washington navy yard washington, d.c. natrac
TRANSCRIPT
FFA Final
Record of DecisionSite 14—Building 292Washington Navy Yard
Washington, D.C.
NATRACNaval Facilities Engineering Command
NAVFAC WASHINGTON
Naval Facilities Engineering CommandWashington
United States Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III
***Department of Health
September 2005
2050328
V
Contents
1 Declaration 1-11.1 Site Name and Location 1-11.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose 1-11.3 Description of the Selected Remedy 1-11.4 Statutory Determinations 1-21.5 Authorizing Signature 1-2
2 Decision Summary 2-12.1 Site Name, Location, and Description 2-12.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities 2-1
2.2.1 Site History 2-12.2.2 Enforcement Activities and Previous Investigations 2-1
2.3 Community Participation 2-42.4 Scope and Role of the Response Action 2-52.5 Site Characteristics 2-5
2.5.1 Physical Setting 2-52.5.2 Conceptual Site Model 2-62.5.3 Sampling Strategy 2-62.5.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination 2-6
2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Resource Uses 2-72.7 Risk Summary 2-7
2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment 2-72.7.2 Ecological Risks 2-112.7.3 Conclusions .- 2-12
2.8 Selected Remedy 2-122.9 Documentation of Significant Changes 2-12
3 Responsiveness Summary 3-13.1 Overview 3-13.2 Background on Community Involvement 3-13.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period, Navy
Responses 3-1
4 References 4-1
5 Glossary 5-1
Appendixes
A DCDOH Letter of ConcurrenceB Public Meeting Transcript - March 9, 2005C Human Health Risk Assessment Results
WDC042670002.ZIP
RECORD OF DECISION, SITE 14- BUILDING 292
Figures (Figures are located at the end of each section.)
2-1 Washington Navy Yard Location Map2-2 Washington Navy Yard Site Plan2-3 Site 14 Soil and Groundwater Sample Locations2-4 Conceptual Exposure Model for Potential Human Exposures, Site 14
WDC042670002.ZIP
/£• " '... . V
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AOC
bgs
CERCLA
COCCOFCCSFCSMCTE
DCDOH
EPA
FS
HHKAHIHQ
1FIIRIRIS
LID
MCL
NavyNCRNFL
OSHA
PAPAHPCBPEL
RABRBCRfDRIRMEROD
SARASI
Area of Concern
below ground surface
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability ActChemical of ConcernChemical of Potential ConcernCancer Slope FactorConceptual Site ModelCentral Tendency Exposure
District of Columbia Department of Health
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Feasibility Study
human health risk assessmentHazard IndexHazard Quotient
Initial Findings InvestigationInstallation RestorationIntegrated Risk Information System
Low Impact Development
Maximum Contaminant Level
Department of the NavyNational Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency PlanNational Priorities List
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
Preliminary Assessmentpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonpolychlorinated biphenylPermissible Exposure Limit
Restoration Advisory BoardRisk-Based ConcentrationReference DoseRemedial InvestigationReasonable Maximum ExposureRecord of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActSite Investigation
WDC042670002.ZIP
RE:CORD OF DECISION. SITE 14- BUILDING 292
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
VOC volatile organic compound
WNY Washington Navy Yard
VI WDC042670002.ZIP
SECTION 1
Declaration
1.1 Site Name and LocationSite 14-Building 292Washington Navy YardWashington, D.C.CERCLIS ID No. DC9170024310
1.2 Statement of Basis and PurposeThis Record of Decision (ROD) presents the Selected Remedy for soil at Site 14, consisting ofthe soil around and under Building 292 at the Washington Navy Yard (WNY), Washington,D.C. The Selected Remedy was chosen in accordance with the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amendedby the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extentpracticable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).This decision is based on information contained in the Administrative Record file for theWNY.
The Department of the Navy (Navy) and the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) selected the remedy and the District of Columbia Department of Health(DCDOH) concurs with the Selected Remedy. A letter from DCDOH indicating concurrencewith the selected remedy is provided in Appendix A.
The decision contained in this document is based on information and analysis currentlyavailable as a result of a thorough investigation of the Site. The decision does not precludefurther review of the Site should additional information be identified.
1.3 Description of the Selected RemedyNo further action is the Selected Remedy for the soil at Site 14. The no further action remedyselection is based on the remedial investigation (including the baseline human health andecological risk assessment) of soil at Site 14, which indicate that there are no unacceptablerisks based on current site conditions, and even if future residential use is assumed. Nofurther action under CERCLA is necessary to protect human health and welfare of theenvironment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into theenvironment from the soil at Site 14.
Site 14 is one of 15 sites at the WNY and is included in the Navy's WNY InstallationRestoration (IR) Program. Separate investigations and assessments are being conducted ateach site in accordance with CERCLA. This ROD applies only to the soil at Site 14,specifically the soil around and under Building 292.
WDC042670002.ZIP
RECORD OF DECISION, SITE 14-BUILDING 292
1.4 Statutory DeterminationsThis ROD only considers soil at Site 14; groundwater at the WNY is currently beingevaluated as part of a separate investigation.
This remedy will not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remainingon site above levels that prevent unlimited use and unrestricted exposure; therefore, a5-year review will not be required for this remedial action.
1.5 Authorizing Signature
G. A. CHAMBERLAIN, JR/ CAPT DateCommanding Officer, /Naval Support Activity Washington
Abraham Ferdas, Director DateHazardous Site Cleanup DivisionU.S. EPA-Region III
1-2 WDCM2670002.ZIP
c/-.
A
SECTION 2
Decision Summary
2.1 Site Name, Location, and DescriptionThe WNY (EPA ID No. DC9170024310) covers 63.3 acres and borders the Anacosria River insoutheastern Washington, D.C. (Figure 2-1). Commercial and vacant commercial propertiesalong M Street border the facility on the north, commercial properties and a formerindustrial area along llth Street on the east, the Southeast Federal Center (SEFC) on thewest, and the Anacostia River on the south.
The WNY consists primarily of buildings and other impervious surfaces with littlevegetated area. The WNY's role throughout its two centuries of operation has beenprimarily ordnance production and research, but it also has included shipbuilding andrepair, industrial development, and heavy equipment manufacturing. After World War II,the WNY's role shifted from manufacturing to administration. Currently, the WNY includesadministrative, supply, and storage buildings; residences; training facilities; and museums.Buildings and other impervious surfaces cover approximately 95 percent of the WNY.
Site 14 includes Building 292, located in the central area of the WNY (Figure 2-2). Site 14 isdescribed in greater detail below, and in the FFA Final Focused Remedial Investigation Report forSites 4 and 14 (CH2M HILL, 2003), hereafter referred to as the Focused RI.
2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities
2.2.1 Site HistorySite 14 includes a single-story building (Building 292) on the WNY, located east of WillardPark. Building 292, currently used for storage, was formerly designated ElectricalSubstation "C" for the WNY. This site formerly included a transformer (on the west side ofthe building), and other electrical equipment that contained polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs). Because the site is located near a storm sewer leading to Outfall 6, which dischargesto the Anacostia River, the site may have contributed to historical sediment contaminationin the sewer. Building 292 was also used to store unspecified maintenance materials for thebleacher seats formerly located west of Building 292.
2.2.2 Enforcement Activities and Previous Investigations
2.2.2.1 Enforcement Activities
On July 16,1997, the EPA and the Navy entered into a Consent Order to perform a RCRAFacility Investigation (RFI) at the WNY to determine the nature and extent of potentialreleases of hazardous wastes, solid wastes, and/or hazardous constituents at or from theWNY. The EPA's jurisdiction to issue the Consent Order derived from authority vested inEPA by Section 7003 of the RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid WasteAmendments of 1984.
WDC042670002.ZIP 2-1
RECORD OF DECISION. SITE 14-BUILDING 292
Pursuant to CEKCLA authorities, on Marcli 6, 1998, the EPA proposed the WNY for listingon the Federal Facilities section of the National Priorities List (NPL) by publishing aproposed rule in the Federal Register (volume 63, number 44, pages 11,340-11,345). TheFederal Register notice announced EPA's public comment period for the proposed listing ofthe WNY (and several other sites) from March 6, 1998, through May 5,1998. The WNY wasadded 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, theDistrict of Columbia, and the Navy was signed on June 30,1999. In accord with ExecutiveOrder 12580 and the NCP, the Navy functions as the lead agency for the management andcleanup of the WNY IR sites under CERCLA. Effective September 27,1999, the FFAsuperseded the July 16,1997 RCRA Order. Site 14 was identified in the FFA as Building 292.
2.2.2.2 Previous Investigations
A summary of the previous investigations performed at Site 14 based on the Focused RI forSite 14 is presented below.
Figure 2-3 depicts the soil sample locations and excavation areas at Site 14.
Preliminary Assessment. In 1993, Baker Environmental, Inc. (Baker) prepared a PreliminaryAssessment (PA) report using historical documents, personal interviews, and consultationwith state and federal agencies to identify 16 Areas of Concern (AOCs) at the WNY thatwould require further study (Baker, 1993). Site 14 was not specifically evaluated during thisassessment; however, Outfall 6, which is associated with Site 14, was evaluated. Based onresults of later investigations, the storm sewer discharging to Outfall 6 was rehabilitated inDecember 1999.
Site Investigation. In 1995, Baker conducted a Site Investigation (SI) study on 13 sites and 2AOCs, including Site 14 (Baker, 1996). Surface soil samples1 and a sub-basement surfacewater samples were collected during the investigation at Site 14 to assess the potentialpresence of PCBs originating from the electrical equipment previously located at Building292. Surface soil samples at locations north, west, and south of Building 292 were fieldscreened for PCBs during the SI. Based on elevated PCB field screening results, four of thesesamples, collected from locations south of Building 292, were sent to a laboratory for PCBanalysis, which indicated that PCBs were present in the surface soil. Refer to Figure 2-3 forthe 1995 Baker soil sample locations.
Storm Sewer (Outfall 6) Sediment Investigation. In 1995, the EPA investigated the sedimentwithin the storm sewer lines at the WNY and SEFC to determine whether these facilitiescould be adversely affecting the Anacostia River. During this investigation, one sedimentsample was collected near Building 292 from the storm sewer that discharges to Outfall 6.The sediment sample contained elevated levels of copper, lead, and PCBs. The storm sewerdischarging to Outfall 6 was rehabilitated in December 1999.
1 The Site 14 PRAP incorrectly refers to the soil samples taken by Baker in 1995 as subsurface samples. According to the1996 SI, the 12 samples taken during the SI were surface soil samples taken between 0 to 0.5 feet below ground surface(Baker, 1995).
2-2 WDCW2670002 ZIP
SECTION 2-OECIS10N SUMMARY
Soil Removal Action. Based on the SI results, the Navy conducted a removal action inNovember 1997 to remove PCB-contaminated soil from a 28-by-22-foot area adjacent to, andsouth of, Building 292. Two separate excavation activities were performed, within the sameexcavation area, to fully remove PCB-contaminated soil. During these excavation activities,a display cannon on a 7-by-5-foot concrete pad was not moved; therefore, soil beneath thecannon was not evaluated for PCBs. Refer to Figure 2-3 for the location of the removalaction excavation area and the approximate location of the cannon pad.
Initial Findings Investigation. Between July 1999 and March 2000, CH2M HILL, Inc.conducted an Initial Findings Investigation (IF!) as part of the facility-wide RemedialInvestigations (RI) at the WNY. The IFI identified geologic and hydrogeologic data gaps andrecommendations for addressing them. Soil and groundwater samples were collected fromalong the storm sewer line to assess the potential for contamination at Site 14 to enter thestorm sewer.
Thirteen soil samples were collected from 12 direct push locations and 2 groundwatersamples were collected at 2 of the 12 direct push locations. The samples were collected alonga storm sewer line (Building 292's eastern side) leading to Outfall 6. Elevated PCBsconcentrations had previously been detected in samples collected from the storm sewersediment and from around the perimeter of Building 292 by Baker in 1995. The investigationresults indicated that the removal action completed in 1997 successfully removed PCB-contaminated soil. Additionally, significant contribution of PCBs to the sewer linedischarging to Outfall 6 did not appear to be occurring, based on the post-removal actionPCB concentrations in the Site 14 soils. Refer to Figure 2-3 for the 1999 IFI soil samplelocations.
Storm Sewer Rehabilitation Between 1998 and 2001, the Navy replaced or rehabilitated thestorm sewer lines across the entire Navy Yard. The storm sewer lines were repaired and themanholes, inlets, and trench drains leading to outfalls to the Anacostia River were inspectedand repaired or replaced. This rehabilitation eliminated a possible pathway of contaminantsto the Anacostia River.
In December 1999, the storm sewer line associated with Site 14 (the storm sewer linedischarging to Outfall 6) was rehabilitated (sewer pipe relined in place) from Building 292'ssouthern side to the Anacostia River, and by line replacement from the same pointnorthward. Therefore, this storm sewer line's current condition, based on the recent stormsewer rehabilitation project, indicates that minimal entry of groundwater and/or soil intothe lines will occur.
During the storm sewer rehabilitation project at Site 14, the display cannon located south ofBuilding 292 (that had not been moved during the 1997 soil removal action) was moved andthe area was excavated down to approximately 8 to 10 feet below ground surface for theinstallation of a manhole structure and associated piping. A new cannon pad was createdfor the cannon, as the former pad crumbled during excavation, and the cannon was placedon the new concrete pad. The excavation of soil in the cannon area completed the removal ofPCB-contaminated soil south of Building 292. Refer to Figure 2-3 for the location of thestorm sewer rehabilitation excavation area.
WDC042670002 ZIP 2-3
RECORD OF DECISION. SITE 14--BUILDING 292
Another WNY project related to rehabilitating the storm water sewer system was theconstruction of a number of Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater managementstructures throughout the WNY. LID structures, such as trenches or tree boxes, collectstormwater. The trees, plants, and soil in the structures filter pollutants out of the surfacerunoff from roads and parking lots before it gets to the storm sewer. A LID structure hasbeen installed at Site 14 and is located at the southeast corner of Building 292.
Data Gaps Investigation. In 2001, CH2M HILL conducted a Data Gap Investigation (DGI) toaddress data gaps identified during the IFI. The investigation consisted of collecting andanalyzing samples of soil and groundwater to complement the data already obtained, tobetter evaluate potential contamination at the WNY.
Four direct push subsurface soil samples were collected at Site 14 along Building 292'swestern side to evaluate whether PCBs have the potential to migrate along that side.Hlevated PCBs concentrations were detected in two of the four soil samples. However,based on risk to human health and environment calculations performed in 2003 as part ofthe Site 14 Focused RI, these PCB concentrations do not pose an unacceptable risk to humanhealth and environment. Refer to Figure 2-3 for the 2001 DGI soil sample locations.
Focused Remedial Investigation. In 2003, CH2M HILL performed a Focused RI for Site 14intended to evaluate the nature and extent of the site-related contaminants in soil andgroundwater; assess potential current and future threats to human health and theenvironment caused by the presence or release of site-related contaminants in soil; and todetermine if the sites are sources of contamination found in associated storm sewers.
Soil samples analyzed indicated that the removal action completed in 1997 was successful inremoving PCB-impacted soil. The soil results also support a determination that soil doesnot appear to be contributing PCBs to the sewer line discharging to Outfall 6.
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. In 2005, CH2M HILL completed a FocusedRemedial Investigation Addendum for Site 14, referred to hereafter as the RI Addendum, torevise the human health risk assessment (HHRA) for the soil presented in the Focused RI forSite 14. The baseline HHRA submitted in the Focused RI for Site 14 included two soilsamples (surface sample WS14-SS10 and subsurface sample WS14-DS04-01) taken fromareas of soil that had been removed during the removal action in 1997 and one surface soilsample (WS14-SS11) taken from an area that had been removed during the storm sewerexcavation in 1999. The excavated areas were subsequently backfilled with clean material.Since the baseline HHRA included some samples taken from soils that had been removedfrom the site, it does not accurately represent all current conditions. The updated HHRA inthe RI Addendum accounts for the fact that the soil represented by these three samples is nolonger present at the site.
2.3 Community ParticipationA Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) made up of community members, Navy, EPA, andDistrict of Columbia officials, meets several times each year. The RAB is designed as aforum for the exchange of information between WNY and the local community regarding IRactivities.
2-4 WDC042670002 ZIP
SECTION 2—DECISiON SUMMARY
The Focused RI, the Proposed Plan and the RI Addendum for Site 14 were made available tothe public. The Focused RI Report was made available in September 2003, and the ProposedPlan and RI Addendum were made available in March 2005. These documents can be foundin the Administrative Record file at the following locations:
• District of Columbia Public Library— Southeast Branch, 403 7th Street S.E., Washington,D.C.
• District of Columbia Public Library —115 Atlantic Street S.W. at South Capitol StreetS.W., Washington, D.C.
• Naval District Washington Environmental Department —1014 N Street S.E., Suite 320,Washington, D.C.
The notice of the availability of the Proposed Plan was published in the Washington Post(D.C. Extra Weekly Edition), the Hill Rag, East of the River, the Washington Informer and SeaServices Weekly. A 30-day public comment period on the Proposed Plan was held fromMarch 1, 2005, to April 1, 2005. In addition, a public meeting was held on March 9, 2005, topresent the Proposed Plan to the broader community.
