United States Environmental Protection 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Agency Washington, DC 20460 September 2010 EPA O ce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule – Newtown Creek
Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule Newtown Creek S eptember 2010
Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460
Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... iii
Introduction ...... iv
Background of the NPL ...... iv Development of the NPL ...... v Hazard Ranking System ...... v Other Mechanisms for Listing ...... vi Organization of this Document...... vii Glossary ...... vii 1. List of Commenters and Correspondence ...... 1
2. Site Description ...... 6
3. Summary of Comments ...... 6
3.1 Support for Listing and Other Non-Opposing Comments ...... 10 3.1.1 General Support and Support with Requests ...... 10 3.1.2 Other Non-Opposing Concerns and Considerations ...... 11 3.2 Delay Listing ...... 12 3.3 Purpose of Listing ...... 12 3.4 Extent of Site ...... 14 3.5 Liability ...... 15 3.6 Economic Impacts of Listing ...... 17 3.7 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ...... 19 3.8 Other Non-listing Activities ...... 21 3.9 Additional Pathways Not Scored ...... 24 3.10 Releases Below Regulatory Limit ...... 25 3.11 Challenge to HRS ...... 26 3.12 Public Health Assessment/Human Health Risk Assessment ...... 28 3.13 Contaminated Sediment Source ...... 28 3.14 Eligibility of Hazardous Waste ...... 31 3.15 Hazardous Waste Quantity...... 32 3.15.1 Unallocated Source ...... 34 3.15.2 Source Type ...... 35 3.15.3 Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Substances ...... 36 3.16 Likelihood of Release ...... 38
i Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
3.16.1 Sediment Bed Eligibility ...... 39 3.16.2 Use of Background Samples in Establishing an Observed Release ...... 40 3.16.3 Use of Qualified Data ...... 42 3.16.4 Results Below CRQLs ...... 46 3.16.5 Sample Similarity ...... 47 3.16.6 Clarity of HRS Observed Release Tables ...... 54 3.16.7 Attribution ...... 55 3.16.8 Contamination in Mouth of Creek ...... 56 3.17 Waste Characteristics ...... 59 3.17.1 Toxicity/Bioaccumulation ...... 59 3.17.2 Bioavailability ...... 64 3.18 Targets...... 65 3.18.1 Human Food Chain Fishery ...... 65 3.18.2 Fishery in Mouth of Newtown Creek ...... 66 3.18.3 Scoring of Migratory Fish ...... 68 3.18.4 Resources ...... 69 3.18.5 Sensitive Environment ...... 69 3.18.6 Potential Environmental Targets ...... 71 3.19 HRS Site Rescoring ...... 73 4. Conclusion ...... 74
Attachment 1 Alternate Evaluation Tables
ii Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Executive Summary
Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that EPA update the list at least annually.
This document provides responses to public comments received on the Newtown Creek site, proposed on September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48511). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under EPA’s Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in September 2010.
iii Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Introduction
This document explains the rationale for adding the Newtown Creek site in Brooklyn/Queens, New York, to the National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and provides responses to public comments received on this site listing proposal. The EPA proposed this site to the NPL on September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48511). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in September 2010.
Background of the NPL
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq. in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Public Law No. 99-499, stat., 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP, further revised by EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth guidelines and procedures needed to respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. On March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), EPA further revised the NCP in response to SARA.
Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include
criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, take into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.
Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions or on a short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long-term in nature and involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA Section 101). Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA, were included in the HRS. EPA promulgated the HRS as Appendix A of the NCP (47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in response to SARA, and established the effective date for the HRS revisions as March 15, 1991.
Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the HRS be used to prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of the NCP, is the NPL.
An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an HRS score of 28.5 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NPL of at least 400 sites, as suggested by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently on March 4, 2010 (75 FR 9790). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to add sites to the NPL. The most recent proposal was on March 4, 2010 (75 FR 9843).
iv Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Development of the NPL
The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).
The priority list serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to any person. Subsequent government actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.
The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action.
CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list priority sites among the known releases or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section 105(a)(8)(A) directs EPA to consider certain enumerated and other appropriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, EPA has the discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities exist, placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, EPA has chosen not to place certain types of sites on the NPL even though CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency may consider placing them on the NPL.
Hazard Ranking System
The HRS is the principle mechanism EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a numerically based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations -- the preliminary assessment and site inspection -- to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to human health or the environment. HRS scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which EPA funds remedial response actions, because the information collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate response for a particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, EPA relies on further, more detailed studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.
The HRS uses a structured value analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical values to factors that relate to or indicate risk, based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped into three categories. Each category has a maximum value. The categories are:
• likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the environment;
v Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
• characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); and • people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.
Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:
• Ground Water Migration (Sgw) - drinking water
• Surface Water Migration (Ssw) The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood migration and ground water to surface water. - drinking water - human food chain - sensitive environments
• Soil Exposure (Ss) - resident population - nearby population - sensitive environments
• Air Migration (Sa) - population - sensitive environments
After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are combined using the following root-mean-square equation to determine the overall site score (S), which ranges from 0 to 100:
2 2 2 2 S gw + S sw + S s + S a = S = 4
If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even if only one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some extremely dangerous sites pose threats through only one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of hazardous substances can contaminate drinking water wells, but -- if the drums are buried deep enough and the substances not very volatile -- not surface water or air.
Other Mechanisms for Listing
There are two mechanisms other than the HRS by which sites can be placed on the NPL. The first of these mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to designate one site as its highest priority regardless of score. The last mechanism, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requirements:
• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release; • EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and
vi Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
• EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency removal authority to respond to the site.
Organization of this Document
The following section contains EPA responses to site-specific public comments received on the proposal of the Newtown Creek site on September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48511). The site discussion begins with a list of commenters, followed by a site description, a summary of comments, and Agency responses to each comment. A concluding statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the site.
Glossary
The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text:
AALAC Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory Concentrations Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criterion BCF Bioconcentration factor CCV Continuing calibration verification CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq., also known as Superfund CFR Code of Federal Regulations CLP Contract Laboratory Program COPC Contaminant of potential concern CRP Community Relations Plan CRQL Contract required quantitation limit CSO Combined sewer overflow DL Detection limit DO Dissolved oxygen EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EqP Equilibrium partitioning ER-M Effects range median ESI Expanded Site Inspection EWVIDCO East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Development Corporation FHA Federal Housing Administration FR Federal Register GLA Greenpoint Landing Associates LLC GMDC Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center GWAPP Greenpoint Waterfront Association for Parks and Planning HRS Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP
vii Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
HRS score Overall site score calculated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to 100 LOEC Lowest observed effect concentration
logkow n-octanol-water partition coefficient MDL Method detection limit MGP Manufactured gas plant μg/kg Microgram per kilogram mg/kg Milligram per kilogram NAG Neighbors Allied for Good Growth NCA Newtown Creek Alliance NCMC Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 NOEC No observed effect concentration NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP NYCDCP New York City Department of City Planning NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection NYCDPR New York City Department of Parks and Recreation NYCEDC New York City Economic Development Corporation NYCHPD New York City Housing Preservation and Development NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation OSA Open Space Alliance for North Brooklyn PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl PRP Potentially responsible party RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI/FS Remedial investigation and feasibility study ROD Record of Decision SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SQL Sample quantitation limit SVOC Semi-volatile organic compound TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure TDL Target distance limit TLM Target-lipid model TOC Total organic carbon VOC Volatile organic compound WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant
viii Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
1. List of Commenters and Correspondence
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0004 Correspondence, dated January 20, 2009, from Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner, New York Department of Environmental Corporation, letter requesting placement of the Newtown Creek site on the National Priorities List (NPL)
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0005 Correspondence, dated October 08, 2009, from Terry Jeng, memorandum authorizing extension of the comment period for EPA-HQ-SFUND-0588
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0006 Comment, dated October 16, 2009, from Anonymous Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0007 Comment, dated December 1, 2009, from Raychel Ryan, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0008 Comment, dated November 1, 2009, from Edgar Freud, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0009 Comment, dated December 3, 2009, from Anonymous Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0010 Comment, dated December 6, 2009, from Tom Brooklyn, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0011 Comment, dated December 9, 2009, from Anonymous Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0012 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from T. Rodriguez, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0013 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Geraldine Sosa, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0014 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Orlando Osorio, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0015 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Alexandra Sumner, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0016 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from D. Compitello, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0017 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from S. House, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0018 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Amarilys Acevedo, Public Commenter
1 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0019 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from N. Bloomfield, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0020 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from Laura Asmal, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0021 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from K. Sport, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0022 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from Tevon Reddick, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0023 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from I. Ramos, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0024 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Freddy Ogando, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0025 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Tabitha Addison, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0026 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Candice Reyes, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0027 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Joseph Crowley, Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Congress of the United States
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0027.1 Comment attachment, dated December 22, 2009, from Joseph Crowley, Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Congress of the United States
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0028 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Anonymous Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0029 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Brian T. Coleman, CEO, Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center (GMDC)
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0030 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Anonymous Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0031 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Anonymous Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0032 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from D. Richardson, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0033 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Andreas Cohrssen, Public Commenter
2 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0034 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Anonymous Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0035 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Laura Hofmann, Public Commenter EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0035.1 Comment attachment, dated December 21, 2009, from Laura Hofmann, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0036 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Susan Albrecht, Co-Chair, Neighbors Allied for Good Growth
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0036.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Susan Albrecht, Co-Chair, Neighbors Allied for Good Growth
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0037 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Joseph Conley, Chairman, Community Board 2, Queens
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0037.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Joseph Conley, Chairman, Community Board 2, Queens
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0038 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from Kate Schmid, Director, Newtown Creek Alliance (NCA)
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0038.1 Comment attachment, dated December 18, 2009, from Kate Schmid, Director, Newtown Creek Alliance (NCA)
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0039 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Anonymous Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0040 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from L. Brenner, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0041 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Barbara Zukowski, Maspeth Holistic Psychotherapy Services
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0042 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from Wanderlin Tejada, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0042.1 Comment attachment, dated December 18, 2009, from Wanderlin Tejada, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0043 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Jerry Ross, Texaco, Inc.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0043.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Jerry Ross, Texaco, Inc.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0043.2 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Jerry Ross, Texaco, Inc.
