals to better characterize the vertical extent at the location where the greatest concentration of mercury had been found (394 mg/kg in 2003) and to confirm that no free-phase mercury is present. The sample collected from the 8–10 ft-bgs interval contained 1.1 mg/kg of total mercury. The sample collected from the 10–12 ft-bgs interval contained 0.21 mg/kg of total mercury, and the duplicate of this sample had 0.47 mg/kg of total mercury. No free-phase mercury was observed in these samples.

2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Resource Uses Building 73 at Site 5 is currently used as office space. Building 28, which borders Site 5 to the south, is a parking garage. The area between the two buildings measures approximately 25 feet by 300 feet and consists of a concrete pedestrian walkway and landscaped planting areas with several benches. Future use of this area is expected to remain the same or similar (i.e., office, recreational, or industrial). Future use for residential purposes is possible, but is considered to be unlikely.

Site 16 is predominantly covered with asphalt, concrete, and buildings, and is a high-traffic area for workers and visitors at the WNY. Building 71 and the surrounding paved areas serve as restrooms and parking for visitors to the Navy Museum. The site also provides

2-10 WDC042670002.ZIP


access to the adjacent Pier No. 2, where the display ship U.S.S. Barry is docked. The Barry is also a destination for visitors to the WNY. Future use of this area is expected to be the same or similar (i.e., office, recreational, or industrial). Future use for residential purposes is possible, but is considered to be unlikely.

The potential future exposure scenarios evaluated in the HHRA for both Site 5 and Site 16 conservatively assume that the subsurface soil will be excavated to a depth of 4 feet bgs and become surface soil.

2.7 Risk Summary 2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment Process The baseline HHRA characterizes the potential future human health risks associated with exposure to site-related constituents in subsurface soil at the sites if no further remediation is implemented. The baseline HHRA provides the basis for determining whether remedial action needs to be taken by identifying the site-related constituents and exposure pathways that need to be addressed to mitigate potential risks to exposed receptors. The baseline HHRA can also be used to support the determination that no further remedial action is necessary to protect human health, which is the case at both Sites 5 and 16.

The baseline HHRAs for Sites 5 and 16 consist of the following components:

• Identification of Constituents of Potential Concern (COPCs)—identifies and characterizes the distribution of COPCs found on site. Chemicals identified in this screening are the focus of the subsequent evaluation in the risk assessment.

• Exposure Assessment—identifies potential pathways by which exposure could occur, characterizes the potentially exposed populations (e.g., workers, residents, trespassers), and estimates the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposures.

• Toxicity Assessment—identifies the types of adverse health effects associated with exposure to COPCs along with available toxicity factors (e.g., cancer slope factors and reference dose values), and summarizes the relationship between magnitude of exposure and occurrence of adverse health effects. It also identifies related uncertainties (such as the weight-of-evidence of a particular chemical’s carcinogenicity in humans) associated with these values.

• Risk Characterization—integrates the results of the exposure assessment and toxicity assessment to estimate the potential risks to human health. Both cancer and noncancer human health effects are evaluated. Pathways that pose an unacceptable risk based on quantitative risk characterization are identified.

• Uncertainty Assessment—identifies sources of uncertainty associated with the data, methodology, and the values used in the risk assessment estimation.

2.7.2 Site 5 HHRA Results The baseline HHRA for Site 5 soil was conducted in two parts, as described in Section 2.2.3.1. The initial baseline HHRA was conducted as part of the 2003 RI and used the data

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-11


from all existing soil samples collected as of that date, including results from samples collected from soil that had been removed as part of the BRAC construction activities in 1998. The initial baseline HHRA determined that lead presented risks that were potentially unacceptable under a hypothetical future residential exposure scenario. An updated baseline HHRA was conducted as part of the 2005 FS Evaluation Report. This updated risk assessment focused solely on lead. It eliminated the use of the data from the excavated soil, and included lead results from 33 additional soil samples collected in 2004. The results of both parts of the risk assessment are summarized in the following sections. Complete discussions of the initial HHRA can be found in the Focused Remedial Investigation for Site 5 (CH2M HILL, 2003b). Complete discussions of the updated HHRA can be found in the Feasibility Study Evaluation for Site 5 (CH2M HILL, 2005a).

2.7.2.1 Identification of Constituents of Potential Concern – Site 5 During the initial HHRA, the maximum detected constituent concentrations in soil were compared with EPA Region III RBCs dated April 2003 (EPA, 2003) for residential contact with soil (with the exception of lead, which is evaluated differently as discussed below) to identify COPCs. RBCs that are based on noncarcinogenic effects were divided by ten to account for exposure to multiple constituents that could have the same target organ/critical effect. RBCs based on carcinogenic effects were used as presented in the RBC table. Lead concentrations in soil were compared to the EPA residential child soil screening value of 400 ppm as determined by the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model (IEUBK). Based on these conservative screening procedures, the following constituents were identified as COPCs and were evaluated further in the initial quantitative HHRA: aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and thallium.

Appendix C, Tables 2.1 and 2.2 present the detected constituents in subsurface soil at Site 5 and the COPC selection process from the initial HHRA. During the subsequent update to the HHRA, a COPC screening was not conducted; the update focused solely on lead based on the results of the initial HHRA.

2.7.2.2 Exposure Assessment – Site 5 A complete exposure pathway exists when all five of the following elements are present or may be present in the future: a source (e.g., chemical residue in soil); a mechanism for release and migration of chemical (e.g., excavation, wind erosion); an environmental transport medium (e.g., surface or subsurface soil); a point or site of potential human contact (exposure point, e.g., airborne soil particles); and a route of intake (e.g., inhalation of airborne soil particles).

The soil at Site 5 is currently covered primarily by asphalt, concrete, and buildings. The only unpaved areas are covered with recently placed topsoil and mulch. As a result, there is no current exposure to the historic site soil except by construction workers who may excavate below the current surface soil or impervious surfaces. The Naval Station Washington Master Plan (EDAW et al., 1998) indicates that the Site 5 buildings will remain in the future. Thus, direct exposures to site soil by other potential receptors are not expected. However, for the purposes of the HHRA, it was assumed that subsurface soil at the site may be excavated and placed on the surface in the future, resulting in exposure by future industrial workers, construction workers, and trespassers/ visitors. Although it is unlikely that the site will be

2-12 WDC042670002.ZIP


used for residential purposes in the future, potential future residential use and exposure were also evaluated.

In summary, the potentially complete exposure pathways quantified for exposure were:

• Trespasser/Visitor (adult and adolescent): incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with soil; and inhalation of fugitive dust from soil.

• Industrial Worker: incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with soil; and inhalation of fugitive dust from soil.

• Construction Worker: incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with soil; and inhalation of fugitive dust from soil.

• Resident (adult and child): incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with soil; and inhalation of fugitive dust from soil.

These pathways are also depicted in the CSM in Figure 2-6 and in Appendix C, Table 1.

Exposure is quantified by estimating the exposure point concentrations (EPCs) and chemical intake by the receptor. Quantitative dose (intake) estimations were performed for the potentially complete exposure pathways identified for the current and future exposure scenarios and routes.

EPCs are estimated chemical concentrations that a receptor may contact and are specific to each exposure medium. Exposure point concentrations may be directly monitored, or estimated using environmental fate and transport models. For Site 5 soil, fate and transport modeling was used to estimate constituent concentrations in fugitive dust emissions. The fugitive dust emissions were calculated for traffic activities during construction as summarized in Appendix C. The calculations included assumptions of emissions generated from traffic over unpaved surfaces from exposed soil.

The EPCs are calculated for two scenarios, the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenario and the central tendency exposure (CTE) scenario. The RME scenario is based on the 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean (95% UCL) for a media in which five or more samples were collected. The maximum detected concentration was used in place of the 95% UCL when the calculated 95% UCL was greater than the maximum detected value. The Shapiro-Wilkes W test using an alpha value of 1 percent was used to determine if the data fit a lognormal or normal distribution. If the W-test was inconclusive, the larger of the 95% UCL from the lognormal or normal distribution was selected. For data sets with fewer than five samples, the maximum detected concentration was used as the exposure point concentration. The arithmetic mean value was used as the EPC for the CTE scenarios. The maximum detected concentration was used in place of the arithmetic mean when the mean was greater than the maximum detected value. EPCs used in the initial HHRA are presented in Appendix C, Table 3.1.

Chemical intake is the amount of the chemical contaminant entering the receptor’s body. Chemical intakes were calculated using the intake equations presented in EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) and default parameters recommended by EPA as shown in Tables 4.1 through 4.14 in Appendix C.

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-13


For the dermal contact with soil scenario, an absorption factor is required. The absorption factors used in the initial HHRA were 3 percent for arsenic and 1 percent for other metals (USEPA, September 2001; USEPA, December 1995).

Lead exposure and uptake is measured differently than for other metals. It is regulated by the EPA based on blood-lead uptake using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model called the IEUBK (EPA, 2002a) and by the Adult Lead Model (ALM) (EPA, 2003). EPA guidance for the IEUBK and ALM models dictate that the mean concentration for lead in soil be used as the EPC in the models. This approach applied to both the initial and the updated HHRA for Site 5. The EPA-suggested parameters associated with the IEUBK and ALM models were used in both the initial and the updated HHRA.

2.7.2.3 Toxicity Assessment – Site 5 Health effects are divided into two broad groups: noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects. Chemicals causing noncarcinogenic health effects are evaluated independently from those having potentially carcinogenic effects. Some chemicals may produce both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects, and are therefore evaluated in both groups.

The primary source of toxicity values is the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. For the initial HHRA, the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) were consulted when data were not available in IRIS. If toxicity values were not available from either of these sources, provisional toxicity values from EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) were used.

EPA-derived oral chronic and subchronic reference doses (RfDs) for COPCs at Site 5 for the noncarcinogenic hazard evaluation are listed in Appendix C, Tables 5.1 and 5.2. Potential carcinogenic effects are quantified as oral cancer slope factors (CSFs). EPA-derived oral CSFs used in the Site 5 Focused RI Report HHRA are presented in Appendix C, Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

Per EPA guidance, oral RfDs and CSFs were adjusted from administered dose to absorbed dose to evaluate dermal toxicity (EPA, 2004). The toxicity values were adjusted using oral absorption factors from EPA as shown on Appendix C, Tables 5.1 and 6.1.

Most of the Site 5 COPCs have EPA toxicity factors, with the exception of lead. Lead was evaluated in this assessment using the IEUBK model to determine potential impacts on the residential child and by using the ALM to determine potential impacts on the industrial workers and construction workers.

2.7.2.4 Risk Characterization and Methodology – Site 5

Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards Potential human health risks are discussed independently for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic COPCs because of the different toxicological endpoints, relevant exposure duration, and methods used to characterize risk.

Noncarcinogenic health risks are estimated by comparing actual or expected exposure levels to previously established threshold concentrations (or RfDs). The expected intake divided by the RfD is equal to the hazard quotient (HQ):

HQ = Intake/RfD

2-14 WDC042670002.ZIP


The intake and RfD are expressed in the same units and cover the same exposure period. The intake and RfD also cover the same exposure route, (i.e., oral intakes are divided by the oral RfD, and dermal intakes are divided by an adjusted oral RfD). When the HQ exceeds unity (i.e., exposure exceeds the RfD), a certain degree of unacceptable health risk is possible for sensitive receptors. To assess the potential for noncarcinogenic health effects posed by exposure to multiple chemicals, a hazard index (HI) is used. This approach assumes (conservatively) that noncarcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to more than one chemical are additive.

The potential for carcinogenic effects resulting from exposure to site-related contamination is evaluated by estimating excess lifetime cancer risk. Excess lifetime carcinogenic risk is the incremental probability (i.e. above the background probability) of developing cancer during a receptor’s lifetime. The background incidence of cancer in the U.S. population is approximately 30 percent, including both lethal and nonlethal forms (ACS, 1993). Therefore, for example, a 2 × 10-6 excess lifetime carcinogenic risk means that a receptor’s probability of developing cancer in his or her lifetime changes from approximately 0.300000 to 0.300002 as a consequence of exposure to environmental conditions. Expressed another way, for every 1 million people exposed to the carcinogen throughout their lifetime, the incidence of cancer may increase by two cases.

Potential carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to individual carcinogens at the Site were calculated using the CSFs from IRIS and HEAST as previously discussed in Toxicity Assessment section and the intakes calculated in the Exposure Assessment section. Risk is calculated by multiplying the intake by the CSF.

Risk = Intake × CSF

The combined carcinogenic risk from exposure to multiple chemicals at the site was evaluated by adding the risks from individual chemicals. Risks were also added across the pathways if a receptor could be exposed through multiple pathways. For example, a receptor coming in contact with the soil on site could be exposed by both oral and dermal exposure pathways.

The EPA generally considers an acceptable range for site-related cancer risk to be within 1 and 100 in a million (10-6 to 10-4). Generally, remedial actions are not warranted at sites with excess lifetime cancer risks below 10-4 or HIs less than 1, but action may be warranted if a risk-based, applicable chemical-specific standard [for example, maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water] is exceeded (in groundwater). A risk-based remedial decision could be superseded by other site risk management decisions such as presence of environmental impacts requiring action or non-risk-related issues (e.g., public perception) at the site.

Carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards were calculated for each receptor under the RME scenario. If the RME risks or hazard exceeded EPA target levels for a particular receptor, then risks and hazards were also calculated under a CTE scenario for that receptor. RME risk characterization results for Site 5 are summarized below and on Appendix C, Tables 7.1.RME – 7.12.RME (non-cancer) and 8.1.RME–8.10.RME (cancer).

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-15


Carcinogenic Risks

• Industrial Worker 3.6 × 10-6 • Construction Worker 1.5 × 10-7 • Trespasser/Visitor Child 1.0 × 10-6 • Trespasser/Visitor Adult 1.6 × 10-6 • Resident Adult/Child 1.5 × 10-5

Noncarcinogenic Hazards

• Industrial Worker 0.38 • Construction Worker 0.36 • Trespasser/Visitor Child 0.28 • Trespasser/Visitor Adult 0.18 • Resident Adult 0.49 • Resident Child 4.3

The RME carcinogenic risk posed by the site under each of the exposure scenarios is within an acceptable range.

The future child resident is the only receptor evaluated that had a total RME HI greater than the EPA target level (1). Exposure to iron in subsurface soil is the only COPC that contributes a HQ greater than one to the HI (iron HQ = 2.4). When the total HI is segregated by target organ/critical effect, the only effects that result in cumulative HIs greater than 1 are those associated with iron exposure (gastrointestinal, blood, and liver). This is more meaningful than the total HI since noncarcinogenic effects to different target organs are not considered to have additive toxic effects (EPA, 1989). Iron was detected at Site 5 at concentrations consistent with background conditions at the WNY as presented in the Site 5 RI. Therefore iron in subsurface soil at Site 5 is not likely to be site-related. A CTE assessment was performed for the future child resident. The cumulative CTE noncarcinogenic hazard (HI=0.71) for the child resident was below the EPA recommended level of 1 (Appendix C, Table 7.13.CT).

Risks from Lead Traditional toxicity evaluations and risk characterizations such as hazard indices and excess lifetime cancer risks are not applicable to lead risk assessments.

Residential child exposure to lead was evaluated in both the initial and updated HHRA based on the EPA’s IEUBK model (EPA, 2002a). The principal assumption associated with the use of the IEUBK model is that a child from age 6 months to 7 years is exposed to lead in soil. The IEUBK model predicts the geometric mean blood-lead concentration for a population of children under the same lead exposures. The single run option was applied for the Site 5 assessment since it is assumed that future residential children would be exposed to a single area and a single set of exposure concentrations.

Industrial worker exposure to lead in subsurface soil at Site 5 was evaluated in the initial and updated HHRA using EPA’s ALM. The ALM predicts the blood lead concentrations for exposed workers. Since children are the sensitive receptors for lead, the ALM assumes the exposed worker is pregnant and predicts the fetal blood lead levels based on that industrial exposure.

The mean lead subsurface soil concentration used in the initial HHRA was 2,184 mg/kg. This resulted in a geometric mean blood concentration of 16.8 micrograms per deciliter of blood (µg/dL) for children 0 to 72 months old as a result of ingestion of soil, which is above EPA’s recommended level of 10 µg/dL. Approximately 86.4 percent of this population had a blood lead level above EPA’s recommended level of 10 µg/dL.

2-16 WDC042670002.ZIP


The ALM evaluation resulted in geometric mean concentrations of 4.9 µg/dL and 5.9 µg/dL (Tables D-3 and D-4 of Appendix D) for industrial and construction workers, respectively. Therefore, it is not expected that exposure to lead in the subsurface soil by an adult industrial worker or construction worker would be a potential concern.

However, the ALM indicated that the 95th percentile blood lead level for fetuses of an industrial worker and construction worker is 17.5 µg/dL and 21 µg/dL, respectively, as a result of soil ingestion. These results are above EPA’s recommended level of 10 µg/dL and indicate exposure to lead by maternal workers could be a potential concern for fetuses.

The updated HHRA reevaluated the risks from exposure to lead in soil at Site 5 by excluding the data from three samples collected from soil that had been excavated, and by including data from 33 recently collected samples. The three eliminated samples contained three of the four highest lead concentrations in the Site 5 soil database. As a result, the arithmetic mean concentration of lead at Site 5 was 351 mg/kg.

The IEUBK model predicted that given the same exposure history, the geometric mean concentration of lead in blood for resident children would be 4.9 µg/dL. This is less than the EPA’s target blood lead level of 10 µg/dL (EPA, 1998).

Since the baseline blood lead contents of exposed receptors influences the model results, two different scenarios were run to provide a range of possible model results for adult workers exposed at the site. The only parameter values that were changed for the two scenarios were the estimated baseline geometric mean concentration and standard deviations of blood lead concentration in women in the United States. The model was run using values for these parameters based on (1) all geographic regions and all race/ethnicity, and (2) south geographic region and all race/ethnicity (EPA, 2002b).

The ALM evaluation resulted in geometric mean concentrations for industrial workers of 1.9 µg/dL and 2.0 µg/dL based on all geographic regions and the south geographic region, respectively. The ALM predicted that the 95th percentile blood lead level for fetuses of an industrial worker would be 5.6 µg/dL in all geographic regions and 6.3 µg/dL in the south geographic region as a result of soil ingestion. These results are less than EPA’s target level of 10 µg/dL. The model also predicted that approximately 1 percent of the exposed population may have fetal blood lead levels greater than 10 µg/dL. This is less than the EPA target level of 5 percent of the exposed population. Therefore exposure to lead in soil at Site 5 by maternal workers would not be expected to be a potential concern for fetuses.

The tabulated calculations for the updated HHRA evaluation are presented in Appendix E.

2.7.2.5 Uncertainty Associated with Human Health Risk Assessment – Site 5 The methods used in Superfund site risk assessments are not fully probabilistic estimates of risk but result in conditional estimates under a given set of assumptions about exposure and toxicity. Thus, it is important to specify the assumptions and uncertainties inherent in the risk assessment to place the risk estimates in proper perspective when making final risk management decisions (EPA, 1989).

It should also be noted that EPC value for lead in the initial and the updated HHRA is driven by the inclusion of a 9,230 mg/kg lead result from the duplicate of sample WS05-DS09-08. If the average value of the sample and duplicate from this interval (4,630 mg/kg) is

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-17


used, the EPC for lead used in the updated HHRA would be 243 mg/kg (as opposed to 315 mg/kg) and the resultant modeled blood levels would be similarly reduced.

The 33 soil samples collected in June 2004 and analyzed for lead were focused on areas of known or suspected lead contamination based on the RI. Based on the extensive sample collection performed to characterize the presence of lead at Site 5, the uncertainty associated with sampling and the possibility of missing a contaminated location is expected to be minimal.

The future soil exposure scenarios are conservative because they assume that the subsurface soil will become surface soil after the completion of hypothetical construction activities. During many construction projects, clean fill material is placed over the soil disturbed during excavation projects (as was done following the 1997 removal action and 1999 storm sewer excavation). The clean fill material is generally needed to support growth of grass and other landscape plants.

Since the EPA has not published dermal reference doses or slope factors, dermal toxicity factors were derived based on EPA published oral absorption factors (EPA, 2004). The adjustment of oral toxicity factors to dermal toxicity factors adds uncertainty to the risk characterization.

Two of the COPCs (aluminum and iron) do not have toxicity values approved by EPA in IRIS. Therefore, provisional toxicity values were used for these constituents, which increases the uncertainty associated with interpretation of the quantitative risk estimates.

Iron was detected in Site 5 soils at a concentration statistically consistent with background conditions. Therefore, the risk estimates associated with exposure to iron are attributable to background rather than site-related conditions.

The combination of many conservative assumptions (i.e., in the exposure assessment and in the toxicity assessment) will most likely result in an overestimate of risk at the site. For these reasons the risk to human health is likely to be less than that predicted by the risk assessment.

2.7.2.6 HHRA Summary – Site 5 The site-related risks and hazards posed by the Site 5 soil to all of the receptors evaluated are within or below the EPA target levels. This finding is consistent with EPA assumptions regarding environmental exposure to lead since the site concentration (351 mg/kg) is less than the EPA screening level for residential contact with soil (400 mg/kg).

2.7.3 Site 16 HHRA Results The baseline HHRA for Site 16 soil was conducted in two parts as described in Section 2.2.3.2. The initial baseline HHRA was conducted as part of the 2002 RI and used the data from all existing soil samples collected as of that date. The initial baseline HHRA determined that low concentrations of dioxins presented risks that were potentially unacceptable under a hypothetical future residential exposure scenario, but also concluded that the dioxin was likely associated with the fill in this area and would be further evaluated as part of a base-wide fill investigation.

2-18 WDC042670002.ZIP


While mercury was not identified as presenting an unacceptable risk in the initial HHRA, there was uncertainty as to whether the full nature and extent of mercury had been defined in the area where the elemental mercury had been found and excavated in 1999. Therefore an updated HHRA was conducted in 2005 to evaluate potential risks associated with exposure to mercury using data from several additional rounds of samples collected between 2002 and 2005. The results of both parts of the HHRA are summarized in the following sections. Complete discussions of the initial HHRA can be found in the Remedial Investigation for Site 16 (CH2M HILL, 2002). Complete discussions of the updated HHRA can be found in the Supplemental Soil Sampling Results and Feasibility Study Necessity Evaluation for Site 16 (CH2M HILL, 2005d).

2.7.3.1 Identification of Constituents of Potential Concern – Site 16 During the initial HHRA, the maximum detected constituent concentrations in soil were compared with EPA Region III RBCs dated April 2000 (EPA, 2000) for residential contact with soil. RBCs based on noncarcinogenic effects were divided by ten to account for exposure to multiple constituents that could have the same target organ/critical effect. RBCs based on carcinogenic effects were used as presented in the RBC table. Using this conservative screening criteria, the following constituents were identified as COPCs and were evaluated further in the initial quantitative HHRA: benzo(a)pyrene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, arsenic, and copper.

Appendix F, Tables 2.3 – 2.4 present the detected constituents in subsurface soil at Site 16 and the COPC selection process from the initial HHRA. During the subsequent update to the HHRA, a COPC screening was not conducted; the update focused solely on mercury.

2.7.3.2 Exposure Assessment – Site 16 A brief definition of the components of a complete exposure pathway is presented in Section 2.7.2.2. The soil at Site 16 is currently covered almost entirely by asphalt, concrete, and buildings. The only unpaved areas are covered with recently placed topsoil and mulch. As a result, there is no current exposure to the historic site soil except by construction workers who may excavate below the current surface soil or impervious surfaces. Direct exposure to site soil by other potential receptors is not expected. However, for the purposes of the HHRA, it was assumed that subsurface soil at the site may be excavated and placed on the surface in the future, resulting in exposure by the industrial workers, construction workers, and trespassers/ visitors. Although it is unlikely that the site will be used for residential purposes in the future, potential future residential use was also evaluated.

In summary, the potentially complete exposure pathways quantified were:

• Trespasser/Visitor (adult and adolescent): incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with soil; and inhalation of fugitive dust from soil.

• Industrial Worker: incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with soil; and inhalation of fugitive dust from soil.

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-19


• Construction Worker: incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with soil; and inhalation of fugitive dust from soil.

• Resident (adult and child): incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with soil; and inhalation of fugitive dust from soil.

These pathways are also depicted in the CSM in Figure 2-7 and in Appendix F, Table 1.

EPCs and chemical intakes used in the initial HHRA for Site 16 are presented in Appendix F, Tables 3.3 and 3.4. A brief description of how EPCs are calculated is presented in Section 2.7.2.2. Chemical intake parameters used for Site 16 were EPA default as presented in Tables 4.3 through 4.16 in Appendix F.

The EPC used for mercury in the updated HHRA was calculated using the most current version of the ProUCL program (Version 3.00.02). The ProUCL program determined that the mercury data from Site 16 did not fit a normal, lognormal, or gamma distribution and suggested that non-parametric methods be used to estimate the UCL. The 99% UCL was calculated using the Chebyshev inequality using the sample mean and standard deviation. The resulting EPC for mercury at Site 16 was 120 mg/kg.

For the dermal contact with soil scenario, an absorption factor is required. The absorption factors used in the initial HHRA were 10 percent for SVOCs, 3 percent for dioxins and furans, 10 percent for pesticides, 3.2 percent for arsenic, and 1 percent for other metals (EPA, 2001; EPA, 1995).

2.7.3.3 Toxicity Assessment – Site 16 A brief definition of the parameters (RfDs and CSFs) that are used to assess toxicity of noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic COPCs is presented in Section 2.7.2.3.

EPA-derived oral chronic and subchronic RfDs for COPCs at Site 16 for the noncarcinogenic hazard evaluation are listed in Appendix F, Tables 5.1 and 5.2. EPA-derived oral CSFs used in the Site 16 RI Report HHRA are presented in Appendix F, Tables 6.1 – 6.2.

Per EPA guidance, oral RfDs and CSFs were adjusted from administered dose to absorbed dose to evaluate dermal toxicity. The toxicity values were adjusted using oral absorption factors from EPA (USEPA, 2004) as shown on Appendix F, Tables 5.1 and 6.1.

2.7.3.4 Risk Characterization – Site 16

Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards – Initial HHRA A discussion on how RfDs, CSFs and chemical intakes are used to calculate carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards, and how EPA defines acceptable and unacceptable risks and hazards, is presented in Section 2.7.2.4.

In the initial HHRA for Site 16, carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards were calculated for each potential receptor under the RME scenario. If the RME risks or hazard were unacceptable for a particular receptor, then risks and hazards were also calculated under a CTE scenario for that receptor. RME carcinogenic risk characterization results from the initial HHRA for Site 16 soil are summarized below and on Appendix F, Tables 8.3. RME – 8.12.RME.

2-20 WDC042670002.ZIP


Carcinogenic Risks

• Industrial Worker 4.7 × 10-5 • Construction Worker 1.3 × 10-6 • Trespasser/Visitor Child 2.4 × 10-5 • Trespasser/Visitor Adult 1.5 × 10-5 • Lifetime Resident Adult/Child 1.9 × 10-4

The RME carcinogenic risk associated with exposure to soil are within the EPA’s acceptable risk range for all receptors except for the resident exposed over a lifetime. Risks to this receptor (1.9x10-4) exceed 1x10-4. Dioxins are the main contributor to this carcinogenic risk through the ingestion route. The CTE risk (1.2x10-5) for the lifetime resident falls within the EPA’s acceptable risk range of 1x10-6 to 1x10-4. CTE calculations are provided in Appendix F, Tables 8.15.CT through 8.20.CT.

RME noncarcinogenic hazard characterization results for the initial HHRA for Site 16 soil are summarized below and on Appendix F, Tables 7.3.RME – 7.14.RME.

Noncarcinogenic Hazards – Initial HHRA (Mercury not included as a COPC)

• Industrial Worker 0.06 • Construction Worker 0.05 • Trespasser/Visitor Child 0.14 • Trespasser/Visitor Adult 0.02 • Resident Adult 0.07 • Resident Child 0.49

The RME noncarcinogenic hazard posed by the site for each receptor is less than the EPA target of 1.

Noncarcinogenic Hazards – Updated HHRA The Site 16 HHRA was revised and updated with the addition of the soil data for mercury collected in July 2005. The EPA’s IRIS does not include cancer slope factors for mercury. Therefore, mercury is not evaluated as a carcinogen and hence, the cancer risk was not recalculated for any of the receptors evaluated in this assessment. The table below presents the updated RME and CTE hazard quotients (HQs) for mercury. In addition, the total HI for all COPCs (including mercury) under the RME and CTE scenarios is presented. The total HI is equal to the HQ associated with mercury plus the HI identified in initial HHRA (see above). The CTE analysis followed only when the RME HI exceeded 1.

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-21


Updated Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) and Central Tendency Exposure (CTE) Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI) Values, Site 16 Human Health Risk Assessment

RME CTE

Receptor HQ-Mercury HI-Total HQ-Mercury HI-Total

Future Resident, Adult 0.87 0.94 NC NC

Future Resident, Child 7.2 7.7 0.34 0.47

Future Construction Worker 0.67 0.72 NC NC

Future Industrial Worker 0.77 0.82 NC NC

Future Trespasser/Visitor, Adult 0.41 0.43 NC NC

Future Trespasser/Visitor, Child 1.8 1.9 0.067 0.096

NC = Not calculated because RME value is below one.

Although the RME assessment for future child residents and trespassers/visitors resulted in HIs above the EPA target level, the CTE evaluation for both receptors results in HIs below the target level. Given the high density of the samples collected in this area, the risks calculated under the CTE scenario are appropriate, and indicate there are no potentially unacceptable risks at Site 16 to exposed receptors under any current and future land-use scenarios. In addition, given the current and reasonably anticipated future conditions, residential exposure is unlikely. The backup data and calculations for the updated HHRA for Site 16 are presented in Appendix G.

2.7.3.5 Uncertainty Associated with Human Health Risk Assessment – Site 16 The risk measures used in Superfund site risk assessments are not fully probabilistic estimates of risk but are conditional estimates given that a set of assumptions about exposure and toxicity are realized. Thus it is important to specify fully the assumptions and uncertainties inherent in the risk assessment to place the risk estimates in proper perspective.

The uncertainty in sampling and possibility of missing a contaminated location is expected to be minimal at this site because of the amount of sampling data available for the site. Based on the number of samples collected in relation to the areal extent (43 samples analyzed for mercury in and area measuring less than 30 feet by 30 feet and less than 12 feet deep; or approximately one sample per 7 cubic yards of soil), the data used to estimate exposure should be representative of site conditions. The maximum detected concentration of mercury at Site 16 (394 mg/kg at WS16- DS01-06 in July 2003) was present in a duplicate sample; the primary sample from this same location and depth had mercury detected at 59.2 mg/kg. Although these results seem disparate, as a conservative measure the higher of the two concentrations was used to calculate the EPC.

The quantitative uncertainty associated with the other factors is also minimal as the data have been fully validated prior to risk assessment. The general assumptions used in the COPCs selection are conservative to ensure the estimation of highest possible risk.

Most of the exposure pathways analyzed are assumed, and exposure factors used for quantitation of exposure are conservative and reflect worst-case or upper-bound assumptions on the exposure. Exposure to the soil is assumed to occur at the areas with the

2-22 WDC042670002.ZIP


highest detected concentrations. However, the area with high contamination is much smaller than a receptor’s area of operations during work hours or activity duration.

The future soil exposure scenario adds additional conservatism by assuming that the subsurface soil will become surface soil after the completion of renovation activities. During many construction projects, clean fill material is placed over the soil that is disturbed during excavation projects. The clean fill material is generally needed to support growth of grass and other landscape plants. However, because future plans for Site 16 are uncertain the future soil scenario was included in the evaluation.

Inhalation exposure point concentrations are estimated using the models suggested by EPA which assume a continued source of contaminants in the emitting medium and do not account for the depreciation due to volatilization or air-borne dust emission. The inhalation intake estimates also assume that a receptor is always in the downwind direction of the site, while in reality the wind direction changes seasonally.

The percent of a chemical absorbed through the skin is likely to be affected by many parameters. Some of the parameters include soil loading, soil moisture content, organic content, pH, presence of other constituents. The availability of a chemical depends on site-specific fate and transport properties of the chemical species available for eventual absorption of skin. Chemical concentrations, specific properties of the chemical, and soil release kinetics all impact the amount of a chemical that is absorbed. These factors contribute to the uncertainty associated with these estimates and make quantitation of the amount of certain chemicals absorbed from soil difficult.

Perhaps the most significant uncertainty is in the evaluation of the dioxins and furans. The TEF values were used as published by EPA. However, there are no published TEF values for the total dioxin and furan groups (i.e., total heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin). In this evaluation, the TEF value for the most toxic congener in the group was conservatively used for the group. This would result in an overestimate of the actual risks associated with exposure at Site 16.

2.7.3.6 HHRA Summary – Site 16 As documented in the RI (CH2M HILL 2002), the only risk driver for receptor contact with subsurface soil across Site 16 is dioxins. However, this was driven by one sample that contained a dioxin congener at a concentration greater than the human health based screening value. The RI documents that the absence of any likely source of dioxin in subsurface soil at Site 16 would indicate that its presence reflects the nature of the fill source in this area rather than impacts from historical activities as Site 16. The nature of the fill across the WNY is being evaluated under the ongoing SSA 12 investigation. Based on the SSA 12 work plan, Site 16 is encompassed by Exposure Area 24, which covers approximately 1.3 acres and will include collection of five fill samples within this area (CH2M HILL, 2004b).

2.7.4 Ecological Risks The Navy also evaluated the potential for unacceptable ecological risks at Sites 5 and 16 for plants and animals.

Use of the Site 5 area by ecological receptors would be minimal given the extent of surface cover. Furthermore, because the most of the surface area of the site consists of impervious

WDC042670002.ZIP 2-23


surfaces, exposure to subsurface soil contamination is improbable. Because of the lack of receptors and the potential for exposure, there is minimal, if any, potential risk to ecological receptors from contact with subsurface soil.

Because Site 16 consists of buildings, pavement, or similar impervious surfaces and no natural habitats are present, exposure to subsurface soil contamination is not possible. Therefore, due to the lack of both sensitive receptors and potential exposure to the subsurface soil, no further evaluation of ecological risks at this site is necessary.

2.8 Selected Remedy The Navy and EPA, with the concurrence of DDOE, have selected no further action as the remedy for the soil at Sites 5 and 16. This determination is based on the remedial investigation, baseline HHRA and ecological risk assessment, and FS evaluation of soil at Sites 5 and 16, all of which indicate that there are no unacceptable risks based on current or reasonably anticipated future site conditions. Therefore, no alternative other than the no further action alternative was evaluated. Under this alternative, no further action will be performed for the soil at Sites 5 and 16; and no institutional controls, remedy schedule, capital cost estimation, or annual operation and maintenance are necessary.

This ROD only considers soil at Sites 5 and 16; groundwater at the WNY is currently being evaluated under separate investigative documents.

2.9 Documentation of Significant Changes The Proposed Plans for Site 5, Building 73 and Site 16, Former Mercury Removal Area at WNY, Washington, D.C., were released for public comment on November 28, 2005. The Proposed Plans identified that no further action is necessary for protection of human health and welfare of the environment. No written or verbal comments were received during the public comment period, with the exception of those comments received and addressed at the December 7, 2005, public meeting. It was determined that no significant changes to this decision, as originally identified in the Proposed Plans, were necessary or appropriate.

2-24 WDC042670002.ZIP

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��

��

"�! ��

��

#��

��!��

��

��

��

�� $��

��%�� &

��

'()(�*�)

��%*�+

,�� & �

�- ��&��

./�0()0(�*�)

��1

��'

��2

��0

��3

��. ��%*�+ ,�� & �

�- ��&��3

��4�5�*�+,�+ ,6

��

��

��

�

� ��

��

��

�

��

��

� �

��

��

�

�

��

� � � � � � �

��

�

�

�

��

��

�

��

�!

��

��

� !

��

� " # $%��

�!

&

��

��

��

�''(��"')�

�*(+"��,

��

!!

!�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

�

��

�!

��

��

��

�

��

�

�

��

��

�!

�%�

�%�

�

��

�� 4

�� .

�� 3

%�-+�

%�-+�

�� -7� ��,�"��+,��7�� +,��%* �"��,�+89��%�� & ��+ 9��:�+8��,9

43� � 43� 3�� ; �

�

��

;�8�� 4<;�=��7�"��+,��7��+,��=��+9�� 9�3��+,�0

�� 9�3��+,�0�� =��,�� =�9��+!�9>�+8��+��-7� ��,/�!�9>�+8��+��

;�� >?�-?@'8�9@&+7@��8�� 9@9�� 3A�,,��+��A9�%$��+8A&$��$�

B�C�43�(

Figure 2-2Site 5 Detailed Layout

Sites 5 and 16 Record of DecisionWashington Navy Yard, Washington DC

FormerBuilding

176

Figure 2-3Site 16 Detailed Layout


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

� ��

�

��

�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

� ��

��

��,-�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��

��

��, �� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��

��

��,�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��

�� ,.

�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��,.�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��

��

��,�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��

��

��,/�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��

��

��

��,�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��

��

��,�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

� ��

��

��,,�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��,�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��-�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��

��,�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��-�� !�"# �$�%& '��(�")�*��& ��)�+��

��

��,

"�0��'��&��1�'�

'�� !��"#�!�� "�� $��%� #��&��'$(��)"�� $��

�� !��"#�!�� "�� $��%� #��*�#�+�"!�'$(��)"�� $��

�,�� #��-��$��'*��.��(��/�0 �$+"�/��$�0��!+�$)�

�"�1�$)�.��"* "+��"/

� �� &��2

��3'��

&�)��"#�!�$)�� "�� $��"$+�, $��$��"�� $�� %��"+

��"$+��*�� +� %�� $�"��$)� $�2"(/�4"�+��"��$)� $��,

&�!��"��5�657�)��7-$/7%�)��7��8"++�� $"!8�"#�!�$)8-�"��

�� .��#��+�� !��"#�!�� "�� $��%� #��&��'$(��)"�� $

�24�� #��-��$�� 9��#"��+��9�:�"��+�! -%��:)��9�%��:�! -�)� �$+��%"��#);1)�9�#�!!�)�"#��1�! )�"#

.�� <�#"��! �"�� $� %��!�$)��1�!/�#�$�#�#�+�� %��<�"("�� $��%��:)��!/�=<��$��>$1$ -$

Figure 2-5Site 16 Sampling Locations and Concentrations of Mercury


Primary Chemical PotentialSource of Release Transport Exposure Exposure Exposure Primary Secondary

Contamination Mechanisms Mechanisms Point Media Routes Receptor Receptor*

Inhalation of Future Residents, Ambient Volatile and Trespasser/Visitors, Industrial Workers,

Air Particulate and Construction WorkersVolatilization/ Emissions

Diffusion Inhalation of

Ambient Volatile and Construction Workers Air Particulate

Emissions

Subsurface Soil

Excavation Exposing Future Residents,the Subsurface Exposed Trespassers/Visitors,

Resulting in Direct Contact Material Industrial Workers, andWith Exposed Material Construction Workers

Complete PathwayIncomplete Pathway

* Note: There were no secondary receptors identified. Secondary receptors are exposed to primary receptors (i.e., if the primary receptor was vegetables in a home-grown garden exposed to subsurface soil contaminants, the secondary receptor would be the resident that consumes those vegetables)

Wind

Onsite

Ingestion, Dermal Absorption

Offsite

Onsite

Figure 2-6 Site 5 Conceptual Site Model for Potential Human Exposures

Sites 5 and 16 Record of DecisionWashington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

Complete PathwayIncomplete Pathway

Figure 2-7Site 16 Conceptual Site Model

Sites 5 and 16 Record of DecisionWashington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

SECONDARY RECEPTORSOURCE EXPOSURE POINT EXPOSURE MEDIA EXPOSURE ROUTERELEASE MECHANISM PRIMARY RECEPTOR

Subsurface Soil

Excavation Exposing the

Subsurface Soil

Leaching/ Desorption

Onsite

Air (Dust) Air (Vapors)

Exposed Material

Inhalation

IngestionDermal Absorption

Future Construction Worker, Trespasser/ Visitor, Site Worker

Groundwater Flow Groundwater

Dermal Absorption, Inhalation (Volatiles)

Future Construction Workers

Discharge to Surface Water

Onsite

Ingestion, Dermal

Ingestion, Bioaccumulation, Bioconcentration

Recreational Users

Aquatic Organisms Recreational Users

Surface Water

Ingestion, Dermal

Ingestion, Bioaccumulation, Bioconcentration

Recreational Users

Aquatic Organisms Recreational Users

Sediment

Surface Water (Anacostia River)

SECTION 3

Responsiveness Summary

The Responsiveness Summary is a concise and complete summary of significant comments received from the public and includes responses to these comments. The Responsiveness Summary was prepared after the public comment period, which ended on December 28, 2005, in accordance with guidance in Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (EPA, 1992). The Responsiveness Summary provides the decision maker with information about the views of the community. It also documents how the Navy, EPA, and DDOE considered public comments during the decision-making process and provides answers to major comments.

3.1 Overview The Proposed Plan as presented to the public identified that no further action is necessary for soil at Sites 5 and 16 in order to protect human health and the environment.

3.2 Background on Community Involvement The public comment period for the proposed no further action decision for Sites 5 and 16 began on November 28, 2005, and ended on December 28, 2005. A public meeting was held on December 7, 2005, in the 2nd Floor Conference Room in Building 200 at the WNY, located at 1014 N Street S.E., Washington, D.C., to present information pertinent to the proposed remedy and to accept verbal comments on this decision. The public meeting transcript is attached as Appendix B.

3.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period, Navy Responses

No public comments were received during the public comment period other than those expressed at the public meeting of December 7, 2005. Comments received during the public meeting are presented in the official transcript (Appendix B) and paraphrased below along with the official responses.

Questions and Comments from the December 7, 2006 Public Meeting

Comment 1: What methodology is used for the risk assessment for Site 5?

Response 1: The standard US EPA Superfund process was used in evaluating risks from the site soil for both Site 5 and Site 16. The process is described in the text box on page 6 of the proposed plan for Site 5 and in more detail in Section 2.7 of this ROD.

Comment 2: How long do people have to be there [at Site 5] before there is a problem?

WDC042670002.ZIP 3-1


Response 2: The risk assessment process used standard exposure durations for each of the types of receptors that were evaluated. For example: the industrial worker scenario assumes that a WNY worker will be exposed to the soil 8 hr/day, 250 days/year, for 25 years. The construction worker scenario assumes that a worker will be in close contact with the soil, such as earthmoving or excavating work, 8 hr/day, for 60 days. The trespasser scenario assumes an adolescent will be visiting the site on an average of 1.8 hrs per day, 104 days per year for 9 years. The residential exposure scenario for cancer risks assumes that someone lives at the site 24 hr/day from birth through age 30.

The risk assessment concluded that there are no unacceptable risks under any of these scenarios.

Comment 3: What is it when you say “free-phase mercury”?

Response 3: Elemental mercury such as the silver material found in a thermometer. This is as opposed to mercury adsorbed to soil particles or dissolved in groundwater.

Comment 4: Does anybody know how much elemental mercury was identified? And where would it have come from?