At this meeting, representatives of the Navy, EPA, and DCDOH answered questions aboutthe site and the proposed decision that no further action for the soil is required to protecthuman health and welfare of the environment. No written public comments were receivedduring the public comment period; this fact is noted in the Responsiveness Summary,Section 3. A copy of the certified transcript for the March 9, 2005, public meeting is attachedas Appendix B.
2.4 Scope and Role of the Response ActionSite 14 is one of several sites at the WNY included in the WNY IR Program. As a result of thepreviously undertaken removal actions, no further action is necessary for the soil at this siteto protect human health and welfare of the environment. This is the only RODcontemplated for the soil at Site 14. This ROD considers only soil at Site 14; groundwater atthe WNY is currently being evaluated under separate investigative documents. Separateinvestigations and assessments are being conducted for the other IR sites at WNY inaccordance with CERCLA, as presented in the WNY Site Management Plan (CH2M HILL,2004). Separate RODs and other CERCLA decision documents will be prepared for the otherIR sites.
2.5 Site Characteristics
2.5.1 Physical SettingAs discussed in Section 2.1, the WNY is heavily developed with buildings and otherimpervious surfaces, resulting in little vegetated land. The land slopes generally from northto south with ground surface elevation approximately 50 to 55 ft above mean sea level in thefacility's northeastern part to less than 10 along the bulkhead adjacent to the AnacostiaRiver'(CH2M HILL, 2003).
WDCC42670002ZIP 2-5
RECORD OF DECISION. SITE 14—BUILDING 292
Because pavement and Building 292 cover most of the Site 14 ground surface, mostprecipitation falling on the site evaporates, transpires, or collects in storm water catchbasins. These catch basins drain to Outfall 6, which then discharges to the Anacostia River.
The WNY is constructed partially on reclaimed areas of the Anacostia River. Since the late1700s, the WNY has expanded southward through a series of shoreline expansions into theAnacostia River. The soil underlying Site 14 consists of artificially placed fill and naturallydeposited soil material. The general direction of .groundwater flow at the WNY is southtoward the Anacostia River.
2.5.2 Conceptual Site ModelThe Conceptual Site Model (CSM), Figure 2-4, for the human health risk assessment(HHRA), integrates information regarding the physical characteristics of the site, potentiallyexposed populations, sources of contamination, and contaminant mobility (fate andtransport) to identify exposure routes and receptors evaluated in the risk assessment forsubsurface soil. A well-defined CSM allows for a better understanding of the risks at a siteand aids in the identification of the potential need for remediation.
Human receptors under the current and future land use scenarios include constructionworkers, adult and child residents, adult and child trespassers/visitors and industrialworkers. Hypothetical future residential use of the site was evaluated to confirm that noland use controls would be needed at the site. However, residential development of Site 14is not a likely future land use. The CSM is further discussed in Section 2.7.
2.5.3 Sampling StrategySurface soil samples were collected in 1995 and subsurface soil samples, includingbackground samples (i.e., samples collected in areas considered to be unaffected by anyreleases), were collected in 1999, and 2001 to determine if surface and subsurface soil wasadversely affected by past operations at Site 14 (CH2M HILL, 2003).
Figure 2-3 presents the soil sampling locations. These locations were chosen to representareas and media most likely to have been affected by releases from Site 14, based onhistorical analyses, utility corridors, and professional judgment.
2.5.4 Nature and Extent of ContaminationThe following conclusions were reached based on the Site 14 surface and subsurface soildata:
• Of the five metals detected above screening criteria (EPA, 2003) in Site 14 soils, fourmetals, including aluminum, arsenic, chromium, and manganese, were statisticallygreater than the background population.
• Soil samples analyzed for PCBs in the IFI conducted in 1999-2000 had a maximumAroclor-1260 concentration of 90 (J-g/kg, which is less than either the residential orindustrial adjusted Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs). This indicates that the removalaction completed by OHM in 1997 was successful in removing PCB-impacted soil on theeast side of the building. Thus, the discharge of unacceptable levels of PCBs (Aroclor-1260) to the sewer line (east of the building) leading to Outfall 6 has been eliminated.
2-6 WDOM2670002 ZIP
SECTION 2-OECISION SUMMARY
• PCB analytical results of four samples collected on the west side of Building 292 in 2001,indicate a concentration range from non-detect to 6,100 ug/kg in the subsurface soil.Two samples exceeded both the residential and industrial adjusted RBCs.
• Six metals and one SVOC exceeded the screening criteria in groundwater. The source ofthese constituents in groundwater does not appear to be related to the Site 14 soil andtherefore the possible source is not addressed by this ROD. The exceedances of theseconstituents may be due to Site 14-related activities (either via direct releases to thegroundwater or from Site 14 soil sources that are no longer present) and/or the nature ofthe non-native fill present throughout much of the WNY. Contamination related to thefi l l rather than a specific site will be investigated as part of the Site Screening Area 12facility-wide fill investigation to be performed in 2005. A Facility-wide Groundwater RIwill also be completed to further evaluate the groundwater throughout the WNY.
2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Resource UsesAs discussed in Section 2.2.1, Site 14 is located east of Willard Park on the WNY. Site 14includes Building 292 and other asphalt and concrete-covered surfaces (e.g., pavement andsidewalks). The current use for the Site 14 building is storage.
Since Site 14 consists of buildings, pavement, or similar impervious surfaces, there is nocurrent exposure to the soil at Site 14. The Naval Station Washington Master Plan (EDAWet al., 1998) indicates that the future use of Site 14 will be as a concession stand with outdoortables. The potential future exposure scenarios evaluated at Site 14 conservatively assumethat the subsurface soil will be excavated to a depth of 4 feet below ground surface andbecome surface soil.
2.7 Risk SummaryThe Focused RI Report (CH2M HILL, 2003) provides a complete discussion of the HHRAand ecological risk assessment methodologies and the results for the ecological riskassessment at Site 14. The HHRA results are summarized in the Focused RI Addendum(CH2M HILL, 2005).
2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk AssessmentThe baseline HHRA characterizes the potential future human health risks associated withexposure to site-related constituents in subsurface soil at Site 14 if no further remediation isimplemented. The baseline HHRA provides the basis for determining whether remedialaction needs to be taken, by identifying the site-related constituents and exposure pathwaysthat need to be addressed to mitigate potential risks to exposed receptors. The baselineHHRA can also be used to support the determination that no further remedial action isnecessary to protect human health, which is the case at Site 14.
The baseline HHRA for Site 14 consisted of the following components:
• Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) — identifies andcharacterizes the distribution of COPCs found onsite. Chemicals identified in thisscreening are the focus of the subsequent evaluation in the risk assessment.
WDC042670002.ZIP 2-7
RECORD OF DECISION, SITE 14--BUILDING 292
• 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 withexposure to COPCs along with available toxicity factors (e.g., cancer slope factors andreference dose values), and summarizes the relationship between magnitude ofexposure and occurrence of adverse health effects. It also identifies related uncertainties(such as the weight-of-evidence of a particular chemical carcinogenicity in humans)associated with these values.
• Risk Characterization —integrates the results of the exposure assessment and toxicityassessment to estimate the potential risks to human health. Both cancer and noncancerhuman health effects are evaluated. Pathways that pose an unacceptable risk based onquantitative risk characterization are identified.
• Uncertainty Assessment—identifies sources of uncertainty associated with the data,methodology, and the values used in the risk assessment estimation.
The following sections summarize the components of the HHRA from the Focused RIReport (CH2M HILL, 2003) and the Focused RI Addendum (CH2M HILL, 2005).
2.7.1.1 Identification of Chemicals of Potential ConcernThe maximum detected constituent concentrations in soil were compared with EPA RegionIII RBCs (EPA, 2004) for residential contact with soil. RBCs that are based onnoncarcinogenic effects were divided by ten to account for exposure to multiple constituentsthat could have the same target organ/critical effect. RBCs based on carcinogenic effectswere used as presented in the RBC Table. Based on the conservative screening proceduresused to identify COPCs in soil at Site 14, the following constituents were identified asCOPCs and were evaluated further in the quanti tat ive HHRA: Aroclor-1260, aluminum,arsenic, chromium, iron, manganese, and vanadium.
Appendix C, Tables 2.1 - 2.2 present the detected constituents in subsurface soil at Site 14and the COPC selection process.
2.7.1.2 Exposure AssessmentThis section presents a summary of the exposure assessment from the Focused RI Report.Appendix C, Table 1 presents the receptors and exposure pathways considered in the Site 14HHRA. Site 14 is currently covered by asphalt, or concrete and Building 292; therefore, thereis no current exposure to the soil. The Naval Station Washington Master Plan (EDAW et al.,1998) indicates that the Site 14 building will remain in the future. Thus, long-term directexposures to site soil are not expected. However, for the purposes of the risk assessment, itwas assumed that subsurface soil at the site may be excavated and placed on the surface,resulting in exposure by the site 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 for Site 14.
A complete exposure pathway consists of all five of the following elements: source (e.g.,chemical); mechanism for release and migration of chemical (e.g., wind erosion);
2-8 WDC042670002 ZIP
SECTION 2-DECISION SUMMARY
environmental transport medium (e.g., subsurface soil); point or site of potential humancontact (exposure point, e.g., airborne soil particles); and route of intake (e.g., inhalation ofairborne soil particles). The compilation of contaminant sources, potentially completeexposure pathways, and potential receptors is depicted in the CSM on Figure 2-4 andAppendix C, Table 1.
Exposure is quantified by estimating the exposure point concentrations and chemical intakeby the receptor. Quantitative dose (intake) estimations were performed for the potentiallycomplete exposure pathways identified for the current and future exposure scenarios androutes.
Exposure point concentrations used in the Focused RI Addendum are presented inAppendix C, Table 3.1.
2.7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment
EPA-derived oral chronic and subchronic reference doses (RfDs) for COPCs at Site 14 forthe 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-derivedoral CSFs used in the Site 14 Focused RI Addendum HHRA are presented in Appendix C,Tables 6.1 - 6.2.
Per EPA guidance, oral RfDs and CSFs were adjusted from administered dose to absorbeddose to evaluate dermal toxicity (EPA, 2004). The toxicity values were adjusted using oralabsorption factors from EPA as shown on Appendix C, Tables 5.1 and 6.1.
2.7.1.4 Risk Characterization and MethodologyPotential human health risks are discussed independently for carcinogenic andnoncarcinogenic COPCs because of the different toxicological endpoints, relevant exposureduration, and methods used to characterize risk.
Noncarcinogenic health risks are estimated by comparing actual or expected exposure levelsto previously established threshold concentrations (or RfDs). The expected intake dividedby the RfD is equal to the hazard quotient (HQ):
Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/RfD
The intake and RfD are expressed in the same units and cover the same exposure period(i.e., chronic or subchronic). 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 oralRfD). When the HQ exceeds unity (i.e., exposure exceeds the RfD), a certain degree ofunacceptable health risk cannot be ruled out for sensitive receptors. To assess the potentialfor noncarcinogenic health effects posed by exposure to multiple chemicals, a hazard index(HI) is used. This approach assumes (conservatively) that noncarcinogenic hazardsassociated with exposure to more than one chemical are additive.
The potential for carcinogenic effects resulting from exposure to site-related contaminationis evaluated by estimating excess lifetime cancer risk. Excess lifetime carcinogenic risk is theincremental probability (i.e. above the background probability) of developing cancer duringa receptor's lifetime. The background incidence of cancer in the U.S. population is
WDC042670002.ZIP 2-9
RECORD OF DECISION. SITE 14--6UILDING 292
approximately 30 percent, including both lethal and nonlethal forms (ACS, 1993). Therefore,for example, a 2 x 10-6 excess lifetime carcinogenic risk means that a receptor's probability ofdeveloping cancer in his or her lifetime changes from approximately 0.300000 to 0.300002 asa consequence of exposure to environmental conditions. Expressed another way, for every1 million people exposed to the carcinogen throughout their lifetime, the incidence of cancermay increase by two cases.
Potential carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to individual carcinogens at the Sitewere calculated using the CSFs from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) andHealth Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST) presented in the Toxicity Assessmentsection and the intakes calculated in the Exposure Assessment section. Risk is calculated bymultiplying the intake by the CSF.
Risk = Intake * CSF
The combined risk from exposure to multiple chemicals at the site was evaluated by addingthe risks from individual chemicals. Risks were also added across the pathways if a receptorcould be exposed through multiple pathways. For example, a receptor coming in contactwith the soil on site could be exposed by both oral and dermal exposure pathways.
The EPA generally considers a site cancer risk acceptable range to be within 1 and TOO in amillion (106 to 10"1). Generally, remedial actions are not warranted at sites with excesslifetime cancer risks below 10-4 or hazard indexes (His) less than 1, but action may bewarranted if a risk-based, applicable chemical-specific standard [for example, maximumcontaminant level (MCL) for drinking water] is exceeded. A risk-based remedial decisioncould be superseded by other site risk management decisions such as presence ofenvironmental impacts requiring action or non-risk-related issues (e.g., public perception) atthe site.
The reasonable maximum exposure (RME) risk characterization results for Site 14 aresummarized below and on Appendix C, Tables 7.1.RME - 7.7.RME and 9.1.RME - 9.7.RME.The carcinogenic risk posed by the site under each of the exposure scenarios is within anacceptable range.
Carcinogenic Risks
• Industrial Worker 3x10-5• Construction Worker 1 x 10-6• Trespasser/Visitor Child 1 x• Trespasser/Visitor Adult 9 xt Resident Adult/Child 7 x
Noncarcinogenic Hazards
• Industrial Worker 0.58• Construction Worker 0.57• Trespasser/Visitor Child 0.84• Trespasser/Visitor Adult 0.18• Resident Adult 0.64• Resident Child 2.9
2-10 WDC042670002 ZIP
SECTION 2-DECISION SUMMARY
The future child resident is the only receptor evaluated that had a total RME HI greater thanthe EPA target level (1). Exposure to iron in subsurface soil is the only COPC thatcontributes a hazard quotient (HQ) greater than one to the HI (iron HQ = 1.2). When thetotal HI is segregated by target organ/critical effect, the only effects that result incumulative 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 todifferent target organs are not considered to have additive toxic effects (EPA,1989). Iron wasdetected at Site 14 at concentrations consistent with background conditions at the WNY aspresented in the Site 14 RI. Therefore iron in subsurface soil at Site 14 is not site-related. Acentral tendency exposure (CTE) assessment was performed for the future child resident.The cumulative CTE noncarcinogenic hazard (HI=1) for the child resident was equal to theEPA recommended level (Appendix C, Table 9.1.CTE)
2.7.1.5 Uncertainty Associated with Human Health AssessmentThe methods used in Superfund site risk assessments are not ful ly probabilistic estimates ofrisk but result in conditional estimates under a given set of assumptions about exposure andtoxicity. Thus, it is important to specify the assumptions and uncertainties inherent in therisk assessment to place the risk estimates in proper perspective when making final riskmanagement decisions (EPA, 1989).
The future soil exposure scenarios are conservative because they assume that the subsurfacesoil will become surface soil after the completion of renovation activities. During manyconstruction projects, clean fill material is placed over the soil disturbed during excavationprojects (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 landscapeplants.
Since the EPA has not published dermal reference doses or slope factors, dermal toxicityfactors were derived based on EPA published oral absorption factors (EPA, 2004). Theadjustment of oral toxicity factors to dermal toxicity factors adds uncertainty to the riskcharacterization.
Three of the COPCs (aluminum, iron, and vanadium) do not have toxicity values approvedby EPA in IRIS. Therefore, provisional toxicity values were used for these constituents,which increases the uncertainty associated with interpretation of the quantitative riskestimates.
Iron was detected in Site 14 soils at a concentration statistically consistent with backgroundconditions. Therefore, the risk estimates associated with exposure to iron are attributable tobackground rather than site-related conditions.
The combination of many conservative assumptions (i.e., in the exposure assessment and inthe toxicity assessment) will most likely result in an overestimate of risk at the site. For thesereasons the risk to human health is likely to be less than that predicted by the riskassessment.
2.7.2 Ecological RisksThe Navy also evaluated the potential for unacceptable ecological risks at the site for plantsand animals. Because Site 14 consists of buildings, pavement, or similar impervious
WDCtM2670002.ZIP 2-11
RECORD OF DECISION, SITE 14--BUILDING 292
surfaces, no natural habitats are present at this site, and exposure to subsurface soilcontamination is not possible. Based on the lack of sensitive ecological receptors andcomplete exposure pathways to the subsurface soil, no further evaluation of ecological risksat this site is necessary.
2.7.3 ConclusionsThere are no unacceptable risks to human health from exposure to the constituents detectedin soil at Site 14. All remaining soils (i.e. soils not removed during the 1997 removal actionand the 1995 storm sewer rehabilitation project) present carcinogenic risks within or belowthe EPA target risk range of lO6 to KH All RMF. noncarcinogenic hazards based on targetorgan were at or below the EPA target of 1. The future child resident total RME HI (2.9) wasabove 1, due to the ingestion of iron, which was detected in Site 14 soils consistent withbackground concentrations. All CTE carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards werewithin or below EPA targets.