3 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0044 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Michael Heimbinder, Executive Director, HabitatMap; Member, Newtown Creek Alliance
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0045 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Cas Holloway, City of New York, Office of the Mayor
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0045.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Cas Holloway, City of New York, Office of the Mayor
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0046 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Stephanie Thayer, Executive Director, Open Space Alliance for North Brooklyn (OSA)
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0046.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Stephanie Thayer, Executive Director, Open Space Alliance for North Brooklyn (OSA)
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0047 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Joseph R. Lentol, Assemblyman, The Assembly State of New York, Albany
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0047.1 Comment attachment, dated December 22, 2009, from Joseph R. Lentol, Assemblyman, The Assembly State of New York, Albany
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0048 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Phillip Musegaas, Hudson River Program Director, Riverkeeper, Inc.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0048.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Phillip Musegaas, Hudson River Program Director, Riverkeeper, Inc.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0048.2 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Phillip Musegaas, Hudson River Program Director, Riverkeeper, Inc.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0049 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Christopher Len, Staff Attorney, NY/NJ Baykeeper
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0049.1 Comment attachment, dated December 22, 2009, from Christopher Len, Staff Attorney, NY/NJ Baykeeper
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0050 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Dewey Thompson, Co-Chair, Greenpoint Waterfront Association for Parks and Planning (GWAPP)
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0050.1 Comment attachment, dated December 22, 2009, from Dewey Thompson, Co-Chair, Greenpoint Waterfront Association for Parks and Planning (GWAPP)
4 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0051 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Stephen Levin, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0052 Comment, dated December 29, 2009, Helen M. Marshall, President, Queens Borough
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0052.1 Comment attachment, dated December 29, 2009, Helen M. Marshall, President, Queens Borough
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0053 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Thomas V. Fusillo, Managing Principal, ENVIRON International Corporation on behalf of HDH LLC
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0053.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Thomas V. Fusillo, Managing Principal, ENVIRON International Corporation on behalf of HDH LLC
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0054 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Leah Archibald, Executive Director, East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Development Corporation (EWVIDCO)
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0054.1 Comment attachment, dated December 22, 2009, from Leah Archibald, Executive Director, East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Development Corporation (EWVIDCO)
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0055 Comment, dated December 5, 2009, from David Gordon, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0056 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from Nick Sherman, Operations Manager, William E. Williams Valve Corporation
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0057 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Daniel J. Toal, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP on behalf of Exxon Mobile Corporation
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0058 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Irene Klementowicz, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0059 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Julie Lawrence, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0059.1 Comment attachment, dated December 21, 2009, from Julie Lawrence, Public Commenter
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0060 Comment, dated December 17, 2009, from Irene Klementowicz and Paul Turci, Co-Chairs, Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee (NCMC)
5 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0060.1 Comment attachment, dated December 17, 2009, from Irene Klementowicz and Paul Turci, Co-Chairs, Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee (NCMC)
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0061 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Mark A. Chertok, Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. and the Elm Group on behalf of Greenpoint Landing Associates, LLC
2. Site Description
The Newtown Creek site comprises more than three miles of Newtown Creek, including the sediments within, on the border of Brooklyn and Queens, New York. The exact origin of the hazardous substances in the contaminated sediments in various portions of the Creek has not been identified due to the presence of multiple possible sources for each substance. The Creek, a tributary to the East River and part of the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary, trends north-northwest and forms the northwestern-most border between Brooklyn and Queens. The HRS evaluation for this site scored the surface water pathway. The source included in the site is the contaminated sediments in the Creek, supported by sampling of over 100 surface and subsurface samples collected from February through April of 2009, and analyzed under the EPA Superfund Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). The HRS score is based on actual contamination of a human food chain fishery and part of a sensitive environment. The HRS documentation record at proposal presented analytical data showing contamination from metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at levels meeting observed release criteria in sediment samples collected at numerous locations throughout the length of the Creek. Fishing and crabbing for human consumption occur in the Creek. In addition, the Creek is considered an HRS-eligible sensitive environment since it is part of an estuary identified as a sensitive area under the National Estuary Program.
In 2008, the U.S. Congress asked EPA to evaluate Newtown Creek for Superfund status and investigate four specific facilities along the Creek. These facilities are Phelps Dodge (the Laurel Hill site), BCF Oil, Quanta Resources, and National Grid (formerly KeySpan and Brooklyn Union Gas). While these facilities or properties are thought to be contributing to the contamination in the Creek, they are not the only probable or known sources of contamination. In fact, later in 2008, EPA completed an extensive search which indicated that there are hundreds of historic and existing possible contamination sources in the vicinity of Newtown Creek. The search revealed oil refineries and depots, former manufactured gas plants (MGPs), chemical plants, manufacturing facilities, rail yards, auto repair shops, tank cleaning companies, recycling and waste management facilities, various commercial enterprises, and facilities operated by various State and City agencies.
3. Summary of Comments
More than 55 public commenters submitted comments regarding the proposed NPL listing of the Newtown Creek site. More than 30 of those commenters indicated unconditional support for the NPL designation, while others provided support with specific requests for consideration. A few commenters submitted extensive technical and policy comments, including the City of New York (herein referred to as the City), HydroQual Inc. (herein referred to as HydroQual, on behalf of the City of New York), Greenpoint Landing Associates (herein referred to as GLA), ELM Group (herein referred to as ELM, on behalf of GLA), ENVIRON International Corporation (on behalf of HDH LLC), Texaco Inc. (herein referred to as Texaco), and ExxonMobil Corporation (herein referred to as ExxonMobil).
6 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Several commenters requested that EPA undertake various activities and include various considerations in performing post listing activities. These commenters included the Open Space Alliance for North Brooklyn (OSA); Stephen Levin, Council Member-Elect for the 33rd District; Congressman Joseph Crowley, Representative from the 7th district of New York; the Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee (NCMC); and the City. These commenters requested that EPA develop the investigation and remediation plans in coordination with the current uses of and future plans for the Creek. Specifically, they expressed concerns regarding the continued use of the Creek and waterfront access during cleanup operations, how various permitting arrangements will be handled, and what efforts would be implemented to minimize financial impact on small business. These commenters also requested that EPA ensure waterfront parks and developments, such as the Hunter’s Point South project and planned park at 65 Commercial Street, are not delayed, or that other various plans, such as the planned dredging of Newtown and Whale Creeks, are allowed to move forward as planned.
The City and GLA expressed concern over the economic impacts of listing the Newtown Creek site. The City discussed a number of projects and initiatives it considers as being potentially impacted by a Superfund designation of Newtown Creek. GLA asserted that listing the mouth of the Creek may impede the development of projects in that area and bring a stigma which would impact housing values and the availability of financing.
The City asserted that NPL listing could be the most effective way to remediate extensive industrial contamination, yet stated that it has “concerns about the potential for a listing to delay critical investments in infrastructure, housing, open space, and small businesses operations.” The City stated that it has assessed potential impacts that the NPL listing of Newtown Creek could have on ongoing and planned water quality and capital improvement projects and various City initiatives around the Creek. It discussed its concerns regarding NPL designation and the City’s planned work on combined sewer overflows (CSOs)1 stating that “the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) has planned approximately $500 million of water quality improvement work in Newtown Creek, approximately $380 million of which may be impacted by a listing on the NPL.” The City asserted that EPA’s attention to, and support of the logistical demands of projects that are currently being undertaken by NYCDEP, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (NYCHPD), the New York City Department of City Planning (NYCDCP), the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR) and other City and State agencies, is of vital importance. The City stated its opinion that EPA can address many potentially negative impacts by committing the appropriate resources and working collaboratively with the City, and impacted communities and stated that it seeks comprehensive written commitments from EPA that EPA will meet the shared expectations of a transparent process.
Texaco and ExxonMobil requested that the listing be withdrawn or delayed until further information is gathered. Texaco presented “four fundamental issues that should be resolved” before EPA makes its final decision to place the site on the NPL. In summarizing these four issues, Texaco asserted that EPA must:
- determine whether ongoing sediment loading will undermine the effectiveness of any remedy;
- ascertain whether bacterial loading will render fish caught in the Creek unfit for human consumption – even after the implementation of a sediment remedy;
- assess the effectiveness of sediment remedies that have been attempted at other similar sites with ongoing sediment and bacterial loading issues;
1 A CSO is a discharge of a mixture of storm water and domestic waste when the flow capacity of a sewer system is exceeded during rainstorms.
7 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
- review the effectiveness achieved at other sites to determine if long-term remedies will allow the Creek to become fishable and fit for recreational uses.
Texaco challenged whether placing the site on the NPL met the purpose of listing. It stated that the “singular purpose for the HRS scoring is to make a regulatory decision as to whether a CERCLA Section 121 remedy is necessary,” and that the site should not be listed on the NPL until it can be ascertained that a remedy consistent with CERCLA Section 121 can be implemented. ExxonMobil reflected the comments made by Texaco and stated that the ongoing sediment and bacterial loading of the Creek as a result of CSOs “endangers the efficacy and success of any potential remediation of sediments in the Creek.”
Several commenters discussed specific considerations associated with liability. The East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Development Corporation (EWVIDCO) stated its concern regarding small businesses located on Newtown Creek, and how potential liability may affect them. Community Board No. 2 and Newtown Creek Alliance (NCA) requested that EPA contact all of the businesses along the Creek to inform them of potential liability and ways to minimize liability. ExxonMobil stated that contaminant contribution from ExxonMobil’s former terminal property “has not been a significant contributor to Newtown Creek’s current condition,” and that “there is no evidence that oil is currently seeping into the creek from ExxonMobil’s property.” ExxonMobil added that the City bears a substantial responsibility through the discharges of CSOs into the creek, and that CSOs “must be addressed before a permanent remedial solution to the Creek can be determined and implemented.” The City stated that it expects EPA to conduct comprehensive searches of industrial operators responsible for all significant sources of contamination to the Creek.
