PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD
|Site||Site Description/ Waste Disposal History||Investigation Results/ Environmental Monitoring Results||Corrective Activities and/or Current Status||Public Health Evaluation|
|Operable Unit (OU) 1|
|Site 2: |
Scott Center Landfill
|During the 1950s, this site was used intermittently as a disposal area for hydraulic fill (material dredged from nearby waterways, sometimes called dredge spoils), wastes from dry dock operations, solvents, other industrial residues, and sanitary waste. Wastes associated with dry dock operations included spent blasting grit (sometimes known by its trade name, Black Beauty) and associated paint chip waste generated from paint removal activities; the combination of the blasting grit, paint chips, and any other associated debris is known as abrasive blast material or ABM. The landfill covers approximately 2 acres and is adjacent to marsh along Paradise Creek, at the southern edge of Scott Center Annex. It is currently covered with grass and fenced, except on the side adjacent to Paradise Creek. Nearby are baseball and softball diamonds (within 200 feet). The nearest buildings are more than 500 feet from Site 2. A residential area is also located across Paradise Creek.||Soil: Approximately 24 samples collected in the 1980s and 1990s have revealed levels of metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated bipheynls (PCBs) exceeding background levels. These contaminants include arsenic (reaching 303 parts per million [ppm]), lead (2,960 ppm), zinc (12,100 ppm), benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) (0.35 ppm) and Aroclor-1260 (0.15 ppm). |
Groundwater: Extensive shallow groundwater sampling conducted in the 1980s and 1990s revealed elevated levels of metals, including antimony (28.3 parts per billion [ppb]), arsenic (14.6 ppb), iron (10,200 ppm), manganese (531 ppb), nickel (575 ppb) and zinc (1,700 ppb). Samples from the deeper Yorktown Aquifer did not suggest that it was affected by the site.
|A 1999 feasibility study (FS) was followed by a October 2001 phase II remedial investigation (RI) and human health risk assessment. A focused FS is underway and will address a proposed remedy that will reduce the potential for erosion, any exposure to landfill soil or waste, and the leaching of contaminants to groundwater.||Because landfill is covered and fenced, no exposure to the soil occurs. The groundwater near this site is not used as a drinking water source. Surface water and sediment in Paradise Creek are evaluated separately at the end of this table. Soil gas sampling has not been conducted. In light of the relatively small size of the landfill, the types of waste that it received, and the decades that have passed since waste disposal occurred, soil gas is unlikely to pose a hazard. On the basis of available data, Site 2 poses no apparent public health hazard.|
|Site 3: Sanitary Landfill||Most of the waste generated at the shipyard was taken to this 60-acre site along Paradise Creek from 1954 to 1983. Two distinct landfills were created at the site on top of material dredged from the Elizabeth River. The Western Landfill was used for open storage from 1944 to approximately 1954, and landfill operations began in 1964. The Eastern Landfill began receiving waste in 1954. The landfills reportedly received sanitary waste, asbestos, boiler ash, abrasive blast grit, industrial wastewater treatment plant sludge, paints, solvents, other liquids, and hydraulic fill. Solid and liquid wastes were burned at the site until the late 1960s. Site 3 contains Sites 4, 5, 6, and 7.||Surface soil: 75 samples collected throughout the 1990s indicate the presence of PAHs (maximum total value measured at 41,393 ppb), PCBs (maximum total 26,000 ppb), pesticides, and metals. These contaminants include: B(a)P (3,000 ppb), Aroclor-1254 (5,000 ppb), Aroclor-1260 (21,000 ppb), 4,4'-DDD (5,800 ppb), 4,4'-DDE (550 ppb), 4,4'-DDT (8,800 ppb), antimony (410 ppm), beryllium (60 ppm), copper (72,700 ppm), and lead (7,870 ppm). No volatile organic compounds (VOCs) aside from common laboratory contaminants were found at Site 3. |
Groundwater: Extensive sampling in the late 1980s and early 1990s found that shallow wells within Site 3 contain various VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and metals. These include benzene (200 ppb), vinyl chloride (600 ppb), chloroethane (98 ppb), 4-methylphenol (11,000 ppb), 2,4-dimethylphenol (6,700 ppb), antimony (399 ppb), arsenic (178 ppb), iron (305,000 ppb), manganese (44,400 ppb), nickel (1,100 ppb), and zinc (9,720 ppb). Only trace amounts of pesticides were found in the wells. In the deeper Yorktown Aquifer, metals (arsenic 99.3 ppb, iron 59,900 ppb, and manganese 3,230 ppb) and selected VOCs (vinyl chloride 4 ppb) have been detected but not benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX compounds).
|In 1995, a Phase I RI/FS for OU2 was completed. An FS published in 2000 recommended a soil cover at least two feet thick and the adoption of institutional controls. In February 2002, a Phase II RI report for OU2 was published. An updated FS is planned.||Groundwater is not used as a source of drinking water. Surface water and sediment in Paradise Creek are evaluated separately in the last entry to this table. Because Site 3 is currently closed to the general public, and as long as future land use limits potential exposure to soil contamination, Site 3 does not pose a public health hazard.|
|Site 4: Chemical Disposal Pits||Five chemical waste pits within the northern portion of Site 3 received a total of almost 8 million gallons of liquid waste between 1963 and 1978. The liquids included cyanides, acids, degreasers, solvents, and alkali. The pits were covered with soil in 1981, after the chemicals were pumped out.||Site 4 is entirely encompassed by Site 3.||See Site 3.||See Site 3.|
|Site 5: |
Oil Reclamation Area
|This 3.3 acre site is located entirely within the boundaries of Site 3 and has been used for oil reclamation since 1963. A 10,000-gallon tank at this site was formerly used to hold waste petroleum oil lubricants (POL). Soil in the area became contaminated with POL, and the tank was replaced in 1982 with a new storage system, including a second tank and concrete staging areas. The second tank has since been abandoned, and used POL is now stored above ground. Site 5 is characterized by a floating free product plume of used oil in the shallow aquifer. The plume covers an area of approximately 2 acres, is located about 3-5 feet below the ground surface and extends an additional 5 feet deep in places. The used oil is thought to have come from the original underground storage tank. Nearby were temporary waste piles (called Site 30 during a RCRA Facility Assessment) that held ABM, dirt, and concrete until 1986. During excavation to install recovery wells in 1995, a dense, non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) was encountered along with metal canisters and drums containing the same substance. The site is currently fenced.||Free Product: Samples of the free product collected throughout the 1990s indicate it contains total organic halogen (TOX) concentrations of 450 ppm, total PCBs up to 247 ppm, and has a large diesel component. |
DNAPL: Samples collected in 1995 and 1999 indicate that the DNAPL found in the area is made up primarily of chlorinated solvents, phenols, PCBs, diesel fuel and heavy oils and is limited to one specific area within the site.