2.8 Selected RemedyThe Navy and EPA, with the concurrence of DCDOH, have selected no further action as theremedy for the soil at Site 14 (comprising the soil around and under Building 292 at theVVNY). This determination is based on the remedial investigation, baseline HHRA andecological risk assessment of soil at Site 14, all of which indicate that there are nounacceptable risks based on current or reasonably anticipated future site conditions.Therefore, no alternative other than the no further action alternative was evaluated. Underthis alternative, no further action will be performed for the soil at Site 14; and noinstitutional controls, remedy schedule, capital cost estimation, or annual operation andmaintenance are necessary.
This ROD only considers soil at Site 14; groundwater at the WNY is currently beingevaluated under separate investigative documents.
2.9 Documentation of Significant ChangesThe Proposed Plan for Site 14, Building 292 at WNY, Washington, D.C., was released forpublic comment on March 1, 2005. The Proposed Plan identified that no further action isnecessary for protection of human health and welfare of the environment. No written orverbal comments were received during the public comment period, with the exception ofthose comments received and addressed at the March 9, 2005, public meeting. It wasdetermined that no significant changes to this decision, as originally identified in theProposed Plan, were necessary or appropriate.
2-12 WDC042670002 ZIP
File Path: vi\18g/s'>wr/.figures15ite_4_rod.apr
LEGEND^f Washington Navy Yard Boundary
Modified from USGS 7.5 minuteWashington East, Washington West,Alexandria, and Anacostia Quadrangles.
AN
750 0 750P«^_^^«"" "" ^_1 ^ ^^^^
1" = 15001
Washington Navy 'Was
1500 Feeti
•M
Figure 2-1Location Map
Washington Navy YardWashington, D.C.
CH2MHILL
File Path v \18gis\wnyAfigures\site_14_fs.apr
LEGEND/V Navy Yard BoundaryO IRP Site and NumbersBB Buildings,-V Storm Sewer Lines
Parking LotRoads
A250 250 500 Feet
= 250'
Figure 2-2Washington Navy Yard Site PlanWashington Navy Yard Site 14
Feasibility StudyWashington, DC
CH2MHILL
File Path: v:\18gis*wny\figuresl,silBS_4_and_14 ri apr
WS14-DS14-031
WS14-DS15-03
WS14-DS16-04
WS14-OS17-03|
Cannon P.
Awsi4-osoi-oo
4
292
AWS14-DS09-
WS14-DS10-0:kWS14-DS13-0:
AWS14-DS11-04
S14-DS04-01
WS14-DS02-OOA
WS14-DS03-03A
Note: * Represents a duplicate sample
WS14-OS12-04WS14-OS14-04*
AWS14-DS05-01WS14-DS05-02
LID
- WS14-DSOB-01
•WS14-SS11
&WS14-SS12
AWS14-DS07-01
AWS14-OS06-01
To Outfall 6
A50 Feet
= 25'
LEGEND• 1995 SI Soil Sample Locations for PCB AnalysisA 1999 CH2M HILL IFI Soil Sample Locations• 2001 CH2M HILL DGI Soil Sample Locations
1997 Removal Action Excavation Area1999 Storm Sewer Excavation Area 'IR sites
LID = Low Impact Development
E3 BuildingsStorm Sewer Lines
Figure 2-3Site 14 Soil Sample Locations
and Excavation AreasWashington Navy Yard
Washington, DC
CH2MHILL
Primary
Source of
Contamination
Release
Mechanisms
Chemical
Transport
Mechanisms
Primary
Receptor
Subsurface Soil
Soil Disturbance/Excavation
Wind Site 14 Dust andVapors
-»Inhalation of
Volatile and/orParticipateEmissions
Direct Contactwith Subsurface Soil
Site 14 Soil and ExposedMaterial
Future Construction WorkerFuture Resident
Future Industrial WorkerFuture Trespassers/Visitor
Ingestion,Dermal
Absorption
Future Construction WorkerFuture Resident
Future Industrial WorkerFuture Trespassers/Visitor
Complat* Pathway
Incomplete Pathway
Figure 2-4Concnplu;il Sitn Model for Potential Hunian Exposures-Site 14
SECTION 3
Responsiveness Summary
The Responsiveness Summary is a concise and complete summary of significant commentsreceived from the public and includes responses to these comments. The ResponsivenessSummary was prepared after the public comment period, which ended on April 1, 2005, inaccordance with guidance in "Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook" (EPA,1992). The Responsiveness Summary provides the decision maker with information aboutthe views of the community. It also documents how the Navy, EPA, and DCDOHconsidered public comments during the decision-making process and provides answers tomajor comments.
3.1 OverviewThe Proposed Plan as presented to the public identified that no further action is necessaryfor soil at Site 14 in order to protect human health and the environment.
3.2 Background on Community InvolvementThe public comment period for the proposed no further action decision for Site 14 began onMarch 1, 2005, and ended on April 1, 2005. A public meeting was held on March 9, 2005, atSt. Matthews Baptist Church, located at 1105 New Jersey Avenue S.E., Washington, D.C., toaccept verbal comments on this decision.
3.3 Summary of Comments Received During the PublicComment Period, Navy Responses
No public comments were received during the public comment period other than thoseexpressed at the public meeting. Responses to comments received during the public meetingare presented in the Public Meeting Transcript, attached as Appendix B.
WC042670002 ZIP 3-1
SECTION 4
References
ACS, 1993. Cancer Facts and Figures - '93. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.
Baker, 1993. Final Preliminary Assessment Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. BakerEnvironmental, Inc. 1993.
Baker, 1996. Site Investigation. Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. Baker Environmental,Inc. 1996.
CH2M HILL, 2000. FFA Draft Initial Findings Report. Washington Navy Yard. CH2M HILL,Inc., 2000.
CH2M HILL, 2001. Field Investigation Data Gaps Scope of Work, Facility-Wide RemedialInvestigation, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. CH2M HILL. April 2001.
CH2M HILL, 2003. FFA Final Focused Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 4 and 14,Washington Navy Yard. August. (Addendum, December 19, 2003.)
CH2M HILL, 2004. FFA Final Site Management Plan. August 2004.
CH2M HILL, 2005. Site 14 Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum Washington Navy Yard,Washington, D.C. February 25, 2005.
EDAW et al., 1998. Naval Station Washington Master Plan, Washington Navy Yard, AnacostiaAnnex. February.
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.OSVVER 9285.7-02EP. July.
EPA. 2003. Risk-Based Concentration Table. Region III. April 25, 2003.
EPA, 1992. Community Relations m Superfund: A Handbook. EPA OSVVER Directive 9320.3B.
EPA, 1989. Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse.USEPA/540/1-89/002.
OHM, 1996. Closure Report, Industrial Waste line Cleanout, Washington, D.C. Navy Yard,Washington, D.C. OHM Remediation Services Corp. October.
OHM, 2001. Storm Sewer Rehabilitation Report, Naval District Washington, Washington NavyYard, Washington, D.C. OHM Remediation Services Corp. October.
Parsons, 1999. Parsons Engineering Design Report: Washington Navy Yard Storm SeiverRehabilitation Project. Parsons Engineering Science. December.
WDC04267C002 ZIP 4-1
SECTION 5
Glossary
This glossary defines terms used in this Record of Decision (ROD) describing CERCLAactivities. The definitions apply specifically to this ROD and may have other meaningswhen used in different circumstances.
Administrative Record File: A file that contains all information used by the lead agency tomake its decision in selecting a response under CERCLA. This file is to be available forpublic review, and a copy is to be established at or near the site, usually at one of theinformation repositories. Also, a duplicate is filed in a central location, such as regional orstate office.
Background Concentrations: Concentrations of chemical compounds or elements inenvironmental media that are representative of naturally occurring conditions or that maybe attributable to historic, widespread human activity.
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 variousdocuments and actions taken, either by the Navy, EPA, or DCDOH. For example, acomment 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 theAdministrative 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 commonlyreferred to as the Superfund Law. It provides for liability, compensation, cleanup, andemergency response in connection with the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposalsites that endanger human health and safety of the environment.
Contaminant: Any physical, biological, or radiological substance or matter that, at a certainthreshold 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 theenvironment.
Feasibility Study: Based on data collected during the remedial investigations, upon whichoptions for final cleanup actions or remediation are developed and evaluated. The mostfeasible option that satisfies human health and environment protection requirements is thenrecommended. The criteria for evaluating remedial alternatives include their short-term andlong-term effectiveness, cost, and acceptance by the surrounding community and state.
Groundwater: Water beneath the ground surface that fills spaces between materials such assand, soil, or gravel to the point of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs in quantities
WDC042670002.ZIP 5-1
RECORD OF DECISION. SITE 14— BUILDING 292
sufficient for drinking water, irrigation, and other uses. Groundwater may transportsubstances that have percolated downward from the ground surface as it flows toward itspoint of discharge.
Hazardous Substance: Any material that poses a threat to human health or theenvironment. Typical hazardous substances are materials that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable,explosive, or chemically reactive.
Information Repository: A file containing information, technical reports, and referencedocuments regarding a Superfund site that is made available to the public. Informationrepositories for WNY are at the District of Columbia Public Libraries and the Naval DistrictWashington 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 andmercury, can have toxic effects. Other metals, such as iron, are essential to the metabolism ofhumans and animals.
Monitoring Wells: Wells drilled at specific locations on or near a site where groundwatercan be sampled at selected depths and studied to assess the groundwater flow direction andthe types and amounts of contaminants present.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP): Federalregulations that provide the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for andresponding to discharges of oil and release of hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants.
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandonedhazardous waste sites identified or possible long-term remedial response. The list is basedon the score a site receives in the Hazard Ranking System. EPA is required to update theNPL at least once a year.
Proposed Plan: A public participation requirement of SARA in which the lead agencysummarizes for the public the preferred clean-up strategy and rationale for preference andreviews the alternatives presented in the detailed analysis of the FS. The Proposed Plan maybe prepared either as a fact sheet or as a separate document. In either case, it must activelysolicit public review and comment on all alternatives under consideration.
Record of Decision (ROD): An official public document that selects the clean-upalternative(s) that will be used at NPL sites. The ROD is based on information and technicalanalysis generated during the RI/FS and consideration of public comments and communityconcerns. The ROD explains the remedy selection process and is issued by the lead agencyfollowing the public comment period.
Remedial Action: The actual construction or implementation phase that follows theremedial 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: determinethe nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site; establish site cleanup criteria;identify preliminary alternatives for response action; and support technical and costanalyses of alternatives.
Jr2 WDC042670002 ZIP
-.;-
SECTION 5-GLOSSARY
Responsiveness Summary: A summary of oral and written public comments received bythe lead agency during a comment period and the responses to these comments prepared bythe lead agency. The responsiveness summary is an important part of the ROD, highlightingcommunity concerns for decision makers.
Risk-Based Concentration (RBC): Conservative screening values that are protective ofhuman health.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC): Organic compounds that evaporate relativelyslowly to the atmosphere. SVOCs include chemicals such as phenols, which commonlyoccur in coal tar and naphthalene, which is naturally found in fuels when they bum.
Superfund: The program operated under the legislative authority of CERCLA and theSuperfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) that funds and carries outEPA solid waste, emergency, and long-term removal and remedial activities. These activitiesinclude investigating sites for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL), determiningtheir priority, and conducting and/or supervising the cleanup and other remedial actions.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA): The public law enacted toreauthorize the funding provisions and amend the authorities and requirements of CERCLAand associated laws. Section 120 of SARA requires that all federal facilities be subject to andcomply 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 frombuildings and land surfaces.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Any organic compound that evaporates at roomtemperature to the atmosphere. VOCs contribute significantly to photochemical smogproductions and certain health problems. Volatile organic chemicals include gasoline, industrialchemicals such as benzene, solvents such as toluene and xylene, and terrachloroethylene (theprincipal dry cleaning solvent).
WDC042670002.ZIP 5-3
Appendix ADCDOH Letter of Concurrence
Appendix BPublic Meeting Transcript—March 9,2005
^ A1
£ '
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
SITE 14, PROPOSED PLAN
PUBLIC MEETING OPEN HOUSE
Wednesday, March 9, 2005
St. Matthews Baptist Church
1105 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C.
A T T E N D A N C E
Jeff Woodward, CH2M Hill
Ginny Farris, CH2M Hill
Armalia Berry-Washington, NAVFAC Washington
Bob Stroud, EPA Region III
Henry Cobo, District of Columbia Department of Health
P R O C E E D I N G S
MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: All right. We're
going to go ahead and get started, per request.
Well, welcome, everyone. We're here to talk
about the proposed plan for Site 14 soil at the
Washington Navy Yard, and I hope everybody received the
e-mail about the proposed plan. Well, maybe not, but
we have hard copies of the proposed plan for Site 14,
over there.
And myself, Armalia Berry-Washington, Henry
Cobo, and Bob Stroud, will be giving the presentation
jointly — a brief presentation today jointly,
describing the environmental actions we've taken on
Site 14 and how we came to the decision for no further
action for the soil.
Henry?
MR. COBO: Site 14 consists of a single-story
building, Building 294, located on Washington Navy
Yard, which is right here. This is the building. This
is our -- the location of our operation. It's east of
Willard Park.
Site 14 is mainly covered by Building 294,
which is asphalt and some concrete and a little bit of
soil around the side of it. Small amounts of grass-
covered areas present south and west of Building 292.
The site is located near a storm sewer, and leads to
Outfall Number 6, which discharges to the Anacostia
River. Outfall Number 6 is right here. There's a
sewer line going out to the river right there.
Site 14 is -- Building 292 at Site 14 was
previously the electrical substation C for the
Washington Naval Yard, including a transformer and
electrical equipment storage. Currently, the building
is used for storage these days. And if you look out in
the direction, that way, to the east, that's the river,
right over here. This is the only grassy area that
exists. And then this is the new brick material that
they've laid. Out here are some of the operations
where they laid a new concrete retention system.
The Navy Environmental Restoration Program
identified and studied and cleaned up past spills and
hazardous-waste disposals that were operated there.
This is following the CERCLA Superfund process.
I have one more sheet.
Site 14 is mainly covered by Building 292.
That's asphalt and concrete. And it's surrounded by
this mulch area here, grassy area here, and then the
rest is concrete.
Thank you.
MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: So this is Site 14
there, and Site 14 -- that's fine -- and, as you all
already know, Site 14 is a part of -- you can go ahead
and change it -- is a part of our Navy Environmental
Restoration Program, which identifies studies and
cleans up hazardous materials or hazardous waste from
past naval operations that have taken place prior to
1980.
And, as you all are well aware, we follow the
CERCLA -- the EPA CERCLA process, which is otherwise
known as "Superfund." And there are several steps
involved in this process:
The preliminary assessment, which identifies
areas that could have possibly had releases or could
have hosted hazardous material. And during this stage,
we conduct interviews, as well as do record searches.
The site investigation is a preliminary sampling event
that we do to confirm or deny whether or not there is
contamination at a certain site identified.
And then, remedial investigation is where we
actually do the extensive sampling to determine the
depth and the extent of the contamination, if
contamination has been identified. And in the remedial
investigation process, that's where we conduct our
human health, our eco-risk assessment, to determine
whether or not anything that we found is a risk to the
human health and the environment.
One of the things that's not listed here that
we also can do at any stage in between the SI/RIs; if
we've identified some kind of contamination and we deem
it an immediate threat to the human health and
environment, we can conduct a removal action, and
that's actually just going in and removing the soil at
any point in time, and then continuing on through the
process .
After we do a remedial investigation, we
conduct a feasibility study, and that's where we list
the various remedial-action alternatives, and we select
from one of those alternatives listed.!
And we're at the proposed-plan phase right
now for Site 14, and that's where we present our
proposed remedial action to the public for their
comments.
And after we complete the public-comment
period, then we complete a record of decision for the
site. In this particular instance, we're proposing a
"no further action" record of decision for Site 14, and
that will document the "no further action" decision.
And in instances where there are further
actions, the remedial action would take place after the
regular decision, the remedial design and remedial
action, and that's the actual formal cleanup part of
the process.
Now, for Site 14, specifically, in 1993 we
conducted a preliminary assessment in the Site 14 area.
It didn't specifically talk to Site 14, the building,
but we were actually looking at an outfall, at Outfall
Number 6, which is located near Site 14.
In 1995, we conducted a site investigation,
and that's where we actually took some soil samples,
surface and subsurface, to determine the presence or
absence of PCBs. And, as Henry had described earlier,
the concern for Building 292 was the fact that it
hosted transformers that had contained PCBs. And so,
whenever we have a situation like that, we want to look
at the surrounding soil area to see if there could have
been any kind of leaks, spills, or what have you. And,
in that 1995 site investigation, we did find some PCBs
in the surface and subsurface soil.
In 1995, an independent investigation was
done by EPA, and they actually came out and sampled the
sediments for all the Washington Navy Yard storm sewer
lines. And as a part of that investigation, they
collected a sample of sediment in the storm sewer lines
that discharged to Outfall 6, which was located on that
Site 14 property. And the EPA did find some metals and
PCBs in their sediment sample, in that one sediment
sample that they took.
And also in 1997, which was a busy year, we
conducted a removal action. So from that 1997 site
investigation that we conducted, where we found some
PCBs in the surface and subsurface soil, we actually
went out and did a quick removal action in the area
where we found PCBs at that particular time.