HydroQual, Environ, and GLA contested various elements of the HRS, including more consideration of the actual site-specific risk posed by the site, the use of sample quantitation limits (SQLs), and the formula used to determine a significant increase in contaminant levels when identifying an observed release. ENVRION stated that the procedures and information used by EPA in the listing process do not adequately and scientifically evaluate the human and environmental risk posed by the site and that the site score is not scientifically linked to risk and unnecessarily includes areas exhibiting “de minimis” risk. HydroQual stated that EPA has established draft sediment quality guidelines, which considers organic carbon in assessing contaminant ecological threat; however, the HRS metric of “three times background” does not capture contaminant ecological threat. ENVIRON stated that “it seems arbitrary that sample measurements higher than the SQL or three times background concentration levels should define an observed contaminant release,” and that “the factor of three and the SQL have no relationship to an environmental or human health impact.”
HydroQual submitted several comments challenging technical details associated with EPA’s HRS scoring of the Newtown Creek site. It stated that EPA improperly characterized the Newtown Creek sediments as an unallocated source and questioned if the sediment plume in Newtown Creek was an eligible source of contamination. Also, it questioned whether the appropriate source category and subsequent divisor used in the hazardous waste quantity evaluation was appropriately assigned. HydroQual asserted that the HRS documentation record at proposal avoids the recognition of numerous sources of contamination and that CSO inputs of hazardous substances into the surface water are small relative to other current sources. HydroQual also alleged that hazardous material testing results performed in Newtown Creek indicate that not all of the Creek sediments can be classified as hazardous waste, yet the HRS evaluation includes an overstated measure for volume based on the presumption that all the sediment in Newtown Creek is contaminated.
8 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Although HydroQual agreed that there was an observed release to Newtown Creek and that a likelihood of release factor category value of 550 was appropriately assigned, it stated several objections to the evidence supporting this value. It also asserted that considering the sediment bed as a release is in contradiction with the stagnant nature of the Creek, and that contaminants have a low probability of movement. HydroQual, GLA, and ENVIRON contested downstream background samples taken from the Atlantic Basin, and whether they serve as adequate evidence that a release occurred to Newtown Creek. These commenters alleged that samples used to establish an observed release were not suitable because the physical properties between the background and release samples were not sufficiently similar. Specifically, HydroQual asserted that the comparisons of release samples to background samples were done on a bulk sediment basis and did not account for physical differences such as total organic content between sediments from these two locations. ENVIRON asserted that the background sample results were compromised by the failure to achieve the contract required quantitation limits (CRQLs). It stated that the “[s]election of Atlantic Basin as the reference site for Newtown Creek is, therefore, highly conservative and may not be a reasonable basis for assessing the significance of concentrations observed in Newtown Creek.”
HydroQual stated that the tables in the HRS documentation record at proposal “lack clarity,” and contain misleading language such as that the naming convention applied to Tables 1 though 4 “introduces the presumption that the sediment bed is a release independent of completing a comparison to background concentrations.” Additionally, HydroQual questioned the use of analytical results flagged with the “J” analytical data qualifier in the evaluation of an observed release in Newtown Creek. HydroQual stated that:
much of the data, especially for cadmium and other metals, used to determine releases were laboratory estimates, i.e., ‘J-flagged’, rather than true laboratory measurements. While EPA followed accepted protocols for using ‘J-flagged’ data and attempted to compensate for uncertainty, the release determination is compromised because of the ‘J- flagged’ estimates. Given the importance associated with the HRS score and potential NPL listing, alternative calculations, omitting ‘J-flagged’ estimates, should also be considered by EPA before reaching a final listing conclusion.
GLA and ENVIRON submitted comments opposing the establishment of the mouth of Newtown Creek as a part of the site. GLA asserted that the sediments in the mouth of the Creek exhibit substantially less contamination than the remainder of the Creek and should not be considered as a part of the site. ENVIRON asserted that “[s]ince PCBs were not detected in surface sediments, there is no Human Food Chain Threat associated with surficial sediments sampled near the mouth of Newtown Creek.”
HydroQual questioned the methodology used to assign toxicity values to the hazardous substances in the HRS documentation record. The City asserted that the brackish nature of Newtown Creek and the wide range of salinity observed in the Creek are not ideal for HRS evaluation because factors used in the HRS scoring methods are specific to bioaccumulation and toxicity in either fresh water or salt water. It also stated that Newtown Creek is scored higher than if it were scored as entirely fresh water or as entirely salt water.
ELM and ENVIRON questioned whether the hazardous substances in the sediments are bioavailable to cause toxicity. ENVIRON asserted that bioavailability could not be adequately assessed based solely on sediment contaminant data. ELM contested that the chemical processes in the Creek are essential in determining the bioavailability and thus the potential risk or lack thereof to a potentially affected target, and should be considered by EPA as part of the NPL listing process.
9 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
HydroQual commented that it considered the final value assigned for the human food chain threat appropriate, yet asserted that the protectiveness of the New York State health advisory is not a part of the evaluation of the fishery. ELM asserted that the fishery evaluation disregarded the findings of fish population studies in the Upper New York Bay that “conclude that the fish population is composed primarily of migratory fish, which likely do not spend a significant portion of their lives in the Creek.”
HydroQual stated that “[g]iven that the Newtown Creek is designated by the State of New York as a Class SD water body suitable for fish survival, a Sensitive Environments Rated Factor of 5 for ‘state designated areas for protection or maintenance of aquatic life’ is more appropriate for Newtown Creek, than the 100 EPA assigned.” HydroQual suggested that a site-specific, rather than a Harbor-wide, sensitive environments factor is more appropriate for Newtown Creek. It added that the waters of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary cannot be established as subject to potential contamination for a sensitive environment because the Estuary already meets the criteria for an observed release since “there are a number of Superfund sites within the NY/ NJ Harbor Estuary.”
Mr. Tom Brooklyn, Brooklyn resident, expressed concern that fish and shellfish are captured for human consumption in and around Newtown Creek, and that the contamination in Newtown Creek is adversely affecting the recreational quality of NYC waters.
3.1 Support for Listing and Other Non-Opposing Comments
Numerous commenters sent letters and notices of support or support with requests. Other commenters described non-opposing concerns and considerations.
3.1.1 General Support and Support with Requests
More than 35 individuals or groups supported the listing of Newtown Creek on the NPL. The majority of these commenters, comprising local residents and business owners, students, recreation enthusiasts, a community action group, and a community representative, provided unconditional support for listing. The remainder of the commenters provided support for NPL listing of Newtown Creek along with some concerns or requests that EPA take certain actions in conjunction with the listing. The City of New York stated that “a listing could be the most effective way to remediate the site,” although it stated concerns regarding the “potential for a listing to delay critical investments in infrastructure, housing, open space, and small businesses operations.” These commenters, along with the City, included the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (under authority delegated by the Governor of New York), Neighbors Allied for Good Growth (NAG), Community Board #2, Newtown Creek Alliance (NCA), Riverkeeper, Inc., and two individuals. Their requests for EPA included the following: • Coordinate closely with the City and the State. • Allow for continued use of the Creek for recreation and commerce, and waterfront access to its parks and surrounding businesses during remediation to the extent possible. • Commit to a completely transparent and public process, emphasizing community outreach, including to businesses along with lower income, immigrant and other special communities. • Coordinate with and minimize logistical obstacles to businesses, providing access to or information about programs to support their functioning during the investigation and cleanup process. • Provide a list of businesses that have dealt with the consequences of Superfund listing at analogous sites. • Coordinate with relevant agencies on planned and potential infrastructure projects; minimize potential interruption along transportation corridors.
10 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
• Designate adequate staff and funds to the project. • Prioritize negotiations with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to expedite the cleanup process. • Conduct adequate monitoring to ensure health and welfare of the community. • Consider the multi-phase, multi-year remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) work plan developed by NYSDEC, NY State Office of the Attorney General, and several PRPs as investigation and remedial planning proceed. • Ensure the fruition of already planned or ongoing local community-supported development projects. • Protect smaller businesses from unnecessary litigation and allow them to take diminutive settlements whenever possible. • Work with the community, the City, and the State to achieve a more progressive storm water management system.
Response: EPA has added the Newtown Creek site to the NPL. Listing makes a site eligible for remedial action funding under CERCLA, and EPA will examine the Newtown Creek site during the RI/FS phase of the Superfund process to determine what response, if any, is appropriate. In response to the comments requesting coordination with local businesses and the community in general, as discussed in section 3.8, Other Non-Listing Activities, of this support document, EPA will develop a Community Relations Plan (CRP) which will allow EPA to gather community concerns, including those of local businesses, and evaluate best methods to communicate and coordinate with all interested parties during the post listing stages of the Superfund process for the Newtown Creek site.
3.1.2 Other Non-Opposing Concerns and Considerations
Other commenters expressed certain concerns or requested that EPA consider certain elements after promulgation while not directly stating their position on placing the site on the NPL. These commenters included the Open Space Alliance for North Brooklyn (OSA); Stephen Levin, Council Member-Elect for the 33rd District; Congressman Joseph Crowley, Representative from the 7th district of New York; and the Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee (NCMC). These commenters expressed concerns for continued use of the Creek and waterfront access, minimizing financial impact on small business, and setting up workshops for small business owners. They also made requests that EPA ensure waterfront parks and developments, such as the Hunter’s Point South project and planned park at 65 Commercial Street, are not delayed. Also, commenters requested that various plans move forward, such as the planned dredging of Newtown and Whale Creeks, and that EPA work with the City to find ways to offer assistance to small business owners if they have difficulty securing insurance and/or loans for development. Commenters requested that EPA develop the investigation and remediation plans in coordination with the current uses of and future plans for the Creek
Response: The comments on waterfront parks, other developments, assisting small business owners, and coordination of further investigation and remedial plans, are all outside of the listing process. As explained in section 3.8, Other Non-listing Activities, of this support document, considerations regarding remedy selection, implementation, and funding are not factors in the decision to list a site on the NPL and these activities are not part of the listing process. Therefore, the commenters’ issues on these topics are typically considered during later stages of the Superfund process as these activities typically occur after listing. Listing of a site simply informs the public that EPA has determined that the site poses sufficient threat to human health and the environment to warrant further investigation. It does not predetermine the response actions, including coordination efforts with ongoing developments. The Superfund process offers numerous opportunities for public participation at NPL sites, in addition to commenting on site listing proposals, which are available to the commenters and all of the public.