Soil: Seven surface soil samples collected in 1998 and 1999 during Phase II RI fieldwork revealed low levels of VOCs, SVOCs, metals (including arsenic, 5.7 ppm), and one PCB. Subsurface soils sampled extensively throughout the 1990s contained elevated levels of chlorinated compounds (including 1,1-DCE [130 ppb]), BTEX constituents, and PAHs (including B(a)P up to 4,300 ppb).
Groundwater: Extensive groundwater samples collected from Site 5 throughout the 1990s reveal primarily chlorinated solvents and BTEX constituents in the upper part of the shallow Columbia Aquifer. VOCs and SVOCs detected include vinyl chloride (920 ppb), trichloroethene (TCE) (710 ppb) and its breakdown products including 1,2-dichloroethane (DCA) (1,300 ppb). SVOCs such as phenols and PAHs were also detected including 2,4-dimethylphenol (10,000 ppb). In the lower part of the Columbia Aquifer, SVOCs and VOCs are also present but at low levels. The deeper Yorktown Aquifer immediately below Site 5 has not been sampled, however samples collected throughout Site 3 indicate that metals and VOCs are present.
|The temporary waste piles were removed in 1986, and the area was graded and covered with clay and fill. An oil recovery system was installed in the late 1990s. In 2000, it was noted that the recovery system was removing little oil, and the recovery system was deemed unsuccessful. An updated FS is planned for this site as part of the Site 3 FS. The free product and groundwater and soil immediately surrounding it are being characterized for the purpose of planning a separate removal action.||Site 5 is currently an active oil reclamation facility, and access to it is restricted to authorized personnel. Surface water and sediment in Paradise Creek are evaluated separately in the last entry to this table. Surface soil contains low levels of contaminants not likely to result in health effects. Groundwater is not used as a public water source. Because the public will not come into contact with the contaminants, this site poses no apparent public health hazard.|
|Site 6: |
|Between the mid-1960s and 1977, this site may have received ABM. It also was used for the disposal of solvents (including alcohols and acetone) were reportedly discharged to the ground in this area when the Site 4 pits were full.||Site 6 is entirely encompassed by Site 3.||See Site 3.||See Site 3.|
|Site 7: Bermed Disposal Area||This 1-acre bermed holding area next to Paradise Creek was reportedly used between the late 1950s and early 1970s. It is thought to have been able to hold 1.6 million gallons of waste. While the types of waste it held are unknown, it is thought that they were similar to those dumped at Sites 4 and 6.||Site 7 is entirely encompassed by Site 3.||See Site 3.||See Site 3.|
|Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) 22: |
|An incinerator operated at this site from 1943 to 1947. It and an associated building have been demolished and removed.||SWMU 22 is entirely encompassed by Site 3.||See Site 3.||See Site 3.|
|Site 9:Calcium Hydroxide Disposal Area (also known as the Waste Lime Pit)||This site held calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime), a byproduct of the manufacture of acetylene gas from calcium carbide, conducted at NNSY from 1942 to 1971. From approximately 1965 to 1971, calcium hydroxide slurry was discharged to Site 9, a semi-aboveground bermed impoundment. (From approximately 1944 to 1965, the slurry was piped to an inlet to the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. This "Calcium Hydroxide Lagoon" is adjacent to Site 9 and extends onto the southern portion of neighboring Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. [Atlantic Wood].) Pure calcium hydroxide has a pH above 12 and is corrosive. The Site 9 berm was constructed partially from used ABM (which may contain lead from paint chips), and blasting is reported to have occurred nearby. The calcium hydroxide at Site 9 was covered with soil and was located at the edge of a Navy-owned parking lot at the time of ATSDR's 2002 site visit. There were concrete barriers between the mound of soil contaminated with calcium hydroxide and nearby parking spaces. Signs were posted in April 2002 on the barriers to warn passers-by of the eye and skin irritation that might result from contact with the contamination. The calcium hydroxide and associated contaminated soil was removed in July 2003. During site visits, crab pots were observed downstream of the Site 9 area.||Calcium hydroxide: Two 1996 samples of calcium hydroxide from the nearby Calcium Hydroxide Lagoon had a pH of 12.8. |
Soil: Soil samples have contained primarily metals and PAHs, including arsenic (29 ppm), chromium (494 ppm), copper (7,230 ppm), lead (4,960 ppm), zinc (28,500 ppm), and B(a)P (7.6 ppm). Maximum total PAHs were 98,290 ppm. Some samples also contained relatively low levels of PCBs, such as Aroclor-1260 (0.74 ppm).
Sediment: Metals and PAHs, such as lead (1,980 ppm) and B(a)P (0.25 ppm) have been detected in sediment samples. Some pesticides were also detected at very low levels.
Groundwater: The Navy and Atlantic Wood have been jointly investigating groundwater contamination. While sampling data have not been compiled to date in any documents prepared by the Navy, the contaminants that would be expected are metals, PAHs, and VOCs.
|Before removal of the calcium hydroxide (an acute eye and skin hazard) in July of 2003, fencing did not fully surround all of the calcium hydroxide-contaminated soil. During the site visit, ATSDR recommended that access restrictions be improved and that the Navy ensure that people who might have access to the area be advised of the potential health effects of contact with calcium hydroxide. The Navy adopted these recommendations in April 2002.||In April 2002, before removal of the calcium hydoxide and contaminated soil, measures were taken to advise potentially affected parties of the potential acute hazard posed by calcium hydroxide exposures. While fencing did not fully surround all of the contaminated soil for some number of years, and trespassers or workers might have come into contact with it, no specific cases of past exposure to calcium hydroxide were reported to the Navy. Thus, past, current, and future exposures pose no apparent public health hazard.|
|Site 17: Building 195 and Vicinity||The shipyard's metal plating shop and adjacent soil were contaminated by spills from the early 1970s to 1982. The spilled plating solution is thought to have contained metals and cyanide. Coal was also stored adjacent to the shop from the late 1800s until 1966. Within Site 17, Building 236 is currently designated a site screening area.||Soil: Three soil samples were collected in 1989, and another six samples we collected in late 1997. Samples contained PCBs, pesticides, and PAHs (total 30,410 ppb), and the highest concentrations were detected in the northeast portion of the site. B(a)P was measured at a concentration of 4,800 ppb and the maximum pesticide concentration was 4,4'-DDD (71 ppb). Metals were detected throughout the surface soil, including arsenic (123 ppm), vanadium (318 ppm), and lead (850 ppm). |
Groundwater: Eighteen samples collected between the late 1980s and 1997 did not reveal the presence of pesticides or PCBs in shallow groundwater. Low levels of chloronated solvents were detected, including tetrachloroethene (PCE) (8 ppb). Detected metals included iron (34,600 ppb), lead (100 ppb), cadmium (14.5 ppb), arsenic (47.7 ppb), thallium (9.8 ppb), and nickel (710 ppb).