Then in the 1999-2001 time period, we
actually conducted a remedial investigation for Site 14
to further assess the soil and the groundwater in that
area to see if the contamination from Site 14 had a —
could have migrated along the storm sewer lines to
Outfall 6, and so on and so forth.
And we collected several samples along the
west side of Building 292. And that's over on the side
where you see the cannons. That's where the
transformers were actually sitting. So we collected
some samples along there to see if there may have been
any migration of PCBs, as well, in that RI
investigation.
In 2002, we developed a draft remedial
investigation report for Site 14, and that's what was
submitted to the DCDOH and EPA, our regulators, for
review and comment. And after we resolved those
comments, in 2003, we produced the final RI report for
Site 14.
In 2005, which was this year, we actually
developed a remedial investigation addendum, because
the 2003 final RI did not -- the risk assessment did
not take into account the removal actions that had
taken place there in 1997. And also there in -- what
was it? — 1999 time frame — yeah, that — 1999 —
there was a big storm-sewer rehab, where we rehab'd all
the storm sewers at the Washington Navy Yard, and there
was a significant portion of soil removed around
Building 292.
And so, although the tier 1, the Navy and the
regulators, had all that information in 2004 when we
made the decision to do a "no further action," we
realized that it wasn't properly documented in the 2003
RI, so we actually did an addendum to the RI with the
updated calculations that shows that there is no
unacceptable risk at Site 14, and, therefore, no
further action is required.
And this is just a sample of -- a picture of
all of our sample locations. And, as you can see, we
did 14 subsurface soil samples, six surface soil
samples, and three groundwater samples, total. So that
just kind of gives you a picture of what our sampling
event looked like.
And this is a picture of the storm-sewer
rehab event that took place, well, from 1998 to 2001,
all over the Navy Yard. And this is actually the area
in front of Building 292 where they were rehab'ing the
storm sewer.
And this is just another picture, up in the
right-hand corner, of the storm-sewer rehab. And this
actually shows the complete areas that were totaled,
that were excavated for Site 14. And so, this was the
portion that was excavated during the 1997 removal
action. And this was the part of the whole storm-sewer
rehab where they gutted it out and replaced it with
clean soil.
And Bob will come up and talk about our risk
findings.
MR. STROUD: Good evening. My name is Bob
Stroud. I'm the Environmental Protection Agency Region
III Project Manager for the Washington Navy Yard.
When we make decisions like this, they're not
based on -- they're usually based on science. And this
is what I'm going to talk to you about tonight, the
Human Health Risk Assessment that was performed at Site
14 for the Washington Navy Yard.
The Human Health Risk Assessment performed
was considered conservative and protective exposure
scenarios for future use of the Site 14 area. The
receptors consisted of construction workers;
trespassers; visitors, adult and child; industrial
workers; and residents, adult and child. The risk
assessment also assumed that the soil would be
uncovered. Buildings and pavements are removed with
contact to receptors, with an example being a child
basically playing in the soil that this building was
covered by. So this is -- the risk assessment that was
done would probably be the most conservative or strict
or stringent type of a test we could do concerning the
risk at the site.
The focus on the remedial investigation and
the RI addendum report is on the soil. And the
groundwater -- I don't know if anyone was here at that
-- what we were doing was just for soil. Groundwater,
as many of you know, we're doing under one document for
the entire facility. So everything that we're talking
about today basically just refers to the soil at Site
14.
The Human Health Risk Assessment results
indicated that the risks to all receptors were
acceptable in comparison to the EPA target levels.
Now, the cancer risk, EPA has a range, which is one-
times-ten-to-the-minus-four to one-times-ten-to-the-
minus-s-ix, which basically means that, for one out of
10,000 to one in one million, you would expect one
additional cancer case between a population of ten and
one million people.
The non-cancer hazard had only one receptor,
which was that, the future child resident. And that
hazard index was three, which is above our hazard index
of one. Anytime you have a hazard index above one,
there's usually some sort of risk associated with that.
But at this particular site, the hazard index of three
was a background level of iron, which is a naturally-
occurring metal, and it wasn't associated with Site 14.
So, based on these findings, there were no
unacceptable risks requiring clean-up. Agreement was
made by the partners, which consist of the EPA, D.C.,
and the Navy, that we proceed to a "no further action"
proposed plan for Site 14.
And this basically just talks about the 30-
day public-comment period, which started on March 1st
and ends on April 1st.
Just to, you know, let you know that, you
know, during the study, the public-comment period,
anybody -- any interested public, not anyone that's
just here tonight, you know, are welcome to send in
questions or call for anybody, names that are listed in
the proposed plan.
That's really it.
MR. WOODWARD: Bob, I just wanted to add, for
anybody who wanted to submit comments, there is a form
in the proposed plan that they can take home; or if
folks here tonight had any comments they thought about
later, they could submit them in writing.
MR. STROUD: Okay. But, you know, as I said,
I just wanted to point out that tonight is just not the
only time that we would be accepting comments. If
anyone has any -- you know, once you go home and think
about this tonight or, you know, next week or whatever,
I mean, don't feel like this is your only opportunity
to make a comment.
VOICE: I notice -- are these 16 slides part
of a document?
MR. STROUD: I think these particular -- no,
they're not. These 16 slides are specific for
tonight's presentation.
MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: It is a very condensed
version. So, actually, the proposed plan that you have
gives you much more detailed information. And then, of
course, if you so choose to go to the library, you can
have the actual reports.
VOICE: I think that's a nice overview.
MR. COBO: There are some pages that are
related to the document itself. Page 10 is a map
showing the locations and the discussion document.
MR. STROUD: And there is additional risk
information in the proposed plan, as well. Like
Armalia said, this was just an overview of the proposed
plan for this particular presentation.
MS. HOLLY: There was a serious storm that we
all got caught in when they were doing those storm
drains, and we were going to go out to see exactly what
— the lights down in the drains and everything, and
all of a sudden the sky opened up, and we could hardly
see to get to the cars, and we had to get out of there.
So I'm familiar. We went to look at those drains. We
had an occasion to remember that. So I know you all
did it.
VOICE: I remember, just recently there was a
rain storm at night, I thought about that.
MS. HOLLY: Honestly, we got soaked. It was
an experience. So we remember that. We remember you
all actually did that.
VOICE: That was Commander Whitaker — Ailene
Whitaker. She was the commander. She was very good.
MS. HOLLY: She really was very thorough, and
she was very compassionate about what she was doing,
which made it a twofold kind of thing. We really felt
an honesty and a believability, and, you know, "Come on
out, we'll show you," you know. And we learned about
the sleeves that you put around it and everything. So
we knew that it was done well.
MR. STROUD: Okay.
MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: Any other questions or
comments?
MR. STROUD: April 1st. You've got until
April 1st to -- you know, to make any additional
comments or ask any questions that you have. Just read
the material, and maybe you might think of something
else. Thank you.
MS. BERRY-WASHINGTON: That concludes the
Site 14 presentation. Thank you all for coming out.
[Whereupon, at 7:00 p.m., the hearing was
adjourned.]
Appendix CHuman Health Risk Assessment Results
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
WMNngtan Navy Y«4-3N* 14
Scenario
Timeframe
Future
Medium
Soil' at Site 14
Exposure
Medium
Soil-
Air
Exposure
Point
Direct Contact
Emissions from exposedsoil*
Receptor
Population
Industrial Worker
Trespasser/Visitor
Resident
Construction Worker
Industrial Worker
Trespasser/Visitor
Resident
Construction Worker
Receptor
Age
Adult
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult/Child
Adult
Adult
AdultChild
Adult
Child
Adult/Child
Adult
Exposure
Route
DermalAbsorption
Ingestion
DermalAbsorptionIngestionDermal
AbsorptionIngestionDermal
Absorption
Ingestion
DermalAbsorption
Ingestion
DermalAbsorption
Ingestion
DermalAbsorption
Ingestion
Inhalation
InhalationInhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
On-Site/
Off-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Slle
On-SiteOn-Site
On-Slle
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
QuantQuant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Site workers could contact soil while conducting maintenance activities.
Site workers could contact soil while conducting maintenance activities.
General public can access the site and may contact soil.
General public can access the site and may contact soil.
General public can access the site and may contact soil.
General public can access the site and may contact soil.The site is currently covered by industrial buildings. The residential scenario isconservatively included to determine if land-use controls are necessary.The site Is currently covered by Industrial buildings. The residential scenario Isconservatively included to determine if land-use controls are necessary.The site is currently covered by industrial buildings. The residential scenario isconservatively included to determine If land-use controls are necessary.The site Is currently covered by industrial buildings. The residential scenario isconservatively included to determine if land-use controls are necessary.The site is currently covered by industrial buildings. The residential scenario isconservatively included to determine if land-use controls are necessaryThe site Is currently covered by Industrial buildings. The residential scenario isconservatively included to determine If land-use controls are necessary.
Exposure to soil could occur during construction activities.
Exposure to soil could occur during construction activities.
Site workers may inhale vapors and dust from soil while conducting maintenanceactivitiesGeneral public can access the site and inhale vapors and dust from soil.General public can access the site and inhale vapors and dust from soilThe site is currently covered by industrial buildings. The residential scenario isconservatively Included to determine If land-use controls are necessary.The site is currently covered by industrial buildings. The residential scenario Isconservatively included to determine if land-use controls are necessary.The site is currently covered by Industrial buildings. The residential scenario isconservatively included to determine if land-use controls are necessary.
Exposure to emissions from soil could occur during construction activities.
Page1of 1 4/2872005
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium. Soil*
Expoaure Medium: Sue 14 Soil'
Table 21
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FooiHd Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Expoaure
Point
Site 14 SAI-
GAS
Number
67-64-1
75-15-0
108-B8-3
75-69-4
56-55-3
21B-01-9
206-44-0
86-73-7
85-01-8
129-00-0
117-81-7
11096-82-5
7429-90-5
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-70-2
1.856*07
7440-»8-4
7440-50-8
7439-89-6
7439-92-1
7439-95-4
7439-96-5
7439-974
7440-02-0
7440-09-7
7782-49-2
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
Chemical
Acetone
Carbon diiulfide
Toluene
Tnchlorofluoromelhane(Freon-1 1 }
Benzo(e)entriracane
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fkjorene
Phenanthrena
Pyrene
ble(2-Elriylhexyl)phtrialate
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Antimony
Anenic
Banum
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnealum
Manganeae
Mercury
Nickel
Potaeeium
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Minimum [1]
Concentration
Qualifier
1.00E-02 J
6.00E-04 J
1.00E-03 J
5.10E-04 J
6.50E-02 J
1.20E-01 J
1.10E-01 J
2.00E-01 J
1. 106-01 J
9.70E-02 J
3.00E-01 J
8.70E-03 J
9.10E*03
1.406*00 L
5.80E*00
5.94E*01
5.10E-01 J
5.20E-01 J
412E*03
2.13E*01
1.21E*01
6.68E*01 L
2.176*04 J
4.96E*01
».02E*02 J
2.88E*02 L
1.40E-01
2.386*01 K
9.806*02 J
1.60E»00
2.40E*01
7.24E*01
Maximum [1]
Concentration
Qualifier
1.00E-OJ J
B.OOE-04 J
1.00E-03 J
5.10E-04 J
6.506-02 J
2.30E-01 J
1.106-01 J
2.00E-01 J
4.50E-01 J
3.60E-01 J
3.40E+00
1.406*01 J
1.18E*04
1.40E»00 L
7.20E»00
7.476*01
8.30E-01 J
6.00E-01 J
2.40E*04
2.49E*01
1.35E»01
214E*02 L
2.84E*04 J
630E*01
192E*03
3.50E*02 L
2.906-01
2.73E»01 K
1.28E*03
1 .906*00
362E*01
1.98E*02
Unlit
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MO/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MO/KG
MG/KG
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
WS14-DS12-04
WS14-DS13-03
WS14-OS10-03 WS14-OS13-03
WS14-OS12-04
WS14-OS12-04
WS14-DS10-03
WS14-DS12-04
WS14-DS10-03
WS14-DS 10-03
WS14-DS10-03
WS14-DS13-03
WS14-SS12
WS14-DS 13-03
WS14-DS13-03
WS14-DS 12-04
WS14-DS10-03
WS14-DS13-03
WS14-DS12-04
WS14-OS13-03
WS14-DS10-03
WS14-DS 13-03
WS14-OS12-04
WS14-DS 13-03
WS14-OS12-04
WS14-DS10-03
WS14-DS 13-03
WS14-DS12-04
WS14-OS12-04
WS14-DS10-03
WS14-DS10-03
WS14-OS13-03
WS14-DS 12-04
Detection
Frequency
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/1
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
8/17
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
Range of
Detection
Limita
0.011-0.027
0.0068-0.011
0.0068-0.011
0.014-0.014
0.39-1.9
0.39- 1.9
0.39-1.9
0.39-1.9
0.39-1.9
0.39-1.9
0.39-1.9
0.023 - 0.47
11.1 -11.1
1.3-1.3
0.77-0.77
0.14-0.14
0.061 - 0.061
0.12-0.12
14.4- 14.4
0.28 - 0.28
0.28 - 0.28
0.31-0.31
7.9-7.9
0.4 - 0.4
12.4-12.4
0.099-0.099
0.06-0.06
0.42-0.42
371-37.1
0.89-0.89
0.33 - 0.33
0.45-0.45
Concentration [2]
Uaed for
Screening
1.00E-02
8.00E-04
1.006-03
5.10E-04
6.50E-02
2.30E-01
1.10E-01
2.00E-01
4.50E-01
3.60E-01
3.40E*00
1.40E*01
1.18E*04
1.40E*00
720E*00
7.47E*01
8.30E-01
6.00E-01
2.40E»04
2.49E*01
1.35E*01
2.14E+02
2.846*04
6.30E*01
1.92E*03
350E*02
2.90E-01
2.736*01
1.28E*03
1.906*00
3.626*01
1.986*02
Background [3]
Value
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Screening [4]
Toxioity Value
7.04E»03 N
7.82E*02 N
1.566*03 N
2.35E*03 N
8.75E-01 C
8.75E*01 C
3.13E*02 N
3.13E*02 N
2.356*02 N
2.35E*02 N
4.56E»01 C
3.19E-01 C
7.82E»03 N
3.13E*00 N
4.26E-01 C
5.48E*02 N
1.56E*01 N
7.82E*00 N
N/A
2.35E*01 N
1.56E»02 N
3.136*02 N
2.35E*03 N
4.00E*02
N/A
1 .566*02 N
7.80E-01 N
1 56E*02 N
N/A
3.91E*01 N
7.82E»00 N
2.35E*03 N
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
2.21 E»00
1.90E*00
8.79E-01
2.26E*00
1.46E*00
1 .46E*02
6.256*02
1.35E*01
682E*01
6.82E*01
2.89E*03
N/A
N/A
1.32E*00
2.61 E-02
2.11E*02
1.15E*02
5.49E*00
N/A
4.20E*00
N/A
1.05E*03
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.52E*01
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.90E«00
7.306*01
1 36E*03
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
SSL-OAF20
SSL-DAF20
SSL-DAF20
SSL-DAF20
SSL-OAF20
SSL-DAF20
SSL-OAF 20
SSL-DAF20
SSL-DAF20
SSL-DAF20
SSL-OAF20
N/A
N/A
SSL-OAF20
SSL-OAF20
SSL-DAF20
SSL-OAF20
SSL-DAF20
N/A
SSL-OAF20
N/A
SSL-DAF20
N/A
N/A
N/A
SSL-DAF20
N/A
N/A
N/A
SSL-DAF20
SSL-DAF20
SSL-OAF20
COPC
Flag
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
Rationale for [5]
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
ASL
BSL
BSL
ASL
BSL
NUT
ASL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
ASL
BSL
)il* • Combined turface and tubsurface loll
(1) Minimum/Maximum detected concentratlonl.
[2] Maximum concentration la uaed for ecreening.
[3] Background valuai not available.