11 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
3.2 Delay Listing
Comment: Texaco Inc. (herein referred to as Texaco), ExxonMobil Corporation (herein referred to as ExxonMobil), and Joseph R. Lentol, Assemblyman 50th District, Kings County, New York, requested that EPA delay promulgation of the site to the NPL until the Newtown Creek Group RI/FS effort is completed.. Texaco suggested that either the proposal for listing should be withdrawn or the site should remain proposed pending the outcome of the RI/FS, evaluations of risk, and “remedy implementability” in view of continuing discharges. Texaco commented that it and four other companies comprising the Newtown Creek Group are negotiating with EPA to conduct an RI/FS of Newtown Creek to assist EPA in answering questions regarding sediment and bacteria loading in Newtown Creek and effectiveness of sediment remediation at other similar sites.
ExxonMobil stated that given the benefits of the current cooperative contribution that ExxonMobil and the rest of the Newtown Creek Group have made to the efforts of addressing Newtown Creek, and the continuing questions regarding the City’s ongoing contamination of the Creek, “[ExxonMobil] respectfully submit that EPA should defer its decision on listing the Site until the comprehensive investigation has been carried out.”
Joseph R. Lentol, Assemblyman 50th District, Kings County, New York, urged EPA to spend more time in discussing directly with the community the effects listing will have on the communities surrounding the Creek, before issuing a final decision on listing the site. While he supported the proposal, Mr. Lentol explained that there is confusion over whether the advance of such a designation will be at the expense of other open space priorities that the City is close to obtaining.
Response: Placing a site on the NPL is not delayed to complete a thorough investigation of the site or to allow negotiations regarding remediation to be completed. Proceeding with the listing process need not inhibit efforts to determine remediation. If the Newtown Creek Group or any designated PRP wishes to expedite cleanup efforts, it may undertake the RI/FS and/or remedial design/remedial action stages under EPA supervision and pursuant to appropriate agreements with governmental authorities (under enforcement authorities of CERCLA or those of other statutes). Placing a site on the NPL does not encumber or preclude PRPs from entering into these agreements. EPA has entered into many such agreements before and after a site’s promulgation to the NPL, and such an alternative is available to others.
Regarding dissemination of information to residents, a Community Relations Plan (CRP) is usually developed as part of the Superfund process and every attempt is made to ensure that community relations is a continuing activity designed to meet the specific needs of the community. In addition, EPA has attended and participated in public meetings to which it was invited. See the response in 3.8, Other Non- Listing Activities, of this support document for more information on the CRP.
3.3 Purpose of Listing
Comment: Texaco challenged whether placing this site on the NPL met the purpose of listing. Texaco stated that the
singular purpose for the HRS scoring is to make a regulatory decision as to whether a CERCLA Section 121 remedy is necessary. An obvious and unavoidable prerequisite for the HRS process is determining that a permanent long-term remedy consistent with the statutory mandate of CERCLA Section 121 can be achieved.
12 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Texaco commented that CERCLA Section 121 establishes a statutory preference for remedies that are permanent, requiring an assessment of technologies that are designed to meet this statutory objective, and this assessment must consider long-term effectiveness of remedial technologies. Texaco stated that listing Newtown Creek on the NPL must be evaluated within the context of CERCLA legislation that gives EPA the authority to engage in this rulemaking.
Texaco commented that placing the Newtown Creek site on the NPL at this time is not necessary to accomplish the objectives of an RI/FS and listing will only serve to create public expectations that may not be achievable. Texaco also stated that it is not timely to finalize the site on the NPL until it can be ascertained that a remedy consistent with CERCLA Section 121 can be implemented.
Texaco asserted that EPA must address, prior to finalizing the site on the NPL, the effectiveness of sediment remedies that have been attempted at similar sites where “ongoing sediment and bacterial” sources exist as in Newtown Creek. On this issue, Texaco commented that it is unclear if EPA has conducted the necessary CERCLA Section 121 assessment of the effectiveness of long-term remedial technologies.
Texaco provided a summary of its assessment of the legislative history of CERCLA Section 121 to bolster its claims that EPA must engage a permanent and effective remedy to address sediment and bacterial loading in Newtown Creek. Texaco summarized that by 1986 “Congress was dissatisfied with the implementation of CERCLA, in part, due to EPA’s perceived focus on temporary, rather than permanent solutions at Superfund sites.” Texaco stated that when Congress passed SARA in 1986, SARA added to or amended several provisions of CERCLA, such as adding “Section 121, ‘Cleanup Standards,’ to CERCLA, which included a stated preference for permanent solutions at Superfund sites, and a mandate that EPA consider the permanence of the remedy during the selection process.” Texaco also commented that the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate debates make it clear that their intent is that EPA use permanent solutions at Superfund sites to the maximum extent practicable. Texaco concluded that it is not timely to finalize the site on the NPL until it is ascertained that a remedy consistent with statutory parameters set forth in CERCLA Section 121 can be implemented.
Response: Contrary to the Texaco comment, the purpose of the listing process is not to make long-term remedy decisions. Hazardous waste remedies are evaluated in the feasibility studies that are a part of the RI/FS phase of the Superfund process. The listing process is explained in section 105 of CERCLA. Section 121 of CERCLA, as amended by SARA in 1986, does not apply to the listing process.
As illustrated by the sequence of numbered sections in CERCLA, listing comes before remedy selection. Permanent remedy is not selected without considerably more information than needed for NPL listing. The purpose of NPL listing is explained in the Federal Register Notice of February 21, 1990 (Volume 55, Number 35) excerpted below.
The purpose of the NPL, therefore, is primarily to serve as an informational and management tool. The initial identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation.
The HRS is intended to be a “rough list” of prioritized hazardous sites; a “first step in a process--nothing more, nothing less” Eagle Picher Indus. v. EPA, 759 F.2d 922, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Eagle Picher II).
13 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
The Texaco comments on remedy will be addressed either during or following the completion of the RI/FS. The RI/FS characterizes conditions and hazards at the site comprehensively and considers possible cleanup alternatives. After the RI/FS is completed and EPA has recommended a preferred cleanup alternative, the EPA Regional Office sends to all interested parties a Proposed Plan outlining the cleanup alternatives studied and explaining the process for selection of the preferred alternative. At this time, EPA also begins a public comment period during which citizens are encouraged to submit comments regarding all alternatives. Once this public comment period ends, a Responsiveness Summary is developed, which contains EPA responses to the public comments on the remedy selection. The Responsiveness Summary becomes part of the Record of Decision (ROD) that provides official documentation of the remedy chosen for the site.
Regarding CERCLA as amended by SARA, Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA requires that the National Contingency Plan (NCP) include “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” The federal regulations that explain the “criteria for determining priorities” were last revised and published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) on December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532) as Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 300. As explained in the 1990 Federal Register, these regulations do not include evaluating or determining hazardous waste remedies.
3.4 Extent of Site
Comment: Several commenters questioned or commented on the physical extent of the proposed site. The City of New York (referred to herein as the City), ENVIRON International Corporation (herein referred to as ENVIRON), and Greenpoint Landing Associates LLC (herein referred to as GLA) all inquired about the uniformity of the contamination in Newtown Creek.
The City suggested that further investigation is necessary to identify the extent of contamination throughout the 3.8 mile waterway to prevent a misrepresentation of the whole Creek as being contaminated and to assist in identifying upland sources. The City also requested that the EPA clearly state the geographic limits of Superfund and the scope of interest under CERCLA. The City is specifically interested in the spatial delineation of the site along the East River waterfront. The City also requested that “EPA develop clear criteria to establish technical limits for EPA jurisdiction under CERCLA for upland parcels within the broader Newtown Creek watershed,” and that these criteria include:
• Defining the standards for ground water impact below which EPA has no interest • Setting distance limits from the Creek beyond which EPA has no interest • Providing site-specific technical criteria (e.g., whether ground water flow from beneath a specific property discharges into the Creek).
HydroQual also commented that:
in scoring the Creek, while upland sources, such as soils, may have contributed to contamination in the Creek sediments, such upland areas are not part and parcel of an NPL designation for the Creek. If upland areas are to be considered, they should be viewed in the context of separate upland sites.
Response: While the contaminated sediments are a continuous plume of contamination throughout the sampled area, including the mouth of Newtown Creek, the geographic boundaries of the site need not be
14 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
determined at listing. Placing a site on the NPL is based on an evaluation, in accordance with the HRS, of a release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. However, the fact that EPA initially identifies and lists the release based on a review of contamination at a certain parcel of property does not necessarily mean that the site boundaries are limited to that parcel.
CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(A) requires EPA to list national priorities among the known “releases or threatened releases” of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. Further, CERCLA Section 101(a) defines a “facility” as the “site” where a hazardous substance has been “deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located.” The “come to be located” language gives EPA broad authority to clean up contamination when it has spread from the original source.
The revised HRS (55 FR 51587, December 14, 1990) elaborates on the “come to be located” language, defining “site” as “area(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has otherwise come to be located. Such areas may include multiple sources, and may include the area between the sources.”
On September 23, 2009 (74 FR 45811), in proposing the Newtown Creek site to the NPL, EPA stated:
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. . . . [T]he HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination ‘has come to located’ before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. . . .During the RI/FS [remedial investigation/feasibility study] process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. . . . [T]he known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time.
Until the RI/FS process has been completed for Newtown Creek and a remedial action (if any) selected, the extent of contamination in the Newtown Creek area cannot be estimated, nor can the ultimate dimensions of the Newtown Creek NPL site be described. Even during a remedial action (e.g., the removal of buried waste), it may be found that contamination has spread further than previously estimated.