Response 4: The Site 16 removal action excavated a 12 ft by 12 ft by 6 ft deep area. The amount of soil containing visible droplets of mercury was less than a 5-gallon pail. While no direct measurement of elemental mercury in the soil was performed, the manager overseeing the removal action estimated that it was probably less than a half cup.

The source of the mercury has not been confirmed, but because a diving school had been situated in the same area as where the mercury was found, an assumption is that it came from the improper disposal of gauges used in diving equipment.

Comment 5: Was the source of the dioxin that was discovered identified?

Response 5: The source of dioxin has not been confirmed. Dioxins are compounds that are found throughout the environment and are typically associated with incomplete combustion of just about anything (hydrocarbon fuels, wood, food, garbage). The level of dioxins found in the soil at Site 16 is relatively low. It is slightly above the concentration found to represent background concentrations in the soil in the WNY area of Washington DC. It is assumed that the dioxin found in the subsurface soil at Site 16 were inherent in the fill material used to build the WNY (the shallow subsurface soil in the Site 16 area of the WNY is not native material, and the source of the fill has not been documented).

3-2 WDC042670002.ZIP

SECTION 4

References

ACS, 1993. Cancer Facts and Figures—’93. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.

Baker, 1996. Final Site Investigation Report, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

CH2M HILL, 2000. FFA Draft Initial Findings Report, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. October.

CH2M HILL, 2002. FFA Final Remedial Investigation for Site 16. Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. April.

CH2M HILL, 2003a. Feasibility Study Field Investigation Soil Sampling Scope of Work Site 16 Former Mercury Removal Area, Washington Navy Yard. June.

CH2M HILL, 2003b. FFA Final Focused Remedial Investigation Report for Site 5, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. November.

CH2M HILL, 2004a. Feasibility Study Field Investigation Soil Sampling Scope of Work Site 16 Former Mercury Removal Area, Washington Navy Yard. March.

CH2M HILL, 2004b. FFA Final SSA12 Field Sampling Plan, Washington Navy Yard. June.

CH2M HILL, 2005a. Technical Memorandum – Feasibility Study Evaluation, Site 5, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. March 20, 2005.

CH2M HILL, 2005b. FFA Final Site 16 Feasibility Study Soil Sampling and Necessity Evaluation – Technical Memorandum. March 31.

CH2M HILL, 2005c. FFA Final Site Management Plan. August.

CH2M HILL, 2005d. FFA Final Site 16 Supplemental Soil Sampling Results and Feasibility Study Necessity Evaluation, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C – Technical Memorandum. November.

EDAW et al., 1998. Naval Station Washington Master Plan, Washington Navy Yard, Anacostia Annex. February.

EPA, 1989. Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.USEPA/540/1-89/002.

EPA, 1992. Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook. EPA OSWER Directive 9320.3B.

EPA, 1998. Clarification to the 1994 Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities. OSWER Directive 9200.4-27P. EPA/540/F-98/030. August.

EPA. 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, U.S. Department of the Navy, and District of Columbia. Federal Facility Agreement (under CERCLA Section 120), Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C., Administrative Docket Number III-FCA-CERC-016. September 30.

WDC042670002.ZIP 4-1


EPA, 2000. Risk-Based Concentration Table. Region III. April.

EPA. 2003. Risk-Based Concentration Table. Region III. April 25.

EPA, 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment), Final. EPA/540/R/99/005. OSWER 9285.7-02EP. July.

EPA, 2005. EPA Region III Updated Risk-Based Concentration Table. April 7.

Integrated Environmental Solutions, Inc., 1997. Corrective Action Plan (CAP) For Site 71 Area A, Naval Station Washington, Washington Navy Yard

OHM, 1996. Closure Report, Industrial Waste Line Cleanout, Washington, D.C. Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. OHM Remediation Services Corp. October.

OHM, 1999a. Action Memorandum For the Time-Critical Removal Action of Mercury-Contaminated Soil at Site 16, Washington Navy Yard. June.

OHM, 1999b. Removal Action Close-Out Special Bulletin Washington Navy Yard. August.

OHM, 2001. Contractor Closeout Report, Storm Sewer Rehabilitation Report, Naval District Washington, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. OHM Remediation Services Corp. October.

Operational Technologies Corporation (OPTECH), 1996. Site Assessment Activities at Site 17 and Building 22, Washington Navy Yard, Naval District Washington, Washington, D.C. November

4-2 WDC042670002.ZIP

SECTION 5

Glossary

This glossary defines terms used in this Record of Decision (ROD) describing CERCLA activities. The definitions apply specifically to this ROD and may have other meanings when used in different circumstances.

Administrative Record File: A file that contains all information used by the lead agency to make its decision in selecting a response under CERCLA. This file is to be available for public review, and a copy is to be established at or near the site, usually at one of the information repositories. Also, a duplicate is filed in a central location, such as regional or state office.

Background Concentrations: Concentrations of chemical compounds or elements in environmental media that are representative of naturally occurring conditions or that may be attributable to historic, widespread human activity that are not considered to be facility or site related.

Cancer: A disease of heritable, somatic mutations affecting cell growth and differentiation, characterized by an abnormal, uncontrolled growth of cells.

Carcinogen: A substance or agent capable of inducing cancer.

Comment Period: A time during which the public can review and comment on various documents and actions taken, either by the Navy, EPA, or DDOE. For example, a comment period is provided when EPA proposes to add sites to the National Priorities List. A minimum 30-day comment period is held to allow community members to review the Administrative Record file and review and comment on the Proposed Plan.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA): A federal law passed in 1980 and amended in 1986, CERCLA is commonly referred to as the Superfund Law. It provides for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response in connection with the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites that endanger human health and safety of the environment.

Contaminant: Any physical, biological, or radiological substance or matter that, at a certain threshold concentration, could have an adverse effect on human health or the environment.

Ecological Receptor: A plant or animal that may be exposed to a contaminant in the environment.

Feasibility Study: Based on data collected during the remedial investigations, upon which options for final cleanup actions or remediation are developed and evaluated. The most feasible option that satisfies human health and environment protection requirements is then recommended. The criteria for evaluating remedial alternatives include their short-term and long-term effectiveness, cost, and acceptance by the surrounding community and state.

WDC042670002.ZIP 5-1


Groundwater: Water beneath the ground surface that fills spaces between materials such as sand, soil, or gravel to the point of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs in quantities sufficient for drinking water, irrigation, and other uses. Groundwater may transport substances that have percolated downward from the ground surface as it flows toward its point of discharge.

Hazardous Substance: Any material that poses a threat to human health or the environment. Typical hazardous substances are materials that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive, or chemically reactive.

Information Repository: A file containing information, technical reports, and reference documents regarding a Superfund site that is made available to the public. Information repositories for WNY are at the District of Columbia Public Libraries and the Naval District Washington Environmental Department.

Metals: Metals are naturally occurring elements in the earth. Arsenic, cadmium, iron, mercury, and silver are examples of metals. Exposure to some metals, such as arsenic and mercury, can have toxic effects. Other metals, such as iron, are essential to the metabolism of humans and animals.

Monitoring Wells: Wells drilled at specific locations on or near a site where groundwater can be sampled at selected depths and studied to assess the groundwater flow direction and the types and amounts of contaminants present.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP): Federal regulations that provide the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified or possible long-term remedial response. The list is based on the score a site receives in the Hazard Ranking System. EPA is required to update the NPL at least once a year.

Proposed Plan: A public participation requirement of SARA in which the lead agency summarizes for the public the preferred clean-up strategy and rationale for preference and reviews the alternatives presented in the detailed analysis of the FS. The Proposed Plan may be prepared either as a fact sheet or as a separate document. In either case, it must actively solicit public review and comment on all alternatives under consideration.

Record of Decision (ROD): An official public document that selects the clean-up alternative(s) that will be used at NPL sites. The ROD is based on information and technical analysis generated during the RI/FS and consideration of public comments and community concerns. The ROD explains the remedy selection process and is issued by the lead agency following the public comment period.

Remedial Action: The actual construction or implementation phase that follows the remedial design for the selected clean-up alternative at a site on the NPL.

Remedial Investigation: An in-depth study designed to gather data needed to: determine the nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site; establish site cleanup criteria;

5-2 WDC042670002.ZIP

SECTION 5—GLOSSARY

identify preliminary alternatives for response action; and support technical and cost analyses of alternatives.

Responsiveness Summary: A summary of oral and written public comments received by the lead agency during a comment period and the responses to these comments prepared by the lead agency. The responsiveness summary is an important part of the ROD, highlighting community concerns for decision makers.

Risk-Based Concentration (RBC): Conservative screening values that are protective of human health.

Runoff: That part of precipitation, snow melt, or irrigation water that runs off the land into streams or other surface-water (including storm sewers). It can carry pollutants from the air and land into receiving waters.

Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC): Organic compounds that evaporate relatively slowly to the atmosphere. SVOCs include chemicals such as phenols, which commonly occur in coal tar and naphthalene, which is naturally found in fuels when they burn.

Superfund: The program operated under the legislative authority of CERCLA and the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) that funds and carries out EPA solid waste, emergency, and long-term removal and remedial activities. These activities include investigating sites for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL), determining their priority, and conducting and/or supervising the cleanup and other remedial actions.

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA): The public law enacted to reauthorize the funding provisions and amend the authorities and requirements of CERCLA and associated laws. Section 120 of SARA requires that all federal facilities be subject to and comply with this act in the same manner and to the same extent as any non-government entity.

Surface Water: Bodies of water that are exposed at ground surface, such as rivers, lakes, ponds, and streams.

Storm Sewer: A system of pipes (separate from sanitary sewers) that carries only runoff from buildings and land surfaces.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Any organic compound that evaporates at room temperature to the atmosphere. VOCs contribute significantly to photochemical smog productions and certain health problems. Volatile organic chemicals include gasoline, industrial chemicals such as benzene, solvents such as toluene and xylene, and tetrachloroethylene (the principal dry cleaning solvent).

WDC042670002.ZIP 5-3

Appendix A DDOE Letter of Concurrence

Appendix B Public Meeting Transcript—December 7, 2005

0001 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY and 2 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 3 --------------------------------------------X 4 PUBLIC HEARING ON : 5 PROPOSED PLANS FOR SITE 5 AND SITE 16 SOIL, : 6 WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, WASHINGTON, D.C. : 7 --------------------------------------------X 8 Room 22N07, Building 200 9 1014 N Street, S.E. 10 Washington, D.C. 11 Wednesday, December 7, 2005 12 13 The meeting was convened, pursuant to notice, at 14 6:15 p.m., ARMALIA BERRY-WASHINGTON presiding. 15 16 PRESENT: 17 ARMALIA BERRY-WASHINGTON, presiding 18 GINNY FARRIS, CH2M Hill 19 KATHLEEN HOLLY, RAB Member 20 ART JUNG, Metcalfe and Eddy 21 THOMAS P. LEWIS, Naval District Washington 22 SEYMOUR SELIG, RAB Member 23 ROBERT STROUD, RPM, Environmental Protection Agency 24 KURT VAN GELDER, Metcalfe and Eddy 25 BRIAN WALLACE, District Department of Health 26 SCOTT MACEWEN, CH2M HILL 0002 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: It's 6:15, so I think we 3 should go ahead and get started at least with the public 4 meeting portion of it. But I actually did want to go around 5 through and let everybody introduce themselves before we get 6 started, because we have a couple of new faces in the room, just 7 so we know who everybody is. 8 My name is Armalia Berry-Washington and I'm the 9 remedial project manager for the Washington Navy Yard. I work 10 right here in the yard at NAVFAC Washington. 11 MR. MacEWEN: I'm Scott MacEwen. I'm with CH2M 12 Hill, which is an environmental consultant for the Navy doing 13 the environmental remediation at the Navy Yard. 14 MR. SELIG: I'm Seymour Selig. 15 MR. VAN GELDER: I'm Kurt Van Gelder, Metcalfe and 16 Eddy. 17 MR. JUNG: I'm Art Jung. I'm also with Metcalfe and 18 Eddy. I work with Kurt. 19 MS. FARRIS: Ginny Farris, CH2M Hill. 20 MS. HOLLY: Kathleen Holly, RAB. 21 MR. WALLACE: Brian Wallace. I'm the RPM with the 22 District's Department of Health. 23 MR. STROUD: I'm Bob Stroud. I'm the RPM with the 24 Environmental Protection Agency. 25 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: So what we're going to do is 0003 1 just open up with the public meeting portion for Site 5 and 2 Site 16, and then afterwards we'll -- after we conclude and

3 there are no further questions on those two sites, then we'll 4 proceed on with a mini-RAB meeting to tie up any loose ends and 5 coordinate for the next RAB meeting. 6 So, Brian, if you want to start us off. 7 (Screen.) 8 MR. WALLACE: To get started, like Armalia said, 9 we're here to talk to you about the proposed plans for Site 5 10 and Site 16 here at the yard. Site 5 is also known as Building 11 73. 12 Here we are right now. Building 73 is right next to 13 the parking garage. This is NAVSEA over here (indicating). As 14 you can see, here is the northwest portion of the Navy Yard. Of 15 particular note, the soil around the building 73. 16 (Screen.) 17 Quick history. Building 73 was built around 1900. 18 From 1900 to 1965 there was a secondary mount shop for 19 assembling gun mounts, manufacturing torpedo launch tubes. '65 20 to today, storage, recreational facilities, admin offices. In 21 '98 it was completely gutted and reconstructed under the BRAC 22 work. 23 (Screen.) 24 Here's a good picture. This is Building 73 here, 25 which would be Site 5, and the parking garage. You may want to 0004 1 note just how close these two are, as you'll see a few slides on 2 that. 3 (Screen.) 4 Again, the soil around Building 73. There's no 5 natural soil there. It's all asphalt, concrete. And this BRAC 6 work actually put in these ducts and this new landscaping, as 7 well as the sidewalks. 8 (Screen.) 9 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: This might be a little 10 repetitious for some of you, but just to quickly run through. 11 The Navy installation restoration process or program identifies, 12 studies, and cleans up past spills and hazardous waste disposal 13 sites, and we use the actual CERCLA EPA process. 14 There are several phases that we actually go 15 through. We normally conduct a preliminary assessment and an 16 site investigation for each site, and then we move into the 17 remedial investigation-feasibility study phase. Let me back up 18 a minute. 19 The preliminary assessment is the process that 20 actually identifies the site and actually does, conducts 21 interviews and does a paper search to see if there were any 22 activities at this particular location that might pose a threat 23 or might have posed some releases. 24 The SI is actually a limited, intrusive 25 investigation where we collect a few samples to see if there's a 0005 1 problem. If there is, we can actually move into a removal 2 action at that time to actually -- if there's an immediate 3 threat, we can move into a removal action to clean up that area. 4 A lot of times, after the site investigation that 5 information may warrant some additional investigation, and 6 that's where we move into the remedial investigation phase. 7 That's where we do a more extensive study to determine the

8 extent of releases, the nature and extent of releases, and we 9 normally conduct a risk assessment at this particular phase. 10 Then, if necessary, we will move into a feasibility 11 study, which sort of looks at the options for clean-up if that 12 site poses a problem. Again, during this phase we can also move 13 into a removal action. If when we are in the field we notice 14 something immediately threatening, we can go in and do a removal 15 action. 16 Also, you notice if we see that there's no problem 17 during this phase, we do a risk assessment and we see that 18 there's no problem, we can move to a no further action. 19 The phase that we're at now is the proposed plan 20 phase. This is where we actually conduct these mini-reports 21 that you see that give a quick synopsis of the site and all the 22 activities that have taken place. We do a public meeting to 23 share with the community what we've done thus far and we ask for 24 comments. 25 After that we move into the record of decision phase 0006 1 and this documents the decision that's been agreed upon by EPA, 2 the Navy, and the District of Columbia in this particular case 3 or the state. Then at that particular point, if there's an 4 action -- in these two cases it's no further action. But if 5 there's some kind of cleanup, you would move to the remedial 6 action phase and sometimes remedial designs are warranted. 7 Now, for Site 5 I'm just going to kind of give a 8 brief synopsis of the actual field investigations that have 9 taken place. In 1996 is when we actually started the first site 10 investigation at Site 5. It was a part of about 10 to 12 sites, 11 the initial sites at the Washington Navy Yard. At that time we 12 detected elevated levels of lead in that area. 13 In 1998 there was a preconstruction characterization 14 sampling event that took place, and that was actually part of a 15 BRAC realignment and closure program. Most of us know this was 16 during the time when the Navy had a lot of tenants that were 17 leasing at other locations around the Washington, D.C., area and 18 we had a push to bring a lot of these civilians back to naval 19 bases. So we actually did a lot of renovation, and Brian 20 pointed that out. Next to Site 5 is a parking lot that was 21 constructed as a part of that. 22 During -- we did a precharacterization study at that 23 particular time to see if there was any hazard to the 24 construction workers that would be out there, and also we needed 25 to know if there were any special disposal practices that needed 0007 1 to take place for that project. As a result, there was a 2 substantial amount of soil excavated near the Building 28, which 3 is now the parking garage area directly across from Site 5, that 4 was excavated out and replaced with clean fill. So this kind of 5 took place right in the middle of our investigations that were 6 going on there. 7 In 2000 we actually had a base-wide groundwater 8 investigation going on and we actually needed to fill in some 9 gaps, and that's where we actually took some samples in the 10 groundwater. At that particular time, we did notice some 11 elevated levels of VOC's and metals in the groundwater. 12 We proceeded on with the remedial investigation in

13 the 2002-2003 time frame, where we performed additional 14 subsurface soil samples and also some additional groundwater 15 samples, and lead was detected. Elevated levels of lead were 16 detected in both those sampling events. 17 It wasn't high enough for us to warrant an FS, so 18 what we decided to do was to do a pre-FS investigation to see if 19 we needed to do a full-blown FS. If some of you don't know, a 20 lot of these processes take years to develop work plans, to get 21 that approved, to do the field investigations, to do the 22 reports, and then to get all the reports, draft, draft final, 23 and all that reviewed. So where we can eliminate some of that 24 bureaucracy, we try to do that. 25 So we actually did a pre-FS investigation. In 2004 0008 1 we took some additional subsurface samples, particularly -- we 2 actually went deeper than the area that they excavated during 3 the BRAC construction and we re-ran all those numbers in a human 4 health risk assessment in 2004. Bob will talk to you about the 5 risk assessment results to determine whether or not further 6 action was needed at that site. 7 (Screen.) 8 This is a map -- I think that's Site 16 over there. 9 Oh, here we are. Site 5 is over here. It's a larger map. This 10 is the map up here. This is just a map to show our actual 11 sample locations around the site. This is Site 5 here, Building 12 73, and we sampled around here (indicating). This area here is 13 where the excavation took place as part of the BRAC project, and 14 this is the new parking garage area here (indicating). So this 15 kind of gives you a feel of the amount of sampling we did under 16 this investigation. 17 MR. STROUD: I'm going to talk to you about the risk 18 assessment portion of Site 5 and how we came to the conclusion 19 of no further action for Site 5. The risk assessment was 20 evaluated to current and future site users, including 21 construction workers, of course, the folks that were 22 constructing the garage, trespassers that might come on the 23 Washington Navy Yard, visitors, adult and child, industrial 24 workers that could be moving in and out of the area, and 25 residents that could actually be living at the Washington Navy 0009 1 Yard, both adult and child, with child being the most sensitive 2 receptor. 3 Now, the risk assessment was ultraconservative 4 because it assumed that the soil was uncovered, like these 5 buildings and the pavement that we're talking about just wasn't 6 there and the subsurface soil was brought to the surface so that 7 people could actually, would come in contact with it, either by 8 working or someone like planting their back yard. We know that 9 this wasn't the scenario at this particular site. 10 I just wanted to point out that this risk assessment 11 just focused on the soil at Site 5 because groundwater's being 12 handled under a separate study. 13 MR. SELIG: Bob, can you say something about the 14 methodology you used for risk assessment? 15 MR. STROUD: Yes. What they do is they take the 16 samples and they run the risks through formulas that they have. 17 I believe it's called RAGS, yes, which is called RAGS-D.

18 MR. MacEWEN: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund 19 Site. 20 MR. STROUD: Yes, Risk Assessment Guidance for 21 Superfund Site. And they run these through different scenarios. 22 Like I said, the child resident would be the most sensitive 23 receptor. That would give you the most sensitive, the lowest 24 numbers, I suppose, to a construction worker or an industrial 25 worker. The numbers are different for each scenario, but 0010 1 there's a guidance that EPA has that the Navy followed and they 2 put those numbers into the formula, and that's how they come up 3 with the no further action conclusion. 4 (Screen.) 5 The initial health risk assessment results included 6 samples that were prior to the 1998 soil excavation. So as I 7 say, this risk assessment was ultraconservative. And beyond the 8 fact that it included soil that was there prior to the 1998 9 excavation, those numbers were also included in the risk 10 assessment. But like I said, that wasn't even really the case 11 because after 1998 that soil was actually removed. So we were 12 being ultraconservative here. 13 MR. MacEWEN: Bob, can I mention one thing? In the 14 proposed plan is a pretty detailed box and it talks about in 15 even more detail, about how the risk assessments are done, that 16 we look at carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks and what the 17 factors are that go into that, ecological and human health 18 risks. 19 MR. STROUD: Thanks. 20 Lead was the risk driver for the future child 21 resident, the future adult resident, and the future industrial 22 resident. I just want to keep stressing here that the child 23 resident is the most sensitive receptor here. Iron was present 24 in soil in concentrations consistent with background, so the 25 iron at the site wasn't considered a site-related risk. The 0011 1 iron here was just like the iron that was away from the site. 2 It didn't have anything to do with the site operations. So as I 3 said, iron's not considered a site-related risk here. 4 (Screen.) 5 MS. HOLLY: The site itself is being occupied by 6 whom 24-7? I'm trying to get the level of the assessment. Are 7 we talking strictly -- who's there? What's there? 8 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: Actually what's there today? 9 That's actually Navy Yard workers that are in that building. 10 That's not a residence. 11 MR. WALLACE: Office workers. 12 MR. STROUD: Administrative offices, and the parking 13 garage is right across from it. 14 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: Yes. So yes, that actually 15 factored children in that area living there, so that's very 16 conservative considering it's just office space. 17 MR. LEWIS: Isn't 73 actually the athletic courts? 18 MR. STROUD: I don't think so. 19 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: Office space, I think. 20 That's what we've got. 21 MS. HOLLY: I was just thinking, as long as Bob is 22 telling us it's extremely conservative, I'm all right, but I

23 just wanted to know how long the people have to be there. 24 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: Oh, for it to be a problem? 25 MS. HOLLY: Yes. 0012 1 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: Well, that is actually show 2 that if someone lived there there wouldn't be a problem. 3 MR. MacEWEN: 30 years. 4 MS. HOLLY: There you go. 5 MR. MacEWEN: Childhood through adult, 30 years. 6 MS. HOLLY: Thank you. 7 MR. STROUD: Now, the revised human health risk 8 assessment included additional soil data that was taken in 2004. 9 This was after, obviously, after the 1998 soil removal, but we 10 just went back and took some additional samples just to be sure 11 that what we were doing was correct and that there was no risk 12 at the site. We kind of assumed that there was on risk since 13 all the contaminated soil was removed, but we just needed to be 14 sure about that. 15 So the average lead concentration at Site 5 after 16 taking the samples once again in 2004 was 351 parts per million. 17 Now, EPA recommends a screening level of 400 parts per million 18 for a child that could actually live in an area that has soil up 19 to 400 parts per million, like Scott said, up to 30 years. 20 That's part of the formula that's used for a child resident. 21 As I said, the children are the sensitive receptor 22 for lead exposure. So therefore a level protective of children 23 is obviously protective of other people, adult residents and 24 industrial workers. 25 (Screen.) 0013 1 Exposure to soil at Site 5 would not result in an 2 unacceptable risk to current or future site users, so a 3 feasibility study is not warranted here, and that's based on the 4 risk assessment, based on the average concentration of 351 parts 5 per million of lead, and the screening number being 400. 6 So we're proposing no further remedial action for 7 the site and no other actions have been evaluated because there 8 are no unacceptable risks here. 9 (Screen.) 10 We are in the middle of the 30-day public comment 11 period. It's from starting November 28th and ends December 12 28th. I guess we have about three weeks left in that. Ms. 13 Holly, you and Seymour have sat through a few of these things, 14 so you know you're always welcome to comment, call anybody on 15 the list, or through writing or however you want to do it. But 16 the 30-day public comment period is November 28th to December 17 28th. 18 That's it for Site 5, unless anyone has any 19 questions. 20 (No response.) 21 MS. HOLLY: I'm satisfied. 22 MR. STROUD: Thank you. 23 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: We're going to roll right 24 into Site 16. 25 MR. WALLACE: We'll roll right into 16. Site 16 is 0014 1 commonly known as the former mercury removal area.

2 (Screen.) 3 We're in the south-central part of the yard, right 4 next to the Admiral's Slip there. Site 16 encompasses Building 5 71, former UST's, some storm water lines, and most importantly 6 an area where free-phase mercury was discovered in the 7 subsurface soil. 8 (Screen.) 9 Again, this focuses on soil containing mercury. 10 Storm sewers were rehabilitated and remediated several years 11 ago, as many of you know. Contaminated soil and groundwater 12 associated with the former petroleum UST's is being addressed by 13 Naval District Washington, which would be Tom's group, as well 14 as the D.C. UST Division. 15 Next one. 16 (Screen.) 17 Free-phase mercury was found near the location of 18 former Building 146, built in 1916 and demolished in 1983. 19 There's the building. 146's past uses were the airplane motor 20 testing shop, the shipwright's school, the diving school, public 21 garage, and Navy administrative offices. 22 (Screen.) 23 You can see right here. That's what we're looking 24 at. It's covered by concrete, high traffic area, restrooms for 25 Building 71, and parking for the Navy Museum, adjacent to Pier 0015 1 2, where the BARRY is, as you all know. Soil is fill, placed 2 during the expansion of the yard. We've all seen the pretty 3 expansion maps of the fill. 4 MR. SELIG: What is it when you say "free-phase 5 mercury"? 6 MR. WALLACE: That's a thermometer, like when you 7 break a thermometer open. 8 MR. SELIG: Like elemental mercury? 9 MR. MacEWEN: Yes, elemental mercury. 10 MR. SELIG: How much? Does anybody know how much 11 elemental mercury was identified? 12 MR. WALLACE: That much (indicating). It was not a 13 lot. It was actually during UST. They were taking some samples 14 during the UST and it came up smeared on an auger. They shut it 15 down. 16 MR. SELIG: But could it have come from some kind of 17 equipment? 18 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: That's what they're assuming, 19 that it came from some equipment. 20 MR. WALLACE: The most likely scenario is the fact 21 that it was a dive shop; somebody maybe had a broken gauge when 22 they were filling it in. It was very localized, as you'll see 23 from coming up. 24 MR. MacEWEN: I don't think anything was ever fully 25 measured. They went in, dug up a bunch of soil in the area, but 0016 1 they didn't really check to see how much mercury was in that 2 soil, and disposed of it as contaminated soil. 3 MR. WALLACE: As it was explained to me, as far as 4 soil that you could see mercury on it, they put it in a 5 five-gallon bucket and had plenty of space left over. 6 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: So as far as the

7 investigations go for Site 16, in 1996 the free-phase mercury 8 was discovered in the soil. Now, you'll notice between 1996 and 9 1999 was a three-year gap. There was actually a 10 non-time-critical removal action that took place where we 11 actually went in in a 12 by 12-foot area, and that was that box 12 you saw in that previous slide, and we went down to about a 13 depth of 6 feet to clean up, dig up, and haul off that 14 free-phase mercury. 15 In between here is when we had a lot of legal things 16 going on with the Navy Yard and we were also going back and 17 forth between the CERCLA program and the RCRA 7003. You will 18 probably remember that. 19 MS. HOLLY: I remember. I remember it vividly. 20 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: Yes. So we actually went in 21 and cleaned up that free-phase mercury in 1999. Something else 22 that took place during this time, between 1998 and 2001, and 23 actually really started back in 1996, was we did the storm sewer 24 assessment and we have -- and you are very familiar with that, 25 too. There was actually a storm sewer line that went through 0017 1 (indicating), and here we are, this. 2 MR. MacEWEN: That grey line here. 3 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: Yes, right here, that runs 4 through Site 16. 5 MR. MacEWEN: And the other one running 6 perpendicular to it, right there (indicating). That's a storm 7 sewer line. 8 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: All of that was actually 9 rehabbed, where we actually did the television cameras, went in 10 -- and I'm not sure exactly what took place in this one. I 11 don't know if you remember, Tom, but in some instances they were 12 relined, in some instances they were completely redone. 13 MR. LEWIS: I believe most of that was replaced. 14 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: So this one, okay, was 15 completely replaced. 16 In 2002 we actually did a remedial investigation of 17 this area. That's where we went back even after the removal 18 action was done and took some more soil samples in the 19 subsurface soil and we actually did some groundwater sampling as 20 well. Once again, you'll find that groundwater, even though 21 sometimes it's done under the same investigation, it's being 22 evaluated under a different report because we're doing a 23 base-wide groundwater evaluation. 24 We actually took samples of the subsurface soil near 25 the area where we found the mercury and also near the storm 0018 1 water line to make sure that there wasn't the possibility of the 2 soil near the storm water line being impacted by the mercury, 3 meaning any kind of seepage getting to the storm sewer line and 4 ultimately going to the Anacostia. 5 We concluded that the storm water line was not 6 impacted. We did, the team -- and this is the Tier One team -- 7 did recommend further investigation to just really, really 8 double-check that there was no free-phase mercury because it was 9 kind of a puzzle how it was there, but we just wanted to 10 double-check that there was no free-phase mercury because we 11 were finding low hits of mercury, but we wanted to make sure

12 there wasn't another big threat in that area. 13 (Screen.) 14 So from 2003 to 2005, we once again did a creative 15 pre-feasibility study sampling event before we actually jumped 16 into a feasibility study, since we actually did a removal action 17 in that area. So we did a further delineation of the vertical 18 and horizontal extent of that area to sample. We actually went 19 below that 6-foot depth area where we did that 12 by 12 area, to 20 make sure that there wasn't any mercury above acceptable levels 21 under there. 22 We did find ranges in the .04 to 394 parts per 23 million range, but there was no free-phase mercury. So there 24 was a risk assessment done on these numbers to see if it posed 25 an unacceptable risk. 0019 1 (Screen.) 2 Here is another map, just to give you an example of 3 the sampling events that took place in that small area in the 4 parking lot that we showed you, just to assure that we didn't 5 have a problem. And of course, there's a larger map over there 6 as well. 7 Bob will talk about what the risk assessment told 8 us. 9 (Screen.) 10 MR. STROUD: Essentially the same thing as at Site 11 5, the same type of risk assessment was done. The risk 12 assessment was evaluated, evaluated with regard to current and 13 possible future site users, that being construction workers, any 14 trespassers or visitors, both adult and children, industrial 15 workers, or residents of the Navy Yard, adult and children. 16 This one was also done ultraconservative, with Site 17 16 being covered with buildings or concrete, so there is no 18 current exposure to soil, but the risk assessment was done as 19 with the soil being uncovered like the building and the concrete 20 weren't there, the same thing as with Site 5. 21 The focus of this risk assessment is just focused on 22 the soil. As I may have mentioned, the groundwater's going to 23 be done under a separate study. 24 Next slide. 25 (Screen.) 0020 1 The initial results from the 2002 RI included 2 samples collected prior to 2003. There were no unacceptable 3 cancer or non-cancer risks for anyone, except there was one hit 4 of dioxin. Now, dioxin may present unacceptable cancer risk to 5 people who may be exposed to the site if they lived at the site 6 for 30 years. This is basically someone that lived at Site 16 7 and wallowed around in the dirt every day for 30 years; well, a 8 child basically living there, living there for 30 years, which 9 is an unlikely scenario, but it's possible. Like I said, we try 10 to be as conservative as possible when we do risk assessments, 11 so this is the way we do things. 12 Now, the risk from the dioxin was just driven by one 13 sample that was contained in the fill. As you know, the fill 14 for the Washington Navy Yard comes from various sources. Now, 15 the fill is going to be investigated under the base-wide fill 16 investigation, so the dioxin hit was there, but it's going to be

17 investigated. 18 Now, we did a revised risk assessment in 2005, 19 included all the data that was collected in 2002 and in 2003 as 20 well. There were no unacceptable non-cancer or cancer risks for 21 any of the scenarios that we pointed out, except as noted for 22 that one hit of dioxin. 23 (Screen.) 24 Exposure to soil at Site 16 would not result in 25 unacceptable risks to the current or future site users. So a 0021 1 feasibility study is not warranted in this case either. But the 2 presence of the dioxin, as I mentioned, will be evaluated in the 3 base-wide fill investigation. As I said, that only came from 4 one sample. 5 (Screen.) 6 So there's no further remedial action proposed for 7 the Site 16 soil and no further action will be evaluated because 8 there are no unacceptable risks at the site. 9 (Screen.) 10 The same thing: This 30-day public comment period 11 is running concurrently with Site 5, starting on November 28th, 12 and it will end on December 28th, and you can comment by writing 13 or calling anyone in the document. 14 MR. SELIG: Was the source of the dioxin that was 15 discovered identified? 16 MR. STROUD: The dioxin was in the fill, so, like I 17 said, the fill comes from various sources. So we're not really 18 sure what the source is. As I said, it's just one sample. It 19 was just one sample and it's going to be investigated. 20 MR. WALLACE: That's why it's being investigated, 21 the fill, because we couldn't figure out why it would be there. 22 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: It wasn't site-related. 23 MR. VAN GELDER: Do you have a yard-wide site fill? 24 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: Yes, we have a base-wide fill 25 investigation, because we had a lot of hits in the subsurface 0022 1 soil that could not be directly linked to operations that took 2 place at that building. So we had to assume at this point that 3 it was due to filling operations. 4 MS. HOLLY: It's the same thing with that site over 5 there that I'm concerned about. What do we call the other one 6 that we're going to work on? 7 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: Anacostia? 8 MS. HOLLY: Yes. Remember where all that water and 9 stuff was lieing around and you picked that up as one of the 10 sites because that fill comes from the soccer field or tennis 11 court or whatever and that landfill came from God knows where, 12 maybe by the gas station. 13 MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: Yes. 14 MR. STROUD: If there's no more questions, that 15 concludes our presentation for tonight. Thank you. 16 (Whereupon, at 6:47 p.m., the meeting was 17 adjourned.) 18 19 20 21

Appendix C Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Initial

Site 5 HHRA

TABLE 1

SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Focused Remedial Investigation for Site 5

Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure On-Site/ Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Off-Site Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Future Subsurface Soil at Site 5 Subsurface Soil Direct Contact Adult Dermal

Absorption On-Site Quant Site workers could contact soil while conducting maintenance activities.

Ingestion On-Site Quant Site workers could contact soil while conducting maintenance activities.

Adult Dermal Absorption On-Site Quant Adult may trespass on site and contact the subsurface soil.

Ingestion On-Site Quant Adult may trespass on site and contact the subsurface soil.

Adolescents Dermal Absorption On-Site Quant Adolescents may trespass on site and contact the subsurface soil.

Ingestion On-Site Quant Adolescents may trespass on site and contact the subsurface soil.

Adult Dermal Absorption On-Site Quant Construction workers could be exposed to subsurface soil while conducting excavation

activities at the site.

Ingestion On-Site Quant Construction workers could be exposed to subsurface soil while conducting excavation activities at the site.

Resident Adult Dermal Absorption On-site Quant Residents may contact subsurface soil, if the site is used for future residential

development.

Ingestion On-site Quant Residents may contact subsurface soil, if the site is used for future residential development.

Child Dermal Absorption On-site Quant Residents may contact subsurface soil, if the site is used for future residential

development.


Child/Adult Dermal Absorption On-site Quant Residents may contact subsurface soil, if the site is used for future residential

development.


Air Emissions from exposed soil Industrial Worker Adult Inhalation On-Site Quant Site workers may inhale dust and volatile emissions from subsurface soils while conducting maintenance activities.

Trespasser/Visitor Adult Inhalation On-Site Quant Adult may trespass on site and may inhale dust and volatile emissions from subsurface soils.

Adolescents Inhalation On-Site Quant Adolescents may trespass on site and may inhale dust and volatile emissions from subsurface soils.

Construction Worker Adult Inhalation On-Site Quant Construction workers may inhale dust and volatile emissions from subsurface soils.

Resident Adult Inhalation On-site Quant Residents may inhale vapors and dust from soil, if the site is used for future residential development.

Child Inhalation On-site Quant Residents may inhale vapors and dust from soil, if the site is used for future residential development.

Child/Adult Inhalation On-site Quant Residents may inhale vapors and dust from soil, if the site is used for future residential development.

Trespasser/Visitor

Construction Worker

Industrial Worker

Page1of1 06/05/2006

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Subsurface Soil

Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil Exposure Point: Site 5

CAS Chemical Minimum [1] Minimum Maximum [1] Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration [2] Background [3] Screening [4] Potential Potential COPC Rationale for [5]

Number Concentration Qualifier Concentration Qualifier of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Toxicity Value ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Contaminant

Concentration Limits Screening Value Source Deletionor Selection

67-64-1 Acetone 0.006 J 0.028 MG/KG WS05-DS05 4/6 0.011 - 0.019 0.028 NA 780 N NO BSL

71-43-2 Benzene 0.005 J 0.005 J MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 1/6 0.006 - 0.019 0.005 NA 11.6 C NO BSL

74-87-3 Chloromethane 0.003 J 0.003 J MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 1/6 0.011 - 0.019 0.003 NA N/A NO NTX

75-09-2 Methylene chloride 0.02 0.033 MG/KG WS05-DS04 3/6 0.011 - 0.019 0.033 NA 85.2 C NO BSL

56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.024 J 0.22 J MG/KG WS05-DS09-08 4/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.22 NA 0.875 C NO BSL

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.02 J 0.036 J MG/KG WS05-DS04 2/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.036 NA 0.0875 C NO BSL

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.023 J 0.059 J MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 4/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.059 NA 0.875 C NO BSL

191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.03 J 0.03 J MG/KG WS05-DS04 1/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.03 NA 235 N NO BSL

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.022 J 0.039 J MG/KG WS05-DS04 2/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.039 NA 8.75 C NO BSL

218-01-9 Chrysene 0.028 J 0.32 J MG/KG WS05-DS09-08 4/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.32 NA 87.5 C NO BSL

84-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate 0.11 J 0.11 J MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 1/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.11 NA 782 N NO BSL

206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.039 J 0.092 J MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 3/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.092 NA 313 N NO BSL

193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.027 J 0.027 J MG/KG WS05-DS04 1/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.027 NA 0.875 C NO BSL

91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.054 J 0.054 J MG/KG WS05-DS09-08 1/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.054 NA 156 N NO BSL

85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.028 J 0.097 J MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 5/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.097 NA 235 N NO BSL

129-00-0 Pyrene 0.035 J 0.082 J MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 4/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.082 NA 235 N NO BSL

117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.025 J 0.57 MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 5/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.57 NA 45.6 C NO BSL

7429-90-5 Aluminum 3,650 J 10,300 MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 6/6 43 - 49 10300 NA 7,821 N YES ASL

7440-36-0 Antimony 1.6 L 1.6 L MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 1/6 2 - 15 1.6 NA 3.13 N NO BSL

7440-38-2 Arsenic 1.1 L 6 L MG/KG WS05-DS01 6/6 2.1 - 2.5 6 NA 0.426 C YES ASL

7440-39-3 Barium 11.1 J 176 MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 6/6 43 - 49 176 NA 548 N NO BSL

7440-41-7 Beryllium 0.41 J 2.1 MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 4/6 0.22 - 1.2 2.1 NA 15.6 N NO BSL

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.43 L 1.1 L MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 4/6 0.22 - 1.2 1.1 NA 7.8 N NO BSL

7440-70-2 Calcium 4,660 20,900 J MG/KG WS05-DS05 6/6 1060 - 1230 20900 NA N/A NO NUT

7440-47-3 Chromium 9.9 29 MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 6/6 2.1 - 2.5 29 NA 23.5 N YES ASL

7440-48-4 Cobalt 0.65 15.3 MG/KG WS05-DS01 6/6 11 - 12 15.3 NA 160 N NO BSL

7440-50-8 Copper 128 1,020 J MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 6/6 5.3 - 6.2 1020 NA 313 N YES ASL

7439-89-6 Iron 6,250 J 53,900 J MG/KG WS05-DS01 6/6 21 - 25 53900 NA 2,300 N YES ASL

7439-92-1 Lead 25.3 9,230 J MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 6/6 2.1 - 23 9230 NA 400 YES ASL

7439-95-4 Magnesium 1,490 12,400 J MG/KG WS05-DS04 6/6 1060 - 1230 12400 NA N/A NO NUT

7439-96-5 Manganese 23 J 409 J MG/KG WS05-DS01 6/6 3.2 - 3.7 409 NA 156 N YES ASL

7439-97-6 Mercury 0.08 0.65 MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 5/6 0.04 - 0.13 0.65 NA 2.35 N NO BSL

7440-02-0 Nickel 25.5 199 MG/KG WS05-DS04 5/6 0.88 - 9.8 199 NA 156 N YES ASL

7440-09-7 Potassium 123 1,240 MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 6/6 1060 - 1230 1240 NA N/A NO NUT

7782-49-2 Selenium 1.3 L 1.3 L MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 1/6 0.66 - 1.2 1.3 NA 39.1 N NO BSL7440-22-4 Silver 0.74 J 0.74 J MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 1/6 0.44 - 2.5 0.74 NA 39.1 N NO BSL

Table 2.1

OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN



06/05/20067:09 PM Page 1 of 2

AppC Table 2s.xlsTABLE 2.1



Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil Exposure Point: Site 5



Concentration Limits Screening Value Source Deletion

Table 2.1




7440-23-5 Sodium 87.5 392 MG/KG WS05-DS04 6/6 1060 - 1230 392 NA N/A NO NUT

7440-28-0 Thallium 1.2 J 1.4 J MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 2/6 1.3 - 2.5 1.4 NA 0.548 N YES ASL

7440-62-2 Vanadium 2 J 49.6 MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 6/6 11 - 12 49.6 NA 54.8 N NO BSL7440-66-6 Zinc 50.1 583 L MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 6/6 4.3 - 4.9 583 NA 2,346 N NO BSL

[1] Minimum/Maximum detected concentrations.