4/28/200510:5$ AM Page 1 of 2
COPC * Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC • Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Contidered
Sile14 Table2.xltTABLE 2.1
Table 2.1
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil'
Exposure Medium: Site 1* Soil'
[4] Riek-Based Concentration Table. Octobers. 2004, U.S. EPA Region III. Jennifer Hubbard. j • Estimated Value
RBC value for pyrtoe used ai surrogate for phenanthrene. K » Biased High
RBC value lor cadmium-food us«d as surrogate for cadmium. L • Biased Low
The soil value of 400 mg/kg is from Revised Interim SOD Lad Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities. USEPA. July 14. 1994 C = Carcinogenic
RBC value for manganese-nonfood used aa surrogate for manganese. N • Noncardnogenic
RBC value for melhylmercury used as surrogate for mercury. N/A • Not applicable
|S] Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Above Screening Levels (ASL)
Deletion Reason: No Toxioty Information (NTX)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Below Screening Level (BSD
4/28/200510:S6AM Page2_flf_2
<F
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Medium: Soil*
Exposure Medium: Air from Site 14 Soil'
Table 2.2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Exposure
Point
Site 14 Soil*
CAS
Number
67641
75150
108883
75694
56553
218019
206440
86737
85018
129000
117817
11096825
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
7440439
7440702
18540299
7440484
7440508
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7439976
7440020
7440097
7782492
7440622
7440666
Chemical
Acetone
Carbon disuifide
Toluene
Tnchlorofluoromethane(Fn}on-1 1 )
Banzo(a)anthnlcene
Chiytene
Fluoranlnene
Fluorene
Phenanlnrene
Pyrane
bis(2-E!hylhexyl)phthalate
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Minimum [1]
Concentration
Qualifier
6.15E-04 J
5.17E-04 J
1.94E-04 J
3.13E-04 J
5.35E-06 J
3.41 E-05 J
2.78E-05 J
3.02E-04 J
2.24E-05 J
1.97E-05 J
1.30E-06 J
8.59E-09 J
6.88E-03
1.06E-06 L
4.39E-06
4.SOE-05
3.86E-07 J
3.94E-07 J
3.12E-03
1.61 E-05
9.17E-06
5.06E-05 L
1.64E-02 J
3.76E-05
6.83E-04 J
2.18E-04 L
1.06E-07
1.80E-05 K
7.42E-04 J
1.21E-06
1.82E-05
5.48E-05
Maximum [1]
Concentration
Qualifier
6.15E-04 J
5.17E-04 J
1.94E-04 J
3.13E-04 J
5.35E-06 J
6.53E-05 J
2.78E-05 J
3.02E-04 J
9.16E-05 J
7.33E-05 J
1.47E-05
1.06E-05 J
8.94E-03
1.06E-06 L
5.45E-06
5.66E-05
6.29E-07 J
4.55E-07 J
1.82E-02
1. 896-05
1.02E-05
1.62E-O4 L
2.15E-02 J
4.77E-05
1.45E-03
2.65E-04 L
2.20E-07
2.07E-05 K
9.70E-04
1.44E-06
2.74E-05
1.50E-04
Units
pg/m3
pg/m3
ug/m3
P8/m3
ug/m3
pg/m3
pg/m3
ug/m3
M9/m3
pg/m3
pg/m3
pg/m3
ug/m3
P9/m3
pfl/m3
Mg/m3
M9/m3
pg/m3
pg/m3
pg/m3
M9/m3
M0/m3
ug/m3
pg/m3
pg/m3
pg/m3
pg/m3
ug/m3
pg/m3
pg/m3
pg/m3
pg/m3
Location
ot Maximum
Concentration
WS14-DS 12-04
WS14-DS13-03
WS14-DS10-03 WS14-DS13-03
WS14-DS 12-04
WS14-DS 12-04
WS14-DS 10-03
WS14-DS12-04
WS14-DS10-03
WS14-DS 10-03
WS14-DS10-03
WS14-DS13-03
WS14-SS12
WS14-DS13-03
WS14-DS13-03
WS14-DS 12-04
WS14-DS10-03
WS14-DS13-03
WS14-DS 12-04
WS14-DS 13-03
WS14-OS 10-03
WS14-DS 13-03
WS14-DS 12-04
WS14-OS13-03
WS14-DS 12-04
WS14-DS 10-03
WS14-DS13-03
WS14.QS12-04
WS14-DS12-04
WS14-DS 10-03
WS14-DS 10-03
WS14-DS13-03
WS14-DS12-04
Detection
Frequency
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/1
1/2
in1/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
in8/17
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
Range of
Detection
Limits
0.011 -0.027
0.0068-0.011
0.0068-0.011
0.014-0.014
0.39-1.9
0.39-1.9
0.39-1.9
0.39-1.9
0.39-1.9
0.39- 1.9
0.39-1.9
0.023 - 0.47
11.1 - 11.1
1.3-1.3
0.77 - 0.77
0.14-0.14
0.061-0.061
0.12-0.12
14.4- 14.4
0.28 - 0.28
0.28 - 0.28
0.31 -031
7.9-7.9
0.4-0.4
12.4- 12.4
0.099 • 0.099
0.06 - 0.06
0.42 • 0.42
37.1 -37.1
0.89 - 0.89
0.33-0.33
0.45 - 0.45
Concentration [2]
Used lor
Screening
6.15E-04
5.17E-04
1.94E-04
3.13E-04
5.35E-06
6.53E-05
2.78E-05
3.02E-04
9.16E-05
7.33E-05
1.47E-05
1.06E-OS
8.94E-03
1.06E-06
5.45E-06
5.66E-05
6.29E-07
4.55E-07
1.82E-02
1.89E-05
1.02E-05
1.62E-04
2.15E-02
4.77E-05
1.45E-03
2.65E-04
2.20E-07
2.07E-05
9.70E-04
1.44E-06
2.74E-05
1 50E-04
Background [3]
Value
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Screening [4]
Toxicity Value
3.29E»02 N
7.30E«01 N
4.16E-KJ1 N
7.30E+01 N
8.58E-03 C
8.58E-01 C
1.46E*01 N
1.46E»01 N
1.10E+01 N
1.10E*01 N
4.47E-01 C
3.13E-03 C
3.65E-01 N
1.46E-01 N
4.15E-04 C
5.11E-02 N
7.45E-04 C
9.94E-O4 C
N/A
1.53E-04 C
6.39E-04 C
1.46E*01 N
1.10E*02 N
N/A
N/A
5.22E-03 N
3.14E-02 N
7.30E*00 N
N/A
1.83E*00 N
3.65E-01 N
1.10E*02 N
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
COPC
Flag
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Rationale for (5]
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
BSLBSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
NTX
NUT
BSL
BSL
BSL
NUT
BSL
BSL
BSL
4/28/200510:56 AM Page 1 of 2
Site14_Table2.xlsTABLE 2.2
Table 2.2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: SolT
Exposure Medium: Air from Site 14 Soir
Soil* = Combined surface and subsurface toil
[1] Minimum/Maximum calculated air concentration* from soil concentrations. Air concentrations calculated as Cair » CsoinooO'fl/PEF* WF)
VF only Included In calculation for VOC*. VF calculated on Table 2.2A. PEF > 1,32E»09 m3/Vg.
[2] Maximum concentration it used for screening.
[3] Background vaJues not available.
[4] Risk-Based Concentration Table, October 8,2004, U.S. EPA Region III, Jennifer Hubbard.
RBC value for pyrene used at surrogate for phenanthrene and benzo(e,h.l)perylene.
RSC value for cadmium-food used as surrogate for cadmium.
The soil value of 400 rug/kg is from Revised Interim So*1 Leed Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities. USEPA. July 14, 1994.
RBC value for manganese nonfood used as surrogate for manganese.
RBC value for elemental mercury used as surrogate for mercury.
[5) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Above Screening Levels (ASL)
Deletion Reason: No Toxtdty Information (NTX)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Below Screening Level (BSL)
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC • Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
J - Estimated Value
K > Biased High
L - Biased Low
C = Carcinogenic
N - Noncarcinoganlc
N/A ° Not applicable
4/28/200510:56 AM Page 7
Sitei4_Tabl*2.xk- TABLE 2
Table 2.2.A SupplementCalculation of Volatilization Factor
Soil* ScenariosFocused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Chemical
DflnUlVrlyin Air(D,)
(cm2/s)
U^^^^^b 1 ^M*nvtwy* LVwConstant
(H1)(unitless)
DVrnMfVltyIn Water
(DJ(cm2/s)
8oN OTyvnc CwvonPartition Coeff.
(Koc)
(cm3/g)
Partition Coeff.(Ka.K^xF,.)
(a/cm3)
in Water
(S)(mg/L)
Diffusivity(DA)
(cm2/s)Volatile OrganicsAcetoneCarbon disulfideTolueneTrichlorofluoromethane(Freon-1 1 )
1.24E-011.04E-018.70E-028.70E-02
Semivolatile OrganicsB«nzo(a)anthracene
ChryseneFluorantheneFluorenePhenanthrenePyrenebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Volatilization factor (VF) =(m3/kg)
Apparent Diffusivity (DA) *(cm2/s)
Soil Saturation Concentration (Cut| «
5.10E-02
2.48E-023.02E-023.63E-022.72E-022.72E-023.51 E-02
1.59E-031.24E+002.72E-013.98E+00
1.14E-051.00E-058.60E-061.30E-05
5.75E-014.57E+011.82E+021 .60E+02
1 .37E-04
3.88E-036.60E-042.61 E-034.51 E-044.51E-044.18E-06
9.00E-06
6.21E-066.35E-067.88E-067.24E-067.24E-063.66E-06
QIC * (3.14 * DA * T)1'2 * 10"* m2/cm2
2 * r b * D A
[(Q.10'3 ' D, * H1 + Qj0'3 * Dw)/n2](r,*Kd + O, + Q.'H')
S/rb * (K^ ' rb + Qw + H- * Q.)
Parameters Values
QIC • Inverse of the mean concentration at the center 90.24
of a 0.5-acre-square source (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
T - Exposure interval(s) 9.5E+08rb - Soil bulk density (g/cm3) 1 .5
Q. - Air-filled soil porosity (L. LW.,.,) = n - Qw 0.28
n - Total soil porosity (Lpore/Lsoil) = 1 - (r^r.) 043
Qw - Water-filled soil porosity (Lwater/Lsoil) 0.15
r, - Soil particle density (g/cm3) 2.65
foc - fraction organic carbon in soil (g/g) o.ooe
398E*05
3.98E+051.07E+051.38E+041.05E+051.05E+051.51E+07
3.45E-032.74E-011.09E+009.60E-01
1 .OOE+061.19E+035.26E+021.10E+03
1.02E-041.13E-021.01 E-031.02E-02
2.39E+032.39E+036.42E+028.28E+016.30E+026.30E+029.06E+04
9.00E-06
1 .60E-032.06E-011.98E+001.35E-011.35E-013.40E-01
1.80E-102.16E-091.72E-096.15E-081.11E-091.11E-093.43E-13
need to use correct QIC for where site is located
Equations and chemical properties from USEPA, 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide. EPA/540/R-96/018.
filename: PHL/PA135839\Site14_Table2.xlsworksheet: Table2.2A Page 1 of 1
Table3.1.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil*
| Exposure Medium: Site 14 Soil'
Exposure Point
Site 14 Soil*
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Arithmetic
Mean
1.4E+00
1.0E+04
6.5E+00
2.3E+01
2.5E+04
3.2E+02
3.0E+01
95% UCL of
(distribution)
9.7E+00 (NP)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
1.4E+01 J
1.2E+04
7.2E+00
2.5E+01
2.8E+04 J
3.5E+02 L
3.6E+01
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
9.7E+00
1 .2E+04
7.2E+00
2.5E-I-01
2.8E+04
3.5E+02
3.6E+01
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Statistic
99% Cheb-m
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Rationale
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
* Surface soil & subsurface soil combined.
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.
Options: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 99% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (99% Cheb-m).
(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test and Gamma tests are inconclusive; use non-parametric methods to calculate UCL.
(2) Sample size is less than 5; use maximum detected concentration.
J = Estimated Concentration
L = Biased Low
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram
NP = Non-parametric
4/28/200511:01 AM Page 1 of 1
Site14_Table3.xls -TABLE3.1.RME-.;'
Table3.1.CTE
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil*
Exposure Medium: Site 14 Soil*
Exposure Point
Site 14 Soil*
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Arithmetic
Mean
1.4E+00
1.0E+04
6.5E+00
2.3E+01
2.5E+04
3.2E+02
3.0E+01
95% UCL of
(distribution)
9.7E+00 (NP)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
1.4E+01 J
1.2E+04
7.2E+00
2.5E+01
2.8E+04 J
3.5E+02 L
3.6E+01
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
1.39E+00
1 .2E+04
7.2E+00
2.5E+01
2.8E+04
3.5E+02
3.6E+01
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Statistic
Mean-N
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Rationale
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
* Surface soil & subsurface soil combined.
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.
Options: Maximum Detected Value (Max): 99% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (99% Cheb-m).
(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test and Gamma tests are inconclusive; use mean based on normal distribution.
(2) Sample size is less than 5; use maximum detected concentration.
J = Estimated Concentration
L = Biased Low
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram
NP = Non-parametric
4/28/200511:02 AM __. Page 1 of 1
Site14_Table3.xlsTABLEJ.1.CTE
TABLE 4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REA90WWLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soir
Exposure Medium: Soil'
Exposure Route
Ingaation
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Child
Child/ Adult
Exposure Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Exposed Soil1 at Site 14
ParameterCode
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-N
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-N
CS
IR-S-A
IR-S-C
IR-S-Adj
EF
ED-A
ED-C
CF1
BW-A
BW-C
AT-C
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingeition Rate of Soil. Adult
Ingestion Rate of Soil. Child
Ingestion Rate of Soil. Age-adjusted
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration, Adult
Exposure Duration, Child
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight , Adult
Body Weight. Child
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Value
SeeTable3.1.RM(
100
350
24
0.000001
70
8760
See Table 3 1 RM!
200
350
6
0.000001
15
2190
See Table 3.1. RMf
100
200
114
350
24
6
0.000001
70
15
25550
Units
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
«g
days
mg/Xg
mg/day
mg/day
mg-year/kg-day
days/year
years
years
kg/mg
k9
kg
days
Rationale/Reference
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1989
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1991
EPA, 1991
- -
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1991
Calculated
EPA. 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1991
- -
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1989
Intake Equation/Model Name
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) -
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW > 1/AT
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CS x IR-S-Adj x EF x CF1 x 1/AT
IR-S-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) =(ED-C x IR-S-C / BW-C) « (ED-A x IR-S-A/BW-A)
Page 1 of 6
TABLE 4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil*
Exposure Medium: Soil*
Exposure Route Receptor Population
Construction Worker
Industrial Worker
Trespasser/Visitor
Receptor Age
Adult
Adult
Adult
Exposure Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Parameter
Code
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rale of Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Sou
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
ngestion Rate of Soil
•xpoaure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weighl
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Value
See Table 3.1. RM
480
120
1
0.000001
70
25550
365
See Table 3.1. RME
100
250
25
0.000001
70
25550
9125
See Table 3.1. RME
100
104
24
0.000001
70
25.550
8,760
Units
mg/Vg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kgdays
days
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
Rationale/Reference
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA, 1991
(«)
EPA, 1991
- -
EPA. 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA. 1989
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 31. RME
EPA. 1991
(1)
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
Intake Equation/Model Name
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/Xg-day) •
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x I/AT
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x I/AT
Page 2-o(6
TABLE 4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, sue 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil*
Exposure Medium. Soil'
Exposure Route
Dermal
Receptor Population
Trespasser/Visitor
(continued)
Residential
Recaptor Age
Child
Adult
Child
Exposure Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Parameter
Code
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
SA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
EO
BW
AT.N
CS
SA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
ED
BW
AT.N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration tn Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration In Soil
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Value
See Table 3.1. RME
100
104
6
0.000001
15
25,550
2.190
See Table 3.1. RME
5.800
0.2
chem specific
0.000001
350
24
70
8,760
See Table 3.1. RME
2.379
0.11
chem specific
0.000001
350
6
15
2.190
Units
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
day.
mg/kg
cm1
mg/cma-day
-
kg/mg
days/year
years
kfl
days
mg/kg
em2
mg/cma-day
-
kg/mg
days/yearyears
kfldays
Rationale/Reference
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA. 1891
m(2)
- -
EPA. 1997 (3)
EPA, 1989
EPA. 1989
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA, 1997 (7)
EPA. 1997 (7)
EPA. 2004
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1989
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA. 1997 (7)
EPA, 1997 (7)
EPA. 2004
EPA. 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
CDI (mg/Xg-day) »
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
CDI (mg/kg-oay) «
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
CDI (mg/kg-day) '
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
EDx 1/BW x 1/AT
Page 3 of 6
TABLE 4 1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
ttodium: Soil*
Exposure Medium: Soil*
Exposure Route Receptor Population
Construction Wortcer
Receptor Age
Child/Adult
Adult
Exposure Point
Exposed Soil' at Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site U
Parameter
Code
CS
SA-A
SA-C
SSAF-A
SSAF-C
DA-Adj
CF1
EF
ED-A
ED-C
BW-A
8W-C
AT-C
CS
SA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact. Adult
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact. Child
Sal to Skin Adherence Factor
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption, Age-adjusted
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration, Adult
Exposure Duration, Child
Body Weight , Adult
Body Weight, Child
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Value
See Table 3.1. RME
5.800
2.379
0.2
0.11
502
0.000001
350
24
6
70
15
25550
5eeTable3.1.RMi
5.300
0.24
chem specific
0.000001
120
1
70
25,550
365
UniK
mg/kg
cm2
cm'
mg/cm'-day
mg/cn -day
mg-yaar/kg-day
kg/mg
days/year
years
years
kfl
kg
days
mg/kg
cm1
mg/CfV-day
-
kg/mg
days/year
years
*odays
days
Rationale/Reference
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA. 1997 (7)
EPA. 1997(7)
EPA. 1997 (7)
EPA. 1997(7)
calculated
EPA. 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1989
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA, 1997(8)
EPA. 1997 (8)
EPA, 2004
- -
(«)
EPA. 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1989
EPA. 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
GDI (mg/kg-day) -
CS x DA-Ad) x DABS x CF3 x EF x 1/AT
DA-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) -
[(ED-C x SA-C xSSAF.C/BW-C) *
(ED-A x SA-A x SSAF-A / BW-A))
GDI (mg/kg-day) -
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
TABLE 4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14 Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil'
Exposure Medium: Soil*
Exposure Route Receptor Population
Industrial Worker
Trespasser/Visitor
Receptor Age
Adult
Adull
Exposure Point
Exposed Soir at Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Parameter
Code
CS
SA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
SA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration In Soil
Skin Surface Area Available lor Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Value
See Table 3.1. RME
5.300
0.2
chem specific
0.000001
250
25
70
25,550
9,125
See Table 3.1. RME
5,300
0.2
chem specific
0.000001
104
24
70
25,550
8.760
Units
mg/Xg
cm1
moycm'-day
-
kg/mg
days/year
years
*gdays
days
mg/kg
cm'
mgtan'-day
-
kg/mg
days/year
years
kg
day*
days
Rationale/Reference
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA. 1997(8)
EPA, 1997(9)
EPA, 2004
- -
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA, 1997 (B)
EPA, 1997 (9)
EPA. 2004
(1)
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1989
EPA, 1989
Intake Equation/Model Name
CDI (mg/kg-day) »
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
EDx1/BWx 1/AT
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
CS X SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
ED x 1/BW X 1/AT
Page 5 of 6
TABLE 4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timetrame: Future
Medium: Soil*
Exposure Medium: Soil*
Exposure Route Receptor Population
Trespasser/Visitor
(continued)
Receptor Age
Child
Exposure Point
Exposed Soil' at Site 14
Parameter
Code
CS
SA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Value
See Table 3,1. RME
2.190
0.11
chem specific
0,000001
104
6
15
25,550
2,190
Units
ma/kg
cm1
mg/crV-day
-
kg/mg
days/year
years
kgdays
days
Rationale/Reference
See Table 3.1. RME
EPA, 1997(10)
EPA, 1997 (11)
EPA. 2004
(D
(2)
EPA, 1997
EPA. 1989
EPA, 1989
Intake Equation/Model Name
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
EDx 1/BWxl/AT
Not**:
(1): Professional Judgement assuming 2 days per week for 52 weeks per year.