3.5 Liability
Comment: Several commenters provided their opinions and documentation regarding the possible origins of contamination in the Creek. The City, Texaco, and ExxonMobil provided some historical background of industrial activity along Newtown Creek that started in the 1850’s and establishes the large number of companies that have operated along the Creek and have potentially directly polluted into the Creek. Texaco and ExxonMobil presented a summary of the history of their presence and operations on Newtown Creek. Additionally, Community Board No. 2 and NCA requested that EPA contact all of the businesses along Newtown Creek.
Texaco stated that in 1991 a petroleum seep was found along the bulkhead in an old terminal and they entered a Consent Order with the NYSDEC in 2005 to prevent seepage which proved successful. Texaco also stated that NYSDEC has entered into Consent Orders with many other facilities along Newtown Creek that all require further investigation and remediation on their respective properties.
15 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
ExxonMobil stated that:
Seepage from ExxonMobil’s former terminal property has not been a significant contributor to Newtown Creek’s current condition. Contrary to certain misconceptions, there was never a massive spill of petroleum products from ExxonMobil or its predecessors into Newtown Creek and there is no evidence that oil is currently seeping into the Creek from ExxonMobil’s property.
ExxonMobil also claimed that it has implemented containment and collection projects around the Creek to minimize and contain seeps along the Creek which, “[a]s a result of these efforts, sheens resulting from seepage from ExxonMobil’s properties have been eliminated.” ExxonMobil further stated that a petroleum seep from the Meeker Avenue site has been under control for 15 years and that the oil sheens that are found on the Creek are caused by untreated discharges from the City’s municipal wastewater treatment system during heavy rain events. ExxonMobil stated that the City bears a substantial responsibility through the discharges of CSO into the Creek, and notes that CSOs “must be addressed before a permanent remedial solution to the Creek can be determined and implemented.” ExxonMobil stated that based on the data for the current conditions of the Creek, “it is believed that the major drivers for any future remedy are unrelated to ExxonMobil or its predecessors.”
The City stated that it is concerned that CSO work and portions of the capital improvement projects may raise liability claims under CERCLA, which the City asserted could be responsible for the movement of contaminated sediments from the site to uncontaminated downstream areas (such as in-stream aeration and dredging leaching or suspending sediment to downstream locations).
ELM stated it has no knowledge of historic or current releases from the GLA property, a property adjacent to Newtown Creek and the East River in the northwestern-most portion of the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn, and that the contaminant levels in the mouth of the Creek near the GLA property are lower than in the remaining portions of the Creek. ELM added that the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) “reflect input from both upstream sources and the East River.”
The City asserted that:
without clear guidance from EPA to property owners . . . as to whether an individual property is a potential source of liability and if so, how to assess potential liability, the uncertainty may further hinder development.
Community Board No. 2 and Newtown Creek Alliance requested that EPA contact all of the businesses along the Creek (particularly small businesses) to inform them of potential liability as well as ways to minimize liability.
The City requested that:
EPA execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the State of New York and the City of New York that provides liability release for past and future volunteers who agree to perform cleanup of contaminated property under the authority of recognized State and City Brownfield Cleanup Programs.
It added that EPA currently has no agreement with the State or City that would honor remediation completion certificates under the Brownfield Cleanup Program or Voluntary Cleanup Program for the 28 nearby sites, and companies receiving these certificates are concerned that they are not going to be released from CERCLA liability after completing the program.
16 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Response: Liability for cleanup at Newtown Creek is not established at the time of NPL listing. The act of placing a site on the NPL does not establish or reflect a decision on whether any party may be liable for response costs, nor is liability considered when evaluating a site under the HRS. Liability and cost issues are not relevant to the HRS scoring of sites which is the basis for the NPL listing of the Newtown Creek site. Therefore, any determination of potentially responsibility parties and any decision of the Court addressing liability issues are not considered at this stage of the listing process.
3.6 Economic Impacts of Listing
Comment: The City of New York and other commenters expressed concerns on the economic impact of listing. Their comments included concerns on the impact on capital improvement projects, delay resulting in additional costs, discouragement of new economic investment and development, litigation cost for property owners and prospective purchasers, Federal Housing Administration (FHA) financing, difficulty for small businesses, real estate values, planned redevelopment residential projects.
The City stated that it “has assessed potential impacts of a listing on the NPL on the ongoing and planned water quality and capital improvement projects and City initiatives in and around Newtown Creek.” It emphasized that:
Pursuant to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYS DEC”) Combined Sewer Overflow Order, NYS DEC Case #CO2-20000107-8, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“NYC DEP”) has planned approximately $500 million of water quality improvement work in Newtown Creek, approximately $380 million of which may be impacted by a listing on the NPL.
The City listed a number of projects and initiatives that are potentially impacted by the Superfund designation of Newtown Creek, including the Hunter’s Point South Plan, Greenpoint-Williamsburg Land Use and Waterfront Plan, and two New York City Department of Capital Work and Water Quality Improvement Projects: The Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Work and the Capital Improvement Projects- East River Sludge Dock Relocation. The City stated that the department:
has committed to undertake a number of projects in Newtown Creek to reduce CSOs, capture floatables, increase dissolved oxygen (“DO”) levels and perform dredging. These projects will improve water quality, mitigate seasonal odors, and improve quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods.
The City also stated that:
During the planning process for the CSO program and capital improvements, NYC DEP has consistently reached out to and received strong support from the community and elected officials. The City is concerned that a final listing on the NPL could have negative impacts on various improvement projects already planned and budgeted for Newtown Creek . . . ”
The City commented that its economic analysis of a Superfund designation would have “significant potential economic impacts associated with delays . . . to planned investments in the area caused by an NPL listing.” The City asserted that “[t]he New York City Economic Development Corporation (“NYCEDC”) conducted an analysis of the tax impact of a Superfund designation on the area within one- quarter mile radius of Newtown Creek (“Newtown Creek Corridor”).” As a result of this analysis, the
17 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
City stated that if the “Superfund designation moves forward and delays these projects … it will cost the City between $515 million and $743 million in lost tax revenue depending on the length of the cleanup.”
The City emphasized that:
Without adequate commitment from EPA, listing Newtown Creek on the NPL could delay or halt planned improvements and result in additional costs to the City. These are undesirable impacts for any project, but particularly undesirable in this context given the current economic climate.
The City expressed concerns regarding the planned developments around the Creek, stating that “listing on the NPL could deter economic investment in the vicinity of the Creek.” It also added that listing could complicate public and private financing; cause property owners along the waterfront to be caught up in massive complex expensive CERCLA litigation; decrease appraised property values; complicate financing involving the Federal housing Administration (FHA); and have negative impacts on business along the Creek, especially concerning the ability to obtain financing. The City requested that EPA make active efforts to avoid disruptions to the local economy during the investigation and remedial program, and seeks explicit assurances from EPA to this effect.
GLA stated that “listing the mouth of the Creek would place a Superfund site in the midst of the locus of substantial residential redevelopment efforts…” GLA asserted that “[l]umping together the less contaminated mouth of the Creek with the much more contaminated remainder of that water body unfairly attaches a stigma to these properties, and makes financing more difficult…” GLA further asserted that “listing of the [Creek] mouth may impede the development of approximately 4,000 units of desperately needed middle-class and affordable housing unit.” GLA stated the Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) has developed a plan to remove the East River sludge storage tank, which serves the Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). GLA added that NYCDEP is in the midst of implementing this plan and “[t]he overall plan would cost upward of $100 million, which could be jeopardized by the listing.”
GLA also commented that studies of real estate values adjacent to contaminated properties demonstrate that “NPL listing carries a stigma that adversely impacts property values.” Commenting on Hunter’s Point South and other redevelopment projects, GLA added that “[i]t may be difficult to obtain financing for residential dwelling on a Superfund site given the drop in land values - particularly in light of USEPA’s acknowledgement that the cleanup would probably not occur until fifteen years hence.”
An anonymous public commenter while supporting the listing also stated that “[t]he Creek’s pollution carries a stigma” and that “[t]here may be a slight decrease in property value, however, over time, with the completion of the Superfund cleaning; the property will have more value.” L. Brenner, a public commenter, also stated, “[c]urrently, the Creek’s pollution carries a stigma which is detrimental to property value.”
EWVIDCO commented that it is “deeply concerned about the impact that a Superfund designation would have on the 1000 industrial businesses nearby the Creek and the 33,000 residents that they employ.” However, EWVIDCO expressed its “fervent desire to have Newtown Creek cleaned up” (without specifying a mechanism). EWVIDCO stated its concern that small businesses located on Newtown Creek may be identified by the EPA as a “potentially responsible polluter” when they cannot afford to pay the cleanup costs. EWVIDCO also expressed concern regarding the “enforcement assumption” under Superfund. In particular, EWVIDCO expressed concern about the following issues and requested that EPA provide information and/or clarification on each of these issues:
18 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
• the continued availability of financing and insurance for businesses, especially those engaged in expansion; • property owners' ability to transfer or sell property during the long investigation and cleanup period; • direct operational impact cleanup activities will have on adjacent firms, especially firms that use the Creek for transport; • small business liability if either the EPA or one of the “big five” identifies them as a potentially responsible polluter.
Response: Any negative impacts noted by the above commenters would be engendered by the contamination in the area, not by placing the site on the NPL. In fact, listing will result in positive economic impacts when the site contamination has been addressed. The commenter neglects the possibility property values and other economic attributes of the area are already affected by current public knowledge of contamination. While NPL listing certainly provides additional public information on the Newtown Creek contamination, it also provides opportunity for residents, business owners, investors and potential investors to gain detailed knowledge and express their concerns and ideas for final solutions in the public forums offered during other phases of the Superfund process.
Both costs and benefits can be associated with listing a site. Among the benefits associated with listing a site on the NPL are increased health and environmental protection as a result of increased public awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the potential for federally financed remedial actions, the addition of a site to the NPL could accelerate privately financed, voluntary cleanup efforts. Listing sites as national priority targets also may give States increased support for funding responses at particular sites. As a result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower human exposure to high-risk chemicals, and higher quality surface water, ground water, soil, and air. Therefore, it is possible that any perceived or actual negative fluctuations in property values or development opportunities that may result from contamination may be countered by positive fluctuations when a CERCLA investigation and any necessary cleanup are completed.