|In 1982, contaminated soil was removed during the rehabilitation of the plating shop, and the area around the shop was later paved. A phase II RI was completed in November 1999, and a feasibility study is underway. Aside from land use restrictions, no further actions are planned, but a tidal survey has been recommended. A Site Screening Process (SSP) work plan for Building 236 was issued in 2001. As of spring 2002, the site work had been completed and data analysis was underway.||There is no apparent health hazard associated with this site since it is located within the Controlled Industrial Area and access is limited, the asphalt covering the soil makes exposure unlikely, and the groundwater in this area is not used for drinking water supply.|
|Additional Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites|
|Site 1: |
Former New Gosport Landfill
|During 1969 and 1970, this approximately 5.5-acre site was used for the disposal of ABM (blasting grit and associated paint chips) created during paint removal from ships in drydock. This site is adjacent to Paradise Creek. Reportedly, it was used for agriculture in the past.||Soil: The primary contaminant of concern was lead, detected at a maximum concentration of 2,940 ppm. For additional lead sampling data, see Table 2. Arsenic (reaching 57 ppm) and pesticides have also been detected in soil samples. The pesticides were detected in a few samples and are not thought to be associated with ABM disposal. Pesticides detected (with their maximum detected concentrations) included: aldrin (1.5 ppm), dieldrin (2.2 ppm), alpha-chlordane (4.6 ppm), heptachlor (0.6 ppm), and heptachlor epoxide (0.6 ppm). |
ABM: Lead was detected at concentrations up to 1,730 ppm. For additional samples analyzed for lead, see Table 2. Other metals detected in ABM included arsenic (15 ppm) and antimony (161 ppm).
|In 1982, exposed blast grit was covered with clean fill and the area was planted with grass. Clean soil was again placed over exposed grit in 1987 and 1999. In January 2000, the site was fenced. Between October 2000 and June 2001, ABM and associated soil and debris were removed from the site and adjacent private property. The excavated area was filled with clean soil, grass seed, and marsh plants to create a 1.9-acre wetland.||Although groundwater contamination has not been assessed, it poses no public health hazard because no one drinks the groundwater. Surface water and sediment in Paradise Creek are evaluated separately in the last entry to this table. Particularly in light of the potential for concurrent exposures to other sources of lead, past exposure to ABM and soil contamination associated with Site 1 poses an indeterminate public health hazard. This issue is discussed in depth in the body of this document. Current and future exposure to soil where ABM has been removed pose no apparent public health hazard.|
|Site 10: |
|This 36-acre landfill located in the main shipyard was used from the 1920s until 1941for salvage waste, sandblast grit, boiler fly ash and bottom ash, asbestos, and other waste. Site 10 includes two Areas of Concern (AOCs), the previous abrasive blast recycling facility and the site of an old incinerator. The incinerator had operated from the 1920s to the early or mid-1940s and was demolished in 1951. The site is now covered by asphalt, buildings, and small areas of dirt and gravel. It is primarily used as a parking lot for NNSY employees.||Soil: Soil contamination has not yet been thoroughly assessed, but further soil sampling has been completed and documents are being developed. Limited samples from 1994 and 1995 indicated that contaminants of concern include metals (e.g., lead at concentrations exceeding the 400 ppm cleanup goal) and organic contaminants associated with petroleum products (such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes). |
Groundwater: Groundwater contamination has not yet been thoroughly evaluated, but further sampling is underway. Limited sampling conducted in 1995 revealed the presence of metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc.
|A SSP work plan for the 1927 Landfill was issued in 2001. As of spring 2002, the site work had been completed and data analysis was underway. A decision about further action appropriate for this site (e.g., site closure or an RI) will be based on the results of the SSP sampling.||Because the area is covered by pavement, exposure to soil is limited. Because potential infrequent exposure to contaminants in the surface soil is not likely to produce health effects, and the groundwater is not used for drinking water, Site 10 presents no apparent public health hazard.|
|Site 20||This site, in the northwest portion of the main shipyard, was used for a variety of cleaning activities and/or for storage. Nearby was an underground oil/water separator.||No sampling data are currently available.||A site screening process investigation report was completed in July 2003.||Although sampling data are not yet available, groundwater in this area is not used for drinking water and therefore presents no public health hazard. ATSDR reserves comment regarding soil until sampling data are available.|
|Site 21||This site served as a collected point for discarded drums, drums of waste, and other materials. It is located in the southeastern portion of the main shipyard.||No sampling data are currently available.||A site screening process investigation report was completed in July 2003.||Groundwater at this site poses no public health hazard because there is no exposure. ATSDR reserves comment regarding soil until sampling data become available.|
|Paradise Creek||Paradise Creek is tidally-influenced. The Navy refers to the part of Paradise Creek northwest of the George Washington Highway Bridge as Upper Paradise Creek and the part southeast of that bridge as Lower Paradise Creek. Site 1 is located south of Upper Paradise Creek, OUs 1 and 2 are located north of Lower Paradise Creek, and there are also other industrial facilities near the creek (see previous entries in this table and Figures 3 and 4). Contaminant concentrations in surface water and sediment may be attributable to multiple sources, including leachate migration and stormwater runoff from NNSY and other industrial sites. In addition, particularly in Lower Paradise Creek, water and sediment may be carried into the creek from the Elizabeth River, and dredging can further stir up any contaminants. Public access to the creek is limited, although some boating and wading may occur. Additional information about Paradise Creek and the expected types of exposures to surface water and sediment is provided in the body of this document.||Sediment: The Navy collected more than 70 sediment samples as part of a number of investigations conducted between 1986 and 2000. Samples have contained metals, which have been detected at higher concentrations in Lower Paradise Creek than Upper Paradise Creek, including lead (1,510 ppm); arsenic (34 ppm); and chromium, cobalt, and nickel (below 2,500 ppm). Some samples also contained VOCs (below 1 ppm), a few pesticides (below 1 ppm), PCBs (e.g., Arochlor-1260 at 11 ppm), and PAHs (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene at 2.3 ppm). |
Surface Water: Approximately 35 surface water samples collected in the 1980s, 1992, and 2000 have contained metals and a few pesticides, VOCs, and SVOCs. Metals detected included antimony (290 ppb), arsenic (50 ppb), cadmium (100 ppb), chromium (200 ppb), lead (2,700 ppb), and thallium (14.5 ppb). Some samples contained trace amounts (below 1 ppb) of a few pesticides (4,4'-DDD, chlordane, dieldrin, and heptachlor epoxide). Others contained a few VOCs and SVOCs, including trans-1,3-dichloropropene (7.7 ppb), methylene chloride (35 ppb), n-nitrosodiphenylamine (11 ppb), and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (92 ppb).