(2) Professional Judgement assuming adolescents from 9 to 16 years of age.
(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 recrealors includes face, hands, forearm, and lower leg (USEPA 1997).
(6) RME SA recommended by USEPA for commeroal/lndustnal workers and includes head, hands, and forearm (USEPA 2001).
(7) SA Is 25% of the total surface area for adult. SSAF for adult bated on maximum adherence factor for gardeners.SSAF for child based on maximum adherence factor for soccer players.
(8) 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.ME SSAF is soil adherence to hands for Construction Workers from EPA, 1997, Table 6-
(9) RME SSAF is soil adherence to hands for Gardeners No. 1 from EPA, 1997, Table 6-12.
(10) A is 25% of the total surface aree for 3-« year old male. For RME used 95th percenlile (0.876 m2). RME SSAF is soil adherence to hands for Soccer No 1 from EPA. 1997. Table 6-12.
Sources:
EPA. 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund VoM 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 9265.6-03.
EPA, 1992: Dermal Exposure Assessment Principals and Applications. ORD. EPA/600V8-91/011B.
EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-9S/002Fa.
EPA, 2004: Risk Asaeument Outdance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E. Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final, EPA/540/R/99/005.
Page 6-"* 6
TABLE 4.1.CTE
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil*
Exposure Medium. Soil*
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Child
Child/Adult
Exposure Point
Exposed Soil* at Site U
Exposed Soil* al Site 14
Exposed Soil* al Site 14
Parameter
Code
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CFf
BW
AT-N
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-N
CS
IR-S-A
IR-S-C
IR-S-Adj
EF
ED-A
ED-C
CF1
BW-A
BW-C
AT-C
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rale of Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil, Adult
Ingestion Rate of Soil. Child
Ingestion Rate of Soil. Age-adjutted
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration, Adult
Exposure Duration. Child
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight . Adult
Body Weight, Child
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Value
See Table 3.1. CTE
SO
234
9
0.000001
70
3285
See Table 3.1. CTE
100
234
6
0.000001
15
2.190
See Table 3.1. CTE
50
100
46.43
234
9
6
0.000001
70
15
25550
Units
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kglrng
kg
days
mg/Vg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
mg/kg
mg/day
mg/day
mg-year/kg-day
days/year
years
years
kg/mg
kg
kg
days
Rationale/Reference
See Table 3.1. CTE
EPA. 1993
EPA. 1993
EPA. 1993
- -
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.1. CTE
EPA. 1993
EPA. 1993
EPA, 1991
- -
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1989
See Table 3.1. CTE
EPA. 1993
EPA, 1993
calculated
EPA, 1993
EPA, 1993
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) •
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =•
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) >
CS x IR-S-AdJ x EF x CF1 x 1/AT
IR-S-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) »(ED-C x IR-S-C / BW-C) * (ED-A x IR-S-A /BW-A)
Page 1 of 6
TABLE 4.1.CTE
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timaframa: Future
Medium: Soil'
Exposure Medium: Soil"
Exposure Route Receptor Population
Construction Worker
Industrial Worker
Recreational User
Receptor Age
Adult
Adull
Adult
Exposure Point
Exposed Soir at Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Parameter
Code
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestlon Rate of Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate ot Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
ngesUon Rate of Soil
ixposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Value
See Table 3.1. CTE
100
30
1
0.000001
70
25550
365
See Table 3.1. CTE
50
219
5
0.000001
70
25550
1625
See Table 3.1. CTE
50
52
9
0.000001
70
25.550
3.2S5
Units
mg/kg
mo/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
K«
days
days
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
mg/oay
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.1. CTE
EPA, 1997
(2)
(3)
--
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA. 1989
See Table 3.1. CTE
EPA. 1993
EPA. 1993
EPA. 1993
•-
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1989
EPA. 1989
See Table 3.1. CTE
EPA, 1993
(1)
EPA. 1993
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1989
EPA. 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) •
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
CDI (mg/kg-day) •
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
Page 2 N . ">Vc
TABLE 4.1.CTE
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Medium: Soil*
Exposure Medium: Soil*
Exposure Route
Dermal
Receptor Population
Recreational User
(continued)
Resident
Receptor Age
Adolescent*
Adult
Child
Exposure Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Exposed Soil' al Site 14
Parameter
Code
CS
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
SA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
ED
BW
AT-N
CS
SA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
ED
BW
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingeslion Rate of Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor 1
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Skin Surface Area Available (or Contact
Soil lo Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration In Soil
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Value
See Table 3.1. CTE
50
52
9
0.000001
37
25.550
3.285
See Table 3.1.CTE
5.000
0.2
chem specific
0.000001
234
9
70
3,285
See Table 3.1. CTE
2.094
0.11
Chem specific
0.000001
234
6
15
2,190
Units
mg/Vg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
*gdays
days
mg/kg
cm1
mg/cmj-0ay
-
kg/mg
days/year
years
kg
days
mg/kg
cm2
mg/cm2-day
-
kg/mg
days/year
years
kg
days
Rationale/Reference
See Table 3.1.CTE
EPA. 1993
(1)
EPA, 1993
EPA, 1997
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
Sea Table 3.1. CTE
EPA, 1897(7)
EPA. 1997(7)
EPA. 2004
EPA, 1993
EPA. 1993
EPA. 1991
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.1 .CTE
EPA. 1987 (7)
EPA, 1997 (7)
EPA. 2004
- -
EPA. 1993
(3)
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
CDI (mg/xg-day) •=
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
CDI (ms/kg-day) =
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
EDx 1/BW x I/AT
CDI (mg/ko-day) =>
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
EDx 1/BW x 1/AT
Page 3 of 6
TABLE 4.1.CTE
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario TJmefr»me: Future
Medium: Soil"
Exposure M«dium: Soil'
Exposure Route Receptor Population
Construction Worker
Receptor Age
Child/Adult
Adult
Exposure Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Parameter
Code
CS
SA-A
SA-C
SSAF-A
SSAF-O
DA-Adj
CF1
EF
ED-A
ED-C
BW-A
BW-C
AT-C
CS
SA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Adult
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact. Child
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption, Age-adjusted
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration, Adult
Exposure Duration. Child
Body Weight . Adult
Body Weight. Child
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Value
See Table 3.1. CTE
5,000
2,094
0.2
0.11
220.7
0.000001
234
9
6
70
15
25,550
See Table 3.1. CTE
2.000
0.18
chem specific
0.000001
60
1
70
25,550
365
Units
mg/kg
cm2
cm2
mg/cm2-day
mg/cm2-day
mg-year/kg-day
kg/mg
days/year
years
years
kg
kgdays
mg/kg
cm1
mg/cm1-day
-
kg/mg
days/year
yean
kg
days
days
Rationale/Reference
See Table 3.1. CTE
EPA, 1997(7)
EPA. 1997(7)
EPA. 1997 (7)
EPA, 1997 (7)
calculated
- •
EPA. 1993
EPA, 1993
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1989
See Table 3.1. CTE
EPA, 1997(8)
EPA. 1897 (8)
EPA, 2004
- -
(2)
(3)
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1989
EPA. 1W9
Intake Equation/
Modal Name
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
CS x DA-Ad| x DABS x CF3 x EF x 1/AT
DA-Adj (mg-year/kd-oa-y) -
[(ED-C x SA-C i SSAF-C / BW-C) *
(ED-A x SA-A x SSAF-A / BW-A)]
CDI (mg/kg-day) *
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 « EF x
EDx1/BWx1/AT
Page 4 oL$ * .•"
TABLE4.1.CTE
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil"
Exposure Medium: Soil*
Exposure Route Receptor Population
Industrial Worker
Trespasser/Visitor
Receptor Age
Adult
Adult
Exposure Point
Exposed Soir al Site 14
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Parameter
Code
csSA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
SA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Chemical Concentration in Sod
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Avereging Time (Non-Cancer)
Value
See Table 3.1. CTE
2.000
0.3
chem specific
0.000001
219
5
70
26,550
1,825
Sm Table 3.1. CTE
2,000
0.19
chem specific
0.000001
52
9
70
25.550
3,285
Units
mg/kg
cm1
mg/cm3-day
-
kg/mg
days/year
years
kgdeys
days
mg/kg
cm1
mg/cm2-day
-
kg/mg
days/year
years
»gdays
days
Rationale/Reference
See Table 3.1. CTE
EPA. 1997 (8)
EPA, 1997(9)
EPA, 2004
EPA. 1993
EPA, 1993
EPA. 1991
EPA. 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.1. CTE
EPA. 1997(8)
EPA. 1997(9)
EPA. 2004
- -
(1)
EPA. 1993
EPA. 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
Intake Equation/Model Name
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
EDx1/BWx1/AT
CDI (mg/Xg-day) =
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
Page 5 of 6
TABLE 4.1.CTE
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframs: Future
ium: Soil'
Expoeure Medium: Soil'
Exposure Route Receptor Population
Trespasser/Visitor
(continued)
Receptor Age
Child
Exposure Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Parameter
Code
CS
SA
SSAF
DABS
CF1
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Conversion Factor 1
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
Value
See Table 3.1. CTE
2,190
0.11
cham speafic
0.000001
52
9
37
25.5SO
3.285
Untts
mg/kg
cm'
mg/crn'-day
-
kg/mg
days/year
years
KBdays
days
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.1. CTE
EPA, 1997(10)
EPA. 1997(11)
EPA. 2004
(1)
EPA, 1993
EPA, 1997
EPA. 1989
EPA, 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
CDI (mgAg-day) -
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
EDx1/BWx1/AT
Notes:
(1): Professional Judgement assuming 2 days per week for 52 weeks per year.
(2) Professional Judgement assuming adolescents from 9 to 18 years of age.
(3) Body weight is avenge value for the 9 yeer ok) 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 thai have occurred al the WNY.
(5) RME SA for construction workers and adult recrealors includes face, hands, forearm, and lower leg (USEPA 1997).
(8) RME SA recommended by USEPA for commercial/industrial workers and includes head, hands, and forearm (USEPA 2001).
(7) SA is 25% of the total surface are* for adult SSAF for adult based on maximum adherence factor for gardeners.SSAF for child based on maximum adherence factor for soccer players.
(8) CT SA it the sum of the mean surface areas (for a male) of the head and hands.ME SSAF is soil adherence to hand* for Construction Workers from EPA. 1997. Table 6-12. CT is 0.75 limat the RME per discussions with EPA and NEHC on November 22, 1999.
(9) CT SSAF Is average soil adherence to hands Gardeners No. 1 and No. 2 from EPA, 1997. Table 6-12.
(10) A ll 25% of the total surface area for 3-6 year old male. For CT used 50th percentile (0.728 m2) CT SSAF is average soil adherence to hands Soccer No 1 and No 2 from EPA. 1997. Table 6-12.
Sourcea:
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. Intenm Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
EPA, 1»92: Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principals and Applications. ORD. EPA/600/8-91/011B.
EPA, 1993: SuperfurKfs Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/SOO/P-95/002Fa.
EPA, 2004: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E. Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final. EPA/540/R/99/005.
Page 6 oL6
TABLE 5.1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
.luminum
,roclor-1260
.rsenic
ihromlum (hexavalent)
on
langanese (nonfood)
'anadium
Chronic/
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Oral RfD
Value
1.0E+00
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
2.0E-02
3.0E-01
NA
2.0E-02
N/A
1.0E-03
7.0E-03
Oral RfD
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
N/A
N/A
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Oral to Dermal
Adjustment
Factor (1)
NA
N/A
80% - 96%
80% - 96%
95%
95%
2.5%
2.5%
NA
NA
4%
N/A
2.6%
2.6%
Adjusted
Dermal
RfD
1.0E+00
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
7.5E-05
5.0E-04
3.0E-01
NA
8.0E-04
N/A
2.6E-05
1.8E-04
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
N/A
N/A
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Primary
Target
Organ
Neurological
N/A
N/A
N/A
Skin/vascular
Skin/vascular
Not identified
Not IdentifiedGastrointestinal,
Blood, Liver
NA
CNSN/A
Kidney
Lifetime
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
100
N/A
N/A
N/A
3/1
3
300/3
100
1
NA
1/1
N/A
300
100
Sources of RfD:
Target Organ
PPRTV
N/A
N/A
N/A
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
NCEA
NA
IRIS
N/A
NCEA
HEAST
Dates of RfD:
Target Organ
(MM/DD/YY)
06/22/04
N/A
N/A
N/A
02/22/05
07/01/97
02/22/05
07/01/97
01/05/99
NA
02/22/05
N/A
05/01/00
07/01/97
I/A = Not Applicable or Not Available.
1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evalution Manual (Part E, Supplemetnal Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. Final.
Section 4,2 and Exhibit 4-1. USEPA recommends that the oral RfD should not be adjusted to estimate the absorbed dose for compounds when the absorption efficiency is greater than 50%.
Constituents that do not have oral absorption efficiencies reported on this table were assumed to have an oral absorption efficiency of 100%.
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
PPRTV = Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Value
CNS = Central Nervous System
11:06 AM4/28/2005 Page 1 of 1
Site14Table 5.xlsID51
TABLE 5.2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Aluminum
Aroclor-1260
Arsenic
Chromium (hexavalent)
ron
Manganese
Vanadium
Chronic/
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Value
Inhalation
RfC
5.00E-03
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.00E-04
4.00E-06
N/A
N/A
5.01 E-05
N/A
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/m3
mg/m3
N/A
N/A
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
N/A
N/A
N/A
Adjusted
Inhalation
RfD(1)
1.43E-03
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.86E-05
1.14E-06
N/A
N/A
1.43E-05
N/A
N/A
N/A
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
N/A
N/A
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
N/A
N/A
N/A
Primary
Target
Organ
Neurological
N/A
N/AN/A
N/A
N/A
Respiratory System
Respiratory System
N/AN/A
CNSN/A
N/A
N/A
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
300N/A
N/AN/A
N/A
N/A
300/1
100
N/A
N/A
1000/1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sources of
RfC:RfD:
Target Organ
(2)
PPRTV
N/A
N/A
N/A
IRIS
N/A
IRIS
NCEA
IRIS
N/A
IRIS
N/A
IRIS
N/A
Dates
(MM/DD/YY)
06/22704
N/A
N/A
N/A
02/22705
N/A
02/22/05
05/14/93
02/22/05
N/A
02/22/05N/A
02/22/05
N/A
N/A = Not Applicable
(1) Provide equation used for derivation in text. *
(2) HEAST, Alternative Methods used as source of barium values.
Chromium and cadmium values were withdrawn from HEAST, but available in Region III RBC Table.
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment
PPRTV = Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Value
11:16AM4/28/2005 Page 1 oi.1
Site14Table 5.xls ^ID5L-^£
V
TABLE 6.1
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Aluminum
Aroclor-1260
Arsenic
Chromium (hexavalent)
Iron
Manganese (nonfood)
Vanadium
Oral Cancer
Slope Factor
N/A
2.0E+00
1 .5E+00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Oral to Dermal
Adjustment
Factor
N/A
80% - 96%
95%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Adjusted Dermal
Cancer Slope Factor (1)
N/A
2.0E+00
1 .5E+00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Units
N/A
(mg/kg-day) "1
(mg/kg-day) "
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
EPA
Carcinogen
Group
N/A
B2
A
D
N/A
D
N/A
Source
NCEA
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
NCEA
IRIS
IRIS
Date
(MM/DD/YY)
8/26/1996
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
7/23/1996
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
N/A-Not available
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment
(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evalution Manual (Part E, Supplemetnal Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. Final.
Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1. USEPA recommends that the oral RfD should not be adjusted to estimate the absorbed dose for compounds when the absorption efficiency is greater than 50%.
Constituents that do not have oral absorption efficiencies reported on this table were assumed to have an oral absorption efficiency of 100%.
EPA Weight-of-Evidence Carcinogen Group:
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
E - Evidence of noncarcinogenicity
4/28/200511:18AM Page 1 of 1
Sltel4Table6.XLSTABLE61
TABLE 6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Aluminum
Aroclor-1260
Arsenic
Chromium (hexavalent)
ron
Manganese
Vanadium
Unit Risk
N/A
5.7E-04
4.0E-03
1.2E-02
N/A
N/A
N/A
Units
N/A
(ug/m3) "1
(ug/m3) "1
(ug/m3) '1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Adjustment (1)
N/A
3500
3500
3500
N/A
N/A
N/A
Inhalation Cancer
Slope Factor
N/A
2.0E+00
1.5E+01
4.1E+01
N/A
N/A
N/A
Units
N/A
(mg/kg-day) "1
(mg/kg-day) "1
(mg/kg-day) "1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Weight of Evidence/
Cancer Guidance
Description
N/A
B2
A
A
N/A
D
D
Source
N/A
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
NCEA
IRIS
IRIS
Date
(MM/DD/YY)
N/A
6/22/2004
6/13/1998
6/22/2004
7/23/1996
06/22/04
06/22/04
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
N/A = Not Available
NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment
(1) Adjustment Factor applied to Unit Risk to calculate Inhalation Slope Factor =
70kg x 1/20m3/day x 1000ug/mg
EPA Weight-of-Evidence Carcinogen Group:
A - Human carcinogen
61 - 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
E - Evidence of noncarcinogenicity
4/28/200511:19AM Page
filename: Site 14Takne:&nei4ia,r *L9»>v'sheetname. -62 £•
TABLE 7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14. Washington Navy Vard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Ann: Adult
Medium
Soil'
Exposure Medium
soir
Exposure Point
Sol' et Site 14
Exposure Route
IngeeUon
Exp. Route Told
Dermal
Abeofptlon
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
EPC
Value
9.7E*00
1.2E*04
7.2E«00
2.SE-K11
2.8E+04
3.5E+02
3.6E-KJ1
9.7E*00
1.2E+04
7.2E+00
2.5E*01
2.8E*04
3.5E*02
3.6E*01
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CSF/Unlt Risk
Value
2.0E-KW
NA
1.5E«00
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0E*00
NA
1.5E»00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
(/(mg/fcg-day)
NA
1/{mgAg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
i/(mg/kg-day)
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
itake/Exposura Conoantrattor
Value
1.3E-0*
1.6E-02
9.9E-06
3.4E-OS
3.BE-02
4.3E-04
S.OE-OS
Units
mj/ka/day
mg/kg/day
nojAB/day
mg/kg/dey
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.2E-OS
1.9E-03
3.4E-06
4.0E-M
4.5E-03
5.6E-05
5.8E-06
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
me/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
RTD/RTC
Value
NA
1.0E*00
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-02
1.0E-03
Units
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/xg/day
mg/kg/day
mgAg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
1.0E*00
3.0E-04
7.5E-05
3.0E-01
8.0E-04
2.6E-05
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Medli
Hazard Quotient
NA
1.6E-02
3.3E-02
1.1E-02
1.3E-01
2.4E-02
S.OE-02
2.6E-01
NA
1.9E-03
1.1E-02
5.3E-02
1.5E-02
7.0E-02
2.2E-01
3.7E-01
6.4E-01
6.4E-01
8.4E-01
6.4E-01
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 7.2.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Tlmetreme: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Aa«: Child
Medium
Sod'
Exposure Medium
Soil'
Exposure Point
SoT at Site 14
Expoeure Rout*
Ingeellon
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Absorption
=xp. Route Total
Chemical ot
Potential Concern
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
• Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
EPC
Value
9.7E«00
1.2E*04
7.2E*00
2.5E*01
2.8E*04
3.5E*02
3.6E»01
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/Xg
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Anianlc
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
9.7E*00
1.2E»04
7.2E*00
2.5E-KD1
2.8E-HJ4
3.5E*02
3.6E«01
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Point Total
Expotun Medium Total
Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CSF/Unil Risk
Value
2.0E-00
NA
1.5E*00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1/(rng/kg-day)
NA
l/lmg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20E*00
NA
1.5E*00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
t/(mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Acroaa All Media
Cancer RU*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Non-Cancw Hazard Calculations
itaka/Expoaure Concentration
Value
1.2E-04
1.5E-01
9.2E-05
3.2E-04
3.6E-01
4.5E-03
4.6E-04
Unto
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/Vg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/Xg/day
2.3E-OS
2.0E-03
3.6E-06
4.2E-06
4.8E-W
5.9E-05
6.1E-06
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/Vg/day
mg/kg/day
FtfD/RfC
Value
NA
1.0E*00
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-02
1.0E-03
Unto
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/Vg'day
NA
1.0E*00
3.0E-04
7.5E-OS
3.0E-01
8.0E-04
2.6E-05
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Total of Raoaptor Hazards Across All M*dii
Hazard Quooent
NA
1.SE-01
3.1E-01
1.1E-01
1.2E*00
2.2E-01
4.8E-01
2.5E*00
NA
2.0E-O5
1.2E-02
S.6E-02
1.6E-02
7.3E-02
2.3E-01
3.9E-01
2.9E*00
2.9E«CO
2.9E-KM
2.96*00
Pagel
TABLE 7.3.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum Si'e id Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timaframa: Future
Receptor Population: Raiident
Receptor Age: Adult/Child
Medium
Soil'
Medium Total
Exposure Medium
Sou-
Exposure Point
Soil* at Site 14
Exposure Route
Ingestlon
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Absorption
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Arodor.1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
EPC
Value
9.7E*00
1.2E*04
7.2E-00
2.5E*01
2.BE-HM
3.5E*02
3.6E*01
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
9.7E*00
1.2E*04
7.2E*00
2.5E*01
2.8E-04
3.5E*02
3.6E*01
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
1.5E-05
1.8E-02
1.1E-05
3.9E-05
4.4E-02
5.5E-04
5.7E-05
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
CSF/Unlt Risk
Value
2.0E*00
NA
1.5E*00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1 /(mg/kg-day)
NA
1/(mg/kg-<)ay)
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.3E-06
8.1E-04
1.5E-06
1.7E-06
2.0E-03
2.4E-05
2.SE-06
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
2.0E*00
NA
1.5E»00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
1/( mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total ol Receptor Ri»k» Across All Media
Cancer Risk
3.0E-06
NA
1.7E.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.7E-05
1.9E-OS
NA
2.2E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1E-05
6.8E-05
6.8E-05
6.8E-05
6.8E-05
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
itake/Exposure Concen trader
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RfD/RfC
Value
NA
1.0E»00
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-02
1.0E-03
Units
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/ka/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0E*00
3.0E-04
7.5E-05
3.0E-01
a.OE-04
2.6E-05
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Medli
Hazard QuoOenl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.OE»00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.OE-KJO
O.OE*00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE*00
Paga 1 of 1
TABLE 7.4.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Industrial Woiker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
SoU-
Exposure Medium
soir
,
Exposure Point
Soil- at Sit* 14
Exposure Route
IngMdon
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Absorption
Exp. Route Tola)
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
(Manganese
Vanadium
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
EPC
Value
9.7E-KK)
1.2E*04
7.2E-KW
2.5E*01
2.8E-O4
3.5E*02
3.6E*01
9.7E-KXJ
1.2E*04
7.2E*00
2.5E*01
2.8E*O4
3.SE*02
3.6E-O1
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/xg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Medlum Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
3.4E-06
4.1E-03
2.SE-06
8.7E-06
9.9E-03
1.2E-04
1.3E-05
8.0E-06
7.0E-04
1.3E-06
1.5E-06
1.7E-03
2.1E-05
2.1E-06
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/Xg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kj-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kgniay
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
CSF/Urtt Risk
Value
2.0E-00
NA
15E»00
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0E*00
NA
_ 1.SE-KK)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Unit*
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
1/( mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
1/( mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across AH Media
Cancer Risk
&8E-08
NA
3.8E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1E-05
1.6E-05
NA
1.9E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8E-OS
2.8E-05
2.8E-OS
2.9E-OS
2.BE-OS
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
ilake/Exposunt Concenfretkx
Value
9.6E-06
1.2E-02
7.0E-06
2.4E-OS
2.8E-02
3.4E-04
3.5E-05
2.2E-05
2.0E-03
3.6E-06
4.1E-06
4.7E-03
5.8E-05
6.0E-06
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mfl/ko-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/Xg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg<day
mgftg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
RfD/TWC
Value
NA
1.0E»00
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-02
1.0E-03
NA
1.0E»00
3.0E-04
7.5E-05
3.0E-01
8.0E-04
2.6E-05
Units
NA
mg/kg/day
mgncg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Medli
Hazard Quotient
NA
1.2E-02
2.3E-02
8.1E-03
9.3E-02
1.7E-02
3.SE-02
1.9E-01
NA
2.0E-03
1.2E-02
5.5E-02
1.6E-02
7.3E-02
2.3E-01
3.9E-01
5.8E-01
5.8E-01
5.8E-01
5.8E-01
Page'
TABLE 7.5.RME
CALCULATION Of CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NOHCANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Sile 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Trespasser/Visitor
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Soil-
Exposure Medium
Soil-
Exposure Point
Soil' at Site 14
Exposure Route
IngetUon
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Absorption
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potenlial Concern
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganete
Vanadium
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
EPC
Value
9.7E*00
1.2E*04
7.2E*00
2.5E*01
2.8E*04
3.5E«02
3.6E*01
9.7E*00
t.2E*04
7.2E+00
2.5E*01
2.8E*04
3.56*02
3.6E-KH
Units
mg/Kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
moAfl
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Point Total
Expoiure Medium Total
Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculation*
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
1.4E-Q6
1.6E-03
1.0E-06
3.5E-06
4.0E-03
4.9E-OS
5.1E-OB
2.0E-06
1.7E-04
3.2E-07
3.7E-07
4.2E-04
5.2E-06
5.4E-07
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mo/Xj-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mfl/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
CSFAJnil Riik
Value
2.0E.OO
NA
1.5E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0E-KJO
NA
1.5E»00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
1/(mg/kg-dey)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
1/{mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Rlsk> Across All Media
Cancer Risk
2.7E-06
NA
1.5E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.2E-06
4.0E-06
NA
4.8E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.5E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-08
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
ntake/Exposure ConcenfratKjr
Value
3.9E-06
4.8E-03
2.9E-06
1.0E-05
1.2E-02
1.4E-04
1.5E-05
5.8E-06
5.1E-04
9.3E-07
1.1E-06
1.2E-03
1.5E-05
1.6E-06
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
moVko-dey
RfD/RtC
Value
NA
1.0E+00
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-02
1.0E-03
NA
1.0E*00
3.0E-04
7.5E-05
3.0E-01
8.0E-04
2.6E-OS
Units
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mp/kp/day
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Medli
Hazard Quotient
NA
4.8E-03
9.8E-03
3.4E-03
3.9E-02
7.1E-03
1.5E-02
7.8E-02
NA
5.1E-04
3.1E-03
1.4E-02
4.1E-03
1.9E-02
6.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.8E-01
1.8E-01
1.8E-01
1.8E-01
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 7.6.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14. Washington Navy Van]
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Trespasser/Visitor
Receptor Ape: Child
Medium
Soil*
Expoaure Medium
SOU'
Exposure Point
Soil' «t Site t<
Expoaure Route
Ingeeton
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Absorption
=xp. Route Total
Expoeure Point Total
Chemical or
Potential Concern
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Anwnic
Chromium
Iron
Manganeae
Vanadium
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganeae
Vanadium
EPC
Value
9.7E-KX)
1.2E*04
7.2E«00
2.5E-O1
2.8E-KM
3.56*02
3.6E*01
9.7E»00
1.2E*04
7.2E*00
2.5E-KJ1
2.8E*04
3.5E*02
3.6E*01
Un!U
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/hg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Medium Total
Medium Total
Cancer Rlik Calculation!