Regarding the commenters’ concerns for the impact of site listing on remedial activities and the attendant costs, the discussion of costs in the Federal Register is by necessity only of a general nature. The proposed rule clearly states that including a site on the NPL does not cause EPA necessarily to take remedial action, or that any action is required by, nor liability for site response costs assigned to, any party or the owner of any specific party (74 FR 48511). Any Agency actions that may impose costs on firms are based on discretionary decisions and are made on a case-by-case basis. Also, responsible parties may bear some or all the costs of the RI/FS and subsequent work, or the costs may be shared by EPA and the States. Therefore, expenditures cited by the commenters are associated with events that occur during a different stage of the Superfund process, not with the listing itself. However, EPA is aware of the City’s cleanup projects and will consider them while determining further actions
3.7 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Comment: The City, Texaco, ExxonMobil, and NCMC commented on the designing and performing of an RI/FS. The City requested that EPA promptly initiate a remedial program and engage a comprehensive investigation to identify all historical contributions of contaminants to Newtown Creek sediments, including operations of entities under State Consent Orders or under the jurisdiction of other State or Federal programs. The City also requested that EPA consider the use of “spatially defined operable units” for the purpose of accomplishing the most expeditious and effective cleanup. It explained that the remedial program for Newtown Creek could distinguish more highly contaminated areas in the upper reaches of the Creek from less contaminated areas near the mouth of the Creek. It added that this
19 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
approach could enable greater flexibility in the consideration of interim removal actions. The City additionally requested that EPA investigate and pursue enforcement of ongoing illegal discharges from unpermitted pipes, conveyances and ground water into Newtown Creek, and that the EPA conduct its remedial program with the most comprehensive form of community participation.
The City stated that in a letter dated January 20, 2009, from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Alexander Grannis, recommending Newtown Creek for NPL consideration, Commissioner Grannis “strongly suggested” that a work plan submitted by a group of five responsible parties known as the Newtown Creek Group, “be considered in any future actions USEPA may have for the Creek.” The City included Commissioner Grannis’ letter dated January 20, 2009, as Appendix A to its comments. This letter is also provided in the EPA docket for the Newtown Creek site (Docket No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0588-0004).
The City commented that it received from EPA the Newton Creek Group’s Creekwide RI/FS work plan (referred to as the “Work Plan”) for review during the NPL comment period for the Newtown Creek site. The City provided its assessment of the Work Plan as Appendix B to the City’s comments and concludes that “it [the Work Plan] fails to provide a sufficient Remedial Investigation scope to support a Feasibility Study or produce a remedy that would be protective of human health and the environment.” The City requested EPA critically evaluate the Newtown Creek Group Work Plan for Newtown Creek, and summarized deficiencies in the Work Plan as : 1) insufficient scope of proposed field work and research to produce adequate data to support a proper Feasibility Study, Record of Decision and Remedial Action that would be protective of human health and the environment; 2) improperly designed Remedial Investigation elements that are insufficient to provide data or information to support the goals of the Remedial Investigation or Feasibility Study (including artifacts of the Work Plan originally submitted to NYS DEC, which had a short-term focus for deliverables and was not conceived or intended to satisfy the Superfund process); and, 3) an inaccurate and incomplete Conceptual Site Model that fails to recognize numerous historical industrial sources of contamination or incorporate informative and illuminating existing environmental data for Newtown Creek.
Texaco commented that the RI/FS can be structured to answer questions regarding remedy implementation. Texaco stated that it and four other companies (the “Newtown Creek Group”) are negotiating with EPA to conduct an RI/FS of Newtown Creek to assist EPA in answering questions regarding sediment and bacteria loading in Newtown Creek and the effectiveness of sediment remediation at other similar sites. Texaco concluded that timely activities would be for EPA to enter into an Administrative Order on Consent with the Newtown Creek Group to perform an RI/FS, as well as to identify and notify other potentially responsible parties to assist in the process and participate in the funding of the RI/FS.
ExxonMobil commented that it has been working voluntarily with other potentially responsible parties to develop an investigation and remediation plan for Newtown Creek. It asserted that the complexity of the potential sources of contamination in the Creek warrants that the first step in determining remedial action is “scientifically sound investigation of current and past contamination sources to determine the appropriate course of action and to evaluate the responsibility for the Creek’s conditions.” ExxonMobil added that in this spirit, it has been working with the Newtown Creek Group, which came together at the request of the New York State Attorney General in coordination with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and has continued to work together as EPA has taken the lead on Newtown Creek. ExxonMobil stated:
The NCG is developing a comprehensive investigative plan to determine the environmental condition of the Creek and identify appropriate remedial actions. The goal of the comprehensive investigation, which will be paid for by potentially responsible
20 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
parties, is to understand both historic and current sources of pollution in order to develop an effective plan to address the Site.
The Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee (NCMC) stated that it “supports the cleanup of Newtown Creek in the most expeditious manner possible,” and sets forth a number of considerations it believes are important in achieving that objective, including the continuation of planned dredging projects, the preservation of Newtown Creek Nature Walk, and the commitment of the appropriate level of resources to the project.
Response: The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study is a separate stage of the Superfund process that takes place after a site is proposed to the NPL (see section 3.3, Purpose of Listing, of this support document). As such, comments pertaining to the RI/FS do not affect the HRS score or impact the listing process. During the course of the Superfund process, the public will have the opportunity to comment on EPA’s activities.
3.8 Other Non-listing Activities
Comments: Several commenters, including the City, Texaco, ENVIRON, ExxonMobil, New York/New Jersey Baykeeper, Riverkeeper, Inc., and several others, requested EPA action on or information regarding activities that typically are associated with or follow placing a site on the NPL but are not part of the listing process. These requests covered a variety of topics, including determining the breadth of the investigation, determining site-specific risk, selection of remedial actions, identification of potentially responsible parties (PRPs), financing the cleanup, public participation, coordination with local and State governments, protection of innocent landowners, estimate of timelines for project activities, and coordination with preexisting remediation and development projects. Specific non-listing topics raised by the commenters are listed below.
Breadth of Remedial Activities GLA questioned the breadth, approach, and the effectiveness of the remediation of Newtown Creek and whether various aspects of the cleanup had been considered. Specifically, GLA asked if EPA had considered the projected bacterial loading information in the Creek, what current bacterial levels currently exist at different points in the Creek, and what the affects of aeration activities on bacterial levels would be. Also, GLA asked whether dredging would result in an increase in water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen.
Texaco commented that, if EPA determines that NPL listing would not result in the Creek being fishable or fit for recreational activities, a premature NPL listing will only exacerbate false expectations.
Also, Texaco questioned whether the technologies employed to remediate other sediments were effective in preventing recontamination.
Enforcement during Planning and Remediation NCA discussed that it expects EPA to consider a strict enforcement of water quality criteria and property remediation goals.
Coordination with Business and City/State Project Interests Several commenters including the City, GLA, NCA, and Greenpoint Waterfront Association for Parks and Planning (GWAPP) commented on the need to coordinate with development projects and business operations. Commenters highlighted the fact that Newtown Creek is an active, urban waterway with several businesses and project plans, and that EPA would need to coordinate with these interests to maintain business continuity and employment in the area. The City requested EPA’s coordination with
21 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
various New York State and New York City development plans and strategies, and an intergovernmental collaboration across all City, State, and Federal entities involved with the site. Brian T. Coleman, CEO, Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center (GMDC), had several concerns regarding the impact on small business operations from Superfund listing, including how EPA will protect small business interests along the Creek.
Public Outreach Several commenters including the City, Joseph R. Lentol, Assemblyman, State of New York, Susan Albrecht, Co-chair, Neighbors Allied for Good Growth, and Julie Lawrence, Brooklyn resident, requested EPA effectively communicate with the community using the appropriate tools and resources, the various aspects of the Superfund process and its potential effects on the area. Specific activities requested by commenters covered a variety of topics, including:
• Requests for EPA to give additional consideration to those members of the community who have limited access to information who may be the most directly affected, such as the elderly, and lower-income or immigrant populations. • Requests for EPA to assure the continued safety of sensitive subpopulations such as day care centers, schools, and senior facilities during the Superfund process. • Requests for commitments from EPA to address various aspects of public outreach, including issues with zoning changes, safety issues, and access to the Creek. • Requests for EPA to develop committees to facilitate communication between various local, state, and federal entities.
Investigations of Historical Contributions of Contamination The City requested that EPA investigate all historical contributions of contaminants to the Newtown Creek sediment, and conduct a comprehensive PRP search to identify current and historic industrial operators responsible for the significant sources of contamination.
Commitment of Resources NCMC, the City, and other commenters requested that EPA commit the necessary resources or technical collaboration in order to achieve a resolution at the site. The City and ExxonMobil requested EPA take a collaborative approach which pools technical resources and technologies in order to achieve a more efficient and reliable investigation and ultimate resolution. Also, the City requested that “EPA dedicate remedial program staff to provide direct and timely engagement with the City and surrounding communities” during the entire remedial program.
NCMC discussed the level of complexity involved with the efforts associated with clean-up of Newtown Creek and requested that EPA “commit the requisite resources necessary to manage what could be one of its largest sites.”
Timelines and Expediting Efforts Several commenters requested the expedited completion of various stages of the Superfund process and the establishment of timelines for significant accomplishments. Other commenters requested EPA expedite permitting and regulatory review processes so that work can be completed in a timely manner on various redevelopment projects.
Coordination with Other Remedial Projects Several commenters, including the City, raised concerns over the potential interaction between ongoing or planned remediation projects and the Superfund designation of Newtown Creek. Such topics included:
22 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
• Complications that may arise out of developers’ interest in enrolling in the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program or the City’s Local Brownfield Cleanup Program • Requests that EPA work with the City and the State of New York to address CERCLA liability releases for volunteers of State or City cleanup programs. • The compatibility of Superfund with the performance of required remedial investigations or remedial actions already underway in Newtown Creek, such as the existing aeration system.