|The Navy is addressing potential sources of contamination originating from NNSY. It holds a state permit for surface water discharges and uses best management practices to reduce pollution. See OU1, OU2, and Site 1 (respectively) for descriptions of remedial actions completed and proposed. The Elizabeth River Project is working to foster partnerships among interested agencies, industries, and community members to clean up Paradise Creek. It sponsors efforts to monitor indicators of creek quality and initiates associated outreach programs.||The detected levels of contaminants in surface water and sediment samples are relatively low. There is no public access to the creek from NNSY, and NNSY IRP sites along the creek are fenced. The only exposures to surface water and sediment that would be expected are incidental exposures (via dermal contact or ingestion) during recreational use of the creek, such as boating or wading. Any incidental, infrequent, short-term exposures of this sort to the detected levels of contaminants would not result in adverse health effects. Efforts to restore Paradise Creek would be expected to result in reductions of contaminant levels over time. Thus, exposure to surface water and sediment from Paradise Creek does not pose a public health hazard.|
Sources: Baker 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999; CH2MHILL1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001d, 2001e, 2002; LANTDIV 1994; NNSY 1999, 2000, 2001a; NNSY andLANTDIV 2002; OHM 2001, 2002; Nielsen 2002, J. Nielsen, personal communication, July 10, 2003).
No remedial actions were conducted, and no further investigation is planned, at several other sites, originally identified as Sites 11 to 16 under the IRP. These areas include thesites of former steel pickling tanks (Sites 11, 12, 13, and 16) and the site of a PCB spill that was cleaned up.
Further investigations have been recommended at five additional sites. A Site Screening Process (SSP) has been initiated and data analysis is currently underway for Building 236(see Site 17), the 1927 Landfill area (see Site 10), and Building 369, a drum storage area in the southeastern portion of the main shipyard. SSP work has also been recommendedfor a soot hopper at Building 174 and a caustic cleaning area at Building 202. Building 174 was removed in 1988. Building 202 has been re-done, tanks have been removed, andnew concrete has been installed.
At 11 sites currently considered AOCs, a document evaluation and/or limited sampling is planned to evaluate whether further investigation or no further action is appropriate. TheAOCs are: Site 8, the 1941 Landfill; Site 18, the 1914 Landfill; Site 19, the 1942-1954 Landfill; an old incinerator known as Site 21 during the RCRA Facility Assessment; aformer abrasive blast recycling facility; a former PCB storage area; an underground oil/water separator tank near Site 17; the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River; shipyardstorm sewers; and industrial wastewater piping leading to the industrial wastewater treatment plant.
|A. Urgent public health hazard||This category is used for sites that pose an urgent public health hazard as the result of short-term exposures to hazardous substances.||• evidence exists that exposures have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur in the future AND |
• estimated exposures are to a substance(s) at concentrations in the environment that, upon short-term exposures, can cause adverse health effects to any segment of the receptor population AND/OR
• community-specific health outcome data indicate that the site has had an adverse impact on human health that requires rapid intervention AND/OR
• physical hazards at the site pose an imminent risk of physical injury
|B. Public health hazard||This category is used for sites that pose a public health hazard as the result of long-term exposures to hazardous substances.||• evidence exists that exposures have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur in the future AND |
• estimated exposures are to a substance(s) at concentrations in the environment that, upon long-term exposures, can cause adverse health effects to any segment of the receptor population AND/OR
• community-specific health outcome data indicate that the site has had an adverse impact on human health that requires intervention
|C. Indeterminate (potential) public health hazard||This category is used for sites with incomplete information.||• limited available data do not indicate that humans are being or have been exposed to levels of contamination that would be expected to cause adverse health effects; data or information are not available for all environmental media to which humans may be exposed AND |
• there are insufficient or no community-specific health outcome data to indicate that the site has had an adverse impact on human health
|D. No apparent public health hazard||This category is used for sites where human exposure to contaminated media is occurring or has occurred in the past, but the exposure is below a level of health hazard.||• exposures do not exceed an ATSDR chronic MRL or other comparable value AND |
• data are available for all environmental media to which humans are being exposed AND
• there are no community-specific health outcome data to indicate that the site has had an adverse impact on human health
|E. No public health hazard||This category is used for sites that do not pose a public health hazard.||• no evidence of current or past human exposure to contaminated media AND |
• future exposures to contaminated media are not likely to occur AND
• there are no community-specific health outcome data to indicate that the site has had an adverse impact on human health
APPENDIX C: SOIL TERMS AND CODES USED ON FIGURE 6
Source: USDA National Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey of Tidewater Cities Area, Virginia06/12/2002 available on the web at http://www.va.nrcs.usda.gov/soils/web_surveys.htm
Tidewater Cities (Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth)
Soil Scientist and point of contact for soil survey is Gene Crabtree 757-547-7172 ext. 3.