[2] Maximum concentration is used for screening. COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern

[3] Background values not available. ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/

[4] Risk-Based Concentration Table, April 17, 2003, U.S. EPA Region III, Jennifer Hubbard. To Be Considered

RBC value for pyrene used as surrogate for phenanthrene and benzo(g,h,i)perylene. J = Estimated Value

RBC value for Chromium VI used for total chromium. K = Biased High

Lead screening toxicity value is 400 mg/kg, the EPA residential soil screening level for lead. L = Biased Low

RBC value for manganese-nonfood used as surrogate for manganese. C = Carcinogenic

RBC value for mercuric chloride used as surrogate for mercury. N = Noncarcinogenic

Rationale Codes

[5] Selection Reason: Above Screening Levels (ASL)

Deletion Reason: No Toxicity Information (NTX)

Essential Nutrient (NUT)

Below Screening Level (BSL)

06/05/20067:09 PM Page 2 of 2




Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Site 5




67-64-1 Acetone 0.006 J 0.028 MG/KG WS05-DS05 4/6 0.011 - 0.019 0.028 NA 780 N NA NA NO BSL

71-43-2 Benzene 0.005 J 0.005 J MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 1/6 0.006 - 0.019 0.005 NA 11.6 C NA NA NO BSL

74-87-3 Chloromethane 0.003 J 0.003 J MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 1/6 0.011 - 0.019 0.003 NA N/A NA NA NO NTX

75-09-2 Methylene chloride 0.02 0.033 MG/KG WS05-DS04 3/6 0.011 - 0.019 0.033 NA 85.2 C NA NA NO BSL

56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.024 J 0.22 J MG/KG WS05-DS09-08 4/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.22 NA 0.875 C NA NA NO BSL

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.02 J 0.036 J MG/KG WS05-DS04 2/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.036 NA 0.0875 C NA NA NO BSL

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.023 J 0.059 J MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 4/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.059 NA 0.875 C NA NA NO BSL

191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.03 J 0.03 J MG/KG WS05-DS04 1/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.03 NA 235 N NA NA NO BSL

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.022 J 0.039 J MG/KG WS05-DS04 2/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.039 NA 8.75 C NA NA NO BSL

218-01-9 Chrysene 0.028 J 0.32 J MG/KG WS05-DS09-08 4/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.32 NA 87.5 C NA NA NO BSL

84-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate 0.11 J 0.11 J MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 1/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.11 NA 782 N NA NA NO BSL

206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.039 J 0.092 J MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 3/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.092 NA 313 N NA NA NO BSL

193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.027 J 0.027 J MG/KG WS05-DS04 1/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.027 NA 0.875 C NA NA NO BSL

91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.054 J 0.054 J MG/KG WS05-DS09-08 1/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.054 NA 156 N NA NA NO BSL

85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.028 J 0.097 J MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 5/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.097 NA 235 N NA NA NO BSL

129-00-0 Pyrene 0.035 J 0.082 J MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 4/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.082 NA 235 N NA NA NO BSL

117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.025 J 0.57 MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 5/6 0.37 - 0.48 0.57 NA 45.6 C NA NA NO BSL

7429-90-5 Aluminum 3,650 J 10,300 MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 6/6 43 - 49 10300 NA 7,821 N NA NA YES ASL

7440-36-0 Antimony 1.6 L 1.6 L MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 1/6 2 - 15 1.6 NA 3.13 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-38-2 Arsenic 1.1 L 6 L MG/KG WS05-DS01 6/6 2.1 - 2.5 6 NA 0.426 C NA NA YES ASL

7440-39-3 Barium 11.1 J 176 MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 6/6 43 - 49 176 NA 548 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-41-7 Beryllium 0.41 J 2.1 MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 4/6 0.22 - 1.2 2.1 NA 15.6 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.43 L 1.1 L MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 4/6 0.22 - 1.2 1.1 NA 7.8 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-70-2 Calcium 4,660 20,900 J MG/KG WS05-DS05 6/6 1060 - 1230 20900 NA N/A NA NA NO NUT

7440-47-3 Chromium 9.9 29 MG/KG WS05-DS11-05 6/6 2.1 - 2.5 29 NA 23.5 N NA NA YES ASL

7440-48-4 Cobalt 0.65 15.3 MG/KG WS05-DS01 6/6 11 - 12 15.3 NA 160 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-50-8 Copper 128 1,020 J MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 6/6 5.3 - 6.2 1020 NA 313 N NA NA YES ASL

7439-89-6 Iron 6,250 J 53,900 J MG/KG WS05-DS01 6/6 21 - 25 53900 NA 2,300 N NA NA YES ASL

7439-92-1 Lead 25.3 9,230 J MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 6/6 2.1 - 23 9230 NA 400 NA NA YES ASL

7439-95-4 Magnesium 1,490 12,400 J MG/KG WS05-DS04 6/6 1060 - 1230 12400 NA N/A NA NA NO NUT

7439-96-5 Manganese 23 J 409 J MG/KG WS05-DS01 6/6 3.2 - 3.7 409 NA 156 N NA NA YES ASL

7439-97-6 Mercury 0.08 0.65 MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 5/6 0.04 - 0.13 0.65 NA 2.35 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-02-0 Nickel 25.5 199 MG/KG WS05-DS04 5/6 0.88 - 9.8 199 NA 156 N NA NA YES ASL

7440-09-7 Potassium 123 1,240 MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 6/6 1060 - 1230 1240 NA N/A NA NA NO NUT

7782-49-2 Selenium 1.3 L 1.3 L MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 1/6 0.66 - 1.2 1.3 NA 39.1 N NA NA NO BSL7440-22-4 Silver 0.74 J 0.74 J MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 1/6 0.44 - 2.5 0.74 NA 39.1 N NA NA NO BSL

Table 2.2




06/05/20067:10 PM Page 1 of 2




Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Site 5




Table 2.2




7440-23-5 Sodium 87.5 392 MG/KG WS05-DS04 6/6 1060 - 1230 392 NA N/A NA NA NO NUT

7440-28-0 Thallium 1.2 J 1.4 J MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 2/6 1.3 - 2.5 1.4 NA 0.548 N NA NA YES ASL

7440-62-2 Vanadium 2 J 49.6 MG/KG WS05-DS10-08 6/6 11 - 12 49.6 NA 54.8 N NA NA NO BSL7440-66-6 Zinc 50.1 583 L MG/KG WS05-DS20-08 6/6 4.3 - 4.9 583 NA 2,346 N NA NA NO BSL





RBC value for pyrene used as surrogate for phenanthrene and benzo(g,h,i)perylene. J = Estimated Value

RBC value for Chromium VI used for total chromium. K = Biased High

Lead screening toxicity value is 400 mg/kg, the EPA residential soil screening level for lead. L = Biased Low

RBC value for manganese-nonfood used as surrogate for manganese. C = Carcinogenic

RBC value for mercuric chloride used as surrogate for mercury. N = Noncarcinogenic

Rationale Codes

[5] Selection Reason: Above Screening Levels (ASL)




06/05/20067:10 PM Page 2 of 2


Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Subsurface Soil Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil Exposure Point: Site 5

Chemical Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum Maximum EPCof Mean Normal Detected Qualifier Units

Potential Data Concentration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium MediumConcern EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC

Value Statistic Rationale Value Statistic Rationale

Aluminum mg/kg 6,202 8,410 10,300 mg/kg 10,258 95% UCL-T (4) 6,202 Mean (5)Arsenic mg/kg 4.10 5.67 6.00 L mg/kg 5.67 95% UCL-N (4) 4.1 Mean (5)Chromium mg/kg 20.2 27.3 29.0 mg/kg 29.0 Max (2) 20.2 Mean (5)Copper mg/kg 440 709 1,020 J mg/kg 1,020 Max (2) 440 Mean (5)Iron mg/kg 26,258 41,793 53,900 J mg/kg 53,900 Max (2) 26,258 Mean (5)Lead mg/kg 2,184 5,115 9,230 J mg/kg 9,230 Max (2) 2,184 Mean (5)Manganese mg/kg 157 265 409 J mg/kg 409 Max (2) 157 Mean (5)Nickel mg/kg 53.0 113 199 mg/kg 199 Max (2) 53 Mean (5)Thallium mg/kg 0.958 1.21 1.40 J mg/kg 1.34 95% UCL-T (4) 0.958 Mean (5)

For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit was used as a proxy concentration; for duplicate sample results, the maximum value was used in the calculation.W - Test: Developed by Shapiro and Wilk, refer to Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term, OSWER Directive 9285.7-081, May 1992.Options: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T); Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T); Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).CT: Mean value used per discussions with EPA.

(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.(2) 95% UCL (or mean) exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC.(3) Shapiro-Wilks W Test indicates data are normally distributed.(4) Shapiro-Wilks W Test inconclusive. Use of 95% UCL (normal or transformed) that best fits the data according to the results of the Shapiro-Wilks W Test for EPC.(5) Normal mean value used.

Table 3.1MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY


Reasonable Maximum Exposure Central Tendency


06/05/20067:10 PM Page 1 of 1


Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Subsurface Soil Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Site 5

Chemical Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum Maximum EPCof Mean Normal Detected Qualifier Units

Potential Data Concentration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium MediumConcern EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC


Aluminum mg/kg 6,202 8,410 10,300 mg/kg 10,258 95% UCL-T (4) 6,202 Mean (5)Arsenic mg/kg 4.10 5.67 6.00 L mg/kg 5.67 95% UCL-N (4) 4.1 Mean (5)Chromium mg/kg 20.2 27.3 29.0 mg/kg 29.0 Max (2) 20.2 Mean (5)Copper mg/kg 440 709 1,020 J mg/kg 1,020 Max (2) 440 Mean (5)Iron mg/kg 26,258 41,793 53,900 J mg/kg 53,900 Max (2) 26,258 Mean (5)Lead mg/kg 2,184 5,115 9,230 J mg/kg 9,230 Max (2) 2,184 Mean (5)Manganese mg/kg 157 265 409 J mg/kg 409 Max (2) 157 Mean (5)Nickel mg/kg 53.0 113 199 mg/kg 199 Max (2) 53 Mean (5)Thallium mg/kg 0.958 1.21 1.40 J mg/kg 1.34 95% UCL-T (4) 0.958 Mean (5)

For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit was used as a proxy concentration; for duplicate sample results, the maximum value was used in the calculation.W - Test: Developed by Shapiro and Wilk, refer to Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term, OSWER Directive 9285.7-081, May 1992.Options: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T); Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T); Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).CT: Mean value used per discussions with EPA.

(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.(2) 95% UCL (or mean) exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC.(3) Shapiro-Wilks W Test indicates data are normally distributed.(4) Shapiro-Wilks W Test inconclusive. Use of 95% UCL (normal or transformed) that best fits the data according to the results of the Shapiro-Wilks W Test for EPC.(5) Normal mean value used.

Table 3.2MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY


Reasonable Maximum Exposure Central Tendency


06/05/20067:11 PM Page 1 of 1


TABLE 4.1

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS




Medium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5

Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil

Exposure Point: Direct Contact

Receptor Population: Industrial Worker

Receptor Age: Adult

Exposure Route Parameter Parameter Definition Units RME RME CT CT Intake Equation/Code Value Rationale/ Value Rationale/ Model Name

Reference Reference

Ingestion CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table ---- - - see Table ---- - - Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil mg/day 100 EPA, 1991 50 EPA, 1993 CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF3 x 1/BW x 1/AT

EF Exposure Frequency days/year 250 EPA, 1991 219 EPA, 1993

ED Exposure Duration years 25 EPA, 1991 5 EPA, 1993

CF3 Conversion Factor 3 kg/mg 0.000001 - - 0.000001 - -

BW Body Weight kg 70 EPA, 1991 70 EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time (Cancer) days 25,550 EPA, 1989 25,550 EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) days 9,125 EPA, 1989 1,825 EPA, 1989Dermal

Absorption CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table ---- - - see Table ---- - - CDI (mg/kg-day) =

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact cm2 3,300 EPA, 2001 (1) 2,000 EPA, 1992 (1) CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF3 x EF x

SSAF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor mg/cm2-day 0.2 EPA, 2001 (2) 0.2 EPA, 2001 (2) ED x 1/BW x 1/AT

DABS Dermal Absorption Factor Solids -- chem specific EPA, 2001; 1995 chem specific EPA, 2001; 1995






AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) days 9,125 EPA, 1989 1,825 EPA, 1989

(1) RME SA is the recommended value for adult commercial/industrial workers. CT SA is the sum of the mean surface areas (for a male) of the head and hands.

(2) RME and CTE SSAF is recommended soil adherence to hands for adult commercial/industrial workers.

Sources:

EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.

EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.

EPA, 1992: Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principals and Applications. ORD. EPA/600/8-91/011B.

EPA, 1993: Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.

EPA, 1995: Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil. EPA Region III. EPA/903-K-95-003.

EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.

EPA, 2001: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim. EPA/540/R/99/005.

DABS: Based on RAGS E (USEPA, September 2001) and Region III Technical Guidance (USEPA, December 1995). For constituents not listed used volatile organics value of 20%, semi-volatile organics value of 10%

and Inorganics value of 1%.

Workbook: AppC Table 4s.xlsWorksheet: t4.1 06/05/2006

TABLE 4.2








Receptor Population: Trespasser/Visitor

Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference



EF Exposure Frequency days/year 104 (1) 52 (1)
















(1): Professional Judgement assuming 2 days per week for 52 weeks per year for the RME and 1/2 the RME value for the CT.

(2) RME SA is the sum of the mean surface areas (for a male) of the head, hands, forearms, and lower legs. CT SA is the sum of the mean surface areas (for a male) of the head and hands.

(3) RME SSAF is soil adherence to hands for Gardeners No. 1 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12. CT SSAF is average soil adherence to hands Gardeners No. 1 and No. 2 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12.

Sources:






EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa; SSAF is based on maximum adherence factor for gardeners.


DABS: Based on RAGS E (USEPA, September 2001) and Region III Technical Guidance (USEPA, December 1995). For constituents not listed used volatile organics value of 20%, semi-volatile organics value of 10%



TABLE 4.3









Receptor Age: Adolescent


Reference Reference




ED Exposure Duration years 9 (2) 9 EPA, 1993






SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact cm2 4,600 EPA, 1997 3,700 EPA, 1997 CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF3 x EF x

SSAF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor mg/cm2-day 0.11 EPA, 1997 0.07 EPA, 1992 ED x 1/BW x 1/AT








(1) Professional Judgement assuming 2 day per week for 52 weeks per year for the RME and 1/2 the RME value for the CT.

(2) Professional Judgement assuming adolescents from 9 to 18 years of age.


(4) RME SSAF is soil adherence to hands for Soccer No. 1 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12. CT SSAF is average soil adherence to hands Soccer No. 1 and No. 2 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12.

Sources:








DABS: Based on RAGS E (USEPA, September 2001) and Region III Technical Guidance (USEPA, December 1995). For constituents not listed used volatile organics value of 20%, semi-volatile organics value of 10%,



TABLE 4.4








Receptor Population: Construction Worker

Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference




ED Exposure Duration years 1 EPA, 1991 1 (1)




AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) days 365 EPA, 1989 365 EPA, 1989Dermal










AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) days 365 EPA, 1989 365 EPA, 1989(1) Not available, used RME value.

(2) Professional Judgement assuming that the construction would be open for 3 months (20 days per month) for the RME based on similar size excavations that have occurred at the WNY. It was assumed the duration

of the open construction would be 1/2 the RME for the CT.

(3) RME SA is the sum of the mean surface areas (for a male) of the head, forearms, lower legs, and hands. CT SA is the sum of the mean surface areas (for a male) of the head and hands.

(4) RME SSAF is soil adherence to hands for Construction Workers from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12. CT is 0.75 times the RME per discussions with EPA and NEHC on November 22, 1999.

Sources:






EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa; SSAF is based on maximum adherence factor for construction workers.


DABS: Based on RAGS E (USEPA, September 2001) and Region III Technical Guidance (USEPA, December 1995). For constituents not listed used volatile organics value of 20%, semi-volatile organics value of 10%,



TABLE 4.5








Receptor Population: Resident

Receptor Age: Adult


Reference ReferenceIngestion CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table ---- - - see Table ---- - - Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil mg/day 100 EPA, 1991 50 EPA, 1993 CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF3 x 1/BW x 1/AT EF Exposure Frequency days/year 350 EPA, 1991 234 EPA, 1993

ED Exposure Duration years 24 EPA, 1991 9 EPA, 1993CF3 Conversion Factor 3 kg/mg 0.000001 - - 0.000001 - -BW Body Weight kg 70 EPA, 1991 70 EPA, 1991

AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) days 8,760 EPA, 1989 3,285 EPA, 1989CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table ---- - - see Table ---- - - CDI (mg/kg-day) =SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact cm2 5,700 EPA, 2001 5,000 EPA, 1997 CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF3 x EF x

SSAF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor mg/cm2-day 0.07 EPA, 2001 0.07 EPA, 2001 ED x 1/BW x 1/ATDABS Dermal Absorption Factor Solids -- chem specific EPA, 2001; 1995 chem specific EPA, 2001; 1995CF3 Conversion Factor 3 kg/mg 0.000001 - - 0.000001 - -EF Exposure Frequency days/year 350 EPA, 1991 234 EPA, 1993ED Exposure Duration years 24 EPA, 1991 9 EPA, 1993BW Body Weight kg 70 EPA, 1991 70 EPA, 1991


Sources: EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002. EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. EPA, 1993: Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure. EPA, 1995: Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil. EPA Region III. EPA/903-K-95-003. EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa; SSAF based on maximum adherence factor for gardeners.

EPA, 2001: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim. EPA/540/R/99/005. DABS: Based on RAGS E (USEPA, September 2001) and Region III Technical Guidance (USEPA, December 1995). For constituents not listed used volatile organics value of 20%, semi-volatile organics value and Inorganics value of 1%. SA: Based on 25% of total body surface area for adult (25% of 23,000 cme for RME and 25% of 20,000 cm2 for CT).

Dermal Absorption

Workbook: AppC Table 4s.xlsWorksheet: t4.5 06/05/2006 at 7:11 PM

TABLE 4.6








Receptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Child

Exposure Route Parameter Parameter Definition Units RME RME CT CT Intake Equation/

Code Value Rationale/ Value Rationale/ Model Name

Reference Reference








CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table ---- - - see Table ---- - - CDI (mg/kg-day) =







BW Body Weight kg 15 EPA, 1991 15 EPA, 1991AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) days 2,190 EPA, 1989 2,190 EPA, 1989

Sources:





EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa; SSAF based on maximum adherence factor for soccer players.


DABS: Based on RAGS E (USEPA, September 2001) and Region III Technical Guidance (USEPA, December 1995). For constituents not listed used volatile organics value of 20%, semi-volatile organics value


SA: Skin surface area for the CT value is based on the average between the 50th percentile surface areas for the child ages 2-3 years and 5-6 years.

Dermal Absorption


TABLE 4.7




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Child/Adult


Reference Reference

Ingestion CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table -- - - see Table ---- - - Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = IR-S-A Ingestion Rate of Soil, Adult mg/day 100 EPA, 1991 50 EPA, 1993 CS x IR-S-Adj x EF x CF3 x 1/AT

IR-S-C Ingestion Rate of Soil, Child mg/day 200 EPA, 1991 100 EPA, 1993IR-S-Adj Ingestion Rate of Soil, Age-adjusted mg-year/kg-day 114.29 calculated 46.43 calculated IR-S-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) =

EF Exposure Frequency days/year 350 EPA, 1991 234 EPA, 1993 (ED-C x IR-S-C / BW-C) + (ED-A x IR-S-A / BW-A)ED-A Exposure Duration, Adult years 24 EPA, 1991 9 EPA, 1993ED-C Exposure Duration, Child years 6 EPA, 1991 6 EPA, 1991CF3 Conversion Factor 3 kg/mg 0.000001 - - 0.000001 - -

BW-A Body Weight , Adult kg 70 EPA, 1991 70 EPA, 1991BW-C Body Weight, Child kg 15 EPA, 1991 15 EPA, 1991AT-C Averaging Time (Cancer) days 25,550 EPA, 1989 25,550 EPA, 1989CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table -- - - see Table ---- - - CDI (mg/kg-day) =

SA-A Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Adult cm2 5,700 EPA, 2001 5,000 EPA, 1997 CS x DA-Adj x DABS x CF3 x EF x 1/ATSA-C Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Child cm2 2,800 EPA, 2001 2,094 EPA, 1997

SSAF-A Soil to Skin Adherence Factor mg/cm2-day 0.07 EPA, 2001 0.07 EPA, 2001 DA-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) = SSAF-C Soil to Skin Adherence Factor mg/cm2-day 0.2 EPA, 2001 0.11 EPA, 1997 [(ED-C x SA-C x SSAF-C / BW-C) + DA-Adj Dermal Absorption, Age-adjusted mg-year/kg-day 361 calculated 137 calculated (ED-A x SA-A x SSAF-A / BW-A)]

CF3 Conversion Factor 3 kg/mg 0.000001 - - 0.000001 - -EF Exposure Frequency days/year 350 EPA, 1991 234 EPA, 1993

ED-A Exposure Duration, Adult years 24 EPA, 1991 9 EPA, 1993ED-C Exposure Duration, Child years 6 EPA, 1991 6 EPA, 1991BW-A Body Weight , Adult kg 70 EPA, 1991 70 EPA, 1991BW-C Body Weight, Child kg 15 EPA, 1991 15 EPA, 1991AT-C Averaging Time (Cancer) days 25,550 EPA, 1989 25,550 EPA, 1989

Dermal Absorption


TABLE 4.7





Sources: EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002. EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. EPA, 1993: Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure. EPA, 1995: Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil. EPA Region III. EPA/903-K-95-003. EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.

EPA, 2001: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim. EPA/540/R/99/005. DABS: Based on RAGS E (USEPA, September 2001) and Region III Technical Guidance (USEPA, December 1995). For constituents not listed used volatile organics value of 20%, semi-volatile organics value of 10%, and Inorganics value of 1%.


TABLE 4.8






Exposure Medium: Air

Exposure Point: Emissions from exposed soil


Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference

Inhalation CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table ---- - - see Table --- - - Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

CA Chemical Concentration in Air mg/m3 see Table ---- - - see Table --- - - CA x IN x ET x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT

FDC Fugivite Dust Concentration in Air m3/kg calc EPA, 1996 calc EPA, 1996

VF Volatilization Factor for volatile constituents m3/kg calc EPA, 1996 calc EPA, 1996

IN Inhalation Rate m3/hour 0.83 EPA, 2003 0.5 EPA, 1997 (2)

ET Exposure Time hr/day 8 (1) 4 (1) CA (mg/m3) = CS (1/FDC + 1/VF)

EF Exposure Frequency days/year 250 EPA,1991 219 EPA, 1993





(1) Professional Judgement based on maintenance activities that would occur 8 hrs per day for the RME and 1/2 of a day for the CT.

(2) Inhalation rate for adult, sedentary activities.

Sources:




EPA, 1996: Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide. OSWER. EPA/540/R-96/018.

EPA, 2003 Risk-Based Concentration Table. April 25, 2003.


TABLE 4.9









Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference



FDC Fugivite Dust Concentration in Air m3/kg 1.32E+09 EPA, 1996 1.32E+09 EPA, 1996



ET Exposure Time hr/day 1.8 (1) 1.8 (1) CA (mg/m3) = CS (1/FDC + 1/VF)






(1) Professional Judgement assuming trespasser would spend a maximum of 1.8 hours at the site.



Sources:







TABLE 4.10









Receptor Age: Adolescent


Reference Reference





IN Inhalation Rate m3/hour 0.83 EPA, 1991 0.83 EPA, 1991










Sources:







TABLE 4.11









Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference





IN Inhalation Rate m3/hour 2.5 EPA, 1997 (2) 1.5 EPA, 1997 (2)






AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) days 365 EPA, 1989 365 EPA, 1989


(2) Inhalation rates are based on values for the outdoor worker assuming heavy activity for the RME and moderate activity for the CT (EPA, 1997, page 5-24).



Sources:






Calc. (1): Calculated in Appendix--- Section Generation of Fugitive Dust During Construction Activites.Workbook: AppC Table 4s.xlsWorksheet: t4.11 06/05/2006

TABLE 4.12









Receptor Age: Adult



Reference Reference




VF Volatilization Factor for volatile constituents m3/kg chem specific EPA, 1996 chem specific EPA, 1996



EF Exposure Frequency days/year 350 EPA, 1991 219 EPA,1993




(1) Professional Judgement, conservatively assumed all day.

Sources:





EPA, 2003 Region III, Risk-based Concentration Table.


TABLE 4.13









Receptor Age: Child



Reference Reference




VF Volatilization Factor for volatile constituents m3/kg chem specific EPA, 1996 chem specific EPA, 1996

IN Inhalation Rate m3/hour 1 EPA, 1997 (1) 0.5EPA, 1997;

EPA, 2003 (1)






(1) RME rate is for children performing light activities. CT value is for children performing sedentary activities and is the value used by USEPA Region 3 for derivation of ambient air RBCs (USEPA, 2003).

(2) Professional Judgement conservatively assumed all day.

(3) Not available, used RME value.

Sources:








TABLE 4.14









Receptor Age: Child/Adult



Reference Reference


CA Chemical Concentration in Air mg/m3 see Table ---- - - see Table --- - - CA x IN-Adj x EF x 1/AT


VF Volatilization Factor for volatile constituents m3/kg calc EPA, 1996 calc EPA, 1996 CA (mg/m3) = CS (1/FDC + 1/VF)

IN-A Inhalation Rate, Adult m3/hour 0.83 EPA, 2003 0.83 EPA, 2003

IN-C Inhalation Rate, Child m3/hour 1 EPA, 1997 0.5EPA, 1997;

2003 IN-Adj (m3-year/kd-day) =

IN-Adj Inhalation Rate, Age-adjusted m3-year/kg-day 16 calculated 7 calculated (ED-C x IN-C x ET / BW-C) + (ED-A x IN-A x ET / BW-A)

ET Exposure Time hours/day 24 (1) 24 (1)


ED-A Exposure Duration, Adult years 24 EPA, 1991 9 EPA, 1993

ED-C Exposure Duration, Child years 6 EPA, 1991 6 EPA, 1991

BW-A Body Weight, Adult kg 70 EPA, 1991 70 EPA, 1991

BW-C Body Weight, Child kg 15 EPA, 1991 15 EPA, 1991



Sources:







TABLE 5.1

NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL



Chemical Chronic/ Oral RfD Oral RfD Oral to Dermal Adjusted Units Primary Combined Sources of RfD: Dates of RfD:

of Potential Subchronic Value Units Adjustment Dermal Target Uncertainty/Modifying Target Organ Target Organ (3)

Concern Factor (1) RfD (2) Organ Factors (MM/DD/YY)

Aluminum Chronic 1.0E+00 mg/kg-day N/A 1.0E+00 mg/kg-day CNS 100 NCEA 08/26/1996

Subchronic N/A N/A

Arsenic Chronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 95% 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day Skin/vascular 3/1 IRIS 10/10/2002

Subchronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 95% 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day Skin/vascular 3 HEAST 07/1997

Chromium (hexavalent) Chronic 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.5% 7.5E-05 mg/kg-day NOAEL 300/3 IRIS 10/10/2002

Subchronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 2.5% 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day NOAEL 100 HEAST 07/1997

Copper Chronic 4.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A 4.0E-02 mg/kg-day Gastrointestinal HEAST 07/1997

Subchronic 4.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A 4.0E-02 mg/kg-day Gastrointestinal HEAST 07/1997Iron Chronic 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day N/A 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day Gastrointestinal 1 NCEA 07/23/1996

Subchronic N/A N/A

Lead Chronic N/A N/A

Subchronic N/A N/AManganese (nonfood) Chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 4% 8.0E-04 mg/kg-day CNS 1/1 IRIS 02/07/2002

Subchronic N/A

Manganese (food) Chronic 1.4E-01 mg/kg-day 4% 5.6E-03 mg/kg-day CNS 1/1 IRIS 02/07/2002

Subchronic N/ANickel Chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 4% 8.0E-04 mg/kg-day Whole body 300/1 IRIS 02/07/2002

Subchronic N/A

Thallium Chronic 7.0E-05 mg/kg-day 100% 7.0E-05 mg/kg-day Liver, Blood, Hair 3/1 HEAST 07/01/1997

Subchronic N/A

N/A = Not Applicable or Not Available. IRIS indicates that calculations of dermal risks may not be appropriate for this chemical.

(1) Refer to RAGS Part E, Exhibit 4-1 (USEPA, September 2001) and USEPA Region III guidance on dermal exposure (USEPA, June 2003).

In accordance with RAGS E, if oral absorption is greater than 50% the oral RfD should not be adjusted for dermal exposure.

ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables

NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment

(2) Adjusted Dermal RfD calculated by multiplying Oral RfD by the Oral to Dermal Adjustment Factor

(3) For IRIS values, provide the date IRIS was searched. RESP = Respiratory System

For HEAST values, provide the date of HEAST. CNS = Central Nervous System

For NCEA values, provide the date of the article provided by NCEA. NOAEL = No observed adverse effect level

7:12 PM06/05/2006 Page 1 of 1

AppC Table 5s.xlsID51

TABLE 5.2

NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION



Chemical Chronic/ Value Units Adjusted Units Primary Combined Sources of Dates (3)

of Potential Subchronic Inhalation Inhalation Target Uncertainty/Modifying RfC:RfD: (MM/DD/YY)

Concern RfC RfD (1) Organ Factors (2)

Aluminum Chronic 3.50E-03 mg/m3 1.00E-03 mg/kg-day CNS 300 RBC 10/09/2002Subchronic N/A

Arsenic Chronic N/ASubchronic N/A

Chromium (hexavalent) Chronic 1.05E-04 mg/m3 3.00E-05 mg/kg-day Respiratory System 90/1 IRIS 10/09/2002Subchronic 4.00E-06 mg/m3 1.14E-06 mg/kg-day Respiratory System 100 NCEA 05/14/1993

Copper Chronic N/ASubchronic N/A

Iron Chronic N/ASubchronic N/A

Lead Chronic N/ASubchronic N/A

Manganese Chronic 5.00E-05 mg/m3 1.4E-05 mg/kg-day CNS 1000/1 IRIS 10/09/2002Subchronic N/A

Nickel Chronic N/ASubchronic N/A

Thallium Chronic N/A

Subchronic N/A

N/A = Not Applicable ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

(1) Inhalation RfD calculated by multiplying RfC by 20 m3/day inhalation rate and dividing by 70 years adult lifetime. IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System(2) HEAST, Alternative Methods used as source of barium values. HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables

Chromium and cadmium values were withdrawn from HEAST, but available in Region III RBC Table. HEAST(3) = Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Alternate Methods

(3) For IRIS values, provide the date IRIS was searched. HEAST(4)= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Withdrawn

For HEAST values, provide the date of HEAST. NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment

For NCEA values, provide the date of the article provided by NCEA.

7:12 PM06/05/2006 Page 1 of 1

AppC Table 5s.xlsID52

TABLE 6.1

CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL



Chemical Oral Cancer Oral to Dermal Adjusted Dermal Units EPA Source Date (2)

of Potential Slope Factor Adjustment Cancer Slope Factor (1) Carcinogen (MM/DD/YY)

Concern Factor Group

Aluminum N/A

Arsenic 1.5E+00 95% 1.5E+00 (mg/kg-day) -1 A IRIS 10/10/2002

Chromium (hexavalent) N/A

Copper N/A

Iron N/A

Lead N/A

Manganese N/A

Nickel N/A

4-Methylphenol N/A

Thallium N/A

N/A-Not available or not appropriate. EPA Carcinogen Group:

IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System A - Human carcinogen

B1 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates that limited human data are available

B2 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence in animals and

inadequate or no evidence in humans

C - Possible human carcinogen

D - Not classifiable as a human carcinogen

(1) Refer to RAGS Part E, Exhibit 4-1 (USEPA, September 2001) and USEPA Region III guidance on dermal exposure (USEPA, June 2003).

In accordance with RAGS E, if oral absorption is greater than 50% the oral RfD should not be adjusted for dermal exposure.

(2) For IRIS values, provide the date IRIS was searched.

06/05/20067:12 PM Page 1 of 1

AppC Table 6s.xlsTABLE61

TABLE 6.2

CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION



Chemical Unit Risk Units Adjustment (1) Inhalation Cancer Units Weight of Evidence/ Source Date (2)

of Potential Slope Factor Cancer Guidance (MM/DD/YY)

Concern Description

Aluminum N/A

Arsenic 4.0E-03 (ug/m3) -1 3500 1.5E+01 (mg/kg-day) -1 A IRIS 10/09/2002

Chromium 1.2E-02 (ug/m3) -1 3500 4.1E+01 (mg/kg-day) -1 A HEAST 1997

Copper N/A

Iron N/A

Lead N/A

Manganese N/A

Nickel N/A

Thallium N/A

IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System EPA Group:HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables A - Human carcinogenNCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment B1 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates that limited human data are available

B2 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence in animals and N/A = Not Available inadequate or no evidence in humans

C - Possible human carcinogen(1) Adjustment Factor applied to Unit Risk to calculate Inhalation Slope Factor = D - Not classifiable as a human carcinogen 70 kg x 1/20 m3/day x 1000 ug/mg


For HEAST values, provide the date of HEAST.

06/05/20067:12 PM Page1of1

filename:AppC Table 6s.xlssheetname:TABLE62

TABLE 7.1.RMECALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSUREFocused Remedial Investigation for Site 5Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Industrial WorkerReceptor Age: Adult

Exposure Chemical Medium Medium Route Route EPC Intake Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference Hazard Route of Potential EPC EPC EPC EPC Selected (Non-Cancer) (Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration Quotient

Concern Value Units Value Units for Hazard Units Units Calculation (1)

IngestionAluminum 1.03E+04 mg/kg 1.03E+04 mg/kg M 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1.0E+00 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.0E-02Arsenic 5.67E+00 mg/kg 5.67E+00 mg/kg M 5.5E-06 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.8E-02Chromium 2.90E+01 mg/kg 2.90E+01 mg/kg M 2.8E-05 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 9.5E-03Copper 1.02E+03 mg/kg 1.02E+03 mg/kg M 1.0E-03 mg/kg-day 4.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 2.5E-02Iron 5.39E+04 mg/kg 5.39E+04 mg/kg M 5.3E-02 mg/kg-day 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.8E-01Lead 9.23E+03 mg/kg 9.23E+03 mg/kg M 9.0E-03 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day N/A N/A

Manganese 4.09E+02 mg/kg 4.09E+02 mg/kg M 4.0E-04 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 2.0E-02Nickel 1.99E+02 mg/kg 1.99E+02 mg/kg M 1.9E-04 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 9.7E-03Thallium 1.34E+00 mg/kg 1.34E+00 mg/kg M 1.3E-06 mg/kg-day 7.0E-05 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.9E-02

(Total) 2.9E-01Dermal Absorption Aluminum 1.03E+04 mg/kg 1.03E+04 mg/kg M 6.6E-04 mg/kg-day 1.0E+00 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 6.6E-04

Arsenic 5.67E+00 mg/kg 5.67E+00 mg/kg M 1.1E-06 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 3.7E-03Chromium 2.90E+01 mg/kg 2.90E+01 mg/kg M 1.9E-06 mg/kg-day 7.5E-05 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 2.5E-02Copper 1.02E+03 mg/kg 1.02E+03 mg/kg M 6.6E-05 mg/kg-day 4.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.6E-03Iron 5.39E+04 mg/kg 5.39E+04 mg/kg M 3.5E-03 mg/kg-day 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.2E-02Lead 9.23E+03 mg/kg 9.23E+03 mg/kg M 6.0E-04 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day N/A N/A


(Total) 9.3E-02

Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways 3.8E-01

(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Chronic.Skin absorption factor from USEPA, December 1995; September 2001. Skin absorption factor is 3% for arsenic, 1% for all other inorganics.

7:13 PM06/05/2006 Page1of1

Filename:AppC Table 7s.xlsSheetname:Table 7.1



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adult








(Total) 6.2E-02





Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adolescents








(Total) 5.6E-02





Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Construction WorkerReceptor Age: Adult








(Total) 3.3E-02


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Subchronic, if available, else chronic.Skin absorption factor from USEPA, December 1995; September 2001. Skin absorption factor is 3% for arsenic, 1% for all other inorganics.



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult








(Total) 7.9E-02





Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Child



IngestionAluminum 1.03E+04 mg/kg 1.03E+04 mg/kg M 1.3E-01 mg/kg-day 1.0E+00 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.3E-01Arsenic 5.67E+00 mg/kg 5.67E+00 mg/kg M 7.2E-05 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 2.4E-01Chromium 2.90E+01 mg/kg 2.90E+01 mg/kg M 3.7E-04 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.2E-01Copper 1.02E+03 mg/kg 1.02E+03 mg/kg M 1.3E-02 mg/kg-day 4.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 3.3E-01Iron 5.39E+04 mg/kg 5.39E+04 mg/kg M 6.9E-01 mg/kg-day 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 2.3E+00Lead 9.23E+03 mg/kg 9.23E+03 mg/kg M 1.2E-01 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day N/A N/A


(Total) 3.8E+00Dermal Absorption Aluminum 1.03E+04 mg/kg 1.03E+04 mg/kg M 3.7E-03 mg/kg-day 1.0E+00 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 3.7E-03



(Total) 5.1E-01

Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways 4.3E+00




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Industrial WorkerReceptor Age: Adult



InhalationAluminum 1.03E+04 mg/kg 7.77E-06 mg/m3 R 5.0E-07 mg/kg-day 1.0E-03 mg/kg-day 3.50E-03 N/A 5.0E-04Arsenic 5.67E+00 mg/kg 4.30E-09 mg/m3 R 2.8E-10 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day N/A N/A

Chromium 2.90E+01 mg/kg 2.20E-08 mg/m3 R 1.4E-09 mg/kg-day 3.0E-05 mg/kg-day 1.05E-04 N/A 4.8E-05Copper 1.02E+03 mg/kg 7.73E-07 mg/m3 R 5.0E-08 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day N/A N/A

Iron 5.39E+04 mg/kg 4.08E-05 mg/m3 R 2.7E-06 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day N/A N/A

Lead 9.23E+03 mg/kg 6.99E-06 mg/m3 R 4.5E-07 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day N/A N/A

Manganese 4.09E+02 mg/kg 3.10E-07 mg/m3 R 2.0E-08 mg/kg-day 1.4E-05 mg/kg-day 5.00E-05 N/A 1.4E-03Nickel 1.99E+02 mg/kg 1.51E-07 mg/m3 R 9.8E-09 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day N/A N/A

Thallium 1.34E+00 mg/kg 1.02E-09 mg/m3 R 6.6E-11 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day N/A N/A

(Total) 2.0E-03


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) ChronicRoute EPC Value is equal to Medium EPC value multiplied by the 1/fugitive dust air concentration and 1/Volatilization Factor (chemical specific for volatiles only). The fugitive dust air concentration is 1.32E+09 m 3/kg.N/A Not applicable.

7:14 PM06/05/2006 Page1of1

Filename:AppC Table 7s.xlsSheetname:Table 7.7



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adult









(Total) 1.9E-04





Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adolescents









(Total) 3.5E-04





Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Construction WorkerReceptor Age: Adult









(Total) 2.3E-03


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Subchronic, if available, else chronic.Route EPC Value is equal to Medium EPC value multiplied by the 1/fugitive dust air concentration and 1/Volatilization Factor (chemical specific for volatiles only). The fugitive dust air concentration is 1.32E+09 m 3/kg.N/A Not applicable.



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult









(Total) 8.4E-03





Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Child









(Total) 4.7E-02



TABLE 7.13.CTCALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS

CENTRAL TENDANCYFocused Remedial Investigation for Site 5Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Child




Manganese 1.57E+02 mg/kg 1.57E+02 mg/kg M 6.7E-04 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 3.4E-02Nickel 5.30E+01 mg/kg 5.30E+01 mg/kg M 2.3E-04 mg/kg-day 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.1E-02Thallium 9.58E-01 mg/kg 9.58E-01 mg/kg M 4.1E-06 mg/kg-day 7.0E-05 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 5.8E-02



Manganese 1.57E+02 mg/kg 1.57E+02 mg/kg M 1.5E-05 mg/kg-day 8.0E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.9E-02Nickel 5.30E+01 mg/kg 5.30E+01 mg/kg M 5.2E-06 mg/kg-day 8.0E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 6.5E-03Thallium 9.58E-01 mg/kg 9.58E-01 mg/kg M 9.4E-08 mg/kg-day 7.0E-05 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.3E-03

(Total) 6.8E-02


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Chronic.Skin absorption factor from EPA, 1995, Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil. EPA Region III. EPA/903-K-95-003. Skin absorption factor is 3.2% for arsenic, 1% for all other inorganics.

TABLE 8.1.RMECALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS


Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Industrial WorkerReceptor Age: Adult

Exposure Chemical Medium Medium Route Route EPC Intake Intake Cancer Slope Cancer Slope CancerRoute of Potential EPC EPC EPC EPC Selected (Cancer) (Cancer) Factor Factor Units Risk

Concern Value Units Value Units for Risk Units Calculation (1)

Ingestion Aluminum 1.03E+04 mg/kg 1.03E+04 mg/kg M 3.6E-03 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayArsenic 5.67E+00 mg/kg 5.67E+00 mg/kg M 2.0E-06 mg/kg-day 1.5E+00 mg/kg-day 3.0E-06Chromium 2.90E+01 mg/kg 2.90E+01 mg/kg M 1.0E-05 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayCopper 1.02E+03 mg/kg 1.02E+03 mg/kg M 3.6E-04 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayIron 5.39E+04 mg/kg 5.39E+04 mg/kg M 1.9E-02 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayLead 9.23E+03 mg/kg 9.23E+03 mg/kg M 3.2E-03 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayManganese 4.09E+02 mg/kg 4.09E+02 mg/kg M 1.4E-04 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayNickel 1.99E+02 mg/kg 1.99E+02 mg/kg M 7.0E-05 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayThallium 1.34E+00 mg/kg 1.34E+00 mg/kg M 4.7E-07 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day

(Total) 3.0E-06Dermal Absorption Aluminum 1.03E+04 mg/kg 1.03E+04 mg/kg M 2.4E-04 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day

Arsenic 5.67E+00 mg/kg 5.67E+00 mg/kg M 3.9E-07 mg/kg-day 1.5E+00 mg/kg-day 5.9E-07Chromium 2.90E+01 mg/kg 2.90E+01 mg/kg M 6.7E-07 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayCopper 1.02E+03 mg/kg 1.02E+03 mg/kg M 2.4E-05 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayIron 5.39E+04 mg/kg 5.39E+04 mg/kg M 1.2E-03 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayLead 9.23E+03 mg/kg 9.23E+03 mg/kg M 2.1E-04 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayManganese 4.09E+02 mg/kg 4.09E+02 mg/kg M 9.4E-06 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayNickel 1.99E+02 mg/kg 1.99E+02 mg/kg M 4.6E-06 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayThallium 1.34E+00 mg/kg 1.34E+00 mg/kg M 3.1E-08 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day

(Total) 5.9E-07

Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways 3.6E-06

(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.Skin absorption factor from USEPA, December 1995; September 2001. Skin absorption factor is 3% for arsenic, 1% for all other inorganics.N/A - not applicable.



