DOCSLIB.ORG

Record of Decision (Rods)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Record of Decision (Rods) EPA/ROD/R2006030001342 2006 EPA Superfund Record of Decision: WASHINGTON NAVY YARD EPA ID: DC9170024310 OU 06 WASHINGTON, DC 09/29/2006 FFA Final Record of Decision Site 5—Building 73 and Site 16—Former Mercury Removal Area Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III District of Columbia Department of the Environment July 2006 Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................v 1. Declaration .................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Site Name and Location ...............................................................................................1-1 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose..................................................................................1-1 1.3 Description of the Selected Remedy...........................................................................1-1 1.4 Statutory Determinations.............................................................................................1-2 1.5 Authorizing Signature..................................................................................................1-2 2. Decision Summary....................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description........................................................................2-1 2.2 Site History, Enforcement Activities, and Previous Investigations...................................2-1 2.2.1 Site History .......................................................................................................2-1 2.2.2 Enforcement Activities....................................................................................2-2 2.2.3 Previous Investigations...................................................................................2-3 2.3 Community Participation ............................................................................................2-7 2.4 Scope and Role of the Response Action.....................................................................2-8 2.5 Site Characteristics........................................................................................................2-8 2.5.1 Physical Setting ................................................................................................2-8 2.5.2 Conceptual Site Model ....................................................................................2-9 2.5.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination............................................................2-9 2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Resource Uses........................................2-10 2.7 Risk Summary .............................................................................................................2-11 2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment Process ............................2-11 2.7.2 Site 5 HHRA Results......................................................................................2-11 2.7.3 Site 16 HHRA Results....................................................................................2-18 2.7.4 Ecological Risks..............................................................................................2-23 2.8 Selected Remedy .........................................................................................................2-24 2.9 Documentation of Significant Changes ...................................................................2-24 3. Responsiveness Summary.......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Overview........................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Background on Community Involvement ................................................................3-1 3.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period, Navy Responses.......................................................................................................................3-1 4. References ..................................................................................................................................4-1 5. Glossary ......................................................................................................................................5-1 WDC042670002.ZIP III RECORD OF DECISION, SITE 5—BUILDING 73 AND SITE 16 - FORMER MERCURY REMOVAL AREA Appendixes A DDOE Letter of Concurrence B Public Meeting Transcript—December 7, 2005 C Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Initial Site 5 HHRA D Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Initial Site 5 HHRA – Lead Evaluation E Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Updated Site 5 HHRA – Lead Evaluation F Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Initial Site 16 HHRA G Human Health Risk Assessment Tables – Updated Site 16 HHRA- Mercury Evaluation Figures (Figures are located at the end of each section.) 2-1 Facility Boundary and Locations of Sites 5 and 16 2-2 Site 5 Detailed Layout 2-3 Site 16 Detailed Layout 2-4 Site 5 Sample Locations and Concentrations of Lead 2-5 Site 16 Sample Locations and Concentrations of Mercury 2-6 Site 5 Conceptual Site Model for Potential Human Exposures 2-7 Site 16 Conceptual Site Model for Potential Human Exposures IV WDC042670002.ZIP Acronyms and Abbreviations ALM Adult Lead Model AOC Area of Concern bgs below ground surface BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act COC constituent of concern COPC constituent of potential concern CSF cancer slope factor CSM conceptual site model CTE central tendency exposure DDOE District of Columbia Department of the Environment DPT direct-push technology EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EPC exposure point concentration FFA Federal Facilities Agreement FRI Final Remedial Investigation FS Feasibility Study HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables HHRA human health risk assessment HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IEUBK Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model IFI Initial Findings Investigation IR Installation Restoration IRIS Integrated Risk Information System LID Low Impact Development MCL Maximum Contaminant Level Navy United States Department of the Navy NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NDW Naval District Washington NPL National Priorities List OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PA Preliminary Assessment PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon WDC042670002.ZIP V RECORD OF DECISION, SITE 5—BUILDING 73 AND SITE 16 - FORMER MERCURY REMOVAL AREA PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PEL Permissible Exposure Limit RAB Restoration Advisory Board RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund RBC risk-based concentration RfD reference dose RFI RCRA Facility Investigation RI Remedial Investigation RME reasonable maximum exposure ROD Record of Decision SA Site Assessment SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SEFC Southeast Federal Center SI Site Investigation SVOC semivolatile organic compound UCL upper confidence limit of the mean UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compound WNY Washington Navy Yard VI WDC042670002.ZIP SECTION 1 Declaration 1.1 Site Name and Location Site 5—Building 73 and Site 16—Former Mercury Removal Area Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. CERCLIS ID No. DC9170024310 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedy for soil at Sites 5 and 16 at the Washington Navy Yard (WNY), Washington, D.C. The selected remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on information contained in the Administrative Record file for the WNY. The Department of the Navy (Navy) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected the remedy and the District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE) concurs with the selected remedy. A letter from DDOE indicating concurrence with the selected remedy is provided in Appendix A. The decision contained in this document is based on information and analysis currently available as a result of a thorough investigation at these sites. The decision does not preclude further review of the sites should additional information be identified. 1.3 Description of the Selected Remedy No further action is the selected remedy for the soil at both Sites 5 and 16. The no further action remedy selection is based on the remedial investigations (including the baseline human health and ecological risk assessment) of soil at Sites 5 and 16, which indicate that there are no unacceptable risks based on current site conditions, even if future residential use is assumed. No further action under CERCLA is necessary to protect human health, welfare, or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment from the soil at Sites 5 and 16. Sites 5 and 16 are two of 15 sites at the WNY and are included in the Navy’s WNY Installation Restoration (IR) Program. Separate investigations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Urban Waterways & Civic Engagement
    RECLAIMING THE EDGE urban waterways & civic engagement RECLAIMING THE EDGE urban waterways & civic engagement Reclaiming the Edge: Urban Waterways and Civic Engagement is funded in part by the Smithsonian Institution Women’s Committee, the DC Commission on the Arts & Humanities—an agency supported in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, the Headquarters and Region 3 Offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Cornell Douglas Foundation. Cover Image: Learning to paddle a voyageur canoe on the Anacostia River Photograph by Keith Hyde, US Army Corps of Engineers, 2011 Wilderness Inquiry, Minneapolis, Minnesota Back Image: Earth Day, Washington, DC, 2012 Photograph by Susana A. Raab, Anacostia Community Museum Director’s Statement Reclaiming the Edge: Urban to that density have turned rivers from pristine waterways Waterways and Civic Engagement of fresh waters into murky, polluted tributaries creating is the Smithsonian Anacostia challenges for public health. It examines how rivers, natural Community Museum’s 45th borders, and barriers have contributed to economic, anniversary exhibition and racial, and social segregation. The exhibit spotlights the marks the official public launch diversity of the folk culture spawned by river communities. of the museum’s new mission— It explores new experiences in city planning and waterfront to challenge perceptions, development and assesses the role the river plays in wildness Photograph by John Francis Ficara broaden perspectives, generate and an environmental “place” within the urban experience. new knowledge, and deepen This exhibition will not only help audiences understand the understanding about the ever-changing concepts and realities American experience but also foster understanding and of “community.” This exhibition moves ACM into a new era of sustenance of a biodiverse planet.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Navy Looks at Its African American Crewmen, 1755-1955
    “MANY OF THEM ARE AMONG MY BEST MEN”: THE UNITED STATES NAVY LOOKS AT ITS AFRICAN AMERICAN CREWMEN, 1755-1955 by MICHAEL SHAWN DAVIS B.A., Brooklyn College, City University of New York, 1991 M.A., Kansas State University, 1995 AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2011 Abstract Historians of the integration of the American military and African American military participation have argued that the post-World War II period was the critical period for the integration of the U.S. Navy. This dissertation argues that World War II was “the” critical period for the integration of the Navy because, in addition to forcing the Navy to change its racial policy, the war altered the Navy’s attitudes towards its African American personnel. African Americans have a long history in the U.S. Navy. In the period between the French and Indian War and the Civil War, African Americans served in the Navy because whites would not. This is especially true of the peacetime service, where conditions, pay, and discipline dissuaded most whites from enlisting. During the Civil War, a substantial number of escaped slaves and other African Americans served. Reliance on racially integrated crews survived beyond the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, only to succumb to the principle of “separate but equal,” validated by the Supreme Court in the Plessy case (1896). As racial segregation took hold and the era of “Jim Crow” began, the Navy separated the races, a task completed by the time America entered World War I.