CSO, Stormwater Discharge, Sediment Loading Some commenters, including the City, HydroQual, Texaco, and ExxonMobil, questioned or commented on issues concerning CSOs, sediment loading, and remediation efforts on the proposed site. HydroQual commented that during precipitation events CSOs discharge directly into Newtown Creek. The City is concerned with planned work that may later be found to be inconsistent with, or otherwise interfere with, the performance of required remedial actions. Texaco stated that there are no natural freshwater flows into Newtown Creek; it should be determined whether ongoing sediment and bacterial loading will undermine the effectiveness of any remedy prior to the abatement of the ongoing sedimentation. Texaco listed a number of questions on bacterial loading which it feels remains unanswered and impacts EPA’s ability to achieve a permanent remedy for Newton Creek. Texaco questioned whether the city will meet the goal of making Newton Creek fishable and capable of supporting recreational uses in the foreseeable future. Texaco also asserted that the City’s plan for CSO abatement will reduce CSO discharge up to 66%, but total untreated discharge will remain over 1 billion gallons per year. Texaco stated that it does not believe the 2005 CSO Consent Order will allow for effective cleanup of Newtown Creek and expressed that listing should not occur until it is apparent that a long term remedy can be achieved. Texaco and ExxonMobil expressed concern that ongoing problems associated with CSOs must be addressed before a permanent remedial solution can be determined and achieved. Edgar Freud stated that bypass events occur at the wastewater treatment facility nearly 30 times per year and are most often the result of high flow rates during precipitation events. GLA requested EPA study the fluvial mechanics of the surface water system associated with the site.
Response: Considerations regarding remedy selection, implementation, and funding are not factors in the decision to list a site on the NPL and these decisions are not made at the listing stage. Therefore, the commenters’ questions on these topics are addressed during other stages of the Superfund process as these activities typically occur after listing. Listing of a site simply informs the public that EPA has determined that the site poses sufficient threat to human health and the environment to warrant further investigation. It does not predetermine the response actions. The Superfund process offers numerous opportunities for public participation at NPL sites, in addition to commenting on site listing proposals, which are available to the commenters and all of the public.
To the extent practicable, the EPA Regional Office2 develops a Community Relations Plan (CRP) before RI/FS field work begins. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 300.430(c), the CRP is the “work plan” for community relations activities that EPA will conduct during the entire cleanup process. In developing a CRP, Regional staff interview State and local officials and interested citizens to learn about citizen concerns, site conditions, and local history. This information is used to formulate a schedule of activities designed to keep citizens apprised and to keep EPA aware of community concerns. Typical community relations activities may include:
• Public meetings at which EPA presents a summary of technical information regarding the site and citizens can ask questions or comment. • Small, informal public sessions at which EPA representatives are available to citizens.
2 For Newtown Creek Region 2 outreach information see the following webpage: http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/newtowncreek/
23 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
• Development and distribution of fact sheets to keep citizens up-to-date on site activities.
For each site, an “information repository” is established, usually in a library or town hall, containing reports, studies, fact sheets, and other documents containing information about the site. The EPA Regional Office continually updates the repository and ensures that the facility housing the repository has copying capabilities.
After the RI/FS is completed and EPA has recommended a preferred cleanup alternative, the EPA Regional Office sends to all interested parties a Proposed Plan outlining the cleanup alternatives studied and explaining the process for selection of the preferred alternative. At this time, a public comment period begins during which citizens are encouraged to submit comments regarding all alternatives. After this public comment period ends, a Responsiveness Summary is developed, which contains EPA responses to public comments. The Responsiveness Summary becomes part of the Record of Decision (ROD), which provides official documentation of the remedy chosen for the site.
Every attempt is made to ensure that community relations is a continuing activity designed to meet the specific needs of the community. Anyone wanting information on a specific site should contact the Community Relations staff in the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
3.9 Additional Pathways Not Scored
Comment: HydroQual stated that EPA’s decision to not score the ground water, soil exposure, and air pathways is technically supportable. It provided the following as rationale for its position:
The absence of water supply; the low permeability of the surficial sediment deposits which limit the groundwater pathway; the organic rich nature of the upper sediments which help to limit migration potential via groundwater; and the virtually absent potential for air impacts from this water body, all indicate that these pathways are irrelevant. . . For all of these reasons, the groundwater, soil, and air pathways are not considered further.
Response: The HRS does not require scoring all four pathways if scoring those pathways does not change the listing decision. However, EPA did not state that the ground water, soil, and/or air pathways are irrelevant for Newtown Creek. Instead, as indicated on the cover sheet of the HRS documentation record at proposal, “…Ground Water, Soil Exposure, and Air Pathways might be evaluated further during future investigations because evaluation of those pathways might lead to identification of contributing sources of sediment contamination.”
To the extent practicable, EPA attempts to score all pathways that pose a significant threat. If the contribution of a pathway is minimal to the overall score, in general, that pathway will not be scored.
The HRS is intended to be a “rough list” of prioritized hazardous sites; a “first step in a process--nothing more, nothing less” Eagle Picher Indus. v. EPA, 759 F.2d 922, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Eagle Picher II). EPA would like to investigate each possible site completely and thoroughly prior to evaluating a site for proposal to the NPL, but EPA must reconcile the need for certainty before action with the need for inexpensive, expeditious procedures to identify potentially hazardous sites. In this case, the HRS site score considering only the surface water pathway was 50.00, well above the cutoff score of 28.50. Hence, there was no need to expend resources evaluating other pathways
24 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
3.10 Releases Below Regulatory Limit
Comment: HydroQual commented that the HRS documentation record states that “[m]etals, (including copper), PCBs, SVOCs, and VOCs have all been detected at concentrations exceeding surface water quality criteria in CSO and storm water discharges to Newtown Creek.” HydroQual then emphasized that water quality criteria are applicable to surface waters, not effluents. HydroQual asserted that the CSO characterized by EPA are more accurately characterized as contaminant conveyors to which surface water quality standards do not apply. Environ and HydroQual also commented that the contaminant levels in the Creek were below various regulatory criteria, including NYSDEC sediment quality values, such as the lowest observed effects concentrations for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and State soil cleanup levels, and EPA’s “no observed effect concentration” for PAHs.
Response: Whether or not ambient water quality criteria were properly compared to contaminant levels in effluents or the contaminant levels in the Creek used to identify observed releases (or for other purposes) is not relevant to the HRS evaluation of this site; these comparisons were not used in the HRS scoring of the site.
First, the discussion comparing contaminant levels in discharges to ambient water quality criteria was presented only for the purpose of illustrating the relative magnitude of hazardous substance concentrations in discharges to Newtown Creek. This finding was not used in the HRS scoring of the site.
Furthermore, contaminant levels need not be above regulatory criteria to be used in identifying releases or for other HRS scoring purposes. CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list on the NPL “releases” of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants according to specific criteria set out in CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(A). The definition of “release” in CERCLA Section 101(22) exempts certain releases from its scope, but it does not exempt releases below regulatory limits, and even if discharges occur within regulatory limits set by those Federal laws enumerated in CERCLA Section 101(10) the discharges may be considered releases under CERCLA and, if appropriate under the HRS, placed on the NPL. CERCLA exempts Federally-permitted releases only from the notification (Section 103(a)) and cost-recovery (107(j)) sections of the statute; such releases remain subject to the other sections of the statute.
As the Agency explained regarding observed releases specifically, on July 16, 1982, when responding to public comments on the proposed (original) HRS (47 FR 31188), and again on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40665), the idea that releases within regulatory limits should not be considered “observed releases” specifically, and not used in general, was rejected. As the Agency noted in 1982:
emission or effluent limits do not necessarily represent levels which cause no harm to public health or the environment. These limitations are frequently established on the basis of economic impacts or achievability.
By contrast, an observed release represents a 100 percent likelihood that substances can migrate from the site (47 FR 31188, July 16, 1982).
Section 2.3 of the present HRS (55 FR 51589, December 14, 1990) states that an observed release can be established either by direct observation or by chemical analysis. An observed release by chemical analysis has occurred when a contaminant is measured significantly above background level if some portion of the release is attributable to the site. Even though levels may be lower than regulatory limits, an observed release has nevertheless occurred if the measured levels are significantly higher than background levels.
25 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Of course, the observed release factor alone is not intended to reflect the relative hazard presented by the particular release. Instead, the relative hazard of the site is approximated by the total HRS score, which incorporates the observed release factors with other factors such as waste characteristics (including waste quantity, toxicity, and persistence) and targets. This total HRS score reflects the hazard of the site relative only to the other sites that have been scored. The actual degree of contamination and its effects are more fully determined during the Remedial Investigation.
3.11 Challenge to HRS
Comment: HydroQual and ENVIRON submitted several comments applicable to the listing of all sites in general as well as specifically to the listing of the Newtown Creek site. These comments include:
• Change the Significant Difference Criteria for Establishing on Observed Release: HydroQual stated that “it seems arbitrary that sample measurements higher than the SQL or three times background concentration levels should define an observed contaminant release. The factor of three and the SQL have no relationship to an environmental or human health impact.” Similarly, ENVIRON commented that the SQL is an analytical objective and provides no information concerning risk. It added that “since analytical techniques are constantly being improved, the SQL will be subject to change over time. Therefore, the SQL should not be a basis for listing a site to the NPL.”
• Change the HRS to a Site-Specific Risk-based Approach: ENVIRON stated that the overall HRS site score of 50.00 is “not scientifically linked to risk and although the score may be refined at a later date, unnecessary inclusion of areas exhibiting de minimis risk at the outset casts a heavy burden of proof of innocence.” ENVIRON stated, “[t]his unnecessary burden of proof should be avoided by taking a science and risk-based approach to listing at the outset.” ENVIRON stated that “the proposed listing is based on a mechanical ranking system which does not distinguish between conditions causing unacceptable risk and those causing de minimis risk.”