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adult






(Total) 3.8E-07





Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adolescents






(Total) 1.3E-07





Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: Subsurface SoilExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Construction WorkerReceptor Age: Adult






(Total) 1.1E-08











(Total) 1.3E-06





Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Industrial WorkerReceptor Age: Adult



Inhalation Aluminum 1.03E+04 mg/kg 7.77E-06 mg/m3 R 1.8E-07 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayArsenic 5.67E+00 mg/kg 4.30E-09 mg/m3 R 1.0E-10 mg/kg-day 1.5E+01 mg/kg-day 1.5E-09Chromium 2.90E+01 mg/kg 2.20E-08 mg/m3 R 5.1E-10 mg/kg-day 4.1E+01 mg/kg-day 2.1E-08Copper 1.02E+03 mg/kg 7.73E-07 mg/m3 R 1.8E-08 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayIron 5.39E+04 mg/kg 4.08E-05 mg/m3 R 9.5E-07 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayLead 9.23E+03 mg/kg 6.99E-06 mg/m3 R 1.6E-07 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayManganese 4.09E+02 mg/kg 3.10E-07 mg/m3 R 7.2E-09 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayNickel 1.99E+02 mg/kg 1.51E-07 mg/m3 R 3.5E-09 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-dayThallium 1.34E+00 mg/kg 1.02E-09 mg/m3 R 2.4E-11 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day

(Total) 2.2E-08Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways 2.2E-08

(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.Route EPC Value is equal to Medium EPC value multiplied by the 1/fugitive dust air concentration and 1/Volatilization Factor (chemical specific for volatiles only). The fugitive dust air concentration is 1.32E+09 m3/kg.N/A Not applicable.



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adult








Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adolescents








Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Construction WorkerReceptor Age: Adult








Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Subsurface Soil at Site 5Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Child/Adult






TABLE 9.1.RME

SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE


Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Chemical Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point

Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

Absorption Routes Total Target Organ Absorption Routes Total

Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Direct Contact

at Site 5

Aluminum 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Aluminum CNS 1.0E-02 -- 6.6E-04 1.1E-02

Arsenic 3.0E-06 -- 5.9E-07 3.6E-06 Arsenic Skin 1.8E-02 -- 3.7E-03 2.2E-02

Chromium 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Chromium NOAEL 9.5E-03 -- 2.5E-02 3.4E-02

Copper 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Copper Gastrointestinal 2.5E-02 -- 1.6E-03 2.7E-02

Iron 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Iron Gastrointestinal 1.8E-01 -- 1.2E-02 1.9E-01

Lead 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Lead N/A 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Manganese 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Manganese CNS 2.0E-02 -- 3.3E-02 5.3E-02

Nickel 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Nickel Whole Body 9.7E-03 -- 1.6E-02 2.6E-02

Thallium 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Thallium Liver, Blood, Hair 1.9E-02 -- 1.2E-03 2.0E-02

(Total) 3.0E-06 0.0E+00 5.9E-07 3.6E-06 (Total) 2.9E-01 0.0E+00 9.3E-02 3.8E-01Air Emissions from exposed

soil Aluminum -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 Aluminum CNS -- 5.0E-04 -- 5.0E-04

Arsenic -- 1.5E-09 -- 1.5E-09 Arsenic Skin -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Chromium -- 2.1E-08 -- 2.1E-08 Chromium NOAEL -- 4.8E-05 -- 4.8E-05

Copper -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 Copper Gastrointestinal -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Iron -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 Iron Gastrointestinal -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Lead -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 Lead N/A -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Manganese -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 Manganese CNS -- 1.4E-03 -- 1.4E-03

Nickel -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 Nickel Whole Body -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Thallium -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 Thallium Liver, Blood, Hair -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

(Total) -- 2.2E-08 -- 2.2E-08 (Total) -- -- 2.0E-03 -- 2.0E-03

Total Risk Across Surface Soil 3.6E-06 Total Risk Across Surface Soil 3.8E-01

Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 3.6E-06 Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 3.8E-01

Total Skin HI = 2.2E-02

Total Liver HI = 2.0E-02

Total Hair HI = 2.0E-02

Total CNS HI = 6.6E-02

Total Blood HI = 2.0E-02

Total Gastrointestinal HI = 2.1E-01

Total NOAEL HI = 3.4E-02

Total Whole Body HI = 2.6E-02


TABLE 9.2.RME





Receptor Age: Adult


Medium Point




at Site 5
















Lead -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 Lead N/A -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00




(Total) -- 2.0E-09 -- 2.0E-09 (Total) -- -- 1.9E-04 -- 1.9E-04












TABLE 9.3.RME





Receptor Age: Adolescents


Medium Point




at Site 5




Copper 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Copper Gastrointestinal 2.0E-02 -- 9.9E-04 2.1E-02












Lead -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 Lead N/A -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00




(Total) -- 1.4E-09 -- 1.4E-09 (Total) -- -- 3.5E-04 -- 3.5E-04












TABLE 9.4.RME





Receptor Age: Adult


Medium Point




at Site 5
















Lead -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 Lead N/A -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00




(Total) -- 6.5E-10 -- 6.5E-10 (Total) -- -- 2.3E-03 -- 2.3E-03












TABLE 9.5.RME





Receptor Age: Adult


Medium Point




at Site 5

Aluminum 0.0E+00 Aluminum CNS 1.4E-02 -- 5.6E-04 1.5E-02

Arsenic 0.0E+00 Arsenic Skin 2.6E-02 -- 3.1E-03 2.9E-02

Chromium 0.0E+00 Chromium NOAEL 1.3E-02 -- 2.1E-02 3.4E-02

Copper 0.0E+00 Copper Gastrointestinal 3.5E-02 -- 1.4E-03 3.6E-02

Iron 0.0E+00 Iron Gastrointestinal 2.5E-01 -- 9.8E-03 2.6E-01

Lead 0.0E+00 Lead N/A 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Manganese 0.0E+00 Manganese CNS 2.8E-02 -- 2.8E-02 5.6E-02

Nickel 0.0E+00 Nickel Whole Body 1.4E-02 -- 1.4E-02 2.7E-02

Thallium 0.0E+00 Thallium Liver, Blood, Hair 2.6E-02 -- 1.0E-03 2.7E-02

(Total) 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 (Total) 4.0E-01 0.0E+00 7.9E-02 4.8E-01Air Emissions from exposed

soil Aluminum 0.0E+00 Aluminum CNS -- 2.1E-03 -- 2.1E-03

Arsenic 0.0E+00 Arsenic Skin -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Chromium 0.0E+00 Chromium NOAEL -- 2.0E-04 -- 2.0E-04

Copper 0.0E+00 Copper Gastrointestinal -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Iron 0.0E+00 Iron Gastrointestinal -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Lead 0.0E+00 Lead N/A -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Manganese 0.0E+00 Manganese CNS -- 6.0E-03 -- 6.0E-03

Nickel 0.0E+00 Nickel Whole Body -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Thallium 0.0E+00 Thallium Liver, Blood, Hair -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

(Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 (Total) -- -- 8.4E-03 -- 8.4E-03

Total Risk Across Surface Soil 0.0E+00 Total Risk Across Surface Soil 4.9E-01

Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 0.0E+00 Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 4.9E-01










TABLE 9.6.RME





Receptor Age: Child


Medium Point




at Site 5





Iron 0.0E+00 Iron Gastrointestinal 2.3E+00 -- 6.4E-02 2.4E+00

Lead 0.0E+00 Lead N/A 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00




(Total) 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 (Total) 3.8E+00 0.0E+00 5.1E-01 4.3E+00Air Emissions from exposed

soil Aluminum 0.0E+00 Aluminum CNS -- 1.2E-02 -- 1.2E-02

Arsenic 0.0E+00 Arsenic Skin -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Chromium 0.0E+00 Chromium NOAEL -- 1.1E-03 -- 1.1E-03

Copper 0.0E+00 Copper Gastrointestinal -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Iron 0.0E+00 Iron Gastrointestinal -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Lead 0.0E+00 Lead N/A -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Manganese 0.0E+00 Manganese CNS -- 3.4E-02 -- 3.4E-02

Nickel 0.0E+00 Nickel Whole Body -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Thallium 0.0E+00 Thallium Liver, Blood, Hair -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

(Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 (Total) -- -- 4.7E-02 -- 4.7E-02

Total Risk Across Surface Soil 0.0E+00 Total Risk Across Surface Soil 4.3E+00

Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 0.0E+00 Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 4.3E+00






Total Gastrointestinal HI = 2.7E+00




TABLE 9.7.RME







Medium Point




at Site 5

Aluminum 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Arsenic 1.3E-05 -- 1.3E-06 1.5E-05 0.0E+00

Chromium 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Copper 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Iron 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Lead 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Manganese 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Nickel 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Thallium 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

(Total) 1.3E-05 0.0E+00 1.3E-06 1.5E-05 (Total) 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Air Emissions from exposed

soil Aluminum -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Arsenic -- 1.4E-08 -- 1.4E-08 0.0E+00

Chromium -- 2.0E-07 -- 2.0E-07 0.0E+00

Copper -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Iron -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Lead -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Manganese -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Nickel -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Thallium -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

(Total) -- 2.1E-07 -- 2.1E-07 (Total) 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Total Risk Across Surface Soil 1.5E-05 Total Risk Across Surface Soil 0.0E+00

Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 1.5E-05 Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 0.0E+00


TABLE 9.8.CT





Receptor Age: Child


Medium Point




at Site 5





Iron 0.0E+00 Iron Gastrointestinal 3.7E-01 -- 8.6E-03 3.8E-01

Lead 0.0E+00 Lead N/A 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00




(Total) 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 (Total) 6.4E-01 0.0E+00 6.8E-02 7.1E-01

Total Risk Across Surface Soil 0.0E+00 Total Risk Across Surface Soil 7.1E-01











TABLE 10.1.RMERISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY




Receptor Age: Child


Medium Point




at Site 5

0.0E+00 Iron Gastrointestinal 2.3E+00 -- 6.4E-02 2.4E+00

(Total) 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 (Total) 2.3E+00 0.0E+00 6.4E-02 2.4E+00

Total Risk Across Surface Soil 0.0E+00 Total Risk Across Surface Soil 2.4E+00

Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 0.0E+00 Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 2.4E+00



TABLE 10.2.RME

RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY






Medium Point




at Site 5

Arsenic 1.3E-05 -- 1.26E-06 1.5E-05 0.0E+00

(Total) 1.3E-05 0.0E+00 1.3E-06 1.5E-05 (Total) 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Total Risk Across Surface Soil 1.5E-05 Total Risk Across Surface Soil 0.0E+00



Appendix D Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Initial

Site 5 HHRA – Lead Evaluation

Table D-1Chemical-Specific Summary Statistics for Constituents Detected in the Subsurface Soil

Focused Remedial Investigation for Site 5Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC

AnalyteName

Minimum Detected

Concentration

Maximum Detected

Concentration

SampleID of Maximum

Detected Value

Mean Value

(Norm)

Mean Value (Ln)

Standard Deviation

(Norm)

Standard Deviation

(Ln)

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino - Quantile (Norm)

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino - Value (Norm)

Volatile Organic Compounds (μg/kg)Acetone 4 - 6 6 28 WS05-DS05 14.33 2.48 9.30 0.68 0.788 0.89Benzene 1 - 6 5 5 WS05-DS11-05 4.92 1.49 2.58 0.48 0.788 0.81Chloromethane 1 - 6 3 3 WS05-DS11-05 6.00 1.74 2.07 0.37 0.788 0.87Methylene chloride 3 - 6 20 33 WS05-DS04 14.33 1.98 14.12 1.42 0.788 0.82

Semivolatile Organic Compounds (μg/kg)Benzo(a)anthracene 4 - 6 24 220 WS05-DS09-08 129.67 4.49 101.67 1.02 0.788 0.79Benzo(a)pyrene 2 - 6 20 36 WS05-DS04 152.67 4.67 97.88 1.09 0.788 0.79Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4 - 6 23 59 WS05-DS09-08 104.67 4.31 92.86 0.92 0.788 0.79Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1 - 6 30 30 WS05-DS04 179.17 5.02 75.59 0.80 0.788 0.74Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2 - 6 22 39 WS05-DS04 153.50 4.70 96.62 1.05 0.788 0.79Chrysene 4 - 6 28 320 WS05-DS09-08 150.17 4.65 121.11 1.00 0.788 0.88Di-n-butylphthalate 1 - 6 110 110 WS05-DS09-08 189.17 5.22 43.06 0.27 0.788 0.87Fluoranthene 3 - 6 39 92 WS05-DS11-05 144.50 4.77 86.91 0.74 0.788 0.87Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 - 6 27 27 WS05-DS04 178.67 5.00 76.78 0.84 0.788 0.74Naphthalene 1 - 6 54 54 WS05-DS09-08 179.83 5.10 64.42 0.55 0.788 0.76Phenanthrene 5 - 6 28 97 WS05-DS10-08 94.00 4.38 59.81 0.65 0.788 0.87Pyrene 4 - 6 35 82 WS05-DS11-05 110.17 4.43 89.12 0.81 0.788 0.81bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 5 - 6 25 570 WS05-DS09-08 155.50 4.38 211.73 1.22 0.788 0.71

Pesticide/Polychlorinated Biphenyls (μg/kg)No Detections

Total Metals (mg/kg)Aluminum 6 - 6 3650 10300 WS05-DS10-08 6201.67 8.66 2684.22 0.43 0.788 0.89Antimony 1 - 6 1.6 1.6 WS05-DS09-08 3.13 0.76 3.02 0.93 0.788 0.72Arsenic 6 - 6 1.1 6 WS05-DS01 4.10 1.28 1.90 0.64 0.788 0.92Barium 6 - 6 11.1 176 WS05-DS10-08 63.53 3.79 59.08 0.97 0.788 0.81Beryllium 4 - 6 0.41 2.1 WS05-DS10-08 0.64 -0.96 0.74 1.10 0.788 0.72Cadmium 4 - 6 0.43 1.1 WS05-DS11-05 0.58 -0.89 0.42 1.02 0.788 0.90Calcium 6 - 6 4660 20900 WS05-DS05 11238.33 9.18 6458.88 0.60 0.788 0.92Chromium 6 - 6 9.9 29 WS05-DS11-05 20.23 2.92 8.59 0.47 0.788 0.85Cobalt 6 - 6 0.65 15.3 WS05-DS01 10.59 2.00 5.84 1.23 0.788 0.83Copper 6 - 6 128 1020 WS05-DS09-08 440.00 5.86 327.50 0.75 0.788 0.88Iron 6 - 6 6250 53900 WS05-DS01 26258.33 9.93 18884.13 0.79 0.788 0.88Lead 6 - 6 25.3 9230 WS05-DS09-08 2183.90 6.00 3562.93 2.36 0.788 0.69Magnesium 6 - 6 1490 12400 WS05-DS04 3961.67 7.98 4178.34 0.75 0.788 0.63Manganese 6 - 6 23 409 WS05-DS01 157.00 4.75 131.08 0.93 0.788 0.79

Detection Frequency

Page 1 of 4



AnalyteName

Minimum Detected

Concentration

Maximum Detected

Concentration

SampleID of Maximum

Detected Value

Mean Value

(Norm)

Mean Value (Ln)

Standard Deviation

(Norm)

Standard Deviation

(Ln)

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino - Quantile (Norm)

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino - Value (Norm)

Detection Frequency

Mercury 5 - 6 0.08 0.65 WS05-DS09-08 0.21 -1.91 0.22 0.86 0.788 0.72Nickel 5 - 6 25.5 199 WS05-DS04 52.97 3.00 72.60 2.03 0.788 0.65Potassium 6 - 6 123 1240 WS05-DS10-08 781.50 6.40 463.23 0.92 0.788 0.89Selenium 1 - 6 1.3 1.3 WS05-DS10-08 0.59 -0.66 0.37 0.51 0.788 0.74Silver 1 - 6 0.74 0.74 WS05-DS09-08 0.62 -0.73 0.46 0.81 0.788 0.84Sodium 6 - 6 87.5 392 WS05-DS04 227.58 5.30 112.85 0.58 0.788 0.92Thallium 2 - 6 1.2 1.4 WS05-DS10-08 0.96 -0.08 0.31 0.32 0.788 0.90Vanadium 6 - 6 2 49.6 WS05-DS10-08 19.82 2.57 16.96 1.14 0.788 0.91Zinc 6 - 6 50.1 583 WS05-DS09-08 220.95 5.03 202.01 0.97 0.788 0.85

Wet Chemistry (mg/kg)% Solids 3 - 3 69 86.5 WS05-DS11-05 77.73 4.35 8.75 0.11 0.767 1.00pH 3 - 3 6.88 11.6 WS05-DS11-05 8.56 2.12 2.64 0.29 0.767 0.80

Notes and Abbreviationsμg/kg = micrograms per kilogrammg/kg = milligrams per kilogram

Page 2 of 4



AnalyteName

Volatile Organic Compounds (μg/kg)AcetoneBenzeneChloromethaneMethylene chloride

Semivolatile Organic Compounds (μg/kg)Benzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneBenzo(k)fluorantheneChryseneDi-n-butylphthalateFluorantheneIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneNaphthalenePhenanthrenePyrenebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

Pesticide/Polychlorinated Biphenyls (μg/kg)No Detections

Total Metals (mg/kg)AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganese

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino - Test (Norm)

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino - Quantile (Ln)

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino - Value (Ln)

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino -Test (Ln)

T Value

H Value

95% UCL (Norm) 95% UCL (Ln)

TRUE 0.79 0.92 TRUE 2.015 3.222 21.99 39.87TRUE 0.79 0.84 TRUE 2.015 2.658 7.04 8.80TRUE 0.79 0.86 TRUE 2.015 2.406 7.71 9.06TRUE 0.79 0.75 FALSE 2.015 5.852 25.95 802.59

TRUE 0.79 0.83 TRUE 2.015 4.374 213.30 1100.62FALSE 0.79 0.75 FALSE 2.015 4.63 233.19 1862.95TRUE 0.79 0.90 TRUE 2.015 4.019 181.06 585.08FALSE 0.79 0.61 FALSE 2.015 3.609 241.35 747.60TRUE 0.79 0.75 FALSE 2.015 4.484 232.99 1553.92TRUE 0.79 0.89 TRUE 2.015 4.301 249.80 1178.41TRUE 0.79 0.79 TRUE 2.015 2.213 224.59 248.70TRUE 0.79 0.88 TRUE 2.015 3.413 216.00 482.50FALSE 0.79 0.60 FALSE 2.015 3.745 241.82 857.70FALSE 0.79 0.65 FALSE 2.015 2.843 232.83 382.98TRUE 0.79 0.95 TRUE 2.015 3.132 143.20 243.91TRUE 0.79 0.89 TRUE 2.015 3.643 183.48 432.02FALSE 0.79 0.91 TRUE 2.015 5.104 329.67 2682.93

TRUE 0.79 0.90 TRUE 2.015 2.539 8409.76 10257.98FALSE 0.79 0.77 FALSE 2.015 4.055 5.62 17.92TRUE 0.79 0.84 TRUE 2.015 3.101 5.67 10.68TRUE 0.79 0.96 TRUE 2.015 4.195 112.13 432.73FALSE 0.79 0.92 TRUE 2.015 4.666 1.25 6.96TRUE 0.79 0.84 TRUE 2.015 4.374 0.93 5.17TRUE 0.79 0.95 TRUE 2.015 2.98 16551.54 25788.86TRUE 0.79 0.86 TRUE 2.015 2.634 27.30 36.11TRUE 0.79 0.68 FALSE 2.015 5.141 15.40 270.52TRUE 0.79 0.97 TRUE 2.015 3.446 709.41 1468.65TRUE 0.79 0.94 TRUE 2.015 3.576 41792.80 100566.79FALSE 0.79 0.90 TRUE 2.015 9.462 5114.84 142926531.82FALSE 0.79 0.81 TRUE 2.015 3.446 7398.85 12440.08TRUE 0.79 0.88 TRUE 2.015 4.055 264.83 955.04

Page 3 of 4



AnalyteName

MercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

Wet Chemistry (mg/kg)% SolidspH

Notes and Abbreviationsμg/kg = micrograms per kilogrammg/kg = milligrams per kilogram

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino - Test (Norm)

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino - Quantile (Ln)

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino - Value (Ln)

Shapiro-Wilkes

/DAgastino -Test (Ln)

T Value

H Value

95% UCL (Norm) 95% UCL (Ln)

FALSE 0.79 0.90 TRUE 2.015 3.813 0.39 0.92FALSE 0.79 0.80 TRUE 2.015 8.183 112.69 257917.74TRUE 0.79 0.82 TRUE 2.015 4.019 1162.56 4841.32FALSE 0.79 0.85 TRUE 2.015 2.733 0.89 1.10TRUE 0.79 0.81 TRUE 2.015 3.643 1.00 2.49TRUE 0.79 0.88 TRUE 2.015 2.925 320.42 509.05TRUE 0.79 0.91 TRUE 2.015 2.305 1.21 1.34TRUE 0.79 0.94 TRUE 2.015 4.812 33.77 289.56TRUE 0.79 0.93 TRUE 2.015 4.195 387.13 1509.94

TRUE 0.77 1.00 TRUE 2.92 2.805 92.48 97.48TRUE 0.77 0.81 TRUE 2.92 4.028 13.01 19.77

Page 4 of 4

Table D-2Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model Results for Lead Detected in the Subsurface Soil


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 251 User Name: CH2M HILL Date: February 28, 2003 Site Name: Washington Navy Yard Operable Unit: Site 5 Run Mode: Research ================================================================================== The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).

****** Air ******

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor. Other Air Parameters:

Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor Air Outdoors Rate Absorption Pb Conc (hours) (m^3/day) (%) (ug Pb/m^3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .5-1 1.000 2.000 32.000 0.100 1-2 2.000 3.000 32.000 0.100 2-3 3.000 5.000 32.000 0.100 3-4 4.000 5.000 32.000 0.100 4-5 4.000 5.000 32.000 0.100 5-6 4.000 7.000 32.000 0.100 6-7 4.000 7.000 32.000 0.100

****** Diet ******

Age Diet Intake(ug/day) ----------------------------------- .5-1 5.530 1-2 5.780 2-3 6.490 3-4 6.240 4-5 6.010 5-6 6.340 6-7 7.000

****** Drinking Water ******

Water Consumption: Age Water (L/day) ----------------------------------- .5-1 0.200 1-2 0.500 2-3 0.520 3-4 0.530 4-5 0.550 5-6 0.580 6-7 0.590

Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ug Pb/L

****** Soil & Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis Used Average multiple source concentration: 1538.800 ug/g

Page 1 of 2

Table D-2Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model Results for Lead Detected in the Subsurface Soil


Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700 Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000 Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No

Age Soil (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g) -------------------------------------------------------- .5-1 2184.000 1538.800 1-2 2184.000 1538.800 2-3 2184.000 1538.800 3-4 2184.000 1538.800 4-5 2184.000 1538.800 5-6 2184.000 1538.800 6-7 2184.000 1538.800

****** Alternate Intake ******

Age Alternate (ug Pb/day) ----------------------------------- .5-1 0.000 1-2 0.000 2-3 0.000 3-4 0.000 4-5 0.000 5-6 0.000 6-7 0.000

****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******

Maternal Blood Concentration: 2.500 ug Pb/dL

***************************************** CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES: *****************************************

Year Air Diet Alternate Water (ug/dL) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .5-1 0.021 1.857 0.000 0.269 1-2 0.034 1.834 0.000 0.635 2-3 0.062 2.160 0.000 0.692 3-4 0.067 2.171 0.000 0.738 4-5 0.067 2.319 0.000 0.849 5-6 0.093 2.551 0.000 0.934 6-7 0.093 2.882 0.000 0.972

Year Soil+Dust Total Blood (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/dL) --------------------------------------------------------------- .5-1 31.329 33.476 17.1 1-2 47.015 49.518 19.7 2-3 49.301 52.215 18.7 3-4 51.550 54.526 18.3 4-5 42.349 45.583 15.6 5-6 39.746 43.324 13.5 6-7 38.412 42.359 12.0

Page 2 of 2

Table D-3Adult Lead Model Results for Industrial Worker Scenario


Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead CommitteeVersion date 2/19/03

PbB Values for Non-Residential Exposure ScenarioExposure Equation1 Using Equation 1 Using Equation 2Variable 1* 2** Description of Exposure Variable Units GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het

PbS X X Soil lead concentration ug/g or ppm 2184 2184 2184 2184Rfetal/maternal X X Fetal/maternal PbB ratio -- 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

BKSF X X Biokinetic Slope Factor ug/dL per ug/day 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

GSDi X X Geometric standard deviation PbB -- 1.9 2.3 1.9 2.3PbB0 X X Baseline PbB ug/dL 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.8IRS X Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) g/day 0.050 0.050 -- --

IRS+D X Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust g/day -- -- 0.050 0.050WS X Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil -- -- -- 1.0 1.0KSD X Mass fraction of soil in dust -- -- -- 0.7 0.7

AFS, D X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12EFS, D X X Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) days/yr 219 219 219 219ATS, D X X Averaging time (same for soil and dust) days/yr 365 365 365 365

PbBadult PbB of adult worker, geometric mean ug/dL 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.9PbBfetal, 0.95 95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers ug/dL 11.8 17.5 11.8 17.5

PbBt Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL) ug/dL 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0P(PbBfetal > PbBt) Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution % 8.2% 16.6% 8.2% 16.6%

1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes WS, KSD). When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1.0, the equations yield the same PbBfetal,0.95.

*Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).

PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRS+D*AFS,D*EFS/ATS.D) + PbB0

PbB fetal, 0.95 = PbBadult * (GSDi1.645 * R)

**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).

PbB adult = PbS*BKSF*([(IRS+D)*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D)*(1-WS)*AFD*EFD])/365+PbB0


Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil

Page 1 of 1

Table D-4Adult Lead Model Results for Construction Worker Scenario


Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead CommitteeVersion date 2/19/03

PbB Values for Non-Residential Exposure ScenarioExposure Equation1 Using Equation 1 Using Equation 2Variable 1* 2** Description of Exposure Variable Units GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het

PbS X X Soil lead concentration ug/g or ppm 2184 2184 2184 2184Rfetal/maternal X X Fetal/maternal PbB ratio -- 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

BKSF X X Biokinetic Slope Factor ug/dL per ug/day 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

GSDi X X Geometric standard deviation PbB -- 1.9 2.3 1.9 2.3PbB0 X X Baseline PbB ug/dL 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.8IRS X Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) g/day 0.480 0.480 -- --

IRS+D X Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust g/day -- -- 0.480 0.480WS X Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil -- -- -- 1.0 1.0KSD X Mass fraction of soil in dust -- -- -- 0.7 0.7

AFS, D X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12EFS, D X X Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) days/yr 30 30 30 30ATS, D X X Averaging time (same for soil and dust) days/yr 365 365 365 365

PbBadult PbB of adult worker, geometric mean ug/dL 5.5 5.9 5.5 5.9PbBfetal, 0.95 95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers ug/dL 14.3 21.0 14.3 21.0

PbBt Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL) ug/dL 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0P(PbBfetal > PbBt) Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution % 13.9% 22.6% 13.9% 22.6%

1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes WS, KSD). When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1.0, the equations yield the same PbBfetal,0.95.





PbB adult =PbS*BKSF*([(IRS+D)*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D)*(1-WS)*AFD*EFD])/365+PbB0


Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil

Page 1 of 1

Appendix E Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Updated Site 5 HHRA – Lead Evaluation

Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: Subsurface Soil Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil

Exposure Point COPC Units Arithmetic 95% UCLMean of

meanValue Units Statistic Rationale

Site 5 Subsurface Soil Lead mg/kg 9.8 J 351 2,904 9,230 J 351 mg/kg Mean (1)

Notes(1) Shapiro-Wilks W Test inconclusive; dataset is not normal or lognormal. Use mean based on normal distribution.

(Qualifier)

Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary

Concentration(Qualifier)

Concentration

Table 1

Feasibility Study EvaluationSite 5, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

Exposure Point ConcentrationMaximumMinimum

Page 1 of 1

PbB Values for Non-Residential Exposure ScenarioExposure Equation1 Using Equation 1 Using Equation 2

Variable 1* 2** Description of Exposure Variable UnitsGSDi = South Reg,

All RaceGSDi = All

Region, All RaceGSDi = South Reg,

All RaceGSDi = All

Region, All Race

PbS X X Soil lead concentration µg/g or ppm 351 351 351 351

Rfetal/maternal X X Fetal/maternal PbB ratio -- 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9BKSF X X Biokinetic Slope Factor µg/dL per

µg/day0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

GSDi X X Geometric standard deviation PbB -- 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

PbB0 X X Baseline PbB µg/dL 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5

IRS X Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) g/day 0.050 0.050 -- --

IRS+D X Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust g/day -- -- 0.050 0.050

WS X Weighting factor; fraction of IR S+D ingested as outdoor soil -- -- -- 1.0 1.0

KSD X Mass fraction of soil in dust -- -- -- 0.7 0.7

AFS, D X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12

EFS, D X X Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) days/yr 219 219 219 219ATS, D X X Averaging time (same for soil and dust) days/yr 365 365 365 365

PbBadult PbB of adult worker, geometric meanµg/dL 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0

PbBfetal, 0.95 95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers µg/dL 5.6 6.3 5.6 6.3

PbBt Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 µg/dL)µg/dL 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

P(PbBfetal > PbBt) Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution % 0.8% 1.2% 0.8% 1.2%1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes W S, KSD). When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1.0, the equations yield the same PbBfetal,0.95.





PbB adult =PbS*BKSF*([(IRS+D)*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D)*(1-WS)*AFD*EFD])/365+PbB0


Site 5, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

Table 2Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations Based on Industrial Worker Exposure

EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee (Version date 2/19/03)Feasibility Study Evaluation

Page 1 of 1

ATTACHMENT 1 IEUBK MODEL OUTPUT

SITE 5, WASHINGTON NAVY YARD

PAGE 1 OF 5

LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0

=================================================================================

Model Version: 1.0 Build 261

User Name: CH2M HILL

Date: 8/17/2004

Site Name: WNY

Operable Unit: Site 5

Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Soil/Dust Data

================================================================================

The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).

****** Air ******

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.

Other Air Parameters:

Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor Air

Outdoors Rate Absorption Pb Conc

(hours) (m^3/day) (%) (µg Pb/m^3)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

.5-1 1.000 2.000 32.000 0.100

1-2 2.000 3.000 32.000 0.100

2-3 3.000 5.000 32.000 0.100

3-4 4.000 5.000 32.000 0.100

4-5 4.000 5.000 32.000 0.100

5-6 4.000 7.000 32.000 0.100

6-7 4.000 7.000 32.000 0.100



PAGE 2 OF 5

****** Diet ******

Age Diet Intake(µg/day)

-----------------------------------

.5-1 5.530

1-2 5.780

2-3 6.490

3-4 6.240

4-5 6.010

5-6 6.340

6-7 7.000

****** Drinking Water ******

Water Consumption:

Age Water (L/day)

-----------------------------------

.5-1 0.200

1-2 0.500

2-3 0.520

3-4 0.530

4-5 0.550

5-6 0.580

6-7 0.590

Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 µg Pb/L

****** Soil & Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis Used



PAGE 3 OF 5

Average multiple source concentration: 255.700 µg/g

Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700

Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000

Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No

Age Soil (µg Pb/g) House Dust (µg Pb/g)

--------------------------------------------------------

.5-1 351.000 255.700

1-2 351.000 255.700

2-3 351.000 255.700

3-4 351.000 255.700

4-5 351.000 255.700

5-6 351.000 255.700

6-7 351.000 255.700

****** Alternate Intake ******

Age Alternate (µg Pb/day)

-----------------------------------

.5-1 0.000

1-2 0.000

2-3 0.000

3-4 0.000

4-5 0.000

5-6 0.000

6-7 0.000

****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******

Maternal Blood Concentration: 2.500 µg Pb/dL



PAGE 4 OF 5

*****************************************

CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:

*****************************************

Year Air Diet Alternate Water

(µg/day) (µg/day) (µg/day) (µg/day)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.5-1 0.021 2.461 0.000 0.356

1-2 0.034 2.533 0.000 0.876

2-3 0.062 2.889 0.000 0.926

3-4 0.067 2.823 0.000 0.959

4-5 0.067 2.800 0.000 1.025

5-6 0.093 2.986 0.000 1.093

6-7 0.093 3.314 0.000 1.117

Year Soil+Dust Total Blood

(µg/day) (µg/day) (µg/dL)

---------------------------------------------------------------

.5-1 7.316 10.154 5.5

1-2 11.443 14.886 6.1

2-3 11.624 15.500 5.7

3-4 11.814 15.662 5.5

4-5 9.012 12.903 4.6

5-6 8.199 12.371 3.9

6-7 7.785 12.309 3.5



PAGE 5 OF 5

Appendix F Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Initial

Site 16 HHRA

TABLE 1


Washington Navy Yard-Site 16



Current Groundwater GroundwaterColumbia Aquifer - Tap

Water Industrial Worker AdultDermal

Absorption On-site None Groundwater not currently used on site as a water supply.

Ingestion On-site None Groundwater not currently used on site as a water supply.

Surface Soil Surface Soil Direct Contact Industrial Worker AdultDermal

Absorption On-site None Site is covered by asphalt and therefore no current exposure to surface soil.

Ingestion On-site None Site is covered by asphalt and therefore no current exposure to surface soil.

Trespasser/Visitor AdultDermal



AdolescentsDermal



AirEmissions from exposed

soil Industrial Worker Adult Inhalation On-site None Site is covered by asphalt and therefore no current exposure to surface soil.

Trespasser/Visitor Adult Inhalation On-site None Site is covered by asphalt and therefore no current exposure to surface soil.Adolescents Inhalation On-site None Site is covered by asphalt and therefore no current exposure to surface soil.

Future Groundwater Groundwater Columbia Aquifer - Tap Water

Resident Adult Dermal Absorption

On-site NoneThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide RI.

Ingestion On-site NoneThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide RI.

Child Dermal Absorption

On-site NoneThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide RI.

Ingestion On-site NoneThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide RI.

Columbia Aquifer - Water in Excavation Pit Construction Worker Adult

Dermal Absorption On-site Quant

Construction worker may contact shallow groundwater during construction activities.

Ingestion On-site NoneConstruction worker not expected to incidentally ingest significant amount of groundwater during construction activities.

AirColumbia Aquifer -Water Vapors at Showerhead

Resident Adult Inhalation On-site NoneThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide RI.

Child Inhalation On-site NoneThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide RI.

Columbia Aquifer -Volatilization from Water in

Excavation PitConstruction Worker Adult Inhalation On-site Quant

Construction worker may inhale vapors from groundwater during construction activities.

Soil* Soil* Direct Contact Industrial Worker AdultDermal

Absorption On-site Quant Site workers could contact soil while conducting maintenance activities.

Ingestion On-site Quant Site workers could contact soil while conducting maintenance activities.

Trespasser/Visitor Adult Dermal Absorption

On-site Quant General public can access the site and may contact soil.

Ingestion On-site Quant General public can access the site and may contact soil.

ChildDermal

Absorption On-site Quant General public can access the site and may contact soil.


Page1of2 06/05/2006

TABLE 1


Washington Navy Yard-Site 16



Future Soil* Soil* Direct Contact Resident Adult Dermal Absorption

On-site QuantThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.

Ingestion On-site QuantThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.




Adult/Child Dermal Absorption

On-Site QuantThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.

Ingestion On-Site QuantThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.

Construction Worker AdultDermal

Absorption On-site Quant Exposure to soil during construction activities.

Ingestion On-site Quant Exposure to soil during construction activities.


soil Industrial Worker Adult Inhalation On-site Quant Site workers may inhale vapors and dust from soil.

Trespasser/Visitor Adult Inhalation On-site Quant General public can access the site and inhale vapors and dust from soil.Child Inhalation On-site Quant General public can access the site and inhale vapors and dust from soil.

ResidentAdult Inhalation Off-site Quant

The site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.

Child Inhalation Off-site QuantThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.

Adult/Child Inhalation On-Site QuantThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.

Construction Worker Adult Inhalation On-site Quant Exposure to emissions from soil during construction activities.

Current/Future Other Animal Tissue**

Direct Contact Fisher Adult Ingestion On-site/ Off-site

NoneFish ingestion will be evaluated as part of the Basewide RI. If Basewide RI indicates Site 16 soil is an additional source of contamination to fish, Site 16 soil will be re-evaluated.

Child Ingestion On-site/ Off-site


* Subsurface soil as surface soil.

** Animal Tissue is fish.

Page2of2 06/05/2006

TABLE 2.1


Washington Navy Yard - Site 16


Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: GroundwaterExposure Point: Columbia Aquifer - Water in Excavation Pit

CAS Chemical Minimum (1) Minimum Maximum (1) Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background (3) Screening (4) Potential Potential COPC Rationale for (5)



or Selection

67-64-1 Acetone 5.6 13 µg/l WS16-MW05-9902 4/11 5-20 13 N/A 61 N N/A N/A NO BSL

71-43-2 Benzene 0.79 J 6400 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 3/11 1-5 6400 N/A 0.36 C 5 DC & MCL YES ASL

75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 0.92 J 1 J µg/l WS16-MW30-9902 1/11 1-5 1 N/A 0.17 C 100 MCL YES ASL

78-93-1 2-Butanone 10 10 µg/l WS16-MW11-9902 1/11 5-20 10 N/A 190 N N/A N/A NO BSL

65-66-3 Chloroform 4.1 J 4.1 J µg/l WS16-MW30-9902 1/11 1-5 4.1 N/A 0.063 N N/A N/A YES ASL

124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane 0.38 J 0.38 J µg/l WS16-MW30-9902 1/11 1-5 0.38 N/A 0.13 C N/A N/A YES ASL

100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 26 26 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 1/11 1-5 26 N/A 130 N 700 DC & MCL NO BSL

75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 1 J 2.5 J µg/l WS16-MW13-9902 7/11 2-5 2.5 N/A 4.1 C N/A N/A NO BSL

108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2 J 2 J µg/l WS16-MW07-9902 1/11 5-20 2 N/A 14 N N/A N/A NO BSL

108-83-3 Toluene 0.69 J 51 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 6/11 1-5 51 N/A 75 N 1000 MCL NO BSL

1330-20-7 Total Xylenes 1.5 J 1.5 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 1/2 5-5 1.5 N/A 1200 N 10000 DC & MCL NO BSL

108-38-3 m- and p- Xylene 25 25 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 1/9 1-1 25 N/A 1200 N 10000 DC & MCL NO BSL

95-47-6 o-Xylene 0.9 J 12 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 3/9 1-1 12 N/A 1200 N 10000 DC & MCL NO BSL

83-32-9 Acenaphthene 1.7 J 1.7 J µg/l WS16-MW05-9902 1/11 5-100 1.7 N/A 37 N N/A N/A NO BSL

120-12-7 Anthracene 1.7 J 1.7 J µg/l WS16-MW04-9902 1/11 5-100 1.7 N/A 180 N N/A N/A NO BSL

117-81-7 bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3.4 J 3.7 J µg/l WS16-MW04-9902 2/11 5-100 3.7 N/A 4.8 C N/A N/A NO BSL

84-74-2 Di-n-Butylphthalate 1.4 J 1.4 J µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 1/11 5-100 1.4 N/A 370 N N/A N/A NO BSL

132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 3 J 3 J µg/l WS16-MW04-9902 1/11 5-100 3 N/A 2.4 N N/A N/A YES ASL

91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 1.7 J 9.4 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 4/11 5-100 9.4 N/A 12 N N/A N/A NO BSL

106-44-5 4-Methylphenol 2 J 2 J µg/l WS16-MW05-9902 1/11 10-100 2 N/A 18 N N/A N/A NO BSL

85-01-8 Phenanthrene 5.9 J 5.9 J µg/l WS16-MW04-9902 1/11 5-100 5.9 N/A 18 N N/A N/A NO BSL

319-85-7 beta-BHC 0.073 J 0.073 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 1/11 0.01-0.05 0.073 N/A 0.037 C N/A N/A YES ASL

319-86-8 delta-BHC 0.13 J 0.13 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 1/11 0.01-0.05 0.13 N/A 0.037 C N/A N/A YES ASL

35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.90E-06 J 3.10E-04 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 5/6 4E-5-4E-5 3.10E-04 N/A 4.50E-05 C N/A N/A YES ASL

37871-00-4 Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 6.00E-06 J 1.20E-03 µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 5/6 2E-6-4E-5 1.20E-03 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 3.30E-06 J 3.30E-06 J µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 1/6 2E-6-4.2E-5 3.30E-06 N/A 4.50E-06 C N/A N/A NO BSL

19408-74-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.00E-05 J 2.00E-05 J µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 1/6 2E-6-4.1E-5 2.00E-05 N/A 4.50E-06 C N/A N/A YES ASL

34465-46-8 Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 6.10E-06 J 5.10E-04 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 4/6 5.4E-6-4.3E-5 5.10E-04 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

3268-87-9 Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.60E-04 1.80E-02 µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 6/6 2E-6-4.1E-5 1.80E-02 N/A 4.50E-04 C N/A N/A YES ASL

36008-22-9 Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.20E-06 J 9.00E-05 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 3/6 2.7E-6-2.9E-5 9.00E-05 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

41903-57-5 Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.10E-06 J 8.60E-05 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 2/6 6.9E-6-8.2E-5 8.60E-05 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 3.70E-06 J 3.70E-06 J µg/l WS16-MW07-9902 1/6 2E-6-4.4E-5 3.70E-06 N/A 4.50E-05 C N/A N/A NO BSL

38998-75-3 Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran 3.70E-06 J 3.70E-06 J µg/l WS16-MW07-9902 1/6 2E-6-4.8E-5 3.70E-06 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

30402-15-4 Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran 2.50E-06 J 2.50E-06 J µg/l WS16-MW07-9902 1/6 2E-6-3.8E-5 2.50E-06 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

55722-27-5 Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 1.60E-06 J 1.60E-06 J µg/l WS16-MW07-9902 1/6 4.3E-6-8.1E-5 1.60E-06 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

7429-90-5 Aluminum 123 J 40800 J µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 6/10 4-4 40800 N/A 3700 N 5 to 20 SMCL YES ASL

7440-36-0 Antimony 3.1 J 5.3 J µg/l WS16-MW08-9902 3/10 3-3 5.3 N/A 1.5 N 6 MCL YES ASL

7440-38-2 Arsenic 4.8 J 46.9 J µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 9/10 4-4 46.9 N/A 0.045 C 50 DC & MCL YES ASL

7440-39-3 Barium 84.8 J 693 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 10/10 1-1 693 N/A 260 N 1000 DC & MCL YES ASL7440-41-7 Beryllium 1.1 J 5.6 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 3/10 1-1 5.6 N/A 7.3 N 4 MCL NO BSL

06/05/20067:30 PM Page 1 of 2

TAB2_S16-Navy.xlstb2.1- not used in ROD

TABLE 2.1




Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: GroundwaterExposure Point: Columbia Aquifer - Water in Excavation Pit




or Selection

7440-43-9 Cadmium 88.4 88.4 µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 1/10 1-1 88.4 N/A 1.8 N 5 DC & MCL YES ASL

7440-70-2 Calcium 30900 93500 µg/l WS16-MW05-9902 10/10 7-7 93500 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NUT

7440-47-3 Chromium 1 89.3 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 8/10 1-1 89.3 N/A 11 N 100 DC & MCL YES ASL

7440-48-4 Cobalt 2.5 J 60.7 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 5/10 1-1 60.7 N/A 220 N N/A N/A NO BSL

7440-50-8 Copper 10.8 J 101 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 8/10 1-1 101 N/A 150 N 1000 DC & MCL NO BSL

7439-89-6 Iron 5610 J 135000 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 10/10 15-15 135000 N/A 1100 N 300 DC & MCL YES ASL

7439-92-1 Lead 5.2 58.9 µg/l WS16-MW08-9902 6/10 1-1 58.9 N/A N/A 15 MCL YES ASL

7439-95-4 Magnesium 7270 58100 µg/l WS16-MW11-9902 10/10 11-11 58100 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NUT

7439-96-5 Manganese 286 2300 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 10/10 1-1 2300 N/A 73 N 50 DC & MCL YES ASL

7439-97-6 Mercury 0.34 0.45 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 2/10 0.2-0.2 0.45 N/A 1.1 N 2 DC & MCL NO BSL

7440-02-0 Nickel 1.7 51.3 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 8/10 1-1 51.3 N/A 73 N N/A N/A NO BSL

7440-09-7 Potassium 2610 18500 µg/l WS16-MW11-9902 10/10 46-46 18500 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NUT

7440-22-4 Silver 2.1 3.8 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 3/10 2-2 3.8 N/A 18 N 50 DC & MCL NO BSL

7440-23-5 Sodium 22000 459000 µg/l WS16-MW11-9902 10/10 7-100 459000 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NUT

7440-28-0 Thallium 4.9 4.9 µg/l WS16-MW02-9902 2/10 3-3 4.9 N/A 0.26 N N/A N/A YES ASL

7440-62-2 Vanadium 2.1 J 206 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 5/10 1-1 206 N/A 26 N N/A N/A YES ASL

7440-66-6 Zinc 42.4 J 211 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 10/10 2-2 211 N/A 1100 N 5000 DC & MCL NO BSL

Unfiltered groundwater values used because exposure is during construction activities and the exposure will be to total metals.