    [Show full text]
  • After Action Report Washington Navy Yard September 16, 2013
    AFTER ACTION REPORT WASHINGTON NAVY YARD SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 INTERNAL REVIEW OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. JULY 2014 SHOOTING AT THE WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is the primary law enforcement agency for the District of Columbia. The MPD has over 4,000 sworn and 500 civilian members serving the city. MISSION OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT It is the mission of the Metropolitan Police Department to safeguard the District of Columbia and protect its residents and visitors by providing the highest quality of police service with integrity, compassion, and a commitment to innovation that integrates people, technology and progressive business systems. www.mpdc.dc.gov 1 | AFTER ACTION REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL REVIEW TEAM SHOOTING AT THE WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 3 PURPOSE OF REVIEW .................................................................................................... 5 SCOPE OF REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 6 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Few Americans in the 1790S Would Have Predicted That the Subject Of
    AMERICAN NAVAL POLICY IN AN AGE OF ATLANTIC WARFARE: A CONSENSUS BROKEN AND REFORGED, 1783-1816 Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jeffrey J. Seiken, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor John Guilmartin, Jr., Advisor Professor Margaret Newell _______________________ Professor Mark Grimsley Advisor History Graduate Program ABSTRACT In the 1780s, there was broad agreement among American revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton about the need for a strong national navy. This consensus, however, collapsed as a result of the partisan strife of the 1790s. The Federalist Party embraced the strategic rationale laid out by naval boosters in the previous decade, namely that only a powerful, seagoing battle fleet offered a viable means of defending the nation's vulnerable ports and harbors. Federalists also believed a navy was necessary to protect America's burgeoning trade with overseas markets. Republicans did not dispute the desirability of the Federalist goals, but they disagreed sharply with their political opponents about the wisdom of depending on a navy to achieve these ends. In place of a navy, the Republicans with Jefferson and Madison at the lead championed an altogether different prescription for national security and commercial growth: economic coercion. The Federalists won most of the legislative confrontations of the 1790s. But their very success contributed to the party's decisive defeat in the election of 1800 and the abandonment of their plans to create a strong blue water navy.
    [Show full text]
  • Rear Admiral Charles H. Stockton, the Naval War College, and the Law of Naval Warfare
    Rear Admiral Charles H. Stockton, the Naval War College, and the Law of Naval Warfare John Hattendorf INCE ITS FOUNDING IN 1884, the U.S. Naval War College has played a § role in the study and formulation of the law of armed conflict. Many distinguished scholars and lawyers have taught, researched, and written studies in this field at the College. The roll call of its professors of international law includes such distinguished scholars as John Bassett Moore, George Grafton Wilson, Manley o. Hudson, Hans Kelsen, Thomas Mallison, and Howard Levie. Many of the most well~known names are those of scholars who held the position as a parHime appointment and worked at the Naval War College for a few months each year, while also holding chairs at major civilian universities. This policy changed only in July 1951, when the Secretary of the Navy created the College's first two full~time civilian academic appointments: a professor of history and a professor of international law. For many years both were normally held by visiting scholars for a one or two~year period. On 6 October 1967 the College named the law position the Charles H. Stockton Chair ofInternational Law.1 In attaching the name of Stockton to one of its oldest and most prestigious academic chairs, the Naval War College remembered a naval officer who was a key figure in its own institutional history as well as an important figure in the development of the law of naval warfare. Today, the prestigious Stockton Chair at the Naval War College, and Stockton Hall, the home of the Law School at The George Washington University in Stockton, the War College and the Law Washington, D.C., are the principal tokens of his memory and his achievements.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Navy Fiscal Year 2016 Schedule of Budgetary Activity
    AMERICA’S AWAY TEAM Table of Contents 1.0 Message from the ASN (FM&C) ................................................................................... 2 2.0 Management’s Discussion and Analysis ...................................................................... 4 2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Mission and Organization Structure................................................................................... 6 2.3 Analysis of the Schedule of Budgetary Activity ............................................................... 14 2.4 Systems, Control, and Legal Compliance ......................................................................... 19 2.5 Looking Forward .............................................................................................................. 26 2.6 Goals and the Supporting Financial System Strategies .................................................... 28 2.7 Other Management Information, Initiatives, and Issues ................................................. 29 2.8 Limitations of the Schedule of Budgetary Activity ........................................................... 29 3.0 Audit Opinion ........................................................................................................... 31 4.0 Financial Section ....................................................................................................... 56 4.1 Schedule of Budgetary Activity .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gender Integration NPS Student and Faculty Studies Illuminate the Department of Defense’S Path to Gender Equality
    NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL ININ REREVMAGAZINEIEWIEW V July 2016 GENDER INTEGRATION NPS STUDENT AND FACULTY STUDIES ILLUMINATE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFEnsE’S PATH TO GENDER EQUALITY. INSIDE: Executive Education Extends the NPS Mission Chief of Naval Operations Talks High Velocity Learning Research Reports: ICEX • Patents • Acquisitions PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE hroughout modern American history, senior defense department leadership have made bold, albeit difficult decisions about the roles of women in our military forces. Certainly the issue of the day has to do with females in combat roles, but there have Tbeen several milestones in the Armed Forces for the outstanding women we all have the privilege to serve with, yesterday and today. Defense and Navy department leadership have already made bold decisions about the future roles of women on the front lines of our nation’s wars. And I am proud to say that, here at the Naval Postgraduate School, we have a critical role to play in this compelling future. Our role is not one of opinion, rather, it is one of knowledge. Ultimately, academia is about asking difficult questions, performing intensive research and discovery, and provid- Ronald A. Route Vice Adm., U.S. Navy (Ret.) ing a well evidenced and sound analysis of the findings, adding to society’s greater body of President, Naval Postgraduate School knowledge. Often, these analyses are requested by, and provided to, our senior defense lead- ers – illuminating the varied paths before them so they can make informed, confident deci- sions in guiding our force. It is this role, this impact, that truly sets NPS apart from the greater academic enterprise.
    [Show full text]
  • DD 933) HAER DC-68 Forrest Sherman-Class Destroyers Washington Navy Yard Washington District of Columbia
    USS BARRY HAER DC-68 (DD 933) HAER DC-68 Forrest Sherman-Class Destroyers Washington Navy Yard Washington District of Columbia WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240-0001 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD USS Barry (DD 933) HAER No. DC-68 Location: Washington Navy Yard, Washington, District of Columbia Type of Craft: Forrest Sherman–class destroyer Builder’s Hull No.: 326 Navy Designation: DD 933 Principal Measurements: Length (oa): 418'-6" (424' after 1959) Length (bp): 407'-0" Beam (molded): 45' Draft (full): 15' Displacement (light ship): about 2,780 long tons Displacement (full): about 4,050 long tons Shaft horsepower (design): 70,000 Speed (design): 33 knots Endurance 4,500 nm at 20 knots (The listed dimensions are as-built, but it should be noted that draft and displacement were subject to alteration over time as well as variations in measurement.) Propulsion: Geared steam turbines driving twin screws Dates of Construction: Laid down: March 15, 1954 Launched: October 1, 1955 Delivered: August 31, 1956 Commissioned: September 7, 1956 Designer: U.S. Navy Bureau of Ships Builder: Bath Iron Works Corporation, Bath, Maine Original Owner: U.S. Navy Present Owner: U.S. Navy Disposition: Preserved as display ship USS Barry (DD 933) HAER No. DC-68 Page 2 Significance: USS Barry was third in a class of eighteen destroyers commissioned by the U.S. Navy between 1955 and 1959. These vessels were among the first new warships developed by the navy after World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • ANACOSTIA RIVER WATER TRAIL GUIDE a Voyage Through Time: from Captain John Smith to the Modern Day
    ANACOSTIA RIVER WATER TRAIL GUIDE A Voyage Through Time: From Captain John Smith to the Modern Day EXPLORE THE ANACOSTIA RIVER BY CAR, BIKE, FOOT, OR WATER. RIVER SAFETY GUIDELINES ANACOSTIA RIVER PANEL REFERENCE MAP Always, always wear a lifejacket NORTHEAST BRANCH Check the Tide Near Bladensburg, MD, the Anacostia ANC has a 3-foot tidal difference, one of NORTHWEST BRANCH the largest tidal differences on the Chesapeake Bay. There are many places KENILWORTH AV / RT 201 ANNAPOLIS RD on the Anacostia only accessible at high tide. It is always best to explore streams PANEL 1 and wetlands on an incoming tide, to BLADENSBURG RD ensure enough water for the return trip. Take the tide into consideration when estimating paddle times. For tide tables, go to www.saltwatertides.com. RHODE ISLAND AVE GEORGIA AVE GEORGIA Be Prepared BLADENSBURG RD RT 50/NEW0/NEW YORYORK AVEAVE Check the weather forecast before setting ORKRK AVEAVE out and bring the appropriate clothing and NEW YORK AVE amount of water. In the summer, watch PANEL 2 out for severe afternoon thunderstorms. In the spring and fall, temperatures and winds can fl uctuate dramatically so bring KENILWORTH AVE extra layers of clothing. N CAPITOL ST BENNING RD G RD Water Quality While the water quality of the Anacostia River has improved dramatically in the last E CAPITOLC STS SE INDEPENDENCE AVE two decades, it is still unsafe to swim in the E CAPITOL ST river. Levels of fecal bacteria are particularly PANEL 3 high within 24 hours after a signifi cant storm event (1/2 inch or more of rain).