|Soil Survey Code (Map Unit)||Soil Map Unit Name and Brief Description of texture and slope||Clay and organic content |
3.0- 7.0 pH range
|1||Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes||10-24 percent clay 0-13 inches |
0.5-3 percent organic matter 0-13 inches
|2||Augusta fine Sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes||18 - 35 percent clay 0-17 inches |
0.5 - 2 percent organic matter 0-17 inches
|3||Axis very fine Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded||8-20 percent clay 0-14 inches |
4-8 percent organic matter 0-14 inches
|4||Beaches||0-1 percent clay 0-6 inches |
0-0.1 percent organic matter 0-6 inches
|5||Bethera silt Loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes||10-20 percent clay 0-7 inches |
1-6 percent organic matter 0-7 inches
|6||Bohicket muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded||-percent clay 0-6 inches |
20-60 percent organic matter 0-6 inches
|7||Bojac sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes||3-8 percent clay 0-18 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-18 inches
|8||Chickahominy silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes||10-25 percent clay 0-4 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-4 inches
|9A||Craven fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes||7-27 percent clay 0-9 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-9 inches
|9B||Craven fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes||7-27 percent clay 0-9 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-9 inches
|10||Dragonston fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes||4-12 percent clay 0-17 inches |
1-2 percent organic matter 0-17 inches
|11||Duckston fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded||0-4 percent clay 0-4 inches |
0.5-3 percent organic matter 0-4 inches
|12||Johnson silty loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded||5-18 percent clay 0-34 inches |
3-8 percent organic matter 0-34 inches
|13||Lawnes loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded||5-18 percent clay 0-10 inches |
4-8 percent organic matter 0-10 inches
|14||Levy silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes||35-60 percent clay 0-18 inches |
5-10 percent organic matter 0-18 inches
|15||Munden Loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes||3-10 percent clay 0-11 inches |
0.5-1 percent organic matter 0-11 inches
|16C||Nevarc-Uchee complex, 6 to 15 percent slopes||8-18 percent clay 0-9 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-9 inches
|16D||Nevarc-Uchee complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes||8-18 percent clay 0-9 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-924 inches
|17||Newflat silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes||10-25 percent clay 0-8 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-8 inches
|18||Nimmo fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes||4-14 percent clay 0-17 inches |
1-3 percent organic matter 0-17 inches
|20||Seabrook loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes||2-12 percent clay 0-9 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-9 inches
|21A||Slage fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes||8-18 percent clay 0-9 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-9 inches
|21B||Slage fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes||8-18 percent clay 0-9 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-9 inches
|22||State fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes||5-15 percent clay 0-11 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-11 inches
|23||Suffolk fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes||6-18 percent clay 0-14 inches |
0.5-2 percent organic matter 0-14 inches
|24||Tomotley fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes||5-20 percent clay 0-8 inches |
1-6 percent organic matter 0-8 inches
|25||Uchee loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes||3-10 percent clay 0-24 inches |
0.2-3 percent organic matter 0-24 inches
|26||Udorthents- Dumps complex||----- percent clay 0-60 inches |
----- percent organic matter 0-60 inches
|27||Urban Land consists of areas where more than 85 percent of the surface is covered with asphalt, buildings, concreteor similar surfaces.||percent clay 0-6 inches |
percent organic matter 0-6 inches
|28||Yemassee fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes||10-20 percent clay 0-11 inches |
0.5-4 percent organic matter 0-11 inches
|DAM||Dam = water control device||Not applicable|
|W||Water||Not Reported varies with location of water body, season and amount of rainfall|
APPENDIX D: WETLAND CLASSIFICATION TERMS AND CODES FOR FIGURE 8
Click here to view Appendix D in PDF format (44KB, PDF)
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is a federal public health agency withheadquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and 10 regional offices in the United States. ATSDR's mission is toserve the public by using the best science, taking responsive public health actions, and providing trustedhealth information to prevent harmful exposures and diseases related to toxic substances. ATSDR is not aregulatory agency, unlike the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is the federal agencythat develops and enforces environmental laws to protect the environment and human health. Thisglossary defines words used by ATSDR in communications with the public. It is not a completedictionary of environmental health terms. If you have questions or comments, call ATSDR's toll-free telephone number, 1-888-42-ATSDR (1-888-422-8737).
- The process of taking in. For a person or an animal, absorption is the process of a substance getting intothe body through the eyes, skin, stomach, intestines, or lungs.
- Occurring over a short time [compare with chronic].
- Acute exposure:
- Contact with a substance that occurs once or for only a short time (up to 14 days) [compare withintermediate duration exposure and chronic exposure].
- Adverse health effect:
- A change in body function or cell structure that might lead to disease or health problems
- Surrounding (for example, ambient air).
- Background level:
- An average or expected amount of a substance or radioactive material in a specific environment, ortypical amounts of substances that occur naturally in an environment.
- Decomposition or breakdown of a substance through the action of microorganisms (such as bacteria orfungi) or other natural physical processes (such as sunlight).
- Biologic monitoring:
- Measuring hazardous substances in biologic materials (such as blood, hair, urine, or breath) to determinewhether exposure has occurred. A blood test for lead is an example of biologic monitoring.
- Plants and animals in an environment. Some of these plants and animals might be sources of food,clothing, or medicines for people.
- Occurring over a long time [compare with acute].
- Chronic exposure:
- Contact with a substance that occurs over a long time (more than 1 year) [compare with acute exposureand intermediate duration exposure]
- Completed exposure pathway:
- [see exposure pathway].
- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA):
- CERCLA, also known as Superfund, is the federal law that concerns the removal or cleanup of hazardoussubstances in the environment and at hazardous waste sites. ATSDR, which was created by CERCLA, isresponsible for assessing health issues and supporting public health activities related to hazardous wastesites or other environmental releases of hazardous substances. This law was later amended by theSuperfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
- The amount of a substance present in a certain amount of soil, water, air, food, blood, hair, urine, breath,or any other media.
- A substance that is either present in an environment where it does not belong or is present at levels thatmight cause harmful (adverse) health effects.
- Referring to the skin. For example, dermal absorption means passing through the skin.
- Dermal contact:
- Contact with (touching) the skin [see route of exposure].
- Dose (for chemicals that are not radioactive):
- The amount of a substance to which a person is exposed over some time period. Dose is a measurementof exposure. Dose is often expressed as milligram (amount) per kilogram (a measure of body weight) perday (a measure of time) when people eat or drink contaminated water, food, or soil. In general, thegreater the dose, the greater the likelihood of an effect. An "exposure dose" is how much of a substanceis encountered in the environment. An "absorbed dose" is the amount of a substance that actually got intothe body through the eyes, skin, stomach, intestines, or lungs.
- Dose (for radioactive chemicals):
- The radiation dose is the amount of energy from radiation that is actually absorbed by the body. This isnot the same as measurements of the amount of radiation in the environment.
- Environmental media:
- Soil, water, air, biota (plants and animals), or any other parts of the environment that can containcontaminants.
- Environmental media and transport mechanism:
- Environmental media include water, air, soil, and biota (plants and animals). Transport mechanismsmove contaminants from the source to points where human exposure can occur. The environmentalmedia and transport mechanism is the second part of an exposure pathway.
- The study of the distribution and determinants of disease or health status in a population; the study of theoccurrence and causes of health effects in humans.
- Contact with a substance by swallowing, breathing, or touching the skin or eyes. Exposure may be short-term [acute exposure], of intermediate duration, or long-term [chronic exposure].
- Exposure assessment:
- The process of finding out how people come into contact with a hazardous substance, how often and forhow long they are in contact with the substance, and how much of the substance they are in contact with.
- Exposure pathway:
- The route a substance takes from its source (where it began) to its end point (where it ends), and howpeople can come into contact with (or get exposed to) it. An exposure pathway has five parts: a source ofcontamination (such as an abandoned business); an environmental media and transport mechanism (suchas movement through groundwater); a point of exposure (such as a private well); a route of exposure(eating, drinking, breathing, or touching), and a receptor population (people potentially or actuallyexposed). When all five parts are present, the exposure pathway is termed a completed exposurepathway.