(1) Minimum/Maximum detected concentration. Definitions: N/A = Not Applicable

(2) Maximum concentration is used for screening. SQL = Sample Quantification Limit

(3) Background values not available. COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern

(4) Risk-Based Concentration Table, October 27, 1999, U.S. EPA Region III. ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/

Used Toxicity Equivalency Factors for the dioxins and furans.

Tap water RBC (Cancer benchmark value = 1E-06, adjusted HQ=0.1) To Be Considered

Rationale Codes Selection Reason: Above Screening Levels (ASL) MCL = Maximum Contaminant levels

SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels

Deletion Reason: No Toxicity Information (NTX) DC = DC Groundwater Criteria

Essential Nutrient (NUT) J = Estimated Value

Below Screening Level (BSL) N = Noncarcinogenic

C =Carcinogenic

Chloroform screening value is calculated based on a noncarcinogenic hazard of 0.1. The noncarcinogenic screening level at HQ=0.1 is more

conservative than the carcinogenic value provided in the Region III RBC table.

The groundwater action level for lead of 15 ug/l used as the screening value for the COPC selection.

The tap water RBC for pyrene used as a surrogate for phenathrene.

The tap water RBC for mercuric chloride used as a surrogate for mercury.

06/05/20067:30 PM Page 2 of 2

TAB2_S16-Navy.xlstb2.1- not used in ROD

TABLE 2.2




Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Columbia Aquifer - Volatilization from Water in Excavation Pit




or Selection

67-64-1 Acetone 5.6 13 µg/l WS16-MW05-9902 4/11 5-20 13 N/A 61 N N/A N/A NO BSL

71-43-2 Benzene 0.79 J 6400 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 3/11 1-5 6400 N/A 0.36 C 5 DC & MCL YES ASL

75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 0.92 J 1 J µg/l WS16-MW30-9902 1/11 1-5 1 N/A 0.17 C 100 MCL YES ASL

78-93-1 2-Butanone 10 10 µg/l WS16-MW11-9902 1/11 5-20 10 N/A 190 N N/A N/A NO BSL

65-66-3 Chloroform 4.1 J 4.1 J µg/l WS16-MW30-9902 1/11 1-5 4.1 N/A 0.063 N N/A N/A YES ASL

124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane 0.38 J 0.38 J µg/l WS16-MW30-9902 1/11 1-5 0.38 N/A 0.13 C N/A N/A YES ASL

100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 26 26 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 1/11 1-5 26 N/A 130 N 700 DC & MCL NO BSL

75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 1 J 2.5 J µg/l WS16-MW13-9902 7/11 2-5 2.5 N/A 4.1 C N/A N/A NO BSL

108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2 J 2 J µg/l WS16-MW07-9902 1/11 5-20 2 N/A 14 N N/A N/A NO BSL

108-83-3 Toluene 0.69 J 51 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 6/11 1-5 51 N/A 75 N 1000 MCL NO BSL

1330-20-7 Total Xylenes 1.5 J 1.5 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 1/2 5-5 1.5 N/A 1200 N 10000 DC & MCL NO BSL

108-38-3 m- and p- Xylene 25 25 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 1/9 1-1 25 N/A 1200 N 10000 DC & MCL NO BSL

95-47-6 o-Xylene 0.9 J 12 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 3/9 1-1 12 N/A 1200 N 10000 DC & MCL NO BSL

83-32-9 Acenaphthene 1.7 J 1.7 J µg/l WS16-MW05-9902 1/11 5-100 1.7 N/A 37 N N/A N/A NO BSL

120-12-7 Anthracene 1.7 J 1.7 J µg/l WS16-MW04-9902 1/11 5-100 1.7 N/A 180 N N/A N/A NO BSL

117-81-7 bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3.4 J 3.7 J µg/l WS16-MW04-9902 2/11 5-100 3.7 N/A 4.8 C N/A N/A NO BSL

84-74-2 Di-n-Butylphthalate 1.4 J 1.4 J µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 1/11 5-100 1.4 N/A 370 N N/A N/A NO BSL

132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 3 J 3 J µg/l WS16-MW04-9902 1/11 5-100 3 N/A 2.4 N N/A N/A YES ASL

91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 1.7 J 9.4 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 4/11 5-100 9.4 N/A 12 N N/A N/A NO BSL

106-44-5 4-Methylphenol 2 J 2 J µg/l WS16-MW05-9902 1/11 10-100 2 N/A 18 N N/A N/A NO BSL

85-01-8 Phenanthrene 5.9 J 5.9 J µg/l WS16-MW04-9902 1/11 5-100 5.9 N/A 18 N N/A N/A NO BSL

319-85-7 beta-BHC 0.073 J 0.073 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 1/11 0.01-0.05 0.073 N/A 0.037 C N/A N/A YES ASL

319-86-8 delta-BHC 0.13 J 0.13 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 1/11 0.01-0.05 0.13 N/A 0.037 C N/A N/A YES ASL

35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.90E-06 J 3.10E-04 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 5/6 4E-5-4E-5 3.10E-04 N/A 4.50E-05 C N/A N/A YES ASL

37871-00-4 Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 6.00E-06 J 1.20E-03 µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 5/6 2E-6-4E-5 1.20E-03 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 3.30E-06 J 3.30E-06 J µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 1/6 2E-6-4.2E-5 3.30E-06 N/A 4.50E-06 C N/A N/A NO BSL

19408-74-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.00E-05 J 2.00E-05 J µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 1/6 2E-6-4.1E-5 2.00E-05 N/A 4.50E-06 C N/A N/A YES ASL

34465-46-8 Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 6.10E-06 J 5.10E-04 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 4/6 5.4E-6-4.3E-5 5.10E-04 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

3268-87-9 Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.60E-04 1.80E-02 µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 6/6 2E-6-4.1E-5 1.80E-02 N/A 4.50E-04 C N/A N/A YES ASL

36008-22-9 Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.20E-06 J 9.00E-05 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 3/6 2.7E-6-2.9E-5 9.00E-05 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

41903-57-5 Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.10E-06 J 8.60E-05 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 2/6 6.9E-6-8.2E-5 8.60E-05 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 3.70E-06 J 3.70E-06 J µg/l WS16-MW07-9902 1/6 2E-6-4.4E-5 3.70E-06 N/A 4.50E-05 C N/A N/A NO BSL

38998-75-3 Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran 3.70E-06 J 3.70E-06 J µg/l WS16-MW07-9902 1/6 2E-6-4.8E-5 3.70E-06 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

30402-15-4 Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran 2.50E-06 J 2.50E-06 J µg/l WS16-MW07-9902 1/6 2E-6-3.8E-5 2.50E-06 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

55722-27-5 Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 1.60E-06 J 1.60E-06 J µg/l WS16-MW07-9902 1/6 4.3E-6-8.1E-5 1.60E-06 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

7429-90-5 Aluminum 123 J 40800 J µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 6/10 4-4 40800 N/A 3700 N 5 to 20 SMCL YES ASL

7440-36-0 Antimony 3.1 J 5.3 J µg/l WS16-MW08-9902 3/10 3-3 5.3 N/A 1.5 N 6 MCL YES ASL

7440-38-2 Arsenic 4.8 J 46.9 J µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 9/10 4-4 46.9 N/A 0.045 C 50 DC & MCL YES ASL

7440-39-3 Barium 84.8 J 693 J µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 10/10 1-1 693 N/A 260 N 1000 DC & MCL YES ASL7440-41-7 Beryllium 1.1 J 5.6 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 3/10 1-1 5.6 N/A 7.3 N 4 MCL NO BSL

06/05/20067:30 PM

Page 1 of 2TAB2_S16-Navy.xls

tb2.2 - Not used in ROD

TABLE 2.2




Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Columbia Aquifer - Volatilization from Water in Excavation Pit




or Selection

7440-43-9 Cadmium 88.4 88.4 µg/l WS16-MW10-9902 1/10 1-1 88.4 N/A 1.8 N 5 DC & MCL YES ASL

7440-70-2 Calcium 30900 93500 µg/l WS16-MW05-9902 10/10 7-7 93500 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NUT

7440-47-3 Chromium 1 89.3 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 8/10 1-1 89.3 N/A 11 N 100 DC & MCL YES ASL

7440-48-4 Cobalt 2.5 J 60.7 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 5/10 1-1 60.7 N/A 220 N N/A N/A NO BSL

7440-50-8 Copper 10.8 J 101 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 8/10 1-1 101 N/A 150 N 1000 DC & MCL NO BSL

7439-89-6 Iron 5610 J 135000 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 10/10 15-15 135000 N/A 1100 N 300 DC & MCL YES ASL

7439-92-1 Lead 5.2 58.9 µg/l WS16-MW08-9902 6/10 1-1 58.9 N/A N/A 50 MCL YES ASL

7439-95-4 Magnesium 7270 58100 µg/l WS16-MW11-9902 10/10 11-11 58100 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NUT

7439-96-5 Manganese 286 2300 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 10/10 1-1 2300 N/A 73 N 50 DC & MCL YES ASL

7439-97-6 Mercury 0.34 0.45 µg/l WS16-MW31-9902 2/10 0.2-0.2 0.45 N/A 1.1 N 2 DC & MCL NO BSL

7440-02-0 Nickel 1.7 51.3 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 8/10 1-1 51.3 N/A 73 N N/A N/A NO BSL

7440-09-7 Potassium 2610 18500 µg/l WS16-MW11-9902 10/10 46-46 18500 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NUT

7440-22-4 Silver 2.1 3.8 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 3/10 2-2 3.8 N/A 18 N 50 DC & MCL NO BSL

7440-23-5 Sodium 22000 459000 µg/l WS16-MW11-9902 10/10 7-100 459000 N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NUT

7440-28-0 Thallium 4.9 4.9 µg/l WS16-MW02-9902 2/10 3-3 4.9 N/A 0.26 N N/A N/A YES ASL

7440-62-2 Vanadium 2.1 J 206 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 5/10 1-1 206 N/A 26 N N/A N/A YES ASL

7440-66-6 Zinc 42.4 J 211 µg/l WS16-MW01-9902 10/10 2-2 211 N/A 1100 N 5000 DC & MCL NO BSL

Unfiltered groundwater values used because exposure is during construction activities and the exposure will be to total metals.

(1) Minimum/Maximum detected concentration. Definitions: N/A = Not Applicable

(2) Maximum concentration is used for screening. SQL = Sample Quantification Limit

(3) Background values not available. COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern

(4) Risk-Based Concentration Table, October 27, 1999, U.S. EPA Region III. ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/

Used Toxicity Equivalency Factors for the dioxins and furans.

Tap water RBC (Cancer benchmark value = 1E-06, adjusted HQ=0.1) To Be Considered

Chloroform screening value is calculated based on a noncarcinogenic hazard of 0.1. The noncarcinogenic screening level at HQ=0.1 is more

conservative than the carcinogenic value provided in the Region III RBC table.

The groundwater action level for lead of 15 ug/l used as the screening value for the COPC selection.

The tap water RBC for pyrene used as a surrogate for phenathrene.

The tap water RBC for mercuric chloride used as a surrogate for mercury.

06/05/20067:30 PM

Page 2 of 2TAB2_S16-Navy.xls

tb2.2 - Not used in ROD


Medium: Soil*

Exposure Medium: Soil* Exposure Point: Direct Contact

CAS Chemical Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration [1] Background [2] Screening [3] Potential Potential COPC Rationale for [4]



79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 630 630 UG/KG S071SU0104XX 1/25 4 - 1500 6.30E+02 NA 3.20E+03 C NA NA NO BSL

78-93-3 2-Butanone 3 J 7 J UG/KG S071SU1016XX 5/25 10 - 5900 7.00E+00 NA 4.70E+06 N NA NA NO BSL

591-78-6 2-Hexanone 2 J 2 J UG/KG S071SU0410XX 1/25 10 - 5900 2.00E+00 NA 3.10E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 6 J 6 J UG/KG S071SU0410XX 1/25 10 - 5900 6.00E+00 NA 6.30E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

67-64-1 Acetone 3 J 1000 J UG/KG WS16-DSG0208 11/21 10 - 5900 1.00E+03 NA 7.80E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

71-43-2 Benzene 1 J 210 J UG/KG S071SU0104XX 4/33 4 - 1500 2.10E+02 NA 2.20E+04 C NA NA NO BSL

75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 0.53 J 0.53 J UG/KG WS16-DSAB0204 1/25 4 - 1500 5.30E-01 NA 1.00E+04 C NA NA NO BSL

75-15-0 Carbon disulfide 0.88 L 4 J UG/KG S071SU0610XX 5/25 4 - 1500 4.00E+00 NA 7.80E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride 1.2 J 1.2 J UG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 2/25 4 - 1500 1.20E+00 NA 4.90E+03 C NA NA NO BSL

67-66-3 Chloroform 3.5 J 5 J UG/KG WS16-DSM0204 5/25 4 - 1500 5.00E+00 NA 1.00E+05 C NA NA NO BSL

100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 11 J 1700 UG/KG S071SU0104XX 4/33 4 - 1500 1.70E+03 NA 7.80E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

75-09-2 Methylene chloride 6 J 18000 UG/KG WS16-DSG0208 9/25 4 - 1500 1.80E+04 NA 8.50E+04 C NA NA NO BSL

127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 290 J 290 J UG/KG WS16-DSF0406 1/25 4 - 1500 2.90E+02 NA 1.20E+04 C NA NA NO BSL

108-88-3 Toluene 1 J 210 J UG/KG S071SU0104XX 11/33 1 - 1500 2.10E+02 NA 1.60E+06 N NA NA NO BSL

79-01-6 Trichloroethene 1.9 J 1.9 J UG/KG WS16-DSC0408 1/25 4 - 1500 1.90E+00 NA 5.80E+04 C NA NA NO BSL

75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 1 L 1.4 J UG/KG WS16-DSZ0103 4/7 9.1 - 1500 1.40E+00 NA 2.30E+06 N NA NA NO BSL

95-47-6 m- and p-Xylene 13 2500 UG/KG S071SU0104XX 4/30 5.7 - 760 2.50E+03 NA 1.60E+07 N NA NA NO BSL

95-47-6 o-Xylene 14 1900 UG/KG S071SU0104XX 4/30 1 - 760 1.90E+03 NA 1.60E+07 N NA NA NO BSL

91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 15 J 430 UG/KG S071SU0208XX 8/21 370 - 2000 4.30E+02 1.90E+03 1.60E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

83-32-9 Acenaphthene 36 J 120 J UG/KG WS16-DSH0408 3/21 370 - 2000 1.20E+02 NA 4.70E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 15 J 15 J UG/KG S071SU0610XX 1/21 370 - 2000 1.50E+01 NA 4.70E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

120-12-7 Anthracene 5 J 210 J UG/KG S071SU0308XX 10/21 370 - 2000 2.10E+02 NA 2.30E+06 N NA NA NO BSL

56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 19 J 400 J UG/KG S071SU0208XX 14/21 370 - 2000 4.00E+02 1.30E+03 8.70E+02 C NA NA NO BSL

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene** 8 J 280 J UG/KG WS16-DSH0408 11/21 370 - 2000 2.80E+02 1.20E+03 8.70E+01 C NA NA YES ASL

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 18 J 590 J UG/KG S071SU0208XX 13/21 370 - 2000 5.90E+02 1.10E+03 8.70E+02 C NA NA NO BSL

191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 15 J 180 J UG/KG WS16-DSH0408 9/21 370 - 2000 1.80E+02 1.50E+02 N/A NA NA NO NTX

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 18 J 590 J UG/KG S071SU0208XX 9/21 370 - 2000 5.90E+02 1.60E+02 8.70E+03 C NA NA NO BSL

218-01-9 Chrysene 26 J 320 J UG/KG WS16-DSH0408 16/21 370 - 2000 3.20E+02 1.40E+03 8.70E+04 C NA NA NO BSL

84-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate 6 J 350 J UG/KG WS16-DSAA0204 4/21 370 - 2000 3.50E+02 NA 7.80E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 12 J 45 J UG/KG S071SU0208XX 7/21 370 - 2000 4.50E+01 NA 8.70E+01 C NA NA NO BSL

132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 50 J 170 J UG/KG WS16-DSF0406 2/21 370 - 2000 1.70E+02 1.10E+02 3.10E+04 N NA NA NO BSL

206-44-0 Fluoranthene 9 J 950 UG/KG S071SU0208XX 14/21 370 - 2000 9.50E+02 6.60E+02 3.10E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

86-73-7 Fluorene 47 J 1100 J UG/KG S071SU0308XX 6/21 370 - 2000 1.10E+03 NA 3.10E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7 J 170 J UG/KG WS16-DSH0408 9/21 370 - 2000 1.70E+02 6.50E+02 8.70E+02 C NA NA NO BSL

91-20-3 Naphthalene 12 J 180 J UG/KG S071SU0208XX 8/21 370 - 2000 1.80E+02 NA 1.60E+05 N NA NA NO BSL85-01-8 Phenanthrene 37 J 1400 J UG/KG S071SU0308XX 17/21 370 - 2000 1.40E+03 1.20E+03 2.30E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

Table 2.3

Analytical Results of Constituents Detected in Soil Samples at Site 16

Washington Navy Yard, Washington D.C.

06/05/20067:30 PM Page 1 of 3

Filename:TAB2_S16-Navy.xlsSheetname:tb2.3


Medium: Soil*





Table 2.3



129-00-0 Pyrene 24 J 740 UG/KG WS16-DSH0408 17/21 370 - 2000 7.40E+02 3.00E+03 2.30E+05 N NA NA NO BSL

117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 55 J 1900 UG/KG WS16-DSZ0103 17/21 370 - 2000 1.90E+03 2.50E+03 4.60E+04 C NA NA NO BSL

72-54-8 4,4'-DDD** 6.2 P 6.2 P UG/KG WS16-DSF0204 1/26 1.9 - 4.7 6.20E+00 NA 2.70E+00 C NA NA YES ASL

72-55-9 4,4'-DDE** 7.5 7.5 UG/KG WS16-DSF0204 1/26 1.9 - 4.7 7.50E+00 NA 1.90E+00 C NA NA YES ASL

50-29-3 4,4'-DDT** 66 66 UG/KG WS16-DSF0204 1/26 1.9 - 4.7 6.60E+01 NA 1.90E+00 C NA NA YES ASL

11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 10 J 10 J UG/KG WS16-DSH0408 1/26 37 - 47 1.00E+01 NA 1.56E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.011 0.1 UG/KG WS16-DSD0406 11/14 0.19 - 0.9 1.00E-01 6.40E-02 4.30E-01 C NA NA NO BSL

37871-00-4 Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.022 0.19 UG/KG WS16-DSD0406 11/11 0.19 - 0.9 1.90E-01 1.30E-01 N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.00036 J 0.0007 J UG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 5/14 0.0043 - 0.45 7.00E-04 7.90E-04 4.30E-02 C NA NA NO BSL

57653-85-7 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.00078 J 0.0022 J UG/KG WS16-DSM0204 5/14 0.0043 - 0.4 2.20E-03 1.30E-03 4.30E-02 C NA NA NO BSL

19408-74-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.001 J 0.0032 J UG/KG WS16-DSU0204 5/14 0.0041 - 0.3 3.20E-03 6.60E-03 4.30E-02 C NA NA NO BSL

34465-46-8 Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0071 J 0.034 J UG/KG WS16-DSD0406 9/11 0.0094 - 0.011 3.40E-02 2.60E-02 N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

3268-87-9 Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin*** 0.66 8.8 UG/KG WS16-DSF0204 11/14 0.13 - 0.85 8.80E+00 6.50E+00 4.30E+00 C NA NA NO BKG

40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodebenzo-p-dioxin** 0.0003 J 0.68 J UG/KG S071SU0308XX 6/14 0.0014 - 0.25 6.80E-01 1.00E-03 8.60E-03 C NA NA YES ASL

36088-22-9 Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.004 J 0.016 J UG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 5/11 0.0071 - 0.0075 1.60E-02 4.10E-03 N/A NA NA NO NTX

1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) 0.00019 J 0.00019 J UG/KG WS16-DSR0204 1/14 0.00024 - 0.18 1.90E-04 1.40E-03 4.30E-03 C NA NA NO BSL

41903-57-5 Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0013 0.0084 UG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 5/11 0.011 - 0.018 8.40E-03 8.90E-03 N/A NA NA NO NTX

67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 0.0051 J 0.0089 UG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 7/14 0.0034 - 0.23 8.90E-03 1.90E-03 4.30E-01 C NA NA NO BSL

55673-89-7 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 0.0003 J 0.00071 J UG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 4/14 0.00098 - 0.18 7.10E-04 5.80E-04 4.30E-01 C NA NA NO BSL

38998-75-3 Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran 0.0056 J 0.012 UG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 7/11 0.0038 - 0.021 1.20E-02 3.30E-03 N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

70648-26-9 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.0015 J 0.005 J UG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 6/14 0.0033 - 0.11 5.00E-03 1.40E-03 4.30E-02 C NA NA NO BSL




55684-94-1 Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.0018 J 0.019 J UG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 8/11 0.0034 - 0.0051 1.90E-02 7.50E-03 N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

39001-02-0 Total Octachlorodibenzofuran 0.005 J 0.0086 UG/KG WS16-DSD0406 6/14 0.0057 - 0.16 8.60E-03 2.00E-03 4.30E+00 C NA NA NO BSL

57117-41-6 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 0.00025 J 0.0011 J UG/KG WS16-DSR0204 5/14 0.0024 - 0.65 1.10E-03 1.10E-03 8.60E-02 C NA NA NO BSL

57117-31-4 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 0.00041 J 0.0015 J UG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 4/14 0.0015 - 0.35 1.50E-03 1.80E-03 8.60E-03 C NA NA NO BSL

30402-15-4 Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran 0.0082 J 0.031 J UG/KG WS16-DSD0406 8/11 0.0035 - 0.0074 3.10E-02 1.90E-02 N/A NA NA NO NTX

51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 0.00049 J 0.0012 J UG/KG WS16-DSM0204 5/14 0.0056 - 0.11 1.20E-03 2.40E-03 4.30E-02 C NA NA NO BSL

55722-27-5 Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 0.0067 0.022 UG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 6/11 0.0094 - 0.016 2.20E-02 2.70E-02 N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

7429-90-5 Aluminum*** 1240 13100 MG/KG WS16-DSP0305 21/21 0.86 - 1.1 1.31E+04 1.52E+04 7.80E+03 N NA NA NO BKG

7440-36-0 Antimony 0.73 J 2.3 J MG/KG WS16-DST0204 4/30 0.39 - 0.79 2.30E+00 1.60E+00 3.10E+00 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-38-2 Arsenic** 2.6 40.7 MG/KG WS16-DST0204 28/30 0.86 - 5.1 4.07E+01 2.05E+01 4.30E-01 C NA NA YES ASL

7440-39-3 Barium 31.7 J 113 MG/KG WS16-DSZ0103 19/21 0.22 - 0.26 1.13E+02 6.78E+01 5.50E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-41-7 Beryllium 0.34 J 1.3 MG/KG S071SU0410XX 25/30 0.1 - 0.85 1.30E+00 3.60E-01 1.60E+01 N NA NA NO BSL7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.33 J 2.9 MG/KG WS16-DSM0204 14/30 0.22 - 3.1 2.90E+00 NA 3.90E+00 N NA NA NO BSL

06/05/20067:30 PM Page 2 of 3



Medium: Soil*





Table 2.3



7440-70-2 Calcium 829 J 21600 MG/KG WS16-DSM0204 20/21 1.5 - 1.9 2.16E+04 6.12E+03 N/A NA NA NO NUT

7440-47-3 Chromium*** 5 44.8 MG/KG WS16-DSP0305 30/30 0.22 - 0.26 4.48E+01 2.56E+01 2.30E+01 N NA NA NO BKG

7440-48-4 Cobalt 2.8 J 21.1 MG/KG WS16-DSP0305 20/21 0.22 - 0.26 2.11E+01 5.39E+01 4.70E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-50-8 Copper** 15.6 458 MG/KG WS16-DSM0204 30/30 0.22 - 0.26 4.58E+02 2.91E+01 3.10E+02 N NA NA YES ASL

7439-89-6 Iron*** 4080 36200 MG/KG WS16-DSL0406 21/21 3.2 - 4 3.62E+04 4.49E+04 2.30E+03 N NA NA NO BKG

7439-92-1 Lead 5.7 385 MG/KG WS16-DSM0204 30/30 0.22 - 0.26 3.85E+02 7.33E+01 N/A 400 NA NO BSL

7439-95-4 Magnesium 264 J 2450 MG/KG WS16-DSC0408 19/21 2.4 - 2.9 2.45E+03 2.79E+03 N/A NA NA NO NUT

7439-96-5 Manganese*** 58.6 411 MG/KG WS16-DSU0204 21/21 0.22 - 0.26 4.11E+02 1.55E+03 1.60E+02 N NA NA NO BKG

7439-97-6 Mercury*** 0.12 5.9 MG/KG WS16-DSQ0305 14/30 0.1 - 1.2 5.90E+00 6.10E-01 2.30E+00 N NA NA NO BKG

7440-02-0 Nickel 6.8 J 94.3 J MG/KG S071SU0208XX 28/30 0.22 - 0.26 9.43E+01 2.46E+01 1.60E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-09-7 Potassium 207 J 989 J MG/KG WS16-DSAA0204 18/21 9.9 - 12.2 9.89E+02 9.64E+02 N/A NA NA NO NUT

7782-49-2 Selenium 0.13 J 1.6 MG/KG WS16-DSAA0204 3/30 0.1 - 1.1 1.60E+00 5.90E-01 3.90E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-22-4 Silver 0.73 J 2.5 MG/KG S071SU0410XX 16/30 0.43 - 0.53 2.50E+00 NA 3.90E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-23-5 Sodium 130 J 294 J MG/KG WS16-DSAC0204 15/21 1.5 - 1.9 2.94E+02 3.45E+02 N/A NA NA NO NUT

7440-28-0 Thallium*** 0.15 J 2.1 J MG/KG WS16-DSAA0204 17/30 0.11 - 0.79 2.10E+00 1.60E+00 5.50E-01 N NA NA NO BKG

7440-31-5 Tin 459 475 MG/KG WS16-DSM0204 2/21 400 - 529 4.75E+02 6.70E+00 4.70E+03 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-62-2 Vanadium 8.7 J 45.3 MG/KG WS16-DSC0408 21/21 0.22 - 0.26 4.53E+01 6.95E+01 5.50E+01 N NA NA NO BSL7440-66-6 Zinc 24.8 400 MG/KG WS16-DSM0204 30/30 0.43 - 0.53 4.00E+02 7.71E+01 2.30E+03 N NA NA NO BSL

* Subsurface soil as surface soil

** These chemicals were included in the COPC list because their concentrations were statistically greater than the background concentrations (Appendix C, RI report).

*** These chemicals were excluded from the COPC list because their concentrations were statistically comparable to or less than the background concentrations (Appendix C, RI report).

[1] Maximum concentration is used for screening. SQL = Sample Quantification Limit

[2] Background values are the maximum backgound concentrations. However, a statistical comparison as shown in Initial Findings Report, September 29, 2000 (Appendix C, RI report) COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern

was conducted to compare background concentrations with the maximum concentration. Based on the statistical findings some constituents were excluded from the COPC list. ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/

[3] Risk-Based Concentration Table, October 27, 1999, U.S. EPA Region III, Jennifer Hubbard. To Be Considered

Ambient air RBC (Cancer benchmark value = 1E-06, adjusted HQ=0.1). J = Estimated Value

RBC value for Chromium VI used for total chromium. L = Biased Low

RBC value for acenaphthene used as surrogate for acenaphthylene. N = Noncarcinogenic

RBC value for pyrene used as surrogate for phenanthrene. C =Carcinogenic

RBC value for mercuric chloride used as surrogate for mercury

Lead screening toxicity value is 400 mg/kg, the EPA residential soil screening level for lead.

[4] Rationale Codes

Selection Reason: Above Screening Levels (ASL)



Background (BKG)


06/05/20067:30 PM Page 3 of 3



Medium: Soil*

Exposure Medium: Air Exposure Point: Emissions from exposed soil




79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.58E-04 1.58E-04 μg/m3 S071SU0104XX 1/25 4 - 1500 1.58E-04 NA 3.10E-02 C NA NA NO BSL

78-93-3 2-Butanone 7.53E-07 J 1.76E-06 J μg/m3 S071SU1016XX 5/25 10 - 5900 1.76E-06 NA 1.00E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

591-78-6 2-Hexanone 5.02E-07 J 5.02E-07 J μg/m3 S071SU0410XX 1/25 10 - 5900 5.02E-07 NA 5.10E-01 N NA NA NO BSL

108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 1.51E-06 J 1.51E-06 J μg/m3 S071SU0410XX 1/25 10 - 5900 1.51E-06 NA 7.30E+00 N NA NA NO BSL

67-64-1 Acetone 7.53E-07 J 2.51E-04 J μg/m3 WS16-DSG0208 11/21 10 - 5900 2.51E-04 NA 3.70E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

71-43-2 Benzene 2.51E-07 J 5.27E-05 J μg/m3 S071SU0104XX 4/33 4 - 1500 5.27E-05 NA 2.20E-01 C NA NA NO BSL

75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 1.33E-07 J 1.33E-07 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAB0204 1/25 4 - 1500 1.33E-07 NA 1.00E-01 C NA NA NO BSL

75-15-0 Carbon disulfide 2.21E-07 L 1.00E-06 J μg/m3 S071SU0610XX 5/25 4 - 1500 1.00E-06 NA 7.30E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride 3.01E-07 J 3.01E-07 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 2/25 4 - 1500 3.01E-07 NA 1.20E-01 C NA NA NO BSL

67-66-3 Chloroform 8.79E-07 J 1.26E-06 J μg/m3 WS16-DSM0204 5/25 4 - 1500 1.26E-06 NA 3.10E-02 N NA NA NO BSL

100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 2.76E-06 J 4.27E-04 μg/m3 S071SU0104XX 4/33 4 - 1500 4.27E-04 NA 1.10E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

75-09-2 Methylene chloride 1.51E-06 J 4.52E-03 μg/m3 WS16-DSG0208 9/25 4 - 1500 4.52E-03 NA 3.80E+00 C NA NA NO BSL

127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 7.28E-05 J 7.28E-05 J μg/m3 WS16-DSF0406 1/25 4 - 1500 7.28E-05 NA 3.10E+00 C NA NA NO BSL

108-88-3 Toluene 2.51E-07 J 5.27E-05 J μg/m3 S071SU0104XX 11/33 1 - 1500 5.27E-05 NA 4.20E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

79-01-6 Trichloroethene 4.77E-07 J 4.77E-07 J μg/m3 WS16-DSC0408 1/25 4 - 1500 4.77E-07 NA 1.00E+00 C NA NA NO BSL

75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 2.51E-07 L 3.51E-07 J μg/m3 WS16-DSZ0103 4/7 9.1 - 1500 3.51E-07 NA 7.30E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

95-47-6 m- and p-Xylene 3.26E-06 6.28E-04 μg/m3 S071SU0104XX 4/30 5.7 - 760 6.28E-04 NA 7.30E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

95-47-6 o-Xylene 3.51E-06 4.77E-04 μg/m3 S071SU0104XX 4/30 1 - 760 4.77E-04 NA 7.30E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 3.77E-06 J 1.08E-04 μg/m3 S071SU0208XX 8/21 370 - 2000 1.08E-04 4.77E-04 7.30E+00 N NA NA NO BSL

83-32-9 Acenaphthene 9.04E-06 J 3.01E-05 J μg/m3 WS16-DSH0408 3/21 370 - 2000 3.01E-05 NA 2.20E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 3.77E-06 J 3.77E-06 J μg/m3 S071SU0610XX 1/21 370 - 2000 3.77E-06 NA 2.20E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

120-12-7 Anthracene 1.26E-06 J 5.27E-05 J μg/m3 S071SU0308XX 10/21 370 - 2000 5.27E-05 NA 1.10E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 4.77E-06 J 1.00E-04 J μg/m3 S071SU0208XX 14/21 370 - 2000 1.00E-04 3.26E-04 8.60E-03 C NA NA NO BSL

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.01E-06 J 7.03E-05 J μg/m3 WS16-DSH0408 11/21 370 - 2000 7.03E-05 3.01E-04 2.00E-03 C NA NA NO BSL

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.52E-06 J 1.48E-04 J μg/m3 S071SU0208XX 13/21 370 - 2000 1.48E-04 2.76E-04 8.60E-03 C NA NA NO BSL

191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.77E-06 J 4.52E-05 J μg/m3 WS16-DSH0408 9/21 370 - 2000 4.52E-05 3.77E-05 N/A NA NA NO NTX

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.52E-06 J 1.48E-04 J μg/m3 S071SU0208XX 9/21 370 - 2000 1.48E-04 4.02E-05 8.60E-02 C NA NA NO BSL

218-01-9 Chrysene 6.53E-06 J 8.03E-05 J μg/m3 WS16-DSH0408 16/21 370 - 2000 8.03E-05 3.51E-04 8.60E-01 C NA NA NO BSL

84-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate 1.51E-06 J 8.79E-05 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAA0204 4/21 370 - 2000 8.79E-05 NA 3.70E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 3.01E-06 J 1.13E-05 J μg/m3 S071SU0208XX 7/21 370 - 2000 1.13E-05 NA 8.60E-04 C NA NA NO BSL

132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 1.26E-05 J 4.27E-05 J μg/m3 WS16-DSF0406 2/21 370 - 2000 4.27E-05 2.76E-05 1.50E+00 N NA NA NO BSL

206-44-0 Fluoranthene 2.26E-06 J 2.38E-04 μg/m3 S071SU0208XX 14/21 370 - 2000 2.38E-04 1.66E-04 1.50E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

86-73-7 Fluorene 1.18E-05 J 2.76E-04 J μg/m3 S071SU0308XX 6/21 370 - 2000 2.76E-04 NA 1.50E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.76E-06 J 4.27E-05 J μg/m3 WS16-DSH0408 9/21 370 - 2000 4.27E-05 1.63E-04 8.60E-03 C NA NA NO BSL

91-20-3 Naphthalene 3.01E-06 J 4.52E-05 J μg/m3 S071SU0208XX 8/21 370 - 2000 4.52E-05 NA 3.30E-01 N NA NA NO BSL85-01-8 Phenanthrene 9.29E-06 J 3.51E-04 J μg/m3

S071SU0308XX 17/21 370 - 2000 3.51E-04 3.01E-04 1.10E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

Table 2.4



06/05/20067:30 PM Page 1 of 3



Medium: Soil*





Table 2.4



129-00-0 Pyrene 6.02E-06 J 1.86E-04 μg/m3 WS16-DSH0408 17/21 370 - 2000 1.86E-04 7.53E-04 1.10E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.38E-05 J 4.77E-04 μg/m3 WS16-DSZ0103 17/21 370 - 2000 4.77E-04 6.28E-04 4.50E-01 C NA NA NO BSL

72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 1.56E-06 P 1.56E-06 P μg/m3 WS16-DSF0204 1/26 1.9 - 4.7 1.56E-06 NA 2.60E-02 C NA NA NO BSL

72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 1.88E-06 1.88E-06 μg/m3 WS16-DSF0204 1/26 1.9 - 4.7 1.88E-06 NA 1.80E-02 C NA NA NO BSL

50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 1.66E-05 1.66E-05 μg/m3 WS16-DSF0204 1/26 1.9 - 4.7 1.66E-05 NA 1.80E-02 C NA NA NO BSL

11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 2.51E-06 J 2.51E-06 J μg/m3 WS16-DSH0408 1/26 37 - 47 2.51E-06 NA 3.10E-03 C NA NA NO BSL

35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.76E-09 2.51E-08 μg/m3 WS16-DSD0406 11/14 0.19 - 0.9 2.51E-08 1.61E-08 4.20E-06 C NA NA NO BSL

37871-00-4 Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 5.52E-09 4.77E-08 μg/m3 WS16-DSD0406 11/11 0.19 - 0.9 4.77E-08 3.26E-08 N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 9.04E-11 J 1.76E-10 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 5/14 0.0043 - 0.45 1.76E-10 1.98E-10 4.20E-07 C NA NA NO BSL

57653-85-7 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.96E-10 J 5.52E-10 J μg/m3 WS16-DSM0204 5/14 0.0043 - 0.4 5.52E-10 3.26E-10 4.20E-07 C NA NA NO BSL

19408-74-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.51E-10 J 8.03E-10 J μg/m3 WS16-DSU0204 5/14 0.0041 - 0.3 8.03E-10 1.66E-09 4.20E-07 C NA NA NO BSL

34465-46-8 Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.78E-09 J 8.53E-09 J μg/m3 WS16-DSD0406 9/11 0.0094 - 0.011 8.53E-09 6.53E-09 N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

3268-87-9 Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.66E-07 2.21E-06 μg/m3 WS16-DSF0204 11/14 0.13 - 0.85 2.21E-06 1.63E-06 4.20E-05 C NA NA NO BSL

40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodebenzo-p-dioxin 7.53E-11 J 1.71E-07 J μg/m3 S071SU0308XX 6/14 0.0014 - 0.25 1.71E-07 2.51E-10 8.40E-08 C NA NA YES ASL

36088-22-9 Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.00E-09 J 4.02E-09 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 5/11 0.0071 - 0.0075 4.02E-09 1.03E-09 N/A NA NA NO NTX

1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) 4.77E-11 J 4.77E-11 J μg/m3 WS16-DSR0204 1/14 0.00024 - 0.18 4.77E-11 3.51E-10 4.20E-08 C NA NA NO BSL

41903-57-5 Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 3.26E-10 2.11E-09 μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 5/11 0.011 - 0.018 2.11E-09 2.23E-09 N/A NA NA NO NTX

67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 1.28E-09 J 2.23E-09 μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 7/14 0.0034 - 0.23 2.23E-09 4.77E-10 4.20E-06 C NA NA NO BSL

55673-89-7 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 7.53E-11 J 1.78E-10 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 4/14 0.00098 - 0.18 1.78E-10 1.46E-10 4.20E-06 C NA NA NO BSL

38998-75-3 Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran 1.41E-09 J 3.01E-09 μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 7/11 0.0038 - 0.021 3.01E-09 8.28E-10 N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

70648-26-9 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 3.77E-10 J 1.26E-09 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 6/14 0.0033 - 0.11 1.26E-09 3.51E-10 4.20E-07 C NA NA NO BSL




55684-94-1 Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran 4.52E-10 J 4.77E-09 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 8/11 0.0034 - 0.0051 4.77E-09 1.88E-09 N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

39001-02-0 Total Octachlorodibenzofuran 1.26E-09 J 2.16E-09 μg/m3 WS16-DSD0406 6/14 0.0057 - 0.16 2.16E-09 5.02E-10 4.20E-05 C NA NA NO BSL

57117-41-6 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 6.28E-11 J 2.76E-10 J μg/m3 WS16-DSR0204 5/14 0.0024 - 0.65 2.76E-10 2.76E-10 8.40E-07 C NA NA NO BSL

57117-31-4 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 1.03E-10 J 3.77E-10 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 4/14 0.0015 - 0.35 3.77E-10 4.52E-10 8.40E-08 C NA NA NO BSL

30402-15-4 Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran 2.06E-09 J 7.78E-09 J μg/m3 WS16-DSD0406 8/11 0.0035 - 0.0074 7.78E-09 4.77E-09 N/A NA NA NO NTX

51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 1.23E-10 J 3.01E-10 J μg/m3 WS16-DSM0204 5/14 0.0056 - 0.11 3.01E-10 6.02E-10 4.20E-07 C NA NA NO BSL

55722-27-5 Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 1.68E-09 5.52E-09 μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 6/11 0.0094 - 0.016 5.52E-09 6.78E-09 N/A N/A N/A NO NTX

7429-90-5 Aluminum** 3.11E-01 3.29E+00 μg/m3 WS16-DSP0305 21/21 0.86 - 1.1 3.29E+00 3.82E-03 3.70E-01 N NA NA NO BKG

7440-36-0 Antimony 1.83E-04 J 5.77E-04 J μg/m3 WS16-DST0204 4/30 0.39 - 0.79 5.77E-04 4.02E-07 1.50E-01 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-38-2 Arsenic 6.53E-04 1.02E-02 μg/m3 WS16-DST0204 28/30 0.86 - 5.1 1.02E-02 5.15E-06 4.10E-04 C NA NA YES ASL

7440-39-3 Barium 7.96E-03 J 2.84E-02 μg/m3 WS16-DSZ0103 19/21 0.22 - 0.26 2.84E-02 1.70E-05 5.10E-02 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-41-7 Beryllium 8.53E-05 J 3.26E-04 μg/m3 S071SU0410XX 25/30 0.1 - 0.85 3.26E-04 9.04E-08 7.50E-04 C NA NA NO BSL7440-43-9 Cadmium 8.28E-05 J 7.28E-04 μg/m3

WS16-DSM0204 14/30 0.22 - 3.1 7.28E-04 NA 9.90E-04 C NA NA NO BSL

06/05/20067:30 PM Page 2 of 3



Medium: Soil*





Table 2.4



7440-70-2 Calcium 2.08E-01 J 5.42E+00 μg/m3 WS16-DSM0204 20/21 1.5 - 1.9 5.42E+00 1.54E-03 N/A NA NA NO NUT

7440-47-3 Chromium** 1.26E-03 1.12E-02 μg/m3 WS16-DSP0305 30/30 0.22 - 0.26 1.12E-02 6.43E-06 1.50E-04 C NA NA NO BKG

7440-48-4 Cobalt 7.03E-04 J 5.30E-03 μg/m3 WS16-DSP0305 20/21 0.22 - 0.26 5.30E-03 1.35E-05 2.20E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-50-8 Copper 3.92E-03 1.15E-01 μg/m3 WS16-DSM0204 30/30 0.22 - 0.26 1.15E-01 7.30E-06 1.50E+01 N NA NA NO BSL

7439-89-6 Iron 1.02E+00 9.09E+00 μg/m3 WS16-DSL0406 21/21 3.2 - 4 9.09E+00 1.13E-02 1.10E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

7439-92-1 Lead 1.43E-03 9.66E-02 μg/m3 WS16-DSM0204 30/30 0.22 - 0.26 9.66E-02 1.84E-05 N/A NA NA NO BSL

7439-95-4 Magnesium 6.63E-02 J 6.15E-01 μg/m3 WS16-DSC0408 19/21 2.4 - 2.9 6.15E-01 7.00E-04 N/A NA NA NO NUT

7439-96-5 Manganese** 1.47E-02 1.03E-01 μg/m3 WS16-DSU0204 21/21 0.22 - 0.26 1.03E-01 3.89E-04 5.20E-03 N NA NA NO BKG

7439-97-6 Mercury 3.01E-05 1.48E-03 μg/m3 WS16-DSQ0305 14/30 0.1 - 1.2 1.48E-03 1.53E-07 3.10E-02 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-02-0 Nickel 1.71E-03 J 2.37E-02 J μg/m3 S071SU0208XX 28/30 0.22 - 0.26 2.37E-02 6.17E-06 7.30E+00 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-09-7 Potassium 5.20E-02 J 2.48E-01 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAA0204 18/21 9.9 - 12.2 2.48E-01 2.42E-04 N/A NA NA NO NUT

7782-49-2 Selenium 3.26E-05 J 4.02E-04 μg/m3 WS16-DSAA0204 3/30 0.1 - 1.1 4.02E-04 1.48E-07 1.80E+00 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-22-4 Silver 1.83E-04 J 6.28E-04 μg/m3 S071SU0410XX 16/30 0.43 - 0.53 6.28E-04 NA 1.80E+00 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-23-5 Sodium 3.26E-02 J 7.38E-02 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAC0204 15/21 1.5 - 1.9 7.38E-02 8.66E-05 N/A NA NA NO NUT

7440-28-0 Thallium 3.77E-05 J 5.27E-04 J μg/m3 WS16-DSAA0204 17/30 0.11 - 0.79 5.27E-04 4.02E-07 2.60E-02 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-31-5 Tin 1.15E-01 1.19E-01 μg/m3 WS16-DSM0204 2/21 400 - 529 1.19E-01 1.68E-06 2.20E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

7440-62-2 Vanadium 2.18E-03 J 1.14E-02 μg/m3 WS16-DSC0408 21/21 0.22 - 0.26 1.14E-02 1.74E-05 2.60E+00 N NA NA NO BSL7440-66-6 Zinc 6.22E-03 1.00E-01 μg/m3

WS16-DSM0204 30/30 0.43 - 0.53 1.00E-01 1.94E-05 1.10E+02 N NA NA NO BSL

* Subsurface soil as surface soil

** These chemicals were excluded from the COPC list because their concentrations were statistically comparable to or less than the background concentrations (Appendix C, RI report).