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Navy
    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 1998 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR 1998 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS MESSAGE FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: OVERVIEW § Department of the Navy Mission and Performance Highlights............................................................................... 5 § Program Performance............................................................................................................................................. 8 § Future Challenges................................................................................................................................................... 16 § Message from the Senior Civilian Official for the Office of the Assistant Secretary § of the Navy (Financial Management & Comptroller) ..................................................................................... 29 § Financial Management Issues and Accomplishments.............................................................................................. 31 § Limitations of the Financial Statements.................................................................................................................. 33 SECTION 2. PRINCIPAL STATEMENTS § Balance Sheet......................................................................................................................................................... 39 § Statement of Net Cost............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Anacostia Historic District Brochure Has Been Funded with the Assistance of a Matching Grant from the U.S
    DISTRICT HISTORIC WASHINGTON, D.C. WASHINGTON, ANACOSTIA D.C. Historic Preservation Office 801 North Capital Street, NE Suite 3000 Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 442-8800 1 Frederick Douglass, The sage of Anacostia. Revised March 2007 Courtesy National Archives Anacostia Historic District East Of The River east of the Anacostia River, in sight of the U.S. Capitol, lies an area of unusual natural beauty and rich heritage . A narrow ridge of land 200” – 300” high Eparallels the river once known as the Eastern Branch of the Potomac. The ridge drops off abruptly to the broad bank of the Anacostia, its steep slope slashed by intersecting ravines. on the side away from the river, the ridge descends precipitously into Oxon Run, a small stream that flows into the Potomac about 3 miles below the mouth of the Anacostia. This isolates the ridge and the river bank from the countryside to the east as effectively as the Anacostia itself separates the community from the monumental center of the capital city. On a clear day the panoramic views from the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Roman Catholic Church and St. Elizabeths Hospital overlooks are breathtaking. They are rivaled only by those from the Washington Monument on the National Mall, yet they are not public views. They are the special treasure of those who live in Anacostia, glimpsed briefly by outsiders who travel along Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue or visit the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site. View of Washington from Across the Eastern Branch, engraving by William J. Bennett (after a painting by George Cooke), 1833.
    [Show full text]
  • Joshua Humphreys, Philadelphia Ship Designer & Builder
    PMM BLOG ARCHIVE August 21, 2020 Joshua Humphreys, Philadelphia Ship Designer & Builder Photo of Phila. shipyard illustration. Joshua Humphreys, a ship designer and builder in Philadelphia, played a key role in the design and construction of naval frigates during the years 1775 through 1804. These ships helped the United States to wartime victories over France, the Barbary States, and Britain. Humphreys was born in Haverford, PA in 1751. At age 14 he served an apprenticeship with James Penrose, a shipbuilder in Philadelphia. In 1774 Humphreys partnered with his cousin, John Wharton in a shipbuilding business. In 1775, prior to the start of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress acquired merchant ships for conversion into warships. The Continental Congress voted in December 1775 to authorize the construction of 13 new frigates. A definition note, a warship rated to carry between 20 and 44 guns was classified as a frigate and a warship rated for 60 – 120 guns was classified as a “ship of the line”, or battleship. Construction of 4 of these 13 frigates was assigned to Pennsylvania. The Wharton and Humphreys Shipyard received the contract to build one of the 4 Pennsylvania frigates. The Wharton and Humphreys Shipyard launched their frigate, the USS Randolph in July 1776. This 32-gun frigate served until March 1778 when it was lost during an engagement with a British 64-gun ship-of-the- line. Only 4 crew members survived this battle. At the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783, the Continental Congress disbanded the Navy due to wartime financial debts and the perception of no current international threats.
    [Show full text]