- Feasibility study:
- A study by EPA to determine the best way to clean up environmental contamination. A number of factorsare considered, including health risk, costs, and what methods will work well.
- Water beneath the earth's surface in the spaces between soil particles and between rock surfaces[compare with surface water].
- A source of potential harm from past, current, or future exposures.
- Hazardous waste:
- Potentially harmful substances that have been released or discarded into the environment.
- Health consultation:
- A review of available information or collection of new data to respond to a specific health question orrequest for information about a potential environmental hazard. Health consultations are focused on aspecific exposure issue. Health consultations are therefore more limited than a public health assessment,which reviews the exposure potential of each pathway and chemical [compare with public healthassessment].
- Health education:
- Programs designed with a community to help it know about health risks and how to reduce these risks.
- Health investigation:
- The collection and evaluation of information about the health of community residents. This informationis used to describe or count the occurrence of a disease, symptom, or clinical measure and to evaluate thepossible association between the occurrence and exposure to hazardous substances.
- Health statistics review:
- The analysis of existing health information (i.e., from death certificates, birth defects registries, andcancer registries) to determine if there is excess disease in a specific population, geographic area, andtime period. A health statistics review is a descriptive epidemiologic study.
- Indeterminate public health hazard:
- The category used in ATSDR's public health assessment documents when a professional judgment aboutthe level of health hazard cannot be made because information critical to such a decision is lacking.
- The number of new cases of disease in a defined population over a specific time period [contrast withprevalence].
- The act of swallowing something through eating, drinking, or mouthing objects. A hazardous substancecan enter the body this way [see route of exposure].
- The act of breathing. A hazardous substance can enter the body this way [see route of exposure].
- Intermediate duration exposure:
- Contact with a substance that occurs for more than 14 days and less than a year [compare with acuteexposure and chronic exposure].
- Moving from one location to another.
- National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites (National Priorities List or NPL):
- EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the United States. TheNPL is updated on a regular basis.
- No apparent public health hazard:
- A category used in ATSDR's public health assessments for sites where human exposure to contaminatedmedia might be occurring, might have occurred in the past, or might occur in the future, but where theexposure is not expected to cause any harmful health effects.
- No public health hazard:
- A category used in ATSDR's public health assessment documents for sites where people have never andwill never come into contact with harmful amounts of site-related substances.
- [see National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites]
- Point of exposure:
- The place where someone can come into contact with a substance present in the environment [seeexposure pathway].
- A group or number of people living within a specified area or sharing similar characteristics (such asoccupation or age).
- Potentially responsible party (PRP):
- A company, government, or person legally responsible for cleaning up the pollution at a hazardous wastesite under Superfund. There may be more than one PRP for a particular site.
- Parts per billion.
- Parts per million.
- The number of existing disease cases in a defined population during a specific time period [contrast withincidence].
- Actions that reduce exposure or other risks, keep people from getting sick, or keep disease from gettingworse.
- Public availability session:
- An informal, drop-by meeting at which community members can meet one-on-one with ATSDR staffmembers to discuss health and site-related concerns.
- Public comment period:
- An opportunity for the public to comment on agency findings or proposed activities contained in draftreports or documents. The public comment period is a limited time period during which comments willbe accepted.
- Public health action:
- A list of steps to protect public health.
- Public health assessment (PHA):
- An ATSDR document that examines hazardous substances, health outcomes, and community concerns ata hazardous waste site to determine whether people could be harmed from coming into contact with thosesubstances. The PHA also lists actions that need to be taken to protect public health [compare with healthconsultation].
- Public health hazard:
- A category used in ATSDR's public health assessments for sites that pose a public health hazard becauseof long-term exposures (greater than 1 year) to sufficiently high levels of hazardous substances orradionuclides that could result in harmful health effects.
- Public health hazard categories:
- Public health hazard categories are statements about whether people could be harmed by conditionspresent at the site in the past, present, or future. One or more hazard categories might be appropriate foreach site. The five public health hazard categories are no public health hazard, no apparent public healthhazard, indeterminate public health hazard, public health hazard, and urgent public health hazard.
- Public meeting:
- A public forum with community members for communication about a site.
- [see Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976, 1984)]
- Remedial investigation:
- The CERCLA process of determining the type and extent of hazardous material contamination at a site.
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976, 1984) (RCRA):
- This Act regulates management and disposal of hazardous wastes currently generated, treated, stored,disposed of, or distributed.
- The probability that something will cause injury or harm.
- Risk reduction:
- Actions that can decrease the likelihood that individuals, groups, or communities will experience diseaseor other health conditions.
- Risk communication:
- The exchange of information to increase understanding of health risks.
- Route of exposure:
- The way people come into contact with a hazardous substance. Three routes of exposure are breathing[inhalation], eating or drinking [ingestion], or contact with the skin [dermal contact].
- A portion or piece of a whole. A selected subset of a population or subset of whatever is being studied.For example, in a study of people the sample is a number of people chosen from a larger population [seepopulation]. An environmental sample (for example, a small amount of soil or water) might be collectedto measure contamination in the environment at a specific location.
- Sample size:
- The number of units chosen from a population or an environment.
- A liquid capable of dissolving or dispersing another substance (for example, acetone or mineral spirits).
- Source of contamination:
- The place where a hazardous substance comes from, such as a landfill, waste pond, incinerator, storagetank, or drum. A source of contamination is the first part of an exposure pathway.
- Special populations:
- People who might be more sensitive or susceptible to exposure to hazardous substances because offactors such as age, occupation, sex, or behaviors (for example, cigarette smoking). Children, pregnantwomen, and older people are often considered special populations.
- A person, group, or community who has an interest in activities at a hazardous waste site.
- A chemical.
- [see Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980(CERCLA) and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
- Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA):
- In 1986, SARA amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Actof 1980 (CERCLA) and expanded the health-related responsibilities of ATSDR. CERCLA and SARAdirect ATSDR to look into the health effects from substance exposures at hazardous waste sites and toperform activities including health education, health studies, surveillance, health consultations, andtoxicological profiles.
- Surface water:
- Water on the surface of the earth, such as in lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, and springs [compare withgroundwater].
- Toxic agent:
- Chemical or physical (for example, radiation, heat, cold, microwaves) agents that, under certaincircumstances of exposure, can cause harmful effects to living organisms.
- Toxicological profile:
- An ATSDR document that examines, summarizes, and interprets information about a hazardoussubstance to determine harmful levels of exposure and associated health effects. A toxicological profilealso identifies significant gaps in knowledge on the substance and describes areas where further researchis needed.