[1] Minimum/Maximum detected concentrations in soil multiplied by estimated fugitive dust concentration (251 μg/m3) to get minimum and maximum concentrations in air. SQL = Sample Quantification Limit


[3] Background values are soil concentrations multiplied by estimated fugitive dust concentration as discussed above. ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/

[4] Risk-Based Concentration Table, October 27, 1999, U.S. EPA Region III, Jennifer Hubbard. To Be Considered

Ambient air RBC (Cancer benchmark value = 1E-06, adjusted HQ=0.1). J = Estimated Value

RBC value for Chromium VI used for total chromium. L = Biased Low

RBC value for acenaphthene used as surrogate for acenaphthylene. N = Noncarcinogenic

RBC value for pyrene used as surrogate for phenanthrene. C =Carcinogenic

[5] Rationale Codes

06/05/20067:30 PM Page 3 of 3


TABLE 3.1

MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY



Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Point: Columbia Aquifer - Water in Excavation Pit

Chemical Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum Maximum EPC Reasonable Maximum Exposure Central Tendency

of Mean Normal Detected Qualifier Units

Potential Data Concentration Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Concern EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC


Benzene µg/l 5.83E+02 1.64E+03 6.40E+03 µg/l 6.40E+03 Max W - Test (2,4) 5.83E+02 Mean (5)

Bromodichloromethane µg/l 7.05E-01 1.04E+00 1.00E+00 J µg/l 1.00E+00 Max W - Test (2,4) 7.05E-01 Mean (5)

Chloroform µg/l 9.86E-01 1.64E+00 4.10E+00 J µg/l 1.83E+00 95% UCL - T W - Test (4) 9.86E-01 Mean (5)

Dibromochloromethane µg/l 6.48E-01 9.87E-01 3.80E-01 J µg/l 3.80E-01 Max W - Test (2,4) 3.80E-01 Max (2)

Dibenzofuran µg/l 6.85E+00 1.47E+01 3.00E+00 J µg/l 3.00E+00 Max W - Test (2,4) 3.00E+00 Max (2)

beta-BHC µg/l 1.19E-02 2.31E-02 7.30E-02 J µg/l 2.31E-02 95% UCL - T W - Test (4) 1.19E-02 Mean (5)

delta-BHC µg/l 1.71E-02 3.76E-02 1.30E-01 J µg/l 3.76E-02 95% UCL - N W - Test (3) 1.71E-02 Mean (5)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin µg/l 9.48E-05 2.03E-04 3.10E-04 J µg/l 3.10E-04 Max W - Test (2) 9.48E-05 Mean (5)

1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin µg/l 1.08E-05 1.91E-05 2.00E-05 J µg/l 2.00E-05 Max W - Test (2,4) 1.08E-05 Mean (5)

Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin µg/l 4.93E-03 1.11E-02 1.80E-02 µg/l 1.80E-02 Max W - Test (2,4) 4.93E-03 Mean (5)

Aluminum µg/l 6.12E+03 1.35E+04 4.08E+04 J µg/l 4.08E+04 Max W - Test (2) 6.12E+03 Mean (5)

Antimony µg/l 2.19E+00 3.00E+00 5.30E+00 J µg/l 3.42E+00 95% UCL - T W - Test (4) 2.19E+00 Mean (5)

Arsenic µg/l 1.30E+01 2.07E+01 4.69E+01 J µg/l 2.99E+01 95% UCL - T W - Test (1) 1.30E+01 Mean (5)

Barium µg/l 3.41E+02 4.62E+02 6.93E+02 J µg/l 6.78E+02 95% UCL - T W - Test (4) 3.41E+02 Mean (5)

Cadmium µg/l 9.24E+00 2.54E+01 8.84E+01 µg/l 4.59E+01 95% UCL - N W - Test (4) 9.24E+00 Mean (5)

Chromium µg/l 1.58E+01 3.21E+01 8.93E+01 µg/l 8.93E+01 Max W - Test (2) 1.58E+01 Mean (5)

Iron µg/l 5.22E+04 7.53E+04 1.35E+05 µg/l 1.35E+05 Max W - Test (4) 5.22E+04 Mean (5)

Lead µg/l 1.56E+01 2.74E+01 5.89E+01 µg/l 5.89E+01 Max W - Test (2,4) 1.56E+01 Mean (5)

Manganese µg/l 9.18E+02 1.29E+03 2.30E+03 µg/l 1.67E+03 95% UCL - T W - Test (1) 9.18E+02 Mean (5)

Thallium µg/l 2.19E+00 3.10E+00 4.90E+00 µg/l 3.85E+00 95% UCL - T W - Test (4) 2.19E+00 Mean (5)

Vanadium µg/l 2.81E+01 6.51E+01 2.06E+02 µg/l 2.06E+02 Max W - Test (2,4) 2.81E+01 Mean (5)

For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit was used as a proxy concentration; for duplicate sample results, the maximum value was used in the calculation. W - Test: Developed by Shapiro and Wilk, refer to Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term, OSWER Directive 9285.7-081, May 1992.

06/05/20068:24 PM Page 1 of 2

TAB3_S16-Navy.xlstb3.1-not used in ROD

TABLE 3.1




Medium: Groundwater








Options: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T); Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T);

Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N); 1/2 of the Maximum Reporting Limit (Max RL).

CT: Mean value used per discussions with EPA.

(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.

(2) 95% UCL or mean exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC.

(3) Shapiro-Wilks W Test indicates data are normally distributed.

(4) Shapiro-Wilks W Test inconclusive. Higher of normal or log-transformed value used for EPC.

(5) Normal mean value used.

06/05/20068:24 PM Page 2 of 2

TAB3_S16-Navy.xlstb3.1-not used in ROD

TABLE 3.2




Medium: Groundwater


Exposure Point: Columbia Aquifer - Volatilization from Water in Excavation Pit






Benzene µg/l 5.83E+02 1.64E+03 6.40E+03 µg/l 6.40E+03 Max W - Test (2,4) 5.83E+02 Mean (5)

Bromodichloromethane µg/l 7.05E-01 1.04E+00 1.00E+00 J µg/l 1.00E+00 Max W - Test (2,4) 7.05E-01 Mean (5)

Chloroform µg/l 9.86E-01 1.64E+00 4.10E+00 J µg/l 1.83E+00 95% UCL - T W - Test (4) 9.86E-01 Mean (5)

Dibromochloromethane µg/l 6.48E-01 9.87E-01 3.80E-01 J µg/l 3.80E-01 Max W - Test (2,4) 3.80E-01 Max (2)

Dibenzofuran µg/l 6.85E+00 1.47E+01 3.00E+00 J µg/l 3.00E+00 Max W - Test (2,4) 3.00E+00 Max (2)

beta-BHC µg/l 1.19E-02 2.31E-02 7.30E-02 J µg/l 2.31E-02 95% UCL - T W - Test (4) 1.19E-02 Mean (5)

delta-BHC µg/l 1.71E-02 3.76E-02 1.30E-01 J µg/l 3.76E-02 95% UCL - N W - Test (3) 1.71E-02 Mean (5)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin µg/l 9.48E-05 2.03E-04 3.10E-04 J µg/l 3.10E-04 Max W - Test (2) 9.48E-05 Mean (5)

1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin µg/l 1.08E-05 1.91E-05 2.00E-05 J µg/l 2.00E-05 Max W - Test (2,4) 1.08E-05 Mean (5)

Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin µg/l 4.93E-03 1.11E-02 1.80E-02 µg/l 1.80E-02 Max W - Test (2,4) 4.93E-03 Mean (5)

Aluminum µg/l 6.12E+03 1.35E+04 4.08E+04 J µg/l 4.08E+04 Max W - Test (2) 6.12E+03 Mean (5)

Antimony µg/l 2.19E+00 3.00E+00 5.30E+00 J µg/l 3.42E+00 95% UCL - T W - Test (4) 2.19E+00 Mean (5)

Arsenic µg/l 1.30E+01 2.07E+01 4.69E+01 J µg/l 2.99E+01 95% UCL - T W - Test (1) 1.30E+01 Mean (5)

Barium µg/l 3.41E+02 4.62E+02 6.93E+02 J µg/l 6.78E+02 95% UCL - T W - Test (4) 3.41E+02 Mean (5)

Cadmium µg/l 9.24E+00 2.54E+01 8.84E+01 µg/l 4.59E+01 95% UCL - N W - Test (4) 9.24E+00 Mean (5)

Chromium µg/l 1.58E+01 3.21E+01 8.93E+01 µg/l 8.93E+01 Max W - Test (2) 1.58E+01 Mean (5)

Iron µg/l 5.22E+04 7.53E+04 1.35E+05 µg/l 1.35E+05 Max W - Test (4) 5.22E+04 Mean (5)

Lead µg/l 1.56E+01 2.74E+01 5.89E+01 µg/l 5.89E+01 Max W - Test (2,4) 1.56E+01 Mean (5)

Manganese µg/l 9.18E+02 1.29E+03 2.30E+03 µg/l 1.67E+03 95% UCL - T W - Test (1) 9.18E+02 Mean (5)

Thallium µg/l 2.19E+00 3.10E+00 4.90E+00 µg/l 3.85E+00 95% UCL - T W - Test (4) 2.19E+00 Mean (5)

Vanadium µg/l 2.81E+01 6.51E+01 2.06E+02 µg/l 2.06E+02 Max W - Test (2,4) 2.81E+01 Mean (5)


06/05/20068:25 PM Page 1 of 2

TAB3_S16-Navy.xlstb3.2 - not used in ROD

TABLE 3.2




Medium: Groundwater
















06/05/20068:25 PM Page 2 of 2

TAB3_S16-Navy.xlstb3.2 - not used in ROD

TABLE 3.3




Medium: Soil*

Exposure Medium: Soil*







Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 1.65E-01 2.24E-01 2.80E-01 J mg/kg 2.80E-01 Max W - Test (2,4) 1.65E-01 Mean (5)

4,4'-DDD mg/kg 1.91E-03 2.25E-03 6.20E-03 P mg/kg 2.28E-03 95%UCL-T W - Test (4) 1.91E-03 Mean (5)

4,4'-DDE mg/kg 1.96E-03 2.37E-03 7.50E-03 mg/kg 2.37E-03 95%UCL-N W - Test (4) 1.96E-03 Mean (5)

4,4'-DDT mg/kg 4.21E-03 8.68E-03 6.60E-02 mg/kg 8.68E-03 95%UCL-N W - Test (4) 4.21E-03 Mean (5)

1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin mg/kg 7.03E-05 1.63E-04 6.80E-04 J mg/kg 6.80E-04 Max W - Test (2,4) 7.03E-05 Mean (5)

Arsenic mg/kg 8.07E+00 1.02E+01 4.07E+01 mg/kg 9.89E+00 95%UCL-T W - Test (1) 8.07E+00 Mean (5)

Copper mg/kg 1.01E+02 1.31E+02 4.58E+02 mg/kg 1.50E+02 95%UCL-T W - Test (1) 1.01E+02 Mean (5)

* - subsurface that will become surface soil.










TABLE 3.4




Medium: Soil*








1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin mg/kg 7.03E-05 1.63E-04 6.80E-04 J mg/kg 6.80E-04 Max W - Test (2,4) 7.03E-05 Mean (5)

Arsenic mg/kg 8.04E+00 1.02E+01 4.07E+01 mg/kg 9.90E+00 95%UCL-T W - Test (1) 8.04E+00 Mean (5)

* - subsurface that will become surface soil.

Exposure concentration given in terms of soil, not air (the actual exposure medium). Air exposure concentration are shown in Tables 7.7-7.10 and 8.7-8.10. For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit was used as a proxy concentration; for duplicate sample results, the maximum value was used in the calculation. W - Test: Developed by Shapiro and Wilk, refer to Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term, OSWER Directive 9285.7-081, May 1992.









TABLE 4.1


Washington Navy Yard Site 16


Medium: Groundwater




Receptor Age: Adult


Reference ReferenceDermal

Absorption CW Chemical Concentration in Water µg/l see Table ---- see Table ---- chem specific CDI (mg/kg-day) =

DAevent Dermally Absorbed Dose per Event mg/cm2-event calculated EPA, 1992 calculated EPA, 1992 DAevent x SA x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT

CF1 Conversion Factor 1 mg/µg 0.001 - - 0.001 - -

PC Permeability Constant cm/hr chem specific EPA, 1992 chem specific EPA, 1992 Inorganics: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) =

t Lag Time hours chem specific EPA, 1992 chem specific EPA, 1992 PC x CW x ET x CF1 x CF2

t* Time to Reach Steady-state hours chem specific EPA, 1992 chem specific EPA, 1992

B Ratio of Permeability of Stratum Corneum to Epidermis dimensionless chem specific EPA, 1992 chem specific EPA, 1992 Organics :

ET Exposure Time hr/day 8 (1) 4 (1) ET<t*: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) =

CF2 Conversion Factor 2 l/cm3 0.001 - - 0.001 - - 2 x PC x CW x (sqrt((6 x t x ET)/3.1415))

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact cm2 6,000 EPA, 1997 (3) 5,400 EPA, 1997 (3) x CF1 x CF2


ED Exposure Duration years 1 EPA, 1991 1 EPA, 1991 ET>t*: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) =

BW Body Weight kg 70 EPA, 1991 70 EPA, 1991 PC x CW x ( ET/(1+B) + 2 x t x ((1 + 3xB)/(1+B))

AT-C Averaging Time (Cancer) days 25,550 EPA, 1989 25,550 EPA, 1989 x CF1 x CF2


(1) Professional Judgement based on construction activities that would result in contact with the groundwater for 8 hrs per day for the RME and 1/2 of a day for the CT.



(3) Skin surface area in contact with groundwater based on contact during construction activities. Assumed 30 percent of total surface area of male and females (hands, forearms, lower legs, and feet).

Sources:






Workbook: Tab4_WNY3.XLSWorksheet: t41 - not used in ROD 06/05/2006

TABLE 4.2




Medium: Groundwater




Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference

Inhalation CA Air concentration mg/m3 see Table -- see Table -- Two-Film Volatilization Model for CA


ET Exposure Time hr/day 8 (1) 4 (1) Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =


ED Exposure Duration years 1 EPA, 1991 1 EPA, 1991 CA x IN x ET x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT








Sources:





Workbook: Tab4_WNY3.XLSWorksheet: t42-not used in ROD 06/05/2006

TABLE 4.3




Medium: Soil*

Exposure Medium: Soil



Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference

Ingestion CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table ---- see Table ---- - - Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =








Absorption CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table ---- see Table ---- - - CDI (mg/kg-day) =



DABS Dermal Absorption Factor Solids -- chem specific EPA, 1995 chem specific EPA, 1995








(2) RME SSAF is soil adherence to hands for Utility Workers No. 1 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12. CT SSAF is average soil adherence to hands Utility Workers No. 1 and No. 2 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12.

Sources:






EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa; SSAF is based on maximum adherence factor for utility workers.

DABS: Based on Region III Technical Guidance "Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil, December 1995", for constituents not listed used volatile organics value of 20%, semi-volatile organics value of 10%,


Workbook: Tab4_WNY3.XLSWorksheet: t43 06/05/2006

TABLE 4.4




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference



















(1): Professional Judgement assuming 2 days per week for 52 weeks per year for the RME and 1/2 the RME value for the CT.


(3) RME SSAF is soil adherence to hands for Gardeners No. 1 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12. CT SSAF is average soil adherence to hands Gardeners No. 1 and No. 2 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12.

Sources:






EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa; SSAF is based on maximum adherence factor for gardeners.




TABLE 4.5




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Child


Reference Reference

Ingestion CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table ---- see Table ---- Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =



ED Exposure Duration years 6 (2) 3 (2)





Absorption CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg see Table ---- see Table ---- CDI (mg/kg-day) =











(2) Professional Judgement assuming child from 1 to 6 years of age for the RME and approximately 1/2 the duration for the CT.

(3) SA is 25% of the total surface area for 3-6 year old male. For RME used 95th percentile (0.876 m 2) and for CT used 50th percentile (0.728 m2).

(4) RME SSAF is soil adherence to hands for Soccer No. 1 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12. CT SSAF is average soil adherence to hands Soccer No. 1 and No. 2 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12.

Sources:






EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa; SSAF is based on maximum adherence factor for soccer players.




TABLE 4.6




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference



















Sources:






EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa; SSAF based on maximum adherence factor for gardeners.


and Inorganics value of 1%. SA: Based on 25% of total body surface area for adult (25% of 23,000 cme for RME and 24% of 20,000 cm2 for CT).


TABLE 4.7




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Child


Reference Reference




















Sources:






EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa; SSAF based on maximum adherence factor for soccer players.



SA: Skin surface area for the RME is based on the 50th percentile total surface area for the child ages 5-6 years (Table 6-6 of EPA, 1999). The CT value is based on the average between the 50th percentile surface areas for the child ages 2-3 years and 5-6 years.


TABLE 4.8




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Adult/Child


Reference Reference


IR-S-A Ingestion Rate of Soil, Adult mg/day 100 EPA, 1991 50 EPA, 1993 CS x IR-S-Adj x EF x CF3 x 1/AT

IR-S-C Ingestion Rate of Soil, Child mg/day 200 EPA, 1991 100 EPA, 1993

IR-S-Adj Ingestion Rate of Soil, Age-adjusted mg-year/kg-day 114.29 calculated 46.43 calculated IR-S-Adj (mg-year/kg-day) =

EF Exposure Frequency days/year 350 EPA, 1991 234 EPA, 1993 (ED-C x IR-S-C / BW-C) + (ED-A x IR-S-A / BW-A)


ED-C Exposure Duration, Child years 6 EPA, 1991 6 (1)


BW-A Body Weight , Adult kg 70 EPA, 1991 70 EPA, 1991


AT-C Averaging Time (Cancer) days 25,550 EPA, 1989 25,550 EPA, 1989Dermal


SA-A Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Adult cm2 5,800 EPA, 1992 5,000 EPA, 1992 CS x DA-Adj x DABS x CF3 x EF x 1/AT

SA-C Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Child cm2 2,379 EPA, 1997 2,094 EPA, 1997

SSAF-A Soil to Skin Adherence Factor, Adult mg/cm2-day 0.2 EPA, 1997a 0.2 EPA, 1992

SSAF-C Soil to Skin Adherence Factor, Child mg/cm2-day 0.11 EPA, 1997a 0.11 EPA, 1992 DA-Adj (mg-year/kg-day) =

DA-Adj Dermal Absorption, Age-adjusted mg-year/kg-day 502.39 calculated 220.71 calculated [(ED-C x SA-C / BW-C)*SSAF-C + (ED-A x SA-A / BW-A)*SSAF-A]






BW-A Body Weight , Adult kg 70 EPA, 1991 70 EPA, 1991



* Includes surface/subsurface soil.(1) Not available, used RME value.


TABLE 4.8




Medium: Soil*





Sources:






EPA, 1997a: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.

EPA, 1997b: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Supplemental guidance, Dermal Risk Assessment Guidance. Interim Guidance. NCEA-W-0364.




TABLE 4.9




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference








AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) days 365 EPA, 1989 365 EPA, 1989Dermal











* Includes surface/subsurface soil.(1) Not available, used RME value.

(2) Professional Judgement assuming that the construction would be open for 3 months (20 days per month) for the RME based on similar size excavations that have occurred at the WNY. It was assumed the duratio



(4) RME SSAF is soil adherence to hands for Construction Workers from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12. CT is 0.75 times the RME per discussions with EPA and NEHC on November 22, 1999.

Sources:










TABLE 4.10




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference







EF Exposure Frequency days/year 250 EPA,1991 219 EPA, 1993







Sources:





EPA, 1999: Risk-Based Concentration Table. October 27, 1999.


TABLE 4.11




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference















Sources:







TABLE 4.12




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Child


Reference Reference













(2) Professional Judgement assuming 2 days per week for 52 weeks per year for the RME and 1/2 the RME value for the CT.

(3) Professional Judgement assuming child from 1 to 6 years of age for the RME and approximately 1/2 the duration for the CT.

(4) Inhalation rate for child (age 6) sedentary activities.

Sources:








TABLE 4.13




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference



PEF Particulate Emissions Factor kg/m3 1.32E+09 EPA, 1996 1.32E+09 EPA, 1996




EF Exposure Frequency days/year 350 EPA, 1991 234 EPA,1993






Sources:





EPA, 1999: Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table. October 27, 1999.


TABLE 4.14




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Child


Reference Reference














Sources:







TABLE 4.15




Medium: Soil*






Reference Reference


CA Chemical Concentration in Air mg/m3 see Table ---- - - see Table --- - - CA x IN-S-Adj x ET x EF x 1/AT


VF Volatilization Factor for volatile constituents m3/kg calc EPA, 1996 calc EPA, 1996 IN-S-Adj (m3-year/kg-hour) =

IN-S-A Inhalation Rate, Adult m3/hour 0.83 EPA, 1999 0.83 EPA, 1999 (ED-C x IN-S-C / BW-C) + (ED-A x IN-S-A / BW-A)

IN-S-C Inhalation Rate, Child m3/hour 0.5 EPA, 1999 0.5 EPA, 1999

IN-S-Adj Inhalation Rate, Age-adjusted m3-year/kg-hour 0.49 calculated 0.31 calculated





BW-A Body Weight, Adult kg 70 EPA, 1991 70 EPA, 1991





Sources:







TABLE 4.16




Medium: Soil*




Receptor Age: Adult


Reference Reference



FDC Fugivite Dust Concentration in Air kg/m3 calc (1) calc (1)









* Includes surface/subsurface soil.(1) Professional Judgement based on maintenance activities that would occur 8 hrs per day for the RME and 1/2 of a day for the CT.




Sources:






Calc. (1): Calculated in Appendix--- Section Generation of Fugitive Dust During Construction Activites.Workbook: Tab4_WNY3.XLSWorksheet: t416 06/05/2006

TABLE 5.1






Aluminum Chronic 1.0E+00 mg/kg-day 27% 2.7E-01 mg/kg-day CNS 100 NCEA 08/26/1996

Subchronic N/A

Antimony Chronic 4.0E-04 mg/kg-day 10% 4.0E-05 mg/kg-day Blood 1000 IRIS 06/17/1998

Subchronic 4.0E-04 mg/kg-day 10% 4.0E-05 mg/kg-day Blood 1000 HEAST 07/08/1998

Arsenic Chronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 95% 2.9E-04 mg/kg-day Skin 3 IRIS 06/17/1998

Subchronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 95% 2.9E-04 mg/kg-day Skin 3 HEAST 07/08/1998Barium Chronic 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day 100% 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day Cardiovascular 3 IRIS 06/17/1998

Subchronic 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day 100% 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day Cardiovascular 3 HEAST 07/08/1998

Cadmium (Food) Chronic 1.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.5% 2.5E-05 mg/kg-day Kidney 10 IRIS 06/17/1998

Subchronic N/A

Cadmium (Water) Chronic 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 5% 2.5E-05 mg/kg-day Kidney 10 IRIS 06/17/1998

Subchronic N/AChromium (hexavalent) Chronic 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1% 3.0E-05 mg/kg-day NOAEL 500 IRIS 06/17/1998

Subchronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1% 2.0E-04 mg/kg-day NOAEL 100 HEAST 07/08/1998Copper Chronic 4.0E-02 mg/kg-day 60% 2.4E-02 mg/kg-day Gastrointestinal N/A HEAST 07/08/1998

Subchronic 4.0E-02 mg/kg-day 60% 2.4E-02 mg/kg-day Gastrointestinal N/A HEAST 07/08/1998Iron Chronic 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day 20% 6.0E-02 mg/kg-day Gastrointestinal 1 NCEA 07/23/1996

Subchronic N/AManganese (nonfood) Chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 35% 7.0E-03 mg/kg-day CNS 1 IRIS 06/17/1998

Subchronic N/AManganese (food) Chronic 1.4E-01 mg/kg-day 5% 7.0E-03 mg/kg-day CNS 1 IRIS 06/17/1998

Subchronic 1.4E-01 mg/kg-day 5% 7.0E-03 mg/kg-day CNS 1 IRIS 07/08/1998Mercury Chronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 100% 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day Nervous System 100 IRIS 06/17/1998

Subchronic NA mg/kg-day mg/kg-dayThallium Chronic 7.0E-05 mg/kg-day 100% 7.0E-05 mg/kg-day Liver & Blood O

Subchronic N/A

TABLE 5.1






Vanadium Chronic 7.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2% 1.4E-04 mg/kg-day NOAEL 100 HEAST 07/08/1998

Subchronic 7.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2% 1.4E-04 mg/kg-day NOAEL 100 HEAST 07/08/19984,4'-DDT Chronic 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 80% 4.0E-04 mg/kg-day Liver 100 IRIS 07/08/1998

Subchronic 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 80% 4.0E-04 mg/kg-day Liver 100 HEAST 07/08/1998Dibenzofuran Chronic 4.0E-03 mg/kg-day 70% 2.8E-03 mg/kg-day Kidney 3000 NCEA 08/29/1994

Subchronic N/ABenzene Chronic 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 100% 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day Liver 3000 NCEA 07/02/1996

Subchronic 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day 100% 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day Liver 3000 NCEA 07/02/1996Bromodichloromethane Chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 80% 1.6E-02 mg/kg-day Kidney 1000 IRIS 01/00

Subchronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 80% 1.6E-02 mg/kg-day Kidney 1000 HEAST 07/97Chloroform Chronic 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day 100% 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day Liver 1000 IRIS 07/02/1998

Subchronic N/ADibromochloromethane Chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day 80% 1.6E-02 mg/kg-day Liver 1000 IRIS 08/01/1991

Subchronic N/A mg/kg-day

N/A = Not Applicable or Not Available. IRIS indicates that calculations of dermal risks may not be appropriate for this chemical.

(1) Refer to RAGS, Part A. Source is EPA Region III Oral Absorption Values for Oral-to-Dermal Extrapolation , April 8, 1999.

For constituents not available in the Region III document the following general values were used: VOCs - 80%, Pesticides/PCBs - 50%, dioxins/furans - 50%, and metals - 20%.

ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables

NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment

(2) Provide equation for derivation in text.

(3) For IRIS values, provide the date IRIS was searched. RESP = Respiratory System

For HEAST values, provide the date of HEAST. CNS = Central Nervous System

For NCEA values, provide the date of the article provided by NCEA. NOAEL = No adverse effect level

TABLE 5.2





Concern RfC RfD (1) Organ Factors Target Organ

(2)

Aluminum Chronic 5.00E-03 mg/m3 1.00E-03 mg/kg-day CNS 300 NCEA 06/20/1997

Subchronic N/A

Barium Chronic 4.90E-04 mg/m3 1.40E-04 mg/kg-day Cardiovascular ASubchronic N/A

Cadmium Chronic 2.21E+01 mg/m3 5.70E-05 mg/kg-day Kidney 10 IRIS 06/17/1998

Subchronic N/A

Chromium Chronic 1.05E-04 mg/m3 3.00E-05 mg/kg-day NOAEL 100 NCEA 11/18/1997

Subchronic 4.00E-06 mg/m3 3.00E-04 mg/kg-day NOAEL 100 NCEA 11/18/1997

Manganese Chronic 5.01E-05 mg/m3 1.43E-05 mg/kg-day CNS 1 IRIS 06/17/1998

Subchronic N/A

Benzene Chronic 5.95E-03 mg/m3 1.70E-03 mg/kg-day Liver 10 NCEA 07/02/1996

Subchronic 5.95E-02 mg/m3 1.70E-02 mg/kg-day Liver 100 NCEA 07/02/1996

Chloroform Chronic 3.01E-04 mg/m3 8.60E-05 mg/kg-day Liver and Kidney 10 E 12/01/1997

Subchronic 3.00E-03 mg/m3 8.60E-04 mg/kg-day Liver and Kidney 100 E 12/01/1997

beta-BHC Chronic 2.21E+01 mg/m3 1.80E+00 mg/kg-day Liver IRIS 01/01/1991

Subchronic

N/A = Not Applicable ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

(1) Provide equation used for derivation in text. IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System(2) HEAST, Alternative Methods used as source of barium values. HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables

Chromium and cadmium values were withdrawn from HEAST, but available in Region III RBC Table. HEAST(3) = Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Alternate Methods

(3) For IRIS values, provide the date IRIS was searched. HEAST(4)= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Withdrawn

For HEAST values, provide the date of HEAST. NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment


06/05/2006

TABLE 6.1






Arsenic 1.5E+00 95% 1.6E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1

A IRIS 07/08/1998

4,4'-DDD 2.4E-01 80% 3.0E-01 (mg/kg-day) -1 B2 IRIS 07/08/1998

4,4'-DDE 3.4E-01 80% 4.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) -1 B2 IRIS 07/08/1998

4,4'-DDT 3.4E-01 80% 4.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) -1 B2 IRIS 07/08/1998

2,3,7,8-TCDD* 1.5E+05 50% 3.0E+05 (mg/kg-day) -1 B2 IRIS 07/08/1998

Benzo(a)pyrene 7.3E+00 NU (mg/kg-day) -1 B2 IRIS 07/08/1998

Benzene 2.9E-02 100% 2.9E-02 (mg/kg-day) -1 A IRIS 07/08/1998

Bromodichloromethane 6.2E-02 80% 7.8E-02 (mg/kg-day) C IRIS 07/08/1998Chloroform 6.1E-03 100% 6.1E-03 (mg/kg-day) -1 B2 IRIS 07/08/1998

Dibromochloromethane 8.4E-02 80% 1.1E-01 (mg/kg-day) -1 C IRIS 08/01/1991

beta-BHC 1.8E+00 50% 3.6E+00 (mg/kg-day) -1 C IRIS 01/01/1991

delta-BHC 1.8E+00 50% 3.6E+00 (mg/kg-day) -1 B2 IRIS 01/01/1991

NU-Did not use the oral slope factor for dermal evaluation because the chemicals may act directly at the point of contact per Memorandum from Jennifer Hubbard, 12/19/96.

N/A-Not available EPA Carcinogen Group:

IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System A - Human carcinogen

HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables B1 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates that limited human data are available

NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment B2 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence in animals and

U = Under review. inadequate or no evidence in humans


D - Not classifiable as a human carcinogen

E - Evidence of noncarcinogenicity

(1) Refer to RAGS, Part A. Source is EPA Region III Oral Absorption Values for Oral-to-Dermal Extrapolation , April 8, 1999.

For constituents not available in the Region III document the following general values were used: VOCs - 80%, Pesticides/PCBs - 50%, dioxins/furans - 50%, and metals - 20%.

* - 2,3,7,8-TCDD value from Derivation of Toxicity Values for Dermal Exposure from the Toxicologist (USEPA, March 1996), Volume 30, Number 1, Part 2.

(2) For IRIS values, provide the date IRIS was searched. For HEAST values, provide the date of HEAST.

For NCEA values, provide article date provided by NCEA.

06/05/20068:32 PM Page1of1

TAB6_S16.XLSTABLE61

TABLE 6.2





Concern Description

Arsenic 4.0E-03 (ug/m3) -1 3500 1.5E+01 (mg/kg-day) -1 A IRIS 06/13/1998

Cadmium 1.8E-03 (ug/m3) -1 3500 6.3E+00 (mg/kg-day) -1 B1 IRIS 06/13/1998

Chromium 1.2E-02 (ug/m3) -1 3500 4.1E+01 (mg/kg-day) -1 A HEAST 06/13/1998

beta-BHC 5.1E-04 (ug/m3) -1 3500 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day) -1 C IRIS 06/13/1998

delta-BHC 5.1E-04 (ug/m3) -1 3500 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day) -1 C IRIS 06/13/1998

2,3,7,8-TCDD 4.3E+01 (ug/m3) -1 3500 1.5E+05 (mg/kg-day) -1 B2 IRIS 06/13/1998

Benzene 8.3E-06 (ug/m3) -1 3500 2.9E-02 (mg/kg-day) -1 A IRIS 06/13/1998

Chloroform 2.3E-05 (ug/m3) -1 3500 8.1E-02 (mg/kg-day) -1 B2 IRIS 06/13/1998

IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System EPA Group:

HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables A - Human carcinogen

NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment B1 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates that limited human data are available

U = Under review. B2 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence in animals and

N/A = Not Available inadequate or no evidence in humans


(1) Adjustment Factor applied to Unit Risk to calculate Inhalation Slope Factor = D - Not classifiable as a human carcinogen

70kg x 1/20m3/day x 1000ug/mg E - Evidence of noncarcinogenicity


For HEAST values, provide the date of HEAST.


For RBC values, provide the date of last change in the Tables.

06/05/20068:33 PM Page1of1

filename:TAB6_S16.XLSsheetname:TABLE62

TABLE 6.2.SupplementCANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL AND INHALATION


Toxicity Equivalency Factors (TEF) Oral Inhalation Dermal(6)

2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 1.50E+05 1.50E+05 3.00E+05Total TCDD(1) NB 1.50E+05 1.50E+05 3.00E+051,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 1.50E+03 1.50E+03 3.00E+03Total HpCDD(2) 0.01 1.50E+03 1.50E+03 3.00E+031,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 1.50E+04 1.50E+04 3.00E+04Total HxCDD(3) 0.1 1.50E+04 1.50E+04 3.00E+04OCDD 0.001 1.50E+02 1.50E+02 3.00E+021,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 7.50E+04 7.50E+04 1.50E+05Total PeCDD(4) 0.5 7.50E+04 7.50E+04 1.50E+05Total PeCDF(5) 0.05 7.50E+03 7.50E+03 1.50E+04Adjusted slope factors calculated by multiplying 2,3,7,8-TCDD slope factor by TEF.

(6) - Oral absorption efficiency of 50% for 2,3,7,8-TCDD conservatively used.(5) - TEF for 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF used as a surrogate for Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran.

(1) - TEF for 2,3,7,8-TCDD conservatively used as a surrogate for Total TCDD.

Adjusted Slope Factor

(4) - TEF for 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF used as a surrogate for Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.(3) - TEF for 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD used as a surrogate for Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.

Chemical Name

(2) - TEF for 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD used as a surrogate for Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.

Table 7.1a.RME SupplementCalculation of DAevent

Columbia AquiferWashington Navy Yard - Site 16

Chemical Medium Medium Permeability Lag Durationof Potential EPC EPC t* Constant Time B of

Concern Value Units (PC) (t) Event(ET) DAevent

Benzene 6.40E+03 µg/l 6.30E-01 2.10E-02 2.60E-01 1.30E-02 8 5.36E-04Bromodichloromethane 1.00E+00 µg/l 2.10E+00 5.80E-03 8.70E-01 1.20E-02 8 4.23E-08Chloroform 1.83E+00 µg/l 1.10E+00 8.90E-03 4.70E-01 9.30E-03 8 8.74E-08Dibromochloromethane* 3.80E-01 µg/l 8 1.33E-02Dibenzofuran* 3.00E+00 µg/l 8 3.36E+00beta-BHC* 2.31E-02 µg/l 8 6.37E-03delta-BHC* 3.76E-02 µg/l 8 1.87E-021,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 3.10E-04 µg/l 8 4.57E-021,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 2.00E-05 µg/l 8 1.92E-03Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 1.80E-02 µg/l 8 5.38E+00Aluminum 4.08E+04 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 3.26E-04Antimony 3.42E+00 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 2.74E-08Arsenic 2.99E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 2.39E-07Barium 6.78E+02 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 5.42E-06Cadmium 4.59E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 3.67E-07Chromium 8.93E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 7.14E-07Iron 1.35E+05 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.08E-03Lead 5.89E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 4.71E-07Manganese 1.67E+03 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.34E-05Thallium 3.85E+00 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 3.08E-08Vanadium 2.06E+02 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.65E-06

Permeability constants from EPA 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principals and Applications. ORD, EPA/600/8-91/001B. Default value of 0.001 cm/hour used for inorganics without published values (all of the COPCs).N/A - not applicable.* - DAevent calculated as shown in Table 7.1b.RME SupplementInorganics: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) =

PC x CW x ET x CF1 x CF2

Organics :ET<t*: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) = 2 x PC x CW x (sqrt((6 x t x ET)/3.1415)) x CF1 x CF2

ET>t*: DAevent (mg/cm2-event) = PC x CW x ( ET/(1+B) + 2 x t x ((1 + 3xB)/(1+B)) x CF1 x CF2

8:37 PM06/05/2006

Filename:TAB7_S16-Navy.xlsSheetname:DAeventRMEa - not used in RODPage1of28

Chemical MW log Kow Kow log Kp Kp B log Dsc/lsc lsc log Dsc Dsc Tau c b T* Tevent DAevent(cm/hr) (cm) (cm2/hr) (hr) (hr) (hr/event) mg/(cm2-event)

dibromochloromethane 208.28 2.09 1.23E+02 -2.51E+00 3.11E-03 1.23E-02 -3.99E+00 1.00E-03 -6.99E+00 1.02E-07 1.63E+00 3.46E-01 3.07E-01 3.91E+00 8 3.80E-01 1.33E-02dibenzofuran 168.19 4.12 1.32E+04 -8.21E-01 1.51E-01 1.32E+00 -3.75E+00 1.00E-03 -6.75E+00 1.79E-07 9.29E-01 1.65E+00 1.77E+00 6.32E+00 8 3.00E+00 3.36E+00beta-BHC 290.83 3.78 6.03E+03 -1.81E+00 1.55E-02 6.03E-01 -4.49E+00 1.00E-03 -7.49E+00 3.21E-08 5.20E+00 9.36E-01 6.99E-01 8.88E+01 8 2.31E-02 6.37E-03delta-BHC 290.83 4.14 1.38E+04 -1.55E+00 2.79E-02 1.38E+00 -4.49E+00 1.00E-03 -7.49E+00 3.21E-08 5.20E+00 1.71E+00 1.89E+00 3.39E+01 8 3.76E-02 1.87E-021,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 425.28 8.2 1.58E+08 5.08E-01 3.22E+00 1.58E+04 -5.31E+00 1.00E-03 -8.31E+00 4.85E-09 3.44E+01 1.58E+04 1.60E+08 1.62E+02 8 3.10E-04 4.57E-021,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 390.87 7.79 6.17E+07 4.27E-01 2.67E+00 6.17E+03 -5.10E+00 1.00E-03 -8.10E+00 7.86E-09 2.12E+01 6.17E+03 2.42E+07 9.99E+01 8 2.00E-05 1.92E-03Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 459.8 8.78 6.03E+08 7.09E-01 5.12E+00 6.03E+04 -5.52E+00 1.00E-03 -8.52E+00 2.99E-09 5.58E+01 6.03E+04 2.31E+09 2.63E+02 8 1.80E-02 5.38E+00Equations from Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications . EPA/600/8-91/011B. January 1992.

Medium EPC Value, Cv?

Table 7.1b.RME SupplementCalculation of DAevent



REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSUREWashington Navy Yard - Site 16

Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: GroundwaterExposure Medium: GroundwaterExposure Point: Columbia Aquifer - Water in Excavation Pit Receptor Population: Construction WorkerReceptor Age: Adult



Dermal Absorption Benzene 6.40E+03 µg/l 6.40E+03 µg/l M 7.55E-03 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 2.5E+00

Bromodichloromethane 1.00E+00 µg/l 1.00E+00 µg/l M 5.96E-07 mg/kg-day 1.6E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 3.7E-05Chloroform 1.83E+00 µg/l 1.83E+00 µg/l M 1.23E-06 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.2E-04Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 µg/l 3.80E-01 µg/l M 1.87E-01 mg/kg-day 1.6E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.2E+01Dibenzofuran 3.00E+00 µg/l 3.00E+00 µg/l M 4.74E+01 mg/kg-day 2.8E-03 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.7E+04beta-BHC 2.31E-02 µg/l 2.31E-02 µg/l M 8.98E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/Adelta-BHC 3.76E-02 µg/l 3.76E-02 µg/l M 2.63E-01 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 3.10E-04 µg/l 3.10E-04 µg/l M 6.44E-01 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.00E-05 µg/l 2.00E-05 µg/l M 2.71E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/ATotal Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.80E-02 µg/l 1.80E-02 µg/l M 7.58E+01 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/AAluminum 4.08E+04 µg/l 4.08E+04 µg/l M 4.60E-03 mg/kg-day 2.7E-01 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.7E-02Antimony 3.42E+00 µg/l 3.42E+00 µg/l M 3.86E-07 mg/kg-day 4.0E-05 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 9.6E-03Arsenic 2.99E+01 µg/l 2.99E+01 µg/l M 3.37E-06 mg/kg-day 2.9E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.2E-02Barium 6.78E+02 µg/l 6.78E+02 µg/l M 7.64E-05 mg/kg-day 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.1E-03Cadmium 4.59E+01 µg/l 4.59E+01 µg/l M 5.17E-06 mg/kg-day 2.5E-05 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 2.1E-01Chromium 8.93E+01 µg/l 8.93E+01 µg/l M 1.01E-05 mg/kg-day 2.0E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 5.0E-02Iron 1.35E+05 µg/l 1.35E+05 µg/l M 1.52E-02 mg/kg-day 6.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 2.5E-01Lead 5.89E+01 µg/l 5.89E+01 µg/l M 6.64E-06 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/AManganese 1.67E+03 µg/l 1.67E+03 µg/l M 1.89E-04 mg/kg-day 7.0E-03 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 2.7E-02Thallium 3.85E+00 µg/l 3.85E+00 µg/l M 4.34E-07 mg/kg-day 7.0E-05 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 6.2E-03Vanadium 2.06E+02 µg/l 2.06E+02 µg/l M 2.32E-05 mg/kg-day 1.4E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.7E-01

(Total) 1.7E+04


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Subchronic value used if available. Chronic value used if no subchronic value available.Permeability constants from EPA 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principals and Applications. ORD, EPA/600/8-91/001B. Default value of 0.001 cm/hour used for inorganics without published values (all of the COPCs).Nonfood reference dose for manganese.