• Use Organic Carbon Normalized Analytical Data to Establish Observed Releases: Environ stated that both NYSDEC and USEPA consider that the risk from non-polar organic chemicals is best evaluated by equilibrium partitioning (EqP) methods which evaluate the distribution of a chemical between organic compounds in sediments and the sediment pore water. It stated that a more advanced method, the target-lipid model (TLM), evaluates the partitioning between OC and the lipid portion of an organism, and that in both methods, the resulting OC-normalized concentration is compared to an OC-normalized sediment toxicity benchmark. Environ stated, “[w]hen the PAH concentrations detected in samples from the lower portion of the Creek are OC- normalized, they fall below the NYSDEC sediment quality value and the USEPA no observed effect concentration (NOEC) for PAHs. When concentrations of PAHs are less than their screening values, risk is considered to be de minimis.”
• Identify Risk only at Sample locations, not between Sample locations: Environ stated that “[t]here is no significant risk from surface sediments as far upstream as location 35A. The same is true of subsurface sediments – the data do not indicate evidence of significant risk from location 03A (there is no data for location 01A) to location 13A. Locations 13A and 35A are farther upstream from the mouth of the Creek.”
• Use Benchmarks not included in the Present HRS: ENVIRON stated
26 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) is the appropriate screening- level benchmark. The NYSDEC (1999) LOEC for PAHs is the effects range median (ER-M) of 35.5 mg/kg derived from Long and Morgan (1990). There were no reported total PAH concentrations in sediments exceeding the ER-M from the mouth of the Creek to surface sediment location 35A or subsurface sediment location 09A (see Table 1). Therefore, as determined by the NYSDEC methods, the data do not indicate unacceptable risk or Environmental Threat to populations or individual aquatic organisms in the lower portion of the Creek. . . . concentrations in the lower portion of the Creek (represented by sampling locations 01A, 03A and 09A) are below the NYSDEC unrestricted use soil cleanup objectives (6 NYCRR Subpart 375-6), which are based on direct exposure assumptions that likely overestimate the exposure to Creek sediments.
• Use Alternative Methods to Quantify Levels of Risk Within The Surface Water Pathway Threats: ENVIRON asserted that two independent quantitative methods published by NYSDEC (2007) and USEPA (2003) support a determination that the concentrations detected in the lower portion of Newtown Creek represent a de minimis risk and environmental threat, and no human food chain threat is expected for concentrations detected in the lower portion of Newtown Creek. ENVIRON summarized that “[b]ased on the assessment of potential ecological risks associated with reported concentrations in sediment samples from the lower portion of Newtown Creek, it can be concluded that the contamination of Newtown Creek by historic PAH releases has not created conditions in this portion of the Creek that are hazardous to aquatic organisms.”
• Consider Bioavailability in Determining Risk: GLA commented that the high organic carbon content and very low oxygen conditions in sediment significantly decrease bioavailability of contaminants to aquatic organisms, thereby lowering risk to this population. GLA asserted that this factor was not taken into account in EPA’s food chain analysis in the HRS documentation record. ELM stated that the physical and chemical processes in the Creek are essential to determining the bioavailability of associated contaminants to targets and thus, determining “the potential for risk (or lack thereof) to a potentially affected population, assuming there is a legitimate probability that that population has a risk of being exposed. It stated, “Given the processes expected to be present in the Creek, they should be considered by USEPA as part of the NPL listing process . . . .”
• Consider State Soil Cleanup Levels based on Organic Content in Establishing Risk: HydroQual commented that “NYSDEC guidance for determining cleanup levels recommends adjusting site soil cleanup objectives based on soil organic carbon content.” HydroQual stated that:
EPA has established draft sediment quality guidelines on a contaminant per mass organic carbon basis which could instead be used to assess the relevance to an ecological threat represented by contaminant concentrations at Newtown Creek. The draft sediment quality guidelines, unlike the higher and the SQL and three times background metrics used in HRS score, are tied to ecological effects. Unfortunately, the draft sediment quality guidelines are available for only a limited number of contaminants and are not mentioned in HRS scoring guidance.
Response: The HRS and the process used in placing sites on the NPL was promulgated on December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51569), and comments directed at the HRS are not relevant to the proposal to place the Newtown Creek site on the NPL, nor do such comments affect the Newtown Creek site score.
27 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
3.12 Public Health Assessment/Human Health Risk Assessment
Comment: The City requested that EPA provide assistance to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) “to conduct a rigorous and expedited Public Health Assessment and that EPA begin the baseline Human Health Risk Assessment of the proposed Superfund site.” OSA requested that EPA conduct an analysis of the health impacts of creek contamination on local residents as well as the potential health impact of the remediation.
Response: A public health assessment will be performed for Newtown Creek NPL because CERCLA mandates ATSDR prepare a public health assessment for each site on (or proposed for inclusion on) the National Priorities List (NPL). However, CERCLA does not require ATSDR to begin or issue a public health assessment before or during the listing process. The Human Health Risk Assessment is part of the RI/FS stage of the Superfund process and does not impact the listing process.
3.13 Contaminated Sediment Source
Comment: HydroQual questioned whether or not the sediment in the Creek was an eligible source. It distinguished between what it considered original upland sources and contaminated sediments and asserted that the Creek should be considered the receptor for contaminants discharged from adjacent industrial properties rather than the original source of these contaminants. The City urged EPA to thoroughly investigate the origin of all sources, known and unknown, along the entire length of the Creek. HydroQual added that it is clear from the nature and location of contamination in the Creek that several upland sources are major contributors, but that these upland sources are not part and parcel of the Newtown Creek NPL designation.
HydroQual asserted the HRS documentation record at proposal avoids recognition of numerous sources that can be identified with a high degree of certainty from spill reports, data and remedial investigations performed on Newtown Creek. HydroQual suggested that the CERCLA legislation provides for joint and several liability, and multiple sources are easily accommodated.
HydroQual stated that it is not clear if the level of detail outlined in the HRS Guidance Manual for an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) was undertaken prior to developing an HRS score for the Newtown Creek site. HydroQual stated that the distinction of whether the contamination in Newtown Creek sediments are from known/identified or unknown/unidentified sources is fundamentally important to the HRS scoring because the HRS Training Manual3 indicates that areas of contaminated surface water sediments arising from discharges from known sources are not sources for purposes of HRS scoring.
HydroQual then noted that EPA characterizes Newtown Creek sediments as a source based on the provision from HRS Section 1.1 that, in the case of “either a ground water plume with no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified source, the plume or contaminated sediments may be considered a source.” HydroQual then stated “[h]owever, this is not the case for Newtown Creek where numerous sources have been identified.”
Texaco asserted that sampled effluent from CSOs shows that they contribute hazardous substances to the Creek. HydroQual asserted that CSOs are not sources, yet are conveyors of hazardous substances and that the amount discharge from CSOs is overstated in the HRS documentation record.
Response: The source was identified as a contaminated sediment source according to HRS criteria. HRS Section 1.1, Definitions, defines “Source” as:
3 HRS Training Manual available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/training/hrstrain/htmain/4source.htm
28 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Any area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated by migration of a hazardous substance. Sources do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water, or surface water sediments that have become contaminated by migration, except: in the case of either a ground water plume with no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified source, the plume or contaminated sediments may be considered a source.
Hence, the HRS presents two requirements for sediment to be considered a source in the HRS evaluation. First, the sediment must contain hazardous substances, and second, the exact source or sources of the hazardous substances in any particular location of the Creek could not be identified.
The HRS documentation record at proposal demonstrates that the two HRS requirements for identifying a contaminated sediment source have been met. Page 18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal details the characteristics of the source (Source 1):
Source 1 consists of contaminated sediments in Newtown Creek. There are several hazardous substances affecting the creek sediments, including metals, VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs [see Section 2.4.1]. The origin of these hazardous substances in the contaminated sediments has not been identified due to the presence of multiple possible sources for each substance. As a result, the source(s) of all the contamination in any particular location in the creek cannot be determined. The upland areas adjacent to this source have been heavily industrialized since the 1850s. Historical or current industrial activities along and within the creek have included oil refining, storage, and distribution; copper smelting; waste oil, scrap metal, soil, and concrete recycling; petrochemical, chemical, paint, fertilizer, glue, and dry ice manufacture; energy production at MGPs and natural gas facilities; shipbuilding and aluminum manufacture for airplanes; cement and lumber production and storage; coal yards; fat rendering, hide tanning, sugar refining, and canning; and transport of fuel, raw materials, and products [Ref. 7, pp. 1, 3, 7, 13; 8, p. 10; 9, pp. 4-6; 11, pp. 12-16; 13, pp. 1-5; 14, pp. 7-8; 16, p. 3; 17, p. 5; 18, pp. 6, 11- 12]. In addition, discharge of raw sewage directly into the water occurred from 1865 to 1967. Although there have been upgrades to the Newtown Creek WPCP, the creek is still the receiving water body for industrial discharges, CSO discharges, and storm water from the surrounding neighborhoods [Ref. 6, p. 1; 8, p. 10; 9, pp. 5, 8; 11, pp. 11, 20-22, 103; 12, pp. 21-22, 96-102; 20, pp. 2-3].
Historical sampling activities have shown the existence of hazardous substances within the Creek sediments. Page 18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:
Numerous past investigations with varying scopes have been conducted within and around Newtown Creek, with most of the focus on specific properties or specific segments of the creek [Ref. 8, pp. 15-21; 11, pp. 7, 97, 104-113; 14, pp. 5-18, 38-40; 16, pp. 2-4; 17, pp. 4, 33-34; 18, pp. 13-14, 51; 19, pp. 1-3]. Some of these studies have shown the presence of various contaminants at elevated levels in the creek sediments. Historical NYCDEP sediment sampling data indicate high concentrations of metals, VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs [Ref. 11, pp. 27-28, 180-183]. Sediment sampling by PDRC from March 2004 to August 2005 showed percent levels (i.e., greater than 10,000 mg/kg) of copper and zinc, and PCBs up to 106,000 μg/kg [Ref. 11, pp. 29-43, 105-113, 1005- 1032, 1055-1097]. Other metals, pesticides, and PAHs were also detected above NYSDEC screening criteria [Ref. 11, pp. 60-65, 1005-1032, 1055-1097]. The pattern of
29 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
contamination indicates that contaminants and pollutants from various sources are intermingled within the Newtown Creek sediments [Ref. 11, pp. 60-65