Intaka/Expoaure Concentration
Value
3.2E-06
3.8E-03
2.3E-06
8.1E-06
9.2E-03
1.1E-04
1.2E-05
5.3E-07
4.6E-05
8.5E-08
9.6E-06
1.1E-04
1.4E-06
1.4E-07
Unlta
meVkg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
CSF/Unll Rlak
Value
2.0E*00
NA
1.5E*00
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0E+00
NA
1.5E*00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1/(moAg-dey)
NA
1/(mgAe^day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1/(mg/kg-dey)
NA
1 /(mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Rl<k« Acroaa All Media
CancwRtok
6.3E-06
NA
3.5E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.8E-06
1.1E-06
NA
1.3E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
1-2E-06
1.1E-05
1.1E-OS
1.1E-0«
1.1E-OS
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Make/Exposure Concenlratlot
Value
3.7E-OS
4.5E-02
2.7E-05
9.5E-06
1.1E-01
1.36-03
1.4E-04
6.2E-06
5.4E-04
9.9E-07
1.1E-06
1.3E-03
1.6E-05
1.7E-06
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-dey
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mgAg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/Vg-day
mgAg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/ko-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
RfD/RfC
Value
NA
1.06*00
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
3.06-01
2.0E-02
1.0E-03
NA
1.0E»00
3.0E-04
7.SE-06
3.0E-01
8.0E-04
2.66-05
Units
NA
mgAg/day
mgAg/day
mg/koyday
mgAg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Total al Receptor Hazards Across All Medii
Hazard Quotient
NA
4.SE-02
9.1E-02
3.2E-02
3.6E41
6.66-02
1.4E-01
7.3E-01
NA
J.4E-04
3.3E-03
1.5E-02
4.3E-03
2.0E-02
6.4E-02
1.16-01
8.46-01
8.4E-01
8.46-01
8.46-01
Page
TABLE 7.7.RME
CALCUIATON OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NO»«ANCS» HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Tlrneframe: Future ||
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adult I
Medium
Sou-
Medium Total
Exposure Medium
Soil-
Exposure Point
Soil- at Site 14
Exposure Route
Ingestkxi
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Absorption
Exp. Route Total
Chemical o(
Potential Concern
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
EPC
Value
9.7E+00
1.2E*04
7.2E*00
2.5E*01
2.8E*04
3.5E-02
3.6E*01
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
9.7E*00
1.2E*04
7.2E*00
2.5E-01
2.8E*04
3.5E-KI2
3.6E+01
Unite
mo/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
3.1E-07
3.8E-04
2.3E-07
6.0E-07
9.1E-04
1.1E-05
1.2E-06
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/Vg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
1.2E-07
1.0E-05
1.8E-08
2.1E-08
2.4E-OS
3.0E-07
3.1E-OB
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
CSF/Unlt Risk
Value
2.0E-KM
NA
1.5E*00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1 /(mg/kg-day)
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.06-00
NA
1.5E-00
NA
NA
NA
NA
t/(mc/kg-day)
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
6.2E-07
NA
3.5E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.7E-07
2.3E-07
NA
2.8E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.8E-07
1.2E-06
1.2E-06
1.2E-06
1.2E-06
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Make/Exposure Concentrate
Value
2.2E-05
2.7E-02
1.6E-OS
5.6E-05
6.4E-02
7.8E-04
8.2E-05
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
RfO/RfC
Value
NA
1.0E*00
3.0E-W
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-02
1.0E-03
8.1E-06
7.0E-04
1.3E-06
1.SE-06
1.7E-03
2.1E-05
2.2E-06
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
NA
1.0E*00
3.0E-04
7.5E-05
3.0E-01
8.0E-04
2.8E-05
Units
NA
mgAg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mgAg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/Vg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Me*
Hazard Quotient
NA
2.7E-02
5.4E-02
1.9E-02
2.1E-01
3.9E-02
8.2E-02
4.3E-01
NA
7.0E-04
4.3E-03
2.0E-02
5.7E-03
2.6E-02
8.3E-02
1.4E-01
5.7E-01
5.7E-01
S.7E I1
5.7E-01
Page 1 ol 1
TABLE 7.1.CTE
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Soil-
Exposure Medium
Sou-
Exposure Point
Soil* at Site 14
Exposure Route
Ingmtkxi
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Absorption
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Aroctor-1260
Aluminum
Anwnlc
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
EPC
Value
1.4E*00
17E*04
7.2E*00
2.5E-01
2.8E*04
3.5E*02
3.6E*01
Units
mg/kg
mg/tcg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Aroctor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
1.46*00
1 2E-04
7.2E-00
2.5E-01
2.8E-KM
3.5E»02
3.6E*01
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CSFAJnit Risk
Value
2.0E*00
NA
1.5E-00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1/(mg/kg«iay)
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0E*00
NA
1.5E-KX)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Rlik> Acrou All Media
Cancer Risk
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
'take/Exposure Concentrator
Value
5.9E-06
5.0E-02
3.1E-06
1.1E-O4
1.2E-01
1. 56-03
1.5E-04
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.9E-O6
1.2E-03
2.1E-06
2.5E-06
2.8E-03
3.4E-OS
3.6E-06
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
RfD/RfC
Value
NA
t. 06-00
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-02
1.0E-03
Unit*
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
1.0E-00
3.0E-04
7.5E-05
3.0E-01
8.0E-04
2.6E-06
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Modi,
Hazard Quotient
NA
5.0E-02
1.0E-01
3.SE-02
4.0E-01
7.5E-02
1.5E-01
8.2E-01
NA
1.2E-03
7.1E-03
3.3E-02
8.3E-03
4.3E-02
1.4E-01
2.3E-01
1.1E*00
1.1E*00
1.1E-KW
1.1E«00
Pagel
TABLE 7.2.CTE
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedia1 Investigation Addendum, Site 1 ^ Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age. Adult/Child
Medium
Soil*
Exposure Medium
Soil*
Exposure Point
SOU* at Site 14
Exposure Route
Ingtstlon
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Absorption
Exp. Route Total
Chemical ofPotential Concern
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
EPC
Value
1.4E-00
1.2E*04
7.2E*00
2.5E*01
2.8E»04
3.5E*02
3.6E*01
Unite
rnoVkg
mg/kg
mg/Kg
rhg/kg
mg/kg
rhg/kg
rng/kg
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
1.4E»00
1.2E»04
7.2E*00
2.5E-01
2.8E*04
3.5E+02
3.6EHI1
my/kg
mg/kg
rhg/kg
mg/kg
rhg/kg
rng/kg
rng/kg
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
5.9E-07
5.0E-03
3.1E-06
1.1E-05
1.2E-02
1.5E-04
1.5E-05
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
CSF/Unlt Risk
Value
2.0E-00
NA
1.5E«00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1/( mg/kg-day)
NA
1 /(mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.9E-07
2.4E-04
4.4E-07
S.OE-07
5.7E-04
7.1E-06
7.3E-07
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
2.0E*00
NA
1.5E»00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 /(mg/kg-day)
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
1.2E-06
NA
4.6E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.8E-06
7.9E-07
NA
6.SE-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4E-06
7.2E-0*
7.26-OS
7JE-0«
7.2E-06
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
take/Exposure Concentrator
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Unto
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RtD/RfC
Value
NA
1.0E*00
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-02
1.0E-03
Units
NA
mg/Vg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mp/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0E*00
3.0E-04
7.5E-05
3.0E-01
8.0E-04
2.6E-05
mg/kg/day
mg/Vg/dey
mg/kg/day
mo/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Medli
Hazard Quotient
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.OE-KX)
NANA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.OE*00
O.OE«00
O.OEfOO
O.OE+00
O.OE-KX)
Page 1 ol 1
TABLE 7.3.CTE
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Tlmafrarna: Future
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
SOU*
_,
Exposure Medium
Sot'
Exposure Point
Soil* at Site 14
Exposure Route
IngeaUon
Exp. Route ToUl
Dermal
Absorption
Exp. Route ToUl
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Arockx-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
vanadium
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
EPC
Value
1.4E*00
1.2E-04
7.2E*00
2.56*01
2.8E-04
3.5E-02
3.6E*01
1.4E*00
1.2E*04
7.2E*00
2.5E«01
2.8E*04
3.5E*02
3.6E+01
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kp
Lxpoture Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
4.3E-08
3.6E-04
2.2E-07
7.6E-07
87E-04
1.1E-05
1.1E-06
7.2E-08
4.3E-05
7.9E-08
9.1E-08
1.0E-04
1.3E-06
1.3E-07
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-dey
mg/kg-<lay
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
CSFAJnit Risk
Value
2.0E»00
NA
1.5E-00
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.06*00
NA
1.5E*00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1/(mgAg-day)
NA
1/(m9/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1/(mg/kg-day)
NA
1/fmg/kg-day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
8.5E-08
NA
3.3E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.2E-07
1.4E-07
NA
1.2E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.6E-07
6.8E-07
6.8E-07
6.8E-07
6.8E-07
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
itake/Expoeure Concentratkx
Value
6.0E-07
5.1E-03
3.1E-06
1. IE-OS
V2E-02
1.5E-04
1.6E-05
1.0E-06
6.1E-04
1.1E-06
1.3E-06
1.SE-03
1.8E-OS
1.8E-06
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/xg-day
rng/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-dey
RfD/RfC
Value
NA
1.0E-OO
3.06-04
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-02
1.0E-03
NA
1.0E«00
3.0E-04
7.5E-05
3.06-01
8.0E-04
2.6E-OS
Units
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/dey
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/ko/day
mg/kg/day
mg/ko/day
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Medii
Hazard Quotient
NA
5.16-03
1.06-02
3.66-03
4.1E-02
7.5E-03
1.6E-02
8.2E-02
NA
S.1E-04
3.7E-03
1.7E-02
4.9E-03
2.36-02
7.2E-02
1.2E-01
2.0E-01
2.0E-01
2.0E-01
2.0E-01
Page
TABLE9.1.RME
SUMMARY Of RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPC*
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Soil-
Chemical Total
Exposure
Medium
Soir
Exposure
Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Medium Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Receptor Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
NA
NA
NA
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
NA
CNS
Skin, Vascular
NOAELGastrointestinal,
Blood, Liver
CNS
Kidney
Ingestion
NA
1.66-02
3.3E-02
1.1E-02
1.3E-01
2.4E-02
6.0E-02
2.6E-01
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
1.9E-03
1.1E-02
5.3E-02
1.5E-02
7.0E-02
2.2E-01
3.7E-01
Receptor HI Total
Exposure
Routes Total
o.oe+oo1.8E-02
4.4E-02
6.4E-02
1.4E-01
9.3E-02
2.7E-01
6.4E-01
6.4E-01
64E-01
Total CNS HI Across All Media »
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media =
Total Vascular HI Across All Media =•
Total Skin HI Across All Media •
Total NOAEL HI Across All Media -
Total Liver HI Across All Media •
Total Blood HI Across All Media =
Total Kidney HI Across All Media *
Page 1 of 10
TABLE 9.2.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Rmktont
-. Child
Medium
Soil'
Chemical Total
Exposure
Medium
Soil-
Exposure
Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Medium Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Receptor Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
NA
NA
NA
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Pnmary
Target Organ(s)
NA
CNS
Skin, Vascular
NOAELGastrointestinal,
Blood. Liver
CNS
Kidney
lnge*tk>n
NA
1.5E-01
31E-01
1.1E-01
1.2E+00
2.2E-01
4.6E-01
2.5E+00
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
2.0E-03
1.2E-02
5.6E-02
1.6E-02
7.3E-02
2.3E-01
3.9E-01
Receptor HI Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE+00
1.5E-01
3.2E-01
1.6E-01
1 .2E+00
3.0E-01
7.0E-01
2.9E+00
2.9E+00
2.9E+00
Total CNS HI Across All Madia >
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media <
Total Vascular HI Across All Media *
Total Skin HI Across All Media •
Total NOAEL HI Across All Media •
Total Liver HI Acres* All Media *
Total Blood HI Across All Media <
Total Kidney HI Across All Media =
4.5E-01
1.2E+00
3.2E-01
3.2E-01
1.6E-01
1.2E+00
1.2E+00
7.0E-01
Page 2 on 0
TABLE 9.3.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child/Adult
Medium
Soil-
Exposure
Medium
Soil-
Exposure
Point
Exposed Soil' at Site 14
Chemical
or Potential
Concern
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Chemical Total
Medium Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
3.0E-05
NA
1.7E-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.7E-05
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.OE+00
Dermal
1.9E-05
NA
2.2E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1E-05
Receptor Total
Exposure
Routes Total
4.9E-05
O.OE+00
1.9E-05
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6.8E-05
6.8E-05
6.8E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
NA
CNS
Skin, Vascular
NOAEL
Gastrointestinal,Blood, Uvar
CNS
Kidney
Ingestion
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Receptor HI Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
Page 3 of10
TABLE 9.4.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Soil-
Chemical Total
Exposure
Medium
SolP
Exposure
Point
Exposed Soil' at Site 14
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Medium Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestkxi
6.BE-06
NA
38E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1E-05
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.OE+00
Dermal
1.6E-05
NA
1 96-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8E-05
Receptor Total
Exposure
Routes Total
2.3E-05
O.OE-KX)
5.7E-06
O.OE*00
O.OE+00
O.OE-00
O.OE*00
2.9E-05
2.9E-05
29E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
NA
CMS
SMn, Vascular
NOAEL
Gastrointestinal,Blood, Liver
CNS
Kidney
Ingestion
NA
1.2E-02
2.3E-02
8.1E-03
9.3E-02
1.7E-02
3.5E-02
1.9E-01
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
2.0E-03
1.2E-02
S.SE-02
1.6E-02
7.3E-02
2.3E-01
3.9E-01
Receptor HI Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE'OO
1.4E-02
3.SE-02
6.3E-02
1.1E-01
9.0E-02
2.7E-01
5.8E-01
5.8E-01
5.8E-01
Total CNS HI Across All Media -
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media =
Total Vascular HI Across All Media =
Total Skin HI Across All Media <
Total NOAEL HI Across All Media -
Total Liver HI Across All Media •
Total Blood HI Across All Media •
Total Kidney HI Across All Media -
1.0E-01
1.1E-01
3.5E-02
3.5E-02
6.3E-02
1.1E-01
1.1E-01
2.7E-01
Page 4 ol10
V
TABLE 9.5.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPC*
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Trespasser/Visitor
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Soil-
Chemical Total
Exposure
Medium
Soil*
Exposure
Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Medium Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
2.7E-06
NA
1.5E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.2E-06
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.OE-00
Dermal
4.0E-06
NA
4.8E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.5E-06
Receptor Total
Exposure
Routes Total
6.7E-06
O.OE+00
2.0E-06
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
8.7E-06
87E-06
87E-06
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
NA
CNS
Skin, Vascular
NOAEL
Gastrointestinal.Blood, Liver
CNS
Kidney
Ingestion
NA
4.8E-03
9.8E-03
3.4E-03
3.9E-02
7.1E-03
1 .5E-02
7.8E-02
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
5.1E-04
3.1E-03
1.4E-02
4.1E-03
1.9E-02
6.0E-02
1.0E-01
Receptor HI Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE+00
S.3E-03
1.3E-02
1.8E-02
4.3E-02
2.6E-02
7.5E-02
1 .8E-01
1.8E-01
1.8E-01
Total CNS HI Across All Media -
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media »
Total Vascular HI Across All Media -
Total Skin HI Across All Media •
Total NOAEL HI Across All Media <
Total Liver HI Across All Media >
Total Blood HI Across All Media =
Total Kidney HI Across All Media =
Page 5 of 10
TABLE 9.6.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Trespasser/Visitor
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Soil'
Chemical Total
Exposure
Medium
Soil*
Exposure
Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
tedium Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
6.3E-06
NA
3.5E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.8E-06
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.OE+00
Dermal
1.1E-06
NA
1 3E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2E-06
Receptor Total
Exposure
Routes Total
7.4E-06
O.OE+00
36E-06
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.1E-OS
1.1E-05
1.1E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
NA
CNS
Skin, Vascular
NOAEL
Gastrointestinal.Blood, Liver
CNS
Kidney
Ingmtton
NA
4.5E-02
9.1E-02
3.2E-02
3.6E-01
6.6E-02
1.4E-01
7.3E-01
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
5.4E-04
3.3E-03
1.5E-02
4.3E-03
2.0E-02
6.4E-02
1.1E-01
Receptor HI Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE+00
4.SE-02
B.4E-02
4.7E-02
3.6E-01
8.7E-02
2.0E-01
6.4E-01
8.4E-01
8.4E-01
Total CNS HI Across All Madia •
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media *
Total Vascular HI Across AH Media «
Total Skin HI Across All Media =
Total NOAEL HI Across All Media •
Total Liver HI Across AH Media •
Total Blood HI Across All Media •
Total Kidney HI Across All Media =
1.3E-01
3.6E-01
9.4E-02
9.4E-02
4.7E-02
3.86-01
3.6E-01
2.0E-01
Page 6ol 10
TABLE 9.7.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial investigation Addendum, Site 14. Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframo: Future ||
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
3eceplor Age: Adult I
Medium
Soil-
Exposure
Medium
Sou-
Exposure
Point
Exposed Soil- at Site 14
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Chemical Total
vledium Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestlon
6.2E-07
NA
3.5E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.7E-07
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.OE*00
Dermal
2.3E-07
NA
2.BE-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.6E-07
Receptor Total
Exposure
Routes Total
8.5E-07
O.OE+00
3.8E-07
O.OE*00
O.OE+00
O.OE*00
O.OE-i-00
1.2E-06
1.2E-06
1 .2E-06
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
NA
CNS
Skin, Vascular
NOAEL
Gastrointestinal.Blood. Liver
CNS
Lifetime
Ingestion
NA
2.7E-02
S.4E-02
1.9E-02
2.1E-01
3.9E-02
8.2E-02
4.3E-01
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
7.0E-04
4.36-03
2.0E-02
5.7E-03
2.6E-02
8.3E-02
1.4E-01
Receptor HI Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE+00
2.7E-02
5.8E-02
3.9E-02
2.2E-01
6.6E-02
1.6E-01
5.7E-01
5.7E-01
5.7E-01
Total CNS HI Across All Media «
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media -
Total Vascular HI Across All Media >
Total Skin HI Across All Media =•
Total NOAEL HI Across All Media -
Total Liver HI Across All Media >
Total Blood HI Across All Media =
Total Lifetime HI Across All Media =
Page 7 of 10
TABLE9.1.CTE
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum. Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Soil"
Exposure
Medium
Soil-
Exposure
Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
" Arsenic
Chromium
Iran
Manganese
Vanadium
Chemical Total
Medium Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Receptor Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE»00
O.OE*00
O.OE+00
O.OE*00
O.OE*00
0 OE-00
O.OE'OO
NA
NA
NA
Non-Cardnogenlc Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
NA
CNS
Skin. Vascular
NOAEL
Gastrointestinal,Stood. Liver
CNS
Kidney
Ingestion
NA
5.0E-02
1.0E-01
3.5E-02
4.0E-01
7.5E-02
1.5E-01
B.2E-01
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
1.2E-03
7.1E-03
3.3E-02
9.36-03
4.3E-02
1.4E-01
2.3E-01
Receptor HI Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE-KX)
5.2E-02
1.1E-01
6.BE-02
4.1E-01
1.2E-01
2.9E-01
1.1E*00
1.1E»00
1 1E+00
Total CNS HI Across All Media *
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media «
Total Vascular HI Across All Media «
Total Skin HI Across All Media •
Total NOAEL HI Across All Media «
Total Liver HI Across All Media •
Total Blood HI Across All Media «
Total Kidney HI Across All Media =
1.7E-01
4.1E-01
1.1E-01
1.1E-01
68E-02
4.1E-01
4.1E-01
2.9E-01
Page 8 of 10
TABLE 9.2.CTE
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPC*
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child/Adult
Medium
Soil-
Exposure
Medium
Soil-
Exposure
Point
Exposed Soil* at Site 14
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Aroclor-1260
Aluminum
Anwiic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Chemical Total
Medium Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
1.2E-06
NA
4.6E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.8E-06
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
7.9E-07
NA
6.5E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 4E-06
Receptor Total
Exposure
Routes Total
2.0E-06
O.OE+00
5.2E-06
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.2E-06
7.2E-06
7.2E-06
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
NA
CNS
Skin, Vascular
NOAEL
Gastrointestinal,Blood. Liver
CNS
Kidney
Ingestion
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
NA •
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Receptor HI Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
o.oe+ooO.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
OOE+00
Page 9 of 10
TABLE 9.3.CTE
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Focused Remedial Investigation Addendum, Site 14, Washington Navy Yard
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Soil'
Exposure
Medium
Soil-
Chemical Total
Exposure
Point
Exposed Soil- at Site 14
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Arodor-1260
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Vanadium
Medium Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
8.5E-08
NA
3.3E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.2E-07
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
1 .4E-07
NA
1 2E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.6E-07
Receptor Total
Exposure
Routes Total
2.3E-07
O.OE+00
4.5E-07
O.OE*00
O.OE+00
0.06*00
O.OE»00
6.8E-07
6.8E-07
6.8E-07
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Targel Organ(s)
NA
CNS
Skin. Vascular
NOAEL
Gastrointestinal,Blood, Liver
CNS
Kidney
Ingestion
NA
5.1E-03
1.0E-02
3.6E-03
41E-02
7.5E-03
1 .6E-02
8.2E-02
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dermal
NA
6.1E-04
3.7E-03
1.7E-02
4.9E-03
2.3E-02
7.2E-02
1.2E-01
Receptor HI Total
Exposure
Routes Total
O.OE»00
5.7E-03
1.4E-02
2.1E-02
4.5E-02
3.0E-02
8.7E-02
2.0E-01
2.0E-01
2.0E-01
Total CNS HI ACTOM All Media -
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media •
Total Vascular HI Across All Media *
Total Skin HI Across All Media <
Total NOAEL HI Across All Media •
Total Liver HI Across All Media •
Total Blood HI Across All Media «
Total Kidney HI Across All Media =
3.SE-02
4.5E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
2.1E-02
4.5E-02
4.SE-02
8.7E-02
Page 10 of 10