8:37 PM06/05/2006

Filename:TAB7_S16-Navy.xlsSheetname:Table 7.1 - not used in RODPage3of28

Table 7.2.RME SupplementInhalation of Volatiles from Groundwater During Construction

Inhalation Exposure Concentrations Calculated Using a Two-Film Volatilization ModelFuture Construction Worker Senario

Washington Navy Yard - Site 16Chemical Cw MW KH kl kg Kv ER ERa Ca

(μg/L) (mol/gram) (unitless) (cm/hr) (cm/hr) (cm/hr) (mg/hr) (g/sec-m2) (mg/m3)Benzene 6.40E+03 7.81E+01 2.28E-01 3.52E+00 2.13E+03 3.49E+00 2.24E+04 1.54E-06 1.21E-02Bromodichloromethane 1.00E+00 1.64E+02 6.56E-02 2.93E+00 1.77E+03 2.85E+00 2.85E+00 1.96E-10 1.45E-06Chloroform 1.83E+00 1.19E+02 1.50E-01 3.17E+00 1.92E+03 3.13E+00 5.74E+00 3.94E-10 3.22E-06Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 2.08E+02 3.21E-02 2.75E+00 1.67E+03 2.62E+00 9.96E-01 6.84E-11 5.05E-06

EquationsEquation 1 Kv= 1/(1/kl + 1/KH*Kg)Equation 2 kg = 700(18/MW)1/4V

Equation 3 kl = (32/MW)1/4Ka'

Equation 4 ER = Kv * Cw * L/1000 cm3 * mg/1000 μgEquation 5 ERa = ER * g/1000 mg * hr/60 min * min/60 sec * 1/A

Variables Units Exposure AssumptionsCw = groundwater concentration (μg/L) chem-specificMW = molecular weight (mol/gram) chem-specificKH - Henry's Law Constant (unitless) chem-specificKv = volatilization rate (cm/hr) Solved by Eq 1kg = gas phase transfer coefficient (cm/hr) Solved by Eq 2kl = liquid phase transfer coefficient (cm/hr) Solved by Eq 3V = wind speed (m/s) 4.4Ka' = aeration rate (cm/hr) 0.0633ER = emission rate (mg/hr) Solved by Eq 4A = area of excavation (m2) 4,044Era = area emission rate (g/sec-m2) Solved by Eq 5Ca = air concentration (mg/m3) Solved using SCREEN3 modelNote: aeration rate based on aeration rate for small pond (0.1/day) multiplied by depth of water in excavation (1/2 ft)

8:37 PM06/05/2006

Filename:TAB7_S16-Navy.xlsSheetname:volat-col-not used in RODPage4of28



Scenario Timeframe: Future Medium: GroundwaterExposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Columbia Aquifer - Volatilization from Water in Excavation Pit Receptor Population: Construction WorkerReceptor Age: Adult



Inhalation Benzene 6.40E+03 µg/l 1.21E-02 mg/m3 R 5.7E-04 mg/kg-day 1.7E-02 mg/kg-day 5.95E-02 mg/m3 3.3E-02Bromodichloromethane 1.00E+00 µg/l 1.45E-06 mg/m3 R 6.8E-08 mg/kg-day NA NA

Chloroform 1.83E+00 µg/l 3.22E-06 mg/m3 R 1.5E-07 mg/kg-day 8.6E-04 mg/kg-day 3.00E-03 mg/m3 1.8E-04Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 µg/l 5.05E-06 mg/m3 R 2.4E-07 mg/kg-day NA NA

(Total) 3.4E-02


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Subchronic value used if available. Chronic value used if no subchronic value available.

8:37 PM06/05/2006

Filename:TAB7_S16-Navy.xlsSheetname:Table 7.2-not used in RODPage5of28



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: Soil*Exposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Industrial WorkerReceptor Age: Adult



Ingestion Benzo(a)pyrene 2.80E-01 mg/kg 2.80E-01 mg/kg M 2.7E-07 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A

4,4'-DDD 2.28E+00 mg/kg 2.28E+00 mg/kg M 2.2E-06 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A

4,4'-DDE 2.37E-03 mg/kg 2.37E-03 mg/kg M 2.3E-09 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A

4,4'-DDT 8.68E-03 mg/kg 8.68E-03 mg/kg M 8.5E-09 mg/kg-day 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.7E-051,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodebenzo-p-dioxin 6.80E-04 mg/kg 6.80E-04 mg/kg M 6.7E-10 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A

Arsenic 9.89E+00 mg/kg 9.89E+00 mg/kg M 9.7E-06 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 3.2E-02Copper 1.50E+02 mg/kg 1.50E+02 mg/kg M 1.5E-04 mg/kg-day 4.0E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 3.7E-03

(Total) 3.6E-02Dermal Absorption Benzo(a)pyrene 2.80E-01 mg/kg 2.80E-01 mg/kg M 4.6E-07 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A 4,4'-DDD 2.28E+00 mg/kg 2.28E+00 mg/kg M 3.8E-06 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A

4,4'-DDE 2.37E-03 mg/kg 2.37E-03 mg/kg M 3.9E-09 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A4,4'-DDT 8.68E-03 mg/kg 8.68E-03 mg/kg M 1.4E-08 mg/kg-day 4.0E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 3.6E-051,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodebenzo-p-dioxin 6.80E-04 mg/kg 6.80E-04 mg/kg M 3.4E-10 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/AArsenic 9.89E+00 mg/kg 9.89E+00 mg/kg M 5.3E-06 mg/kg-day 2.9E-04 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.8E-02Copper 1.50E+02 mg/kg 1.50E+02 mg/kg M 2.5E-05 mg/kg-day 2.4E-02 mg/kg-day N/A N/A 1.0E-03

(Total) 1.9E-02


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Chronic.Skin absorption factor from EPA, 1995, Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil. EPA Region III. EPA/903-K-95-003. Skin absorption factor is 3.2% for arsenic, 1% for all other inorganics, 10% for semi-volatiles, 10% for Pesticides, and 3% for Dioxins/Furans.

8:37 PM06/05/2006

Filename:TAB7_S16-Navy.xlsSheetname:Table 7.3Page6of28



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: Soil*Exposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adult










(Total) 5.0E-03



8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: Soil*Exposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Child










(Total) 5.3E-03



8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: Soil*Exposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult










(Total) 1.8E-02



8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: Soil*Exposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Child










(Total) 1.9E-02



8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: Soil*Exposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: Construction WorkerReceptor Age: Adult










(Total) 3.5E-03


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Subchronic value used if available. Chronic value used if no subchronic value available.Skin absorption factor from EPA, 1995, Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil. EPA Region III. EPA/903-K-95-003. Skin absorption factor is 3.2% for arsenic, 1% for all other inorganics, 10% for semi-volatiles, 10% for Pesticides, and 3% for Dioxins/Furans.

8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Industrial WorkerReceptor Age: Adult



Inhalation 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 6.80E-04 mg/kg 1.71E-10 mg/m3 R 1.1E-11 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day N/A N/AArsenic 9.90E+00 mg/kg 2.48E-06 mg/m3 R 1.6E-07 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day N/A N/A

(Total) 0.0E+00

Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways 0.0E+00* Includes surface/subsurface soil.(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) ChronicRoute EPC Value is equal to Medium EPC value multiplied by the fugitive dust air concentration. The fugitive dust air concentration is 251 μg/m3.N/A Not applicable.

8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adult




(Total) 0.0E+00


8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Child




(Total) 0.0E+00


8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult




(Total) 0.0E+00


8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Child




(Total) 0.0E+00


8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Construction WorkerReceptor Age: Adult




(Total) 0.0E+00

Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways 0.0E+00* Includes surface/subsurface soil.(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Subchronic value used if available. Chronic value used if no subchronic value available.Route EPC Value is equal to Medium EPC value multiplied by the fugitive dust air concentration. The fugitive dust air concentration is 251 μg/m3.N/A Not applicable.

8:37 PM06/05/2006


Table 7.15a.CT SupplementCalculation of DAevent




Benzene 5.83E+02 µg/l 6.30E-01 2.10E-02 2.60E-01 1.30E-02 8 1.97E-06Bromodichloromethane 7.05E-01 µg/l 2.10E+00 5.80E-03 8.70E-01 1.20E-02 8 1.15E-09Chloroform 9.86E-01 µg/l 1.10E+00 8.90E-03 4.70E-01 9.30E-03 8 1.60E-09Dibromochloromethane* 3.80E-01 µg/l 8 1.33E-02Dibenzofuran* 3.00E+00 µg/l 8 3.36E+00beta-BHC* 1.19E-02 µg/l 8 3.29E-03delta-BHC* 1.71E-02 µg/l 8 8.51E-031,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 9.48E-05 µg/l 8 1.40E-021,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 1.08E-05 µg/l 8 1.04E-03Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 4.93E-03 µg/l 8 1.47E+00Aluminum 6.12E+03 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 4.90E-05Antimony 2.19E+00 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.75E-08Arsenic 1.30E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.04E-07Barium 3.41E+02 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 2.73E-06Cadmium 9.24E+00 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 7.39E-08Chromium 1.58E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.26E-07Iron 5.22E+04 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 4.18E-04Lead 1.56E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.25E-07Manganese 9.18E+02 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 7.34E-06Thallium 2.19E+00 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.75E-08Vanadium 2.81E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 2.25E-07





8:37 PM06/05/2006

Filename:TAB7_S16-Navy.xlsSheetname:DAeventCTa - not used in RODPage18of28

Chemical MW log Kow Kow log Kp Kp B log Dsc/lsc lsc log Dsc Dsc Tau c b T* Tevent DAevent(cm/hr) (cm) (cm2/hr) (hr) (hr) (hr/event) mg/(cm2-event)


Medium EPC Value, Cv?




CENTRAL TENDENCYWashington Navy Yard - Site 16




Dermal Absorption Benzene 5.83E+02 µg/l 6.40E+03 µg/l M 1.25E-05 mg/kg-day 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day NA NA 4.2E-03

Bromodichloromethane 7.05E-01 µg/l 1.00E+00 µg/l M 7.32E-09 mg/kg-day 1.6E-02 mg/kg-day NA NA 4.6E-07Chloroform 9.86E-01 µg/l 2.03E+00 µg/l M 1.02E-08 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day NA NA 1.0E-06Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 µg/l 3.80E-01 µg/l M 8.44E-02 mg/kg-day 1.6E-02 mg/kg-day NA NA 5.3E+00Dibenzofuran 3.00E+00 µg/l 3.00E+00 µg/l M 2.13E+01 mg/kg-day 2.8E-03 mg/kg-day NA NA 7.6E+03beta-BHC 1.19E-02 µg/l 2.36E-02 µg/l M 2.09E-02 mg/kg-day N/A NA NAdelta-BHC 1.71E-02 µg/l 3.50E-02 µg/l M 5.39E-02 mg/kg-day N/A NA NA1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 9.48E-05 µg/l 3.10E-04 µg/l M 8.87E-02 mg/kg-day N/A NA NA1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.08E-05 µg/l 2.00E-05 µg/l M 6.56E-03 mg/kg-day N/A NA NATotal Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 4.93E-03 µg/l 1.80E-02 µg/l M 9.35E+00 mg/kg-day N/A NA NAAluminum 6.12E+03 µg/l 4.08E+04 µg/l M 3.10E-04 mg/kg-day 2.7E-01 mg/kg-day NA NA 1.1E-03Antimony 2.19E+00 µg/l 2.97E+00 µg/l M 1.11E-07 mg/kg-day 4.0E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA 2.8E-03Arsenic 1.30E+01 µg/l 2.45E+01 µg/l M 6.60E-07 mg/kg-day 2.9E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA 2.3E-03Barium 3.41E+02 µg/l 6.25E+02 µg/l M 1.73E-05 mg/kg-day 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day NA NA 2.5E-04Cadmium 9.24E+00 µg/l 2.10E+01 µg/l M 4.69E-07 mg/kg-day 2.5E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA 1.9E-02Chromium 1.58E+01 µg/l 8.93E+01 µg/l M 8.01E-07 mg/kg-day 2.0E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA 4.0E-03Iron 5.22E+04 µg/l 1.34E+05 µg/l M 2.65E-03 mg/kg-day 6.0E-02 mg/kg-day NA NA 4.4E-02Lead 1.56E+01 µg/l 5.89E+01 µg/l M 7.91E-07 mg/kg-day N/A NA NAManganese 9.18E+02 µg/l 1.41E+03 µg/l M 4.65E-05 mg/kg-day 7.0E-03 mg/kg-day NA NA 6.6E-03Thallium 2.19E+00 µg/l 2.96E+00 µg/l M 1.11E-07 mg/kg-day 7.0E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA 1.6E-03Vanadium 2.81E+01 µg/l 2.06E+02 µg/l M 1.43E-06 mg/kg-day 1.4E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA 1.0E-02

(Total) 7.6E+03


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Subchronic value used if available. Chronic value used if no subchronic value available.Permeability constants from EPA 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principals and Applications. ORD, EPA/600/8-91/001B. Default value of 0.001 cm/hour used for inorganics without published values (all of the COPCs).Nonfood reference dose for manganese.

8:37 PM06/05/2006

Filename:TAB7_S16-Navy.xlsSheetname:Table 7.15CT - not used in RODPage20of28

Table 7.16.CT SupplementInhalation of Volatiles from Groundwater During Construction



(μg/L) (mol/gram) (unitless) (cm/hr) (cm/hr) (cm/hr) (mg/hr) (g/sec-m2) (mg/m3)Benzene 5.83E+02 7.81E+01 2.28E-01 3.52E+00 2.13E+03 3.49E+00 2.04E+03 1.40E-07 1.65E-03Bromodichloromethane 7.05E-01 1.64E+02 6.56E-02 2.93E+00 1.77E+03 2.85E+00 2.01E+00 1.38E-10 1.05E-05Chloroform 9.86E-01 1.19E+02 1.50E-01 3.17E+00 1.92E+03 3.13E+00 3.09E+00 2.12E-10 6.51E-06Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 2.08E+02 3.21E-02 2.75E+00 1.67E+03 2.62E+00 9.96E-01 6.84E-11 1.06E-06





8:37 PM06/05/2006

Filename:TAB7_S16-Navy.xlsSheetname:vol-CW-CT-not used in RODPage21of28






Inhalation Benzene 5.83E+02 µg/l 1.65E-03 mg/m3 R 1.2E-05 mg/kg-day 1.7E-02 mg/kg-day 5.95E-02 mg/m3 6.8E-04Bromodichloromethane 7.05E-01 µg/l 1.05E-05 mg/m3 R 7.4E-08 mg/kg-day NA NA

Chloroform 9.86E-01 µg/l 6.51E-06 mg/m3 R 4.6E-08 mg/kg-day 8.6E-04 mg/kg-day 3.00E-03 mg/m3 5.3E-05Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 µg/l 1.06E-06 mg/m3 R 7.5E-09 mg/kg-day NA NA

(Total) 7.4E-04


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Subchronic value used if available. Chronic value used if no subchronic value available.N/A - Not applicable; metals are not volatile.

8:37 PM06/05/2006

Filename:TAB7_S16-Navy.xlsSheetname:Table 7.16CT-not used in RODPage22of28







4,4'-DDD 1.91E-03 mg/kg 1.91E-03 mg/kg M 8.2E-10 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A




(Total) 1.3E-02Dermal Absorption Benzo(a)pyrene 1.65E-01 mg/kg 1.65E-01 mg/kg M 8.5E-08 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A 4,4'-DDD 1.91E-03 mg/kg 1.91E-03 mg/kg M 9.8E-10 mg/kg-day N/A N/A N/A


(Total) 4.8E-03



8:37 PM06/05/2006

Filename:TAB7_S16-Navy.xlsSheetname:Table 7.17CTPage23of28













(Total) 7.2E-04



8:37 PM06/05/2006














(Total) 1.1E-03



8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: Soil*Exposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult










(Total) 8.6E-03



8:37 PM06/05/2006




Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: Soil*Exposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Child










(Total) 9.2E-03



8:37 PM06/05/2006














(Total) 3.9E-04


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.(2) Subchronic value used if available. Chronic value used if no subchronic value available.Skin absorption factor from EPA, 1995, Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil. EPA Region III. EPA/903-K-95-003. Skin absorption factor is 3.2% for arsenic, 1% for all other inorganics, 10% for semi-volatiles, 10% for Pesticides, and 3% for Dioxins/Furans.

8:37 PM06/05/2006







Dermal Absorption

Benzene 6.40E+03 µg/l 6.40E+03 µg/l M 4.3E-06 mg/kg-day 2.9E-02 mg/kg-day 1.3E-07Bromodichloromethane 1.00E+00 µg/l 1.00E+00 µg/l M 3.3E-10 mg/kg-day 7.8E-02 mg/kg-day 2.6E-11Chloroform 1.83E+00 µg/l 1.83E+00 µg/l M 6.0E-10 mg/kg-day 6.1E-03 mg/kg-day 3.7E-12Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 µg/l 3.80E-01 µg/l M 2.7E-03 mg/kg-day 1.1E-01 mg/kg-day 2.9E-04Dibenzofuran 3.00E+00 µg/l 3.00E+00 µg/l M 6.8E-01 mg/kg-day NAbeta-BHC 2.31E-02 µg/l 2.31E-02 µg/l M 1.3E-03 mg/kg-day 3.6E+00 mg/kg-day 4.6E-03delta-BHC 3.76E-02 µg/l 3.76E-02 µg/l M 3.8E-03 mg/kg-day 3.6E+00 mg/kg-day 1.3E-021,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 3.10E-04 µg/l 3.10E-04 µg/l M 9.2E-03 mg/kg-day 3.0E+03 mg/kg-day 1.0E-021,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 2.00E-05 µg/l 2.00E-05 µg/l M 3.9E-04 mg/kg-day 3.0E+04 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 1.80E-02 µg/l 1.80E-02 µg/l M 1.1E+00 mg/kg-day 3.0E+02 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02Aluminum 4.08E+04 µg/l 4.08E+04 µg/l M 6.6E-05 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayAntimony 3.42E+00 µg/l 3.42E+00 µg/l M 5.5E-09 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayArsenic 2.99E+01 µg/l 2.99E+01 µg/l M 4.8E-08 mg/kg-day 1.6E+00 mg/kg-day 7.7E-08Barium 6.78E+02 µg/l 6.78E+02 µg/l M 1.1E-06 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayCadmium 4.59E+01 µg/l 4.59E+01 µg/l M 7.4E-08 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayChromium 8.93E+01 µg/l 8.93E+01 µg/l M 1.4E-07 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayIron 1.35E+05 µg/l 1.35E+05 µg/l M 2.2E-04 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayLead 5.89E+01 µg/l 5.89E+01 µg/l M 9.5E-08 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayManganese 1.67E+03 µg/l 1.67E+03 µg/l M 2.7E-06 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayThallium 3.85E+00 µg/l 3.85E+00 µg/l M 6.2E-09 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayVanadium 2.06E+02 µg/l 2.06E+02 µg/l M 3.3E-07 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day

(Total) 4.8E-02


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.Permeability constants from EPA 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principals and Applications. ORD, EPA/600/8-91/001B. Default value of 0.001 cm/hour used for inorganics without published values (all of the COPCs).N/A - not applicable.* - One-hit equation used because risks exceeded 0.01. Risk of 1.0E-02 assumed because risks greater than 1.0E-02 are not valid.Total dioxins will be summed in Table 9.

Page 1

Table 8.1a.RME SupplementCalculation of DAevent




Benzene 6.40E+03 µg/l 6.30E-01 2.10E-02 2.60E-01 1.30E-02 8 2.16E-05Bromodichloromethane 1.00E+00 µg/l 2.10E+00 5.80E-03 8.70E-01 1.20E-02 8 1.64E-09Chloroform 1.83E+00 µg/l 1.10E+00 8.90E-03 4.70E-01 9.30E-03 8 2.98E-09Dibromochloromethane* 3.80E-01 µg/l 8 1.33E-02Dibenzofuran* 3.00E+00 µg/l 8 3.36E+00beta-BHC* 2.31E-02 µg/l 8 6.37E-03delta-BHC* 3.76E-02 µg/l 8 1.87E-021,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 3.10E-04 µg/l 8 4.57E-021,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 2.00E-05 µg/l 8 1.92E-03Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 1.80E-02 µg/l 8 5.38E+00Aluminum 4.08E+04 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 3.26E-04Antimony 3.42E+00 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 2.74E-08Arsenic 2.99E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 2.39E-07Barium 6.78E+02 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 5.42E-06Cadmium 4.59E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 3.67E-07Chromium 8.93E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 7.14E-07Iron 1.35E+05 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.08E-03Lead 5.89E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 4.71E-07Manganese 1.67E+03 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.34E-05Thallium 3.85E+00 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 3.08E-08Vanadium 2.06E+02 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.65E-06







Chemical MW log Kow Kow log Kp Kp B log Dsc/lsc lsc log Dsc Dsc Tau c b T* Tevent Medium EPC Value, Cv?

DAevent(cm/hr) (cm) (cm2/hr) (hr) (hr) (hr/event) mg/(cm2-event)







InhalationBenzene 6.40E+03 µg/l 1.21E-02 mg/m3 R 8.1E-06 mg/kg-day 2.9E-02 mg/kg-day 2.3E-07Bromodichloromethane 1.00E+00 µg/l 1.45E-06 mg/m3 R 9.7E-10 mg/kg-day NA NAChloroform 1.83E+00 µg/l 3.22E-06 mg/m3 R 2.2E-09 mg/kg-day 8.1E-02 mg/kg-day 1.8E-10Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 µg/l 5.05E-06 mg/m3 R 3.4E-09 mg/kg-day NA NA

(Total) 2.4E-07


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.N/A - Not applicable; metals are not volatile.

Page 1

Table 8.2.RME SupplementInhalation of Volatiles from Groundwater During Construction



(μg/L) (mol/gram) (unitless) (cm/hr) (cm/hr) (cm/hr) (mg/hr) (g/sec-m2) (mg/m3)Benzene 6.40E+03 7.81E+01 2.28E-01 3.52E+00 2.13E+03 3.49E+00 2.24E+04 1.54E-06 1.21E-02Bromodichloromethane 1.00E+00 1.64E+02 6.56E-02 2.93E+00 1.77E+03 2.85E+00 2.85E+00 1.96E-10 1.45E-06Chloroform 1.83E+00 1.19E+02 1.50E-01 3.17E+00 1.92E+03 3.13E+00 5.74E+00 3.94E-10 3.22E-06Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 2.08E+02 3.21E-02 2.75E+00 1.67E+03 2.62E+00 9.96E-01 6.84E-11 5.05E-06










Ingestion Benzo(a)pyrene 2.80E-01 mg/kg 2.80E-01 mg/kg M 9.8E-08 mg/kg-day 7.3E+00 mg/kg-day 7.1E-074,4'-DDD 2.28E+00 mg/kg 2.28E+00 mg/kg M 8.0E-07 mg/kg-day 2.4E-01 mg/kg-day 1.9E-07

4,4'-DDE 2.37E-03 mg/kg 2.37E-03 mg/kg M 8.3E-10 mg/kg-day 3.4E-01 mg/kg-day 2.8E-104,4'-DDT 8.68E-03 mg/kg 8.68E-03 mg/kg M 3.0E-09 mg/kg-day 3.4E-01 mg/kg-day 1.0E-091,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodebenzo-p-dioxin 6.80E-04 mg/kg 6.80E-04 mg/kg M 2.4E-10 mg/kg-day 7.5E+04 mg/kg-day 1.8E-05

Arsenic 9.89E+00 mg/kg 9.89E+00 mg/kg M 3.5E-06 mg/kg-day 1.5E+00 mg/kg-day 5.2E-06Copper 1.50E+02 mg/kg 1.50E+02 mg/kg M 5.2E-05 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day

(Total) 2.4E-05Dermal Absorption Benzo(a)pyrene 2.80E-01 mg/kg 2.80E-01 mg/kg M 1.7E-07 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day

4,4'-DDD 2.28E+00 mg/kg 2.28E+00 mg/kg M 1.4E-06 mg/kg-day 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day 4.1E-074,4'-DDE 2.37E-03 mg/kg 2.37E-03 mg/kg M 1.4E-09 mg/kg-day 4.3E-01 mg/kg-day 6.0E-104,4'-DDT 8.68E-03 mg/kg 8.68E-03 mg/kg M 5.1E-09 mg/kg-day 4.3E-01 mg/kg-day 2.2E-091,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodebenzo-p-dioxin 6.80E-04 mg/kg 6.80E-04 mg/kg M 1.2E-10 mg/kg-day 1.5E+05 mg/kg-day 1.8E-05Arsenic 9.89E+00 mg/kg 9.89E+00 mg/kg M 1.9E-06 mg/kg-day 1.6E+00 mg/kg-day 3.0E-06Copper 1.50E+02 mg/kg 1.50E+02 mg/kg M 8.9E-06 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day

(Total) 2.2E-05


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.Skin absorption factor from EPA, 1995, Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil. EPA Region III. EPA/903-K-95-003. Skin absorption factor is 3.2% for arsenic, 1% for all other inorganics, 10% for semi-volatiles, 10% for Pesticides, and 3% for Dioxins/Furans.N/A - not applicable.

Page 1











(Total) 5.4E-06



Page 1











(Total) 1.4E-06



Page 1



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: Soil*Exposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult/Child








(Total) 2.8E-06



Page 1











(Total) 1.6E-07



Page 1



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Industrial WorkerReceptor Age: Adult



Inhalation 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 6.80E-04 mg/kg 1.71E-10 mg/m3 R 4.0E-12 mg/kg-day 7.5E+04 mg/kg-day 3.0E-07Arsenic 9.90E+00 mg/kg 2.48E-06 mg/m3 R 5.8E-08 mg/kg-day 1.5E+01 mg/kg-day 8.7E-07

(Total) 1.2E-06

Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways 1.2E-06* Includes surface/subsurface soil.(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.Route EPC Value is equal to Medium EPC value multiplied by the fugitive dust air concentration. The fugitive dust air concentration is 251 μg/m3.N/A Not applicable.

Page 1



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adult




(Total) 1.0E-07


Page 1



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Child




(Total) 5.7E-07


Page 1



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult/Child




(Total) 8.1E-06


Page 1



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: Construction WorkerReceptor Age: Adult




(Total) 3.4E-08


Page 1

TABLE 8.13.CTCALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS





Dermal Absorption

Benzene 5.83E+02 µg/l 5.83E+02 µg/l M 1.8E-07 mg/kg-day 2.9E-02 mg/kg-day 5.2E-09Bromodichloromethane 7.05E-01 µg/l 7.05E-01 µg/l M 1.0E-10 mg/kg-day 7.8E-02 mg/kg-day 8.2E-12Chloroform 9.86E-01 µg/l 9.86E-01 µg/l M 1.5E-10 mg/kg-day 6.1E-03 mg/kg-day 8.9E-13Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 µg/l 3.80E-01 µg/l M 1.2E-03 mg/kg-day 1.1E-01 mg/kg-day 1.3E-04Dibenzofuran 3.00E+00 µg/l 3.00E+00 µg/l M 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day NAbeta-BHC 1.19E-02 µg/l 1.19E-02 µg/l M 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 3.6E+00 mg/kg-day 1.1E-03delta-BHC 1.71E-02 µg/l 1.71E-02 µg/l M 7.7E-04 mg/kg-day 3.6E+00 mg/kg-day 2.8E-031,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 9.48E-05 µg/l 9.48E-05 µg/l M 1.3E-03 mg/kg-day 3.0E+03 mg/kg-day 1.0E-021,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 1.08E-05 µg/l 1.08E-05 µg/l M 9.4E-05 mg/kg-day 3.0E+04 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 4.93E-03 µg/l 4.93E-03 µg/l M 1.3E-01 mg/kg-day 3.0E+02 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02Aluminum 6.12E+03 µg/l 6.12E+03 µg/l M 4.4E-06 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayAntimony 2.19E+00 µg/l 2.19E+00 µg/l M 1.6E-09 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayArsenic 1.30E+01 µg/l 1.30E+01 µg/l M 9.4E-09 mg/kg-day 1.6E+00 mg/kg-day 1.5E-08Barium 3.41E+02 µg/l 3.41E+02 µg/l M 2.5E-07 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayCadmium 9.24E+00 µg/l 9.24E+00 µg/l M 6.7E-09 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayChromium 1.58E+01 µg/l 1.58E+01 µg/l M 1.1E-08 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayIron 5.22E+04 µg/l 5.22E+04 µg/l M 3.8E-05 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayLead 1.56E+01 µg/l 1.56E+01 µg/l M 1.1E-08 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayManganese 9.18E+02 µg/l 9.18E+02 µg/l M 6.6E-07 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayThallium 2.19E+00 µg/l 2.19E+00 µg/l M 1.6E-09 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-dayVanadium 2.81E+01 µg/l 2.81E+01 µg/l M 2.0E-08 mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day

(Total) 3.4E-02


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.Permeability constants from EPA 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principals and Applications. ORD, EPA/600/8-91/001B. Default value of 0.001 cm/hour used for inorganics without published values (all of the COPCs).N/A - not applicable.* - One-hit equation used because risks exceeded 0.01. Risk of 1.0E-02 assumed because risks greater than 1.0E-02 are not valid.Total dioxins will be summed in Table 9.

Table 8.13a.CT SupplementCalculation of DAevent




Benzene 5.83E+02 µg/l 6.30E-01 2.10E-02 2.60E-01 1.30E-02 8 1.97E-06Bromodichloromethane 7.05E-01 µg/l 2.10E+00 5.80E-03 8.70E-01 1.20E-02 8 1.15E-09Chloroform 9.86E-01 µg/l 1.10E+00 8.90E-03 4.70E-01 9.30E-03 8 1.60E-09Dibromochloromethane* 3.80E-01 µg/l 8 1.33E-02Dibenzofuran* 3.00E+00 µg/l 8 3.36E+00beta-BHC* 1.19E-02 µg/l 8 3.29E-03delta-BHC* 1.71E-02 µg/l 8 8.51E-031,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 9.48E-05 µg/l 8 1.40E-021,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 1.08E-05 µg/l 8 1.04E-03Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin* 4.93E-03 µg/l 8 1.47E+00Aluminum 6.12E+03 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 4.90E-05Antimony 2.19E+00 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.75E-08Arsenic 1.30E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.04E-07Barium 3.41E+02 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 2.73E-06Cadmium 9.24E+00 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 7.39E-08Chromium 1.58E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.26E-07Iron 5.22E+04 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 4.18E-04Lead 1.56E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.25E-07Manganese 9.18E+02 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 7.34E-06Thallium 2.19E+00 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 1.75E-08Vanadium 2.81E+01 µg/l N/A 1.00E-03 N/A N/A 8 2.25E-07





c



Chemical MW log Kow log Kp Kp B log Dsc/ls lsc log Dsc Dsc Tau c b T* Tevent Medium EPC Value, Cv?

DAeventKow (cm/hr) (cm) (cm2/hr) (hr) (hr) (hr/event) mg/(cm2-event)







InhalationBenzene 5.83E+02 µg/l 1.65E-03 mg/m3 R 1.7E-07 mg/kg-day 2.9E-02 mg/kg-day 4.8E-09Bromodichloromethane 7.05E-01 µg/l 1.05E-05 mg/m3 R 1.1E-09 mg/kg-day NAChloroform 9.86E-01 µg/l 6.51E-06 mg/m3 R 6.5E-10 mg/kg-day 8.1E-02 mg/kg-day 5.3E-11Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 µg/l 1.06E-06 mg/m3 R 1.1E-10 mg/kg-day NA

(Total) 4.9E-09


(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.N/A - Not applicable; metals are not volatile.

Table 8.14.CT SupplementInhalation of Volatiles from Groundwater During Construction



(μg/L) (mol/gram) (unitless) (cm/hr) (cm/hr) (cm/hr) (mg/hr) (g/sec-m2) (mg/m3)Benzene 5.83E+02 7.81E+01 2.28E-01 3.52E+00 2.13E+03 3.49E+00 2.04E+03 1.40E-07 1.65E-03Bromodichloromethane 7.05E-01 1.64E+02 6.56E-02 2.93E+00 1.77E+03 2.85E+00 2.01E+00 1.38E-10 1.05E-05Chloroform 9.86E-01 1.19E+02 1.50E-01 3.17E+00 1.92E+03 3.13E+00 3.09E+00 2.12E-10 6.51E-06Dibromochloromethane 3.80E-01 2.08E+02 3.21E-02 2.75E+00 1.67E+03 2.62E+00 9.96E-01 6.84E-11 1.06E-06










Ingestion Benzo(a)pyrene 1.65E-01 mg/kg 1.65E-01 mg/kg M 5.1E-09 mg/kg-day 7.3E+00 mg/kg-day 3.7E-084,4'-DDD 1.91E-03 mg/kg 1.91E-03 mg/kg M 5.9E-11 mg/kg-day 2.4E-01 mg/kg-day 1.4E-11




4,4'-DDD 1.91E-03 mg/kg 1.91E-03 mg/kg M 7.0E-11 mg/kg-day 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day 2.1E-114,4'-DDE 1.96E-03 mg/kg 1.96E-03 mg/kg M 7.2E-11 mg/kg-day 4.3E-01 mg/kg-day 3.1E-114,4'-DDT 4.21E-03 mg/kg 4.21E-03 mg/kg M 1.5E-10 mg/kg-day 4.3E-01 mg/kg-day 6.7E-111,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodebenzo-p-dioxin 7.03E-05 mg/kg 7.03E-05 mg/kg M 7.7E-13 mg/kg-day 1.5E+05 mg/kg-day 1.2E-07Arsenic 8.07E+00 mg/kg 8.07E+00 mg/kg M 9.5E-08 mg/kg-day 1.6E+00 mg/kg-day 1.5E-07Copper 1.01E+02 mg/kg 1.01E+02 mg/kg M 3.7E-07 mg/kg-day N/A mg/kg-day

(Total) 2.7E-07



Page 1











(Total) 7.3E-08



Page 1











(Total) 3.8E-08



Page 1



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: Soil*Exposure Point: Direct ContactReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult/Child








(Total) 1.5E-06



Page 1











(Total) 4.4E-09



Page 1



Scenario Timeframe: FutureMedium: Soil*Exposure Medium: AirExposure Point: Emissions from exposed soilReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult/Child




(Total) 2.2E-06


Page 1

TABLE 9.1.RME



Washington Navy Yard - Site 16Scenario Timeframe: FutureReceptor Population: Construction WorkerReceptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Chemical Non-Carcinogenic Hazard QuotientMedium Point

Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Absorption Routes Total Target Organ Absorption Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Columbia Aquifer -

Water in Benzene -- -- 1.3E-07 1.3E-07 Benzene Liver -- -- 1.0E-01 1.0E-01

Excavation Pit Bromodichloromethane -- -- 2.6E-11 2.6E-11 Bromodichloromethane Kidney -- -- 1.4E-06 1.4E-06

Chloroform -- -- 3.7E-12 3.7E-12 Chloroform Liver -- -- 4.2E-06 4.2E-06

Dibromochloromethane -- -- 2.9E-04 2.9E-04 Dibromochloromethane Liver -- -- 1.2E+01 1.2E+01

beta-BHC -- -- 4.6E-03 4.6E-03 Dibenzofuran Kidney -- -- 1.7E+04 1.7E+04

delta-BHC -- -- 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 Aluminum CNS -- -- 1.7E-02 1.7E-02

Total Dioxins** -- -- 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 Antimony Blood -- -- 9.6E-03 9.6E-03

Arsenic -- -- 7.7E-08 7.7E-08 Arsenic Skin -- -- 1.2E-02 1.2E-02

Barium Cardiovascular -- -- 1.1E-03 1.1E-03

Cadmium Kidney -- -- 2.1E-01 2.1E-01

Chromium NOAEL -- -- 5.0E-02 5.0E-02

Iron GI -- -- 2.5E-01 2.5E-01

Manganese CNS -- -- 2.7E-02 2.7E-02

Thallium Liver & Blood -- -- 6.2E-03 6.2E-03

Vanadium NOAEL -- -- 1.7E-01 1.7E-01

(Total) -- -- 2.8E-02 2.8E-02 (Total) -- -- 1.7E+04 1.7E+04

Air Columbia Aquifer -

Volatilization Benzene -- 2.3E-07 -- 2.3E-07 Benzene Liver -- 3.3E-02 -- 3.3E-02

from Water in Chloroform -- 1.8E-10 -- 1.8E-10 Chloroform Liver -- 1.8E-04 -- 1.8E-04

Excavation Pit

(Total) -- 2.4E-07 -- 2.4E-07 (Total) -- 3.4E-02 -- 3.4E-02

Total Risk Across Groundwater 2.8E-02 Total Hazard Index Across Groundwater 1.7E+04

06/05/2006

TABLE 9.1.RME






Soil* Soil* Direct Contact

Benzo(a)pyrene 3.3E-08 -- -- 3.3E-08 4,4-DDT Liver 2.0E-05 -- 6.5E-06 2.6E-05

4,4'-DDD 8.8E-09 -- 2.9E-09 1.2E-08 Arsenic Skin 3.7E-02 -- 3.3E-03 4.0E-02

4,4'-DDE 1.3E-11 -- 4.4E-12 1.7E-11 Copper GI 4.2E-03 -- 1.9E-04 4.4E-03

4,4'-DDT 4.8E-11 -- 1.6E-11 6.3E-11

1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 8.2E-07 -- 1.3E-07 9.5E-07

Arsenic 2.4E-07 -- 2.2E-08 2.6E-07

(Total) 1.1E-06 -- 1.6E-07 1.3E-06 (Total) 4.1E-02 -- 3.5E-03 4.5E-02

Total Risk Across Soil* 1.3E-06 Total Hazard Index Across Soil* 4.5E-02

Soil* Air Emissions from

exposed soil 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin -- 8.6E-09 -- 8.6E-09

Arsenic -- 2.5E-08 -- 2.5E-08 Arsenic Skin -- -- -- --

(Total) -- 3.4E-08 -- 3.4E-08 (Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Total Risk Across Air 3.4E-08 Total Risk Across Air 0.0E+00


Onsite resident receptor.

* Surface soil and subsurface soil combined.

** Total dioxins is a sum of the individual dioxins and furans calculated in Table 8. Risk of 1.0E-02 assumed because risks greater than 1.0E-02 are not valid based on the toxicity values for dioxins. Total NOAEL HI = 2.2E-01



Total Kidney HI = 1.7E+04


Total Liver HI = 1.2E+01

06/05/2006

TABLE 9.2.RME



Washington Navy Yard - Site 16Scenario Timeframe: FutureReceptor Population: Industrial WorkerReceptor Age: Adult







4,4'-DDT 1.0E-09 -- 2.2E-09 3.2E-09


Arsenic 5.2E-06 -- 3.0E-06 8.2E-06


Total Risk Across Soil 4.5E-05 Total Hazard Index Across Soil 5.5E-02




(Total) -- 1.2E-06 -- 1.2E-06 (Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00







Page 1

TABLE 9.3.RME



Washington Navy Yard - Site 16Scenario Timeframe: FutureReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Adult







4,4'-DDT 4.1E-10 -- 5.5E-10 9.6E-10


Arsenic 2.1E-06 -- 7.5E-07 2.8E-06






(Total) -- 1.0E-07 -- 1.0E-07 (Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00







TABLE 9.4.RME



Washington Navy Yard - Site 16Scenario Timeframe: FutureReceptor Population: Trespasser/VisitorReceptor Age: Child







4,4'-DDT 9.6E-10 -- 1.5E-10 1.1E-09


Arsenic 4.8E-06 -- 2.0E-07 5.0E-06




exposed soil 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin -- 1.9E-07 1.9E-07

Arsenic -- 5.5E-07 5.5E-07 Arsenic Skin -- -- -- --

(Total) -- 7.4E-07 -- 7.4E-07 (Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00







Page 1

TABLE 9.5.RME



Washington Navy Yard - Site 16Scenario Timeframe: FutureReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult




4,4-DDT Liver 2.4E-05 -- 3.4E-05 5.8E-05

Arsenic Skin 4.5E-02 -- 1.7E-02 6.3E-02

Copper GI 5.1E-03 -- 9.9E-04 6.1E-03

(Total) 5.0E-02 -- 1.8E-02 6.9E-02

Total Hazard Index Across Soil* 6.9E-02


exposed soil

Arsenic Skin -- -- -- --

(Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00

Total Risk Across Air 0.0E+00






TABLE 9.6.RME



Washington Navy Yard - Site 16Scenario Timeframe: FutureReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Child




4,4-DDT Liver 2.2E-04 -- 3.6E-05 2.6E-04

Arsenic Skin 4.2E-01 -- 1.8E-02 4.4E-01

Copper GI 4.8E-02 -- 1.0E-03 4.9E-02

(Total) 4.7E-01 -- 1.9E-02 4.9E-01



exposed soil


(Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00







Page 1

TABLE 9.7.RME



Washington Navy Yard - Site 16Scenario Timeframe: FutureReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult/Child




Benzo(a)pyrene 3.2E-06 -- -- 3.2E-06

4,4'-DDD 8.5E-07 -- 5.2E-08 9.1E-07

4,4'-DDE 1.3E-09 -- 7.7E-11 1.3E-09

4,4'-DDT 4.6E-09 -- 2.8E-10 4.9E-09


Arsenic 2.3E-05 -- 3.8E-07 2.4E-05

(Total) 1.0E-04 -- 2.8E-06 1.1E-04

Total Risk Across Soil* 1.1E-04



Arsenic -- 6.1E-05 -- 6.1E-05

(Total) -- 8.1E-05 -- 8.1E-05

Total Risk Across Air 8.1E-05



TABLE 9.8.CT


CENTRAL TENDENCY





Water in Benzene -- -- 5.2E-09 5.2E-09 Benzene Liver -- -- 4.2E-03 4.2E-03

Excavation Pit Bromodichloromethane -- -- 8.2E-12 8.2E-12 Bromodichloromethane Kidney -- -- 4.6E-07 4.6E-07

Chloroform -- -- 8.9E-13 8.9E-13 Chloroform Liver -- -- 1.0E-06 1.0E-06

Dibromochloromethane -- -- 1.3E-04 1.3E-04 Dibromochloromethane Liver -- -- 5.3E+00 5.3E+00

beta-BHC -- -- 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 Dibenzofuran Kidney -- -- 7.6E+03 7.6E+03

delta-BHC -- -- 2.8E-03 2.8E-03 Aluminum CNS -- -- 1.1E-03 1.1E-03

Total Dioxins** -- -- 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 Antimony Blood -- -- 2.8E-03 2.8E-03

Arsenic -- -- 1.5E-08 1.5E-08 Arsenic Skin -- -- 2.3E-03 2.3E-03

Barium Cardiovascular -- -- 2.5E-04 2.5E-04

Cadmium Kidney -- -- 1.9E-02 1.9E-02

Chromium NOAEL -- -- 4.0E-03 4.0E-03

Iron GI -- -- 4.4E-02 4.4E-02

Manganese CNS -- -- 6.6E-03 6.6E-03

Thallium Liver & Blood -- -- 1.6E-03 1.6E-03


(Total) -- -- 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 (Total) -- -- 7.6E+03 7.6E+03

Air Columbia Aquifer -

Volatilization Benzene -- 4.8E-09 -- 4.8E-09 Benzene Liver -- 6.8E-04 -- 6.8E-04

from Water in Chloroform -- 5.3E-11 -- 5.3E-11 Chloroform Liver -- 5.3E-05 -- 5.3E-05

Excavation Pit

(Total) -- 4.9E-09 -- 4.9E-09 (Total) -- 7.4E-04 -- 7.4E-04

Total Risk Across Groundwater 1.4E-02 Total Hazard Index Across Groundwater 7.6E+03

TABLE 9.8.CT


CENTRAL TENDENCY








4,4'-DDT 2.4E-12 -- 1.1E-12 3.5E-12


Arsenic 2.0E-08 -- 2.5E-09 2.3E-08






(Total) -- 3.2E-09 -- 3.2E-09 (Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00



Onsite resident receptor.