- The study of the harmful effects of substances on humans or animals.
- Urgent public health hazard:
- A category used in ATSDR's public health assessments for sites where short-term exposures (less than 1year) to hazardous substances or conditions could result in harmful health effects that require rapidintervention.
- Volatile organic compounds (VOCs):
- Organic compounds that evaporate readily into the air. VOCs include substances such as benzene,toluene, methylene chloride, and methyl chloroform.
Some other glossaries and dictionaries:
Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/ )
National Center for Environmental Health (CDC) (www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report/glossary.htm )
National Library of Medicine (NIH) (www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html )
For more information on the work of ATSDR, please contact:
Office of Policy and External Affairs
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
1600 Clifton Road, N.E. (MS E-60)
Atlanta, GA 30333
Telephone: (404) 498-0080
Comment #1: Summary, second paragraph. Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY) does not includethe annexes listed. The landowner is Commander Navy Region Mid-Atlantic (CNRMA). NNSYand CNRMA have agreed that NAVFAC/LANTDIV and NNSY will retain lead commandresponsibility for its historical IR sites until CERCLA remedial actions are completed, afterwhich CNRMA will assume responsibility for the long term maintenance and monitoring ofthese sites.
Response: The text has been changed accordingly.
Comment #2: Summary, second paragraph. Past NNSY activities did extend to New Gosport butCNRMA is the current property owner and the NNSY is no longer involved in activities at thatsite.
Response: The text has been changed accordingly.
Comment #3: Summary, "Exposure to Lead in the New Gosport Area" section. This paragraph is confusing to the reader. Specifically, the paragraph begins by discussing the abrasive blasting material disposed of on the Navy property, and then discusses lead based paint on housing outside of the gate and the effect of cumulative exposure. It appears that the disposal of the abrasive blasting material on the Navy property may have contributed to the cumulative exposure of the residents living in the private housing. We feel that the health issues associated with the disposal of the abrasive blasting material is a separate issue from the health issues associated with exposure to lead based paint from residential dwellings. The two issues should be discussed in separate paragraphs.
Response: ATSDR concurs that a discussion of lead exposures should clearly distinguishbetween lead exposures associated with Site 1 and those associated with other sources. Inresponse to this comment, we clarified this discussion. We retained the reference to lead-basedpaint because the possibility of multiple sources and routes of exposure contributes to ourconclusion that past exposures were indeterminate. As part of our effort to clarify this discussion,we present our conclusions about past exposure in a separate paragraph from our conclusionsabout current and future exposure.
Comment #4: "Exposure to Lead in Soil in and Near the New Gosport Area." While important issues are raised by the discussion of lead-based paint and blood lead testing for children living at private residences outside the former New Gosport Housing complex, they are regional issues not directly related to the former Navy housing complex at New Gosport. These issues should be discussed separately in a section titled "Regional Public Health Concerns."
Response: Navy personnel live and have lived in Navy and non-Navy housing within the localcommunity and within the New Gosport area. ATSDR is not endeavoring to identify whichparties are the sources of lead exposures. For these reasons, ATSDR has not drafted a distinctdiscussion of regional lead-related issues.
Comment #5: Summary, "Exposure to Lead at Other Navy Family Housing Areas" subsection,second paragraph. Quarters P-Z (horseshoe area) have been demolished completely, as describedlater in the document.
Response: The text has been changed accordingly.
Comment #6: "ATSDR Involvement," third paragraph. Site 9 was adjacent to a parking lot butwas not "within" the parking area. The site was separated from the parking area by barriers andsigns.
Response: The text has been changed accordingly to reflect the above conditions during ATSDRsecond site visit.
Comment #7: "Demographics," "NNSY" subsection. The report should note that due to thenature of Navy assignments, typically Navy families only resided in the Navy housing for one tothree years at a time.
Response: The text has been changed to reflect this information, along with information thatsome employees may reside at NNSY for longer periods of time, because of the nature of theirassignments at different Naval commands in the area.
Comment #8: "Land and Natural Resource Use," "Discharges to Surface Water" subsection,second paragraph. NNSY began treating bilge-water and drydock wastewater using a dissolvedair flotation (DAF) process in 1994. The DAF bilge-water and drydock wastewater treatmentsystem described as under construction in this paragraph has been operational since August 2003.
Response: The text has been changed accordingly.
Comment #9: Discussions of exposure to calcium hydroxide from Southgate Annex throughoutthe report. Remediation of all of the calcium hydroxide on both the Navy and the Atlantic WoodIndustries property has been completed.
Response: The text has been changed accordingly.
Comment #10: "Community Health Concerns," first paragraph. NNSY has completed therevision to the Community Relations Plan. As part of our effort to update the plan weinterviewed local residents, civic league and other citizen community representatives, localbusinesses, local officials and media representatives.
Response: The text has been changed accordingly.
Comment #11: Summary, "Exposure to Emissions from the Former Shipyard Foundry."Although information is not available documenting the quantity of work done at the foundryduring WWII, the type of work and the configuration of the building would have been the sameas the 1945 configuration.
Response: The manner in which the foundry operated and the levels of production and releasescould have changed at any time during its history. In order to avoid making assumptions, andgiven that no documents or other records confirming this statement have been provided toATSDR, we have not added it to our discussion.
Comment #12: Summary, "Exposure to Emissions from the Former Shipyard Foundry." Thissection indicates that ATSDR identified a community health concern associated with exposure tolead released into the community from foundry emissions. However, the body of the reportindicates that this issue was identified by ATSDR during the site visit and review of site relateddata. The Summary should clarify that ATSDR identified the potential health concern andremove reference to being a "community health concern."
Response: The paragraph to which this comment refers indicated that ATSDR identified acommunity concern about lead. As part of our evaluation of that concern and review of potentialsources of lead, we requested information about the former Shipyard foundry. The paragraph wasrevised to remove the reference to community concern about lead from the Shipyard; it retains areference to community concern about lead.
Comment #13: "Community Health Concerns," Foundry discussion. All references to thefoundry and any potential for lead emissions should be very objective, defining bothinterpretations of the available information . . . . The foundry melted lead ingots for casting intovarious ship components. The foundry did not have a stack for emissions, but rather upper levelwindows for ventilation. As lead will be in particulate form, it is likely that the vast majority ofany lead emission from these "melt and pour" operations would remain inside the foundrybuilding.
Response: ATSDR appreciates receiving this additional information about the foundry. We agreethat all the information in the public health assessment, including facts relating to the foundry,should be presented objectively. For this reason, ATSDR does not speculate on how the buildingconfiguration might have affected emissions. We have, however, incorporated additional detailabout the building configuration into our discussion. This new information provides additionalperspective on past operations, but does not change our conclusions.