** Total dioxins is a sum of the individual dioxins and furans calculated in Table 8. Risk of 1.0E-02 assumed because risks greater than 1.0E-02 are not valid based on the toxicity values for dioxins. Total NOAEL HI = 1.4E-02






Total Cardiovascular HI = 2.5E-04


TABLE 9.9.CT


CENTRAL TENDENCY








4,4'-DDT 4.4E-11 -- 6.7E-11 1.1E-10


Arsenic 3.7E-07 -- 1.5E-07 5.2E-07


Total Risk Across Soil 8.4E-07 Total Hazard Index Across Soil 1.7E-02




(Total) -- 1.9E-07 -- 1.9E-07 (Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00







TABLE 9.10.CT


CENTRAL TENDENCY








4,4'-DDT 1.9E-11 -- 1.8E-11 3.7E-11


Arsenic 1.6E-07 -- 4.1E-08 2.0E-07






(Total) -- 7.5E-09 -- 7.5E-09 (Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00







TABLE 9.11.CT


CENTRAL TENDENCY








4,4'-DDT 5.8E-11 -- 9.4E-12 6.8E-11


Arsenic 4.9E-07 -- 2.1E-08 5.1E-07




exposed soil 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin -- 1.9E-10 1.9E-10

Arsenic -- 4.5E-09 4.5E-09 Arsenic Skin -- -- -- 0.0E+00

(Total) -- 4.7E-09 -- 4.7E-09 (Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00







TABLE 9.12.CT


CENTRAL TENDENCY

Washington Navy Yard - Site 16Scenario Timeframe: FutureReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Adult




4,4-DDT Liver 3.9E-06 -- 9.6E-06 1.4E-05

Arsenic Skin 1.2E-02 -- 8.2E-03 2.0E-02

Copper GI 1.2E-03 -- 3.9E-04 1.5E-03

(Total) 1.3E-02 -- 8.5E-03 2.2E-02



exposed soil


(Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00


Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 2.2E-02





TABLE 9.13.CT


CENTRAL TENDENCY

Washington Navy Yard - Site 16Scenario Timeframe: FutureReceptor Population: ResidentReceptor Age: Child




4,4-DDT Liver 3.6E-05 -- 1.0E-05 4.6E-05

Arsenic Skin 1.1E-01 -- 8.8E-03 1.2E-01

Copper GI 1.1E-02 -- 4.2E-04 1.1E-02

(Total) 1.3E-01 -- 9.2E-03 1.4E-01



exposed soil


(Total) -- 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00


Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 1.4E-01





TABLE 9.14.CT


CENTRAL TENDENCY





Benzo(a)pyrene 5.1E-07 -- -- 5.1E-07

4,4'-DDD 2.0E-10 -- 1.2E-10 3.1E-10

4,4'-DDE 2.8E-10 -- 1.7E-10 4.5E-10

4,4'-DDT 6.1E-10 -- 3.7E-10 9.7E-10


Arsenic 5.1E-06 -- 8.4E-07 6.0E-06

(Total) 7.9E-06 -- 1.5E-06 9.4E-06




Arsenic -- 2.1E-06 -- 2.1E-06

(Total) -- 2.2E-06 -- 2.2E-06




TABLE 10.1.RME







Water in Dibromochloromethane -- -- 2.9E-04 2.9E-04 Benzene Liver -- -- 1.0E-01 1.0E-01

Excavation Pit beta-BHC -- -- 4.6E-03 4.6E-03 Dibromochloromethane Liver -- -- 1.2E+01 1.2E+01

delta-BHC -- -- 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 Dibenzofuran Kidney -- -- 1.7E+04 1.7E+04

Total Dioxins** -- -- 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 Cadmium Kidney -- -- 2.1E-01 2.1E-01

Iron GI -- -- 2.5E-01 2.5E-01


(Total) -- -- 2.8E-02 2.8E-02 (Total) -- -- 1.7E+04 1.7E+04

All Media Total Risk Across Groundwater 2.8E-02 Total Hazard Index Across Groundwater 1.7E+04


** Total dioxins is a sum of the individual dioxins and furans calculated in Table 8. Risk of 1.0E-02 assumed because risks greater than 1.0E-02 are not valid based on the toxicity values for dioxins.





06/05/2006

TABLE 10.2.RME








Arsenic 5.2E-06 -- 3.0E-06 8.2E-06

(Total) 2.3E-05 -- 2.1E-05 4.4E-05 (Total) 0.0E+00 -- 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Total Risk Across Soil 4.4E-05 Total Hazard Index Across Soil 0.0E+00



Page 1

TABLE 10.3.RME








Arsenic 2.1E-06 -- 7.5E-07 2.8E-06


Total Risk Across Soil* 1.4E-05 Total Hazard Index Across Soil* 0.0E+00



06/05/2006

TABLE 10.4.RME








Arsenic 4.8E-06 -- 2.0E-07 5.0E-06


Total Risk Across Soil* 2.3E-05 Total Hazard Index Across Soil* 0.0E+00



Page 1

TABLE 10.5.RME








Arsenic 2.3E-05 -- 3.8E-07 2.4E-05

(Total) 1.0E-04 -- 1.6E-06 1.0E-04




Arsenic -- 6.1E-05 -- 6.1E-05

(Total) -- 8.1E-05 -- 8.1E-05




06/05/2006

TABLE 10.6.CT


CENTRAL TENDENCY





Water in Dibromochloromethane -- -- 1.3E-04 1.3E-04 Dibromochloromethane Liver -- -- 5.3E+00 5.3E+00

Excavation Pit beta-BHC -- -- 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 Dibenzofuran Kidney -- -- 7.6E+03 7.6E+03

delta-BHC -- -- 2.8E-03 2.8E-03

Total Dioxins** -- -- 1.0E-02 1.0E-02

(Total) -- -- 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 (Total) -- -- 7.6E+03 7.6E+03


** Total dioxins is a sum of the individual dioxins and furans calculated in Table 8. Risk of 1.0E-02 assumed because risks greater than 1.0E-02 are not valid based on the toxicity values for dioxins.



06/05/2006

Appendix G Human Health Risk Assessment Tables –

Updated Site 16 HHRA- Mercury Evaluation

WDC052410001.ZIP 1

T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M

Supplemental Soil Sampling Results and Feasibility Study Necessity Evaluation for Site 16, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. PREPARED FOR: Brian Wallace/DCDOH

Bob Stroud/EPA Region III PREPARED BY: Armalia Berry-Washington/NAVFAC-Washington COPIES: Jeffrey Kidwell/NDW Environmental and Safety Department

Gunarti Coghlan/CH2M HILL Scott MacEwen/CH2M HILL

DATE: October 14, 2005 (Revised October 26, 2005)

1.0 Introduction and Background The purpose of this Technical Memorandum (Tech Memo) is to present and evaluate the results of the July 2005 supplemental soil sampling for mercury at Site 16 (Former Mercury Removal Area) at the Washington Navy Yard (WNY), Washington, D.C., as well as to provide an updated human health risk assessment (HHRA) that incorporates this new soil data. Ultimately, the updated human health risk evaluation will be used to provide recommendations for future actions, including an evaluation of the need to perform a feasibility study (FS) for Site 16.

Site 16 and the area identified as the Former Mercury Removal Area are presented in Figure 1 and Photo 1.

Previous Activity 1996 Site Characterization

In July 1996, during a Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System investigation at the WNY, free-phase mercury was detected on sampling equipment withdrawn from the subsurface in the southeastern portion of Site 16 (NFESC, 1996). No free-phase mercury was observed at any other sampling location.

1999 Removal Action

During June 1999, a time-critical removal action was conducted to remove soil impacted with elemental mercury (OHM, 1999a, 1999b). A 12 x 12-foot area was excavated to a depth of 6 foot to remove the soil containing free-phase mercury. The soil containing free-phase mercury was estimated to be contained within a 4 x 4-foot area located between 3 and 4 feet below grade. After the removal action, four discrete sidewall samples at a depth of 3 feet below grade and a four-point composite bottom sample were collected in the excavation zone (OHM, 1999). Concentrations of mercury in all post-excavation samples were less than

SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY NECESSITY EVALUATION FOR SITE 16, WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, WASHINGTON, D.C.

2 WDC052410001.ZIP

the 1999 USEPA Region III risk-based concentrations (RBCs) for industrial soils (610 mg/kg).

2002 Remedial Investigation (RI) for Site 16 The RI at Site 16 was conducted to better define and characterize the nature and extent of contamination related to the free-phase mercury observed in soil. The broad purpose of the Site 16 RI was to collect sufficient data so that the three-dimensional nature and extent of contamination and potential risks to human health could be evaluated adequately at the site. Sample locations are shown on Figure 2. The human health risk assessment indicated that the primary risk driver for residential ingestion of soil was 1,2,3,7,8- pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. This compound was detected above human health risk-based screening criteria in only one historic soil sample (S071SU0308XX) collected in 1996.

2003 Feasibility Study Soil Sampling

Based on a detailed review of the post-excavation sampling performed during the removal action in 1999, the WNY Cleanup Team agreed to collect additional soil samples to better determine the mercury concentrations at the base of the removal action area (CH2M HILL, 2003). The additional samples were collected in July 2003, near the area near the four-point composite bottom sample collected.

Subsurface soil samples (WS16-DS01-06 through WS16-DS05-06) were collected from five locations within the footprint of the former mercury removal area at Site 16. Sample locations are shown on Figure 2. Each subsurface soil sample was collected from a depth of 6 to 8 feet below ground surface (ft-bgs), equivalent to the base of the former excavation. The five samples were analyzed for total mercury; mercury concentrations detected in these soil samples were 0.04 mg/kg, 0.28 mg/kg, 1.4 mg/kg, 39 mg/kg, and 394 mg/kg.

2004 Feasibility Study Technical Memorandum

Based on the elevated mercury in soil detected during the 2003 investigation, the WNY Cleanup Team agreed to perform additional soil sampling. The additional sampling was defined in the Work Plan for Additional Subsurface Soil Sampling at Site 16, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC (CH2M HILL, 2004a). The objectives of the investigation were to:

• Determine the three-dimensional nature and extent of contamination with a focus on the vertical delineation of mercury in the subsurface soil.

• Supplement the human health risk assessment; and

• Determine the need for and scope of a FS for remediation, if risks to human health are unacceptable.

Soil sampling conducted in 2004 consisted of the collection of 27 samples from 9 locations concentrated around the west side of the removal action area (Figure 2). At each location, samples were collected at three depth intervals: 6 – 8 ft bgs, 8 – 10 ft bgs, and 10 – 12 ft bgs. Concentrations of mercury in these samples ranged from 0.05 mg/kg to 141 mg/kg. No elemental mercury was observed during the sampling.

The results of the July 2004 sampling were presented in the FFA Final Site 16 Feasibility Study Soil Sampling and Necessity Evaluation (CH2M HILL, 2005). The Site 16 HHRA was


WDC052410001.ZIP 3

revised and updated with the addition of the soil sampling data for mercury collected in 2004. The July 2004 sampling event combined with previously analyzed subsurface soil samples (i.e. 1999, 2002 and 2003) delineated the vertical and lateral extent of mercury contamination in the subsurface at Site 16. The revised HHRA concluded that current and future site conditions present no unacceptable human health risks (CH2M HILL, 2005).

Although the three-dimensional extent of mercury contamination was well-characterized in the former mercury removal area, additional sampling activities were recommended for mercury at sample location WS16-DS01 (northwest corner of former mercury removal area) from the 8-10 and 10-12 ft-bgs intervals to better characterize the vertical extent at the location where the greatest concentration of mercury had been found (394 mg/kg in 2003) and to confirm that no elemental mercury is present (Figure 2). The analytical results for these samples collected in July 2005 and the revised HHRA for Site 16 are presented in Section 2 below.

2.0 Results of 2005 Supplemental FS Soil Sampling Subsurface direct-push soil samples were collected in July 2005, at Site 16. Figure 2 shows all the subsurface sampling locations, sample interval depths, and mercury concentrations taken in the vicinity of the Former Mercury Removal Area. Figure 3 illustrates the vertical profile of the additional sample locations and mercury results, as well as the associated sample intervals in relation to previously collected samples. Attachment A includes updated USEPA RAGS Part D tables for mercury. The RAGS D tables included in the RI report are still current for all COPCs besides mercury (CH2M HILL, 2002).

July 2005 Results Two subsurface soil samples (and one duplicate) were collected in July 2005 at depth intervals of 8-10 ft-bgs and 10-12 ft-bgs at the WS16-DP01 sample location (Figure 2). No elemental mercury was observed in the July 2005 samples. The water table interface was encountered at the depth of approximately 4 ft-bgs.

The detected concentrations of mercury in the samples collected in July 2005 were less than the adjusted Region III risk-based concentration (RBC) for residential exposure to mercuric chloride in soil (2.3 mg/kg). The sample collected from the 8 – 10 ft-bgs interval contained 1.1 mg/kg of total mercury. The sample collected from the 10 – 12 ft-bgs interval contained 0.21 mg/kg of total mercury and the duplicate of this sample had 0.47 mg/kg of total mercury.

The results of the combined sampling events at Site 16 performed from 1999 through 2005 indicate that the three-dimensional extent of mercury is well defined with higher concentrations of mercury generally confined to the 6-8 ft-bgs interval in the western half of the former mercury removal location (area of approximately 8 feet by 16 feet).

Revised HHRA The Site 16 HHRA was revised and updated with the addition of the soil sampling data for mercury collected in July 2005. The USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) does not include cancer slope factors for mercury. Therefore, mercury is not evaluated as a


4 WDC052410001.ZIP

carcinogen and hence, the cancer risk was not recalculated for any of the receptors evaluated in this assessment. The table below presents the updated reasonable maximum exposure (RME) and central tendency exposure (CTE) hazard quotients (HQs) for mercury. In addition, the total hazard index (HI) for mercury and other constituents of potential concern (COPCs) under the RME and CTE scenarios is presented. The CTE analysis followed only when the RME hazard index (HI) exceeded one.

Updated Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) and Central Tendency Exposure (CTE) Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI) Values, Site 16 Human Health Risk Assessment

RME CTE Receptor

HQ-Mercury HI-Total HQ-Mercury HI-Total

Future Resident, Adult 0.87 0.94 NC NC

Future Resident, Child 7.2 7.7 0.34 0.47

Future Construction Worker 0.67 0.72 NC NC

Future Industrial Worker 0.77 0.82 NC NC

Future Trespasser/Visitor, Adult

0.41 0.43 NC NC

Future Trespasser/Visitor, Child

1.8 1.9 0.067 0.096

NC = Not calculated because RME value is below one.

Based on the number of samples collected in relation to the areal extent (43 samples analyzed for mercury in and area measuring less than 30 feet by 30 feet and less than 12 feet deep; or approximately one sample per 7 cubic yards of soil), the data used to estimate exposure should be representative of site conditions. The maximum detected concentration of mercury at Site 16 (394 mg/kg at WS16- DS01-06 in July 2003) was present in a duplicate sample; the primary sample from this same location and depth had mercury detected at 59.2 mg/kg. Although these results seem disparate, as a conservative measure the higher of the two concentrations was used to calculate the exposure point concentration (EPC).

Risk Characterization This risk assessment conservatively assumes potential contact with current subsurface soil at the surface in the future by residents, facility workers, trespassers/visitors, and construction workers. The HHRA uncertainties described in the 2002 Site 16 RI remain applicable to this revised risk assessment.

The EPC for mercury in this updated assessment was calculated using the most current version of the ProUCL program (Version 3.00.02). The program determined that the mercury data from Site 16 did not fit a normal, lognormal, or gamma distribution and


WDC052410001.ZIP 5

suggested that non-parametric methods be used to estimate the upper confidence limit (UCL). The 99% UCL was calculated using the Chebyshev inequality using the sample mean and standard deviation. The resulting EPC for mercury at Site 16 is 120 mg/kg.

The most likely receptor to come into direct contact with subsurface soil at Site 16 is the future construction worker. As shown on the above table, the future construction worker exposed to subsurface soil at Site 16 would not be expected to experience unacceptable risks.

Although the RME assessment for future child residents and trespassers/visitors resulted in HIs above the USEPA target level, the CTE evaluation for both receptors results in HIs below the target level. Given the high density of the samples collected in this area, the risks calculated under the CTE scenario are appropriate, and indicate there are no potentially unacceptable risks at Site 16 to exposed receptors under any current and future land-use scenarios. In addition, given the current and reasonably anticipated future conditions, residential exposure is unlikely.

HHRA Summary The revised HHRA incorporated all Site 16 data and concluded that current and future site conditions present no unacceptable human health risks. The highest concentrations of mercury were detected in subsurface soil samples from 6 to 8 feet below ground surface that were collected in 2003. Subsequent sampling conducted in 2005 at the same location but at the 8 – 10 ft-bgs interval and 10 – 12 ft-bgs interval detected mercury at concentrations less than the RBC for residential contact with soil. Additionally, during none of the post-removal action sampling events, was elemental mercury identified. As documented in the RI (CH2M HILL 2002), the risk driver for receptor contact with subsurface soil across Site 16 (as opposed to just the former mercury removal area, as is documented in this memo) was dioxins. However, this was driven by one sample that contained a dioxin congener at a concentration greater than the human health based screening value. The RI documents that the absence of any likely source of dioxin in subsurface soil at Site 16 would indicate that its presence reflects the nature of the fill source in this area rather than impacts from historical activities as Site 16. The nature of the fill across the WNY is being evaluated under the ongoing SSA 12 investigation. Based on the SSA 12 work plan, Site 16 is encompassed by Exposure Area 24, which covers approximately 1.3 acres and will include collection of five fill samples within this area (CH2M HILL 2004b).

3.0 Recommendations Based on consideration of the soil samples collected at Site 16 (i.e. 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005) the vertical and lateral extent of mercury contamination in the subsurface at Site 16 has been adequately delineated. The revised HHRA concluded that exposure presents no unacceptable human health risks. Therefore no further action (NFA) is warranted for soil at Site 16. It is recommended that a NFA Proposed Plan be prepared for soil at Site 16.


6 WDC052410001.ZIP

4.0 References CH2M HILL, 2002. FFA Final Remedial Investigation for Site 16. Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. April.

CH2M HILL, 2003. Feasibility Study Field Investigation Soil Sampling Scope of Work Site 16 Former Mercury Removal Area, Washington Navy Yard. June.

CH2M HILL, 2004a. Feasibility Study Field Investigation Soil Sampling Scope of Work Site 16 Former Mercury Removal Area, Washington Navy Yard. March.

CH2M HILL, 2004b. FFA Final SSA12 Field Sampling Plan, Washington Navy Yard. June.

CH2M HILL, 2005. FFA Final Site 16 Feasibility Study Soil Sampling and Necessity Evaluation – Technical Memorandum. March 31.

Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC), 1996. Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS) Report.

OHM Remediation Services Corporation, 1999a. Action Memorandum For the Time-Critical Removal Action of Mercury-Contaminated Soil at Site 16, Washington Navy Yard. June.

OHM Remediation Services Corporation, 1999b. Removal Action Close-Out Special Bulletin Washington Navy Yard. August.

USEPA, 2005. EPA Region III Updated Risk-Based Concentration Table. April 7.

Photo

��

�

��

�� !" �"��##"��"��$�#�

��%��!�&�%��

%��!��'� ��%��(�%�## �� )�� (��*��+��(,�*��,�-.

��

/� 0� ��)�1��2,�0//2$�

Figures

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

� ��

��

�� !��!"�#�$"%&'"��#��$"$��(�$($�))(��* (+�+��)�

��#��*��&��,��+��-��*��'��+�.��

��))��+�&��+)��&#��$��$��&/��$�0��'��/'��*�$$��'��.��&�,��

1�$ �&#��&��.'�2��/3�1�$ �&#��&3�45��/�1�'

��6�&#��$

��%��&�$��&/� ��$7��/�&#$��.'�2��/�7��&/��'

� �!"

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��!��

��"��

�#�$%��

�#� %��

��&��

�#��%��

��

��'��

��

�#��%��

��(��

��#��

�#��

� � � ��

��

�� !�"#$�%� �&�!�!��'%!'!��'��(�')�)*��&

�� &��+��+�,!�&%�(��+*��+�)��# ��*(��*#!

�#-�.�&(�&$�/�!��!+��)�#��+*��+�)��# �/�!��!��#-

��!�,��$�+��-$��(�!!��$�01��*#��+��2�!��# �*#��1$�3�&-4�2�!��# �*#4��5

/*�-�2�$��&6�# �7&��

�/�+��!+�"�&��#�!��#-�8��%��!9��-�# !

�� +*��+�)��*(��*#!�:��;�)*)'�

7,*1��7-<�!��-�/�!�-�#��/95�%*&�� #�+*��:��) =6 ;

+*��+�)��*(��*#!�:��;�� +*��+�)��*(��*#!�:��4��;

��>��

��:%��,��*"� &�-�; .�&(�&$�/�!��#�) =6

+��*#�2+��

��*��(��-

+*��+�)��# ��*(��*#�:��;��

Appendix A

TABLE 1


Supplemental Site 16 Assessment, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.



Current Groundwater GroundwaterShallow Groundwater -

Tap Water Industrial Worker AdultDermal

Absorption On-site None Groundwater not currently used on site as a water supply.

Ingestion On-site None Groundwater not currently used on site as a water supply.

Surface Soil Surface Soil Direct Contact Industrial Worker AdultDermal



Trespasser/Visitor AdultDermal



AdolescentsDermal




soil Industrial Worker Adult Inhalation On-site None Site is covered by asphalt and therefore no current exposure to surface soil.

Trespasser/Visitor Adult Inhalation On-site None Site is covered by asphalt and therefore no current exposure to surface soil.Adolescents Inhalation On-site None Site is covered by asphalt and therefore no current exposure to surface soil.

Future Groundwater Groundwater Shallow Groundwater - Tap Water

Resident Adult Dermal Absorption

On-site NoneThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide Groundwater RI.

Ingestion On-site NoneThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide Groundwater RI.


On-site NoneThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide Groundwater RI.

Ingestion On-site NoneThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide Groundwater RI.

Shallow Groundwater - Water in Excavation Pit Construction Worker Adult

Dermal Absorption On-site Quant

Construction worker may contact shallow groundwater during construction activities.

Ingestion On-site NoneConstruction worker not expected to incidentally ingest significant amount of groundwater during construction activities.

Air

Shallow Groundwater -Water Vapors at

ShowerheadResident Adult Inhalation On-site None

The site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide Groundwater RI.

Child Inhalation On-site NoneThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, the groundwater for the base will be evaluated during the Basewide Groundwater RI.

Shallow Groundwater -Volatilization from Water in

Excavation PitConstruction Worker Adult Inhalation On-site Quant

Construction worker may inhale vapors from groundwater during construction activities.

Soil* Soil* Direct Contact Industrial Worker AdultDermal

Absorption On-site Quant Site workers could contact soil while conducting maintenance activities.

Ingestion On-site Quant Site workers could contact soil while conducting maintenance activities.

Trespasser/Visitor Adult Dermal Absorption

On-site Quant General public can access the site and may contact soil.


ChildDermal

Absorption On-site Quant General public can access the site and may contact soil.


Page1of2 10/13/2005

TABLE 1





Future Soil* Soil* Direct Contact Resident Adult Dermal Absorption






Adult/Child Dermal Absorption

On-Site QuantThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.

Ingestion On-Site QuantThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.

Construction Worker AdultDermal

Absorption On-site Quant Exposure to soil during construction activities.

Ingestion On-site Quant Exposure to soil during construction activities.


soil Industrial Worker Adult Inhalation On-site Quant Site workers may inhale vapors and dust from soil.

Trespasser/Visitor Adult Inhalation On-site Quant General public can access the site and inhale vapors and dust from soil.Child Inhalation On-site Quant General public can access the site and inhale vapors and dust from soil.

ResidentAdult Inhalation Off-site Quant

The site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.

Child Inhalation Off-site QuantThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.

Adult/Child Inhalation On-Site QuantThe site is a cultural/museum area and will become a recreational area per the Master Base Plan. However, future residential exposure to soil was evaluated as a worst-case scenario.

Construction Worker Adult Inhalation On-site Quant Exposure to emissions from soil during construction activities.

Current/Future Other Animal Tissue**

Direct Contact Fisher Adult Ingestion On-site/ Off-site


Child Ingestion On-site/ Off-site


* Subsurface soil as surface soil.

** Animal Tissue is fish.

Page2of2 10/13/2005

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future

Medium: Subsurface Soil Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil

Exposure CAS Chemical Units Location Detection Range of Concentration [2] Background [3] Screening [4] Potential Potential COPC Rationale for [5]

Point Number of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Toxicity Value ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Contaminant


Subsurface

Soil 7439-97-6 Mercury 4.00E-02 J 3.94E+02 mg/kg WS16-DS50-06 20/36 0.094 - 10 3.94E+02 6.10E-01 2.35E+00 N NA NA YES ASL



[3] Background values provided in RI Report. ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/


RBC value for mercuric chloride used as surrogate for mercury.

[5] Rationale Codes





Table 2.1



Minimum [1] Maximum [1]

Concentration Concentration

Qualifier Qualifier

8/29/200511:10 AM Page 1 of 1

WNYSite16FS_Table2s.xlsTABLE 2.1

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future

Medium: Subsurface Soil Exposure Medium: Air

Exposure CAS Chemical Units Location Detection Range of Concentration [2] Background [3] Screening [4] Potential Potential COPC Rationale for [5]

Point Number of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Toxicity Value ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Contaminant


Emissions from exposed subsurface soil

7439-97-6 Mercury 3.03E-08 J 2.98E-04 ug/m3 WS16-DS50-06 20/36 0.094 - 10 2.98E-04 N/A 3.14E-02 N N/A N/A NO BSL





[5] Rationale Codes





Concentration Concentration

Qualifier Qualifier

Table 2.1



Minimum [1] Maximum [1]

8/29/200511:11 AM Page 1 of 1

WNYSite16FS_Table2s.xlsTABLE 2.2

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Soil* Exposure Medium: Soil*

Exposure Point Chemical Units Arithmetic UCLof Mean (Distribution)

PotentialConcern Value Units Statistic Rationale

SubsurfaceSoil Mercury mg/kg 1.80E+01 1.20E+02 (NP) 3.94E+02 1.20E+02 mg/kg 99% Cheb-m (1)

For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit was used as a proxy concentration; for duplicate sample results, the maximum value was used in the calculation.ProUCL Version 3.00.02 used to calculate UCLs.Options: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m). Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T); Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).

(1) Data does not fit a normal, lognormal, or gamma distribution. Use non-parametric statistics to calculate UCL.


Table 3.1.RMEMEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY


Exposure Point ConcentrationMaximum

8/29/200511:11 AM Page 1 of 1

WNYSite16FS_Table3s.xlsTABLE 3.1.RME

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Soil* Exposure Medium: Soil*

Exposure Point Chemical Units Arithmetic UCLof Mean (Distribution)

PotentialConcern Value Units Statistic Rationale

SubsurfaceSoil Mercury mg/kg 1.80E+01 1.29E+02 (NP) 3.94E+02 1.80E+01 mg/kg Mean-N (1)

For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit was used as a proxy concentration; for duplicate sample results, the maximum value was used in the calculation.ProUCL Version 3.00.02 used to calculate UCLs.Options: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m). Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T); Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).

(1) Data do not fit a distribution; use the mean based on a normal distribution.


Table 3.1.CTEMEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY


Exposure Point ConcentrationMaximum

8/29/200511:13 AM Page 1 of 1

WNYSite16FS_Table3s.xlsTABLE 3.1.CTE

TABLE 4.1.RME







Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/Code Reference Model Name

Ingestion Resident Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 100 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1 0.000001 kg/mg - -

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991

AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) 8760 days EPA, 1989

Child Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =







Child/Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

IR-S-A Ingestion Rate of Soil, Adult 100 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR-S-Adj x EF x CF1 x 1/AT

IR-S-C Ingestion Rate of Soil, Child 200 mg/day EPA, 1991

IR-S-Adj Ingestion Rate of Soil, Age-adjusted 114 mg-year/kg-day Calculated IR-S-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) =

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991(ED-C x IR-S-C / BW-C) + (ED-A x IR-S-A / BW-A)

ED-A Exposure Duration, Adult 24 years EPA, 1991

ED-C Exposure Duration, Child 6 years EPA, 1991


BW-A Body Weight , Adult 70 kg EPA, 1991

BW-C Body Weight, Child 15 kg

AT-C Averaging Time (Cancer) 25550 days EPA, 1989

Page 1 of 6

TABLE 4.1.RME








Construction Worker Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =


EF Exposure Frequency 60 days/year (4)






Industrial Worker Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =








Trespasser/Visitor Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =






AT-C Averaging Time (Cancer) 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) 8,760 days EPA, 1989

Page 2 of 6

TABLE 4.1.RME








Trespasser/Visitor

(continued) Child Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =



ED Exposure Duration 6 years (2)


BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 1997 (3)



Dermal Residential Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,700 cm2 EPA, 2001 CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x

SSAF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.07 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2001 (7) ED x 1/BW x 1/AT

DABS Dermal Absorption Factor Solids chem specific -- EPA, 2001






Child Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =









Page 3 of 6

TABLE 4.1.RME








Child/Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

SA-A Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Adult 5,700 cm2 EPA, 2001 CS x DA-Adj x DABS x CF3 x EF x 1/AT

SA-C Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Child 2,800 cm2 EPA, 2001

SSAF-A Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.07 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2001 (7) DA-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) =

SSAF-C Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.2 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2001 (7) [(ED-C x SA-C x SSAF-C / BW-C) +

DA-Adj Dermal Absorption, Age-adjusted 361 mg-year/kg-day calculated (ED-A x SA-A x SSAF-A / BW-A)]






BW-C Body Weight, Child 15 kg EPA, 1991


Construction Worker Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,300 cm2 EPA, 2001 (5) CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x









Page 4 of 6

TABLE 4.1.RME








Industrial Worker Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =










Trespasser/Visitor Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =










Page 5 of 6

TABLE 4.1.RME








Trespasser/Visitor Child Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =










Notes:

(1): Professional Judgement assuming 2 days per week for 52 weeks per year.


(3) Body weight is average value for the 9 year old and 18 year old male body weight.

(4) Professional Judgement assuming that the construction would be open for 3 months (20 days per month), based on similar size excavations that have occurred at the WNY.

(5) RME SA for construction workers and adult recreators includes face, hands, forearm, and lower leg (USEPA 1997).

(6) RME SA recommended by USEPA for commercial/industrial workers and includes head, hands, and forearm (USEPA 2001).

(7) USEPA recommended value for adult and child resident (USEPA, 2001).

(8) USEPA value for construction worker, 95th percentile (USEPA, 2001).

(9) USEPA recommended value for commercial/industrial worker (USEPA, 2001).

(10) USEPA value for landscaper, 95th percentile (USEPA, 2001).

(11) USEPA value for teen soccer players in moist conditions, 95th percentile (USEPA, 2001).

Sources:






Page 6 of 6

TABLE 4.1.CTE


CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE






Ingestion Resident Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =







Child Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =







Child/Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

IR-S-A Ingestion Rate of Soil, Adult 50 mg/day EPA, 1993 CS x IR-S-Adj x EF x CF1 x 1/AT

IR-S-C Ingestion Rate of Soil, Child 100 mg/day EPA, 1993

IR-S-Adj Ingestion Rate of Soil, Age-adjusted 46.43 mg-year/kg-day calculated IR-S-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) =

EF Exposure Frequency 234 days/year EPA, 1993(ED-C x IR-S-C / BW-C) + (ED-A x IR-S-A / BW-A)







Page 1 of 6

TABLE 4.1.CTE








Construction Worker Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =








Industrial Worker Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =








Recreational User Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE CDI (mg/kg-day) =








Page 2 of 6

TABLE 4.1.CTE








Recreational User Adolescents Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE CDI (mg/kg-day) =

(continued) IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 50 mg/day EPA, 1993 CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT







Dermal Resident Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE CDI (mg/kg-day) =









Child Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE CDI (mg/kg-day) =









Page 3 of 6

TABLE 4.1.CTE








Child/Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE CDI (mg/kg-day) =

SA-A Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Adult 5,000 cm2 EPA, 1997 CS x DA-Adj x DABS x CF3 x EF x 1/AT

SA-C Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Child 2,094 cm2 EPA, 1997

SSAF-A Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.07 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2001 (7) DA-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) =

SSAF-C Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.2 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2001 (8) [(ED-C x SA-C x SSAF-C / BW-C) +

DA-Adj Dermal Absorption, Age-adjusted 212.5 mg-year/kg-day calculated (ED-A x SA-A x SSAF-A / BW-A)]








Construction Worker Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE CDI (mg/kg-day) =










Page 4 of 6

TABLE 4.1.CTE








Industrial Worker Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE CDI (mg/kg-day) =










Recreational User Adult Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE CDI (mg/kg-day) =










Page 5 of 6

TABLE 4.1.CTE








Recreational User Adolescents Exposed Subsurface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.1.CTE mg/kg See Table 3.1.CTE CDI (mg/kg-day) =

(continued) SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 3,700 cm2 EPA, 1997 CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x









Notes:

(1): Professional Judgement assuming 1 day per week for 52 weeks per year.

(2) One-half the RME value.


(4) CT SA is the sum of the mean surface areas (for a male) of the head and hands.

(5) CT SSAF is average soil adherence to hands Gardeners No. 1 and No. 2 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12.

(6) CT SA is the sum of the mean surface areas (for a male) of the head and hands.

(7) USEPA recommended value for adult resident (USEPA, 2001).

(8) USEPA recommended value for child resident (USEPA, 2001).

(9) USEPA value for construction worker, geometric mean (USEPA, 2001).

(10) USEPA recommended value for commercial/industrial worker (USEPA, 2001).

(11) USEPA value for landscaper, geometric mean (USEPA, 2001).

(12) USEPA value for teen soccer players in moist conditions, geometric mean (USEPA, 2001).

Sources:






Page 6 of 6

TABLE 5.1




of Potential Subchronic Value Units Adjustment Dermal Target Uncertainty/Modifying Target Organ Target Organ

Concern Factor (1) RfD Organ Factors (MM/DD/YY)

Mercury (elemental) Chronic NA mg/kg-day NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Subchronic NA mg/kg-day NA NA NA NA NA NA NAMercuric chloride Chronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 7% 2.1E-05 mg/kg-day Immune System 100 IRIS 8/1/2005

Subchronic NA mg/kg-day NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA = Not Applicable or Not Available.

(1) Refer to RAGS, Part E. (USEPA, July 2004).


TABLE 5.2





Concern RfC RfD (1) Organ Factors Target Organ

(2)

Mercury (elemental) Chronic 3.01E-04 mg/m3 8.60E-05 mg/kg-day CNS 30 IRIS 8/1/2005

Subchronic NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Mercuric chloride Chronic NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Subchronic NA mg/m3NA NA NA NA NA NA

CNS = Central nervous system.

NA = Not Applicable.

(1) Provide equation used for derivation in text.(2) IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

8/29/2005

TABLE 6.1






Mercury NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA-Not available

For NCEA values, provide article date provided by NCEA.

8/29/200511:22 AM Page1of1

WNYSite16FS_Table6.xlsTABLE61

TABLE 6.2





Concern Description

Mercury NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA-Not available

8/29/200511:22 AM Page1of1

filename:WNYSite16FS_Table6.xlssheetname:TABLE62

TABLE 7.1.RME

CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS





Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard CalculationsPotential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Ingestion Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA 1.7E-04 mg/kg/day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 5.5E-01

Exp. Route Total NA 5.5E-01

Dermal Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA 6.6E-06 mg/kg/day 2.1E-05 mg/kg-day 3.2E-01

Absorption


Exposure Point Total NA 8.7E-01

Exposure Medium Total NA 8.7E-01

Medium Total NA 8.7E-01

Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media NA Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 8.7E-01

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 7.2.RME






Receptor Age: Child



Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Ingestion Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA 1.6E-03 mg/kg/day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 5.2E+00

Exp. Route Total NA 5.2E+00

Dermal Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA 4.3E-05 mg/kg/day 2.1E-05 mg/kg-day 2.1E+00

Absorption

Exp. Route Total NA 2.1E+00

Exposure Point Total NA 7.2E+00

Exposure Medium Total NA 7.2E+00

Medium Total NA 7.2E+00

Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media NA Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 7.2E+00

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 7.3.RME









Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Ingestion Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg 1.9E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA NA NA NA 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day NA

Exp. Route Total 0.0E+00 NA

Dermal Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg 6.0E-06 mg/kg-day NA NA NA NA NA 2.1E-05 mg/kg-day NA

Absorption

Exp. Route Total 0.0E+00 NA

Exposure Point Total 0.0E+00 NA

Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 NA

Medium Total 0.0E+00 NA

Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 0.0E+00 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media NA

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 7.4.RME






Receptor Age: Adult



Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Ingestion Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg 2.0E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.4E-04 mg/kg/day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 4.6E-01

Exp. Route Total 0.0E+00 4.6E-01

Dermal Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg 6.5E-08 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 4.5E-06 mg/kg/day 2.1E-05 mg/kg-day 2.2E-01

Absorption


Exposure Point Total 0.0E+00 6.7E-01

Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 6.7E-01

Medium Total 0.0E+00 6.7E-01

Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 0.0E+00 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 6.7E-01

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 7.5.RME






Receptor Age: Adult



Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Ingestion Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg 4.2E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.2E-04 mg/kg/day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 4.0E-01








Page 1 of 1

TABLE 7.6.RME






Receptor Age: Adult



Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Ingestion Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg 1.7E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 4.9E-05 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 1.6E-01


Dermal Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg 1.8E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 5.2E-06 mg/kg-day 2.1E-05 mg/kg-day 2.5E-01

Absorption






Page 1 of 1

TABLE 7.7.RME






Receptor Age: Child



Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Ingestion Mercury 1.2E+02 mg/kg 4.0E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 4.6E-04 mg/kg/day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 1.5E+00

Exp. Route Total 0.0E+00 1.5E+00


Absorption


Exposure Point Total 0.0E+00 1.8E+00

Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 1.8E+00

Medium Total 0.0E+00 1.8E+00

Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 0.0E+00 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 1.8E+00

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 7.1.CTE






Receptor Age: Child



Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Ingestion Mercury 1.8E+01 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA 7.7E-05 mg/kg/day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 2.6E-01


Dermal Mercury 1.8E+01 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA 1.8E-06 mg/kg/day 2.1E-05 mg/kg-day 8.4E-02

Absorption


Exposure Point Total NA 3.4E-01

Exposure Medium Total NA 3.4E-01


Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media NA Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 3.4E-01

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 7.2.CTE






Receptor Age: Child



Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Ingestion Mercury 1.8E+01 mg/kg NA mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.7E-05 mg/kg/day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 5.7E-02


Dermal Mercury 1.8E+01 mg/kg NA mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.2E-07 mg/kg/day 2.1E-05 mg/kg-day 1.0E-02

Absorption






Page 1 of 1

TABLE 9.1.RME






Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil* Soil* Exposed Soil* for Site 16 Mercury NA NA NA 0.0E+00 Immune System 5.5E-01 NA 3.2E-01 8.7E-01

Chemical Total NA NA NA NA 5.5E-01 NA 3.2E-01 8.7E-01


Receptor Total NA Receptor HI Total 8.7E-01

Total Immune System HI Across All Media = 8.7E-01

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 9.2.RME






Receptor Age: Child





Soil* Soil* Exposed Soil* for Site 16 Mercury NA NA NA 0.0E+00 Immune System 5.2E+00 NA 2.1E+00 7.2E+00

Chemical Total NA NA NA NA 5.2E+00 NA 2.1E+00 7.2E+00


Receptor Total NA Receptor HI Total 7.2E+00

Total Immune System HI Across All Media = 7.2E+00

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 9.3.RME











Soil* Soil* Exposed Soil* for Site 16 Mercury NA NA NA 0.0E+00 Immune System NA NA NA 0.0E+00




Page 1 of 1

TABLE 9.4.RME






Receptor Age: Adult










Page 1 of 1

TABLE 9.5.RME






Receptor Age: Adult










Page 1 of 1

TABLE 9.6.RME






Receptor Age: Adult










Page 1 of 1

TABLE 9.7.RME



Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. (Site 16)



Receptor Age: Child





Soil* Soil* Exposed Soil* for Site 16 Mercury NA NA NA 0.0E+00 Immune System 1.5E+00 NA 2.6E-01 1.8E+00

Chemical Total NA NA NA NA 1.5E+00 NA 2.6E-01 1.8E+00




Page 1 of 1

TABLE 9.1.CTE






Receptor Age: Child










Page 1 of 1

TABLE 9.2.CTE






Receptor Age: Child










Page 1 of 1

TABLE 10.1.RME

RISK SUMMARY





Receptor Age: Child





Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface SoilMercury NA NA NA 0.0E+00 Immune System 5.2E+00 NA 2.1E+00 7.2E+00





Page 1 of 1

TABLE 10.2.RME

RISK SUMMARY





Receptor Age: Child





Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface SoilMercury NA NA NA 0.0E+00 Immune System 1.5E+00 NA 2.6E-01 1.8E+00

Chemical Total NA NA NA NA 1.5E+00 NA 2.6E-01 1.8E+00




Page 1 of 1

Documents

RECORD OF DECISION (RODS) - United States ... of Decision Site 5—Building 73 and Site 16—Former Mercury Removal Area Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. Naval Facilities Engineering