Comment #14: Foundry discussion. As part of the recent NNSY background investigation, theNavy found that level of lead across the NNSY is relatively low and does not exhibit a leadcontamination gradient extending from the foundry as one would expect if the foundry were asignificant source.
Response: We did not include statements regarding the background study in our analysis ofissues associated with the foundry because soil sampling performed as part of the study was notstatistically based, nor were the sampling locations specifically selected to discern concentrationgradients from the former foundry.
Comment #15: Foundry discussion. The PHA should note that a separate urban healthconsultation to address lead (lead based paint, leaded gasoline, and other potential sourcesincluding the NNSY foundry and ABEX) is forthcoming.
Response: ATSDR is not endeavoring to identify which parties are the sources of lead exposures.At this time, ATSDR is not planning to prepare a separate health consultation. As indicatedpreviously, ATSDR is providing information about cumulative lead exposures to localpopulations, not trying to identify particular sources of lead and the extent to which theycontributed to these exposures.
Comment #16: "Community Health Concerns," second paragraph of response to question aboutredevelopment of the Paradise Creek Disposal Area. Replace "deed restrictions" with the terms"land use controls."
Response: The text has been changed accordingly.
Comment #17: Figures. Some of the figures inaccurately depict the boundaries of NNSY and theannexes. The correct boundaries are outlined on the attached map.
Response: The figures have been revised accordingly, where possible.
Comment #18: Appendix A. The Site screening process document for Sites 20 and 21 was issuedas a final document in July of 2003.
Response: The text has been changed accordingly. At this time, the Navy has not been able toprovide documentation associated with those investigations. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) oversight of theInstallation Restoration Program is expected to ensure that there is no future human exposure toany contaminants identified at levels of potential health concern.
Comment #19: Appendix B describes ATSDR health categories, but no grade is found within thereport for NNSY.
Response: The reference to Appendix B, which provides definitions of ATSDR's hazardcategories, appears in the Conclusions section of the public health assessment (PHA). Thatsection applies the hazard category designations to the exposure pathways discussed in thisdocument. The designations applied in the Conclusions section and elsewhere in the PHA are notintended as grades. Instead, they provide additional perspective on ATSDR's assessment of thepotential for adverse effects to occur or to have occurred.
Comment #20: "Evaluation of Environmental Contamination, Exposure Pathways, and PublicHealth Implications," text box. The highlighted box contains a list of what contaminants havebeen detected in samples from Paradise Creek. The text does not state whether or not thechemicals were detected above health standards. This is an important community concern. Aspresented the reader does not know whether the contaminants are of health concern. Providing astatement following each chemical class as to whether the chemicals were detected above orbelow health standards would be very beneficial to the reader. Particularly since the section ishighlighted by being placed in a box.
Response: An additional paragraph providing perspective on the potential for adverse healtheffects from the expected types of exposures to Paradise Creek was added to the text box. Thedetected levels of different contaminants and contaminants classes found at concentrationsexceeding screening values in Paradise Creek are presented in the last row of the table inAppendix A. ATSDR does not have screening values for surface water and instead uses drinkingwater screening values; similarly, ATSDR uses soil screening values, as a first step, whenpresented with sediment data. Because readers may find it difficult to interpret data compared tothese screening values, they are not presented in the PHA.
Comment #21: The sediments of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River and most likelyParadise Creek are devoid of macrobiotic life due to creosote. Oil streams to the surface in avisible film upon disturbance. How can such a poisoned environment, one sterile of macro biota,possibly be safe? The report flippantly passes this off as "low levels of other chemicalcontaminants commonly associated with industrial activities." There are no other estuarine areasin Virginia this contaminated!
Response: In response to this comment, ATSDR re-reviewed data reflecting contaminantconcentrations in Paradise Creek. The Navy collected and analyzed surface water and sedimentsamples in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1997, and 2000(1). ATSDR did not identify any other surfacewater or sediment samples collected in Paradise Creek by any state or regional agencies ororganizations.
ATSDR evaluated potential exposures to adults and children that might occur if community members swim, wade, or play in Paradise Creek two days per week, for three hours at a time, five months of the year (May to September). The water temperature is likely too cold for swimming and wading during other months of the year. We overestimated the frequency and duration that people might be in contact with the creek in order to be protective, even though no regular use of Paradise Creek has been reported. In many locations, it is hard to access because of reeds and mud present along its banks, and there is no public access to the water from NNSY.
ATSDR also made the conservative assumption that people are regularly exposed to the highest level of a given contaminant ever measured, even though in actuality contaminant levels fluctuate and lower levels were observed during different sampling events. Furthermore, the assumption that people are exposed to the highest detected levels may overestimate exposures because contaminant levels were higher in Lower Paradise Creek than in Upper Paradise Creek, but Lower Paradise Creek is hard to access from its northern shore and not an attractive area for swimming, given the adjacent industrial facilities. People are probably more likely to walk along the creek or play or sunbathe on its shores than to swim.
For sediment exposures, ATSDR assumed that the adults inadvertently ingest 100 milligrams of sediment each time they visit Paradise Creek, whereas children ingest 200 milligrams of sediment per day. Finally, ATSDR assumed that people accidentally ingest between half and three-fourths of a cup of water (0.15 liters) every time they visit Paradise Creek, for visits lasting three hours (EPA 1997). This overestimates the amount of water accidentally ingested if people visiting the creek are not swimming in it. Our estimates of resulting exposure doses provide perspective on worst-case scenarios. ATSDR does not expect people come in contact with that much sediment and surface water at the maximum detected contaminant concentrations as frequently as we estimate in our calculations.
Using these assumptions, the exposure doses calculated by ATSDR for adults and children coming into contact with Paradise Creek surface water and sediment were consistently below doses shown in the scientific literature to cause adverse health effects. It is for this reason that ATSDR concluded that infrequent and incidental exposures to contaminant levels detected in the creek would not be expected to cause adverse health effects. No data for years prior to 1986 exist, nor were data collected at any specific times when contaminant transport from the Shipyard or other industrial sites was expected to be elevated. Therefore, any exposures under those scenarios cannot be evaluated. As a precautionary measure, people should follow any swimming advisories issued by local agencies and organizations, such as the Elizabeth River Project, which is studying Paradise Creek quality.
Other Comments: A few editorial comments were received, and changes were made accordingly.
[EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment.1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington: US Environmental Protection Agency.EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
1 The only data set that ATSDR was not able to review in full was 1997 surface water data, for which ATSDR was only able to review metals data (i.e., concentrations of other types of chemical contaminants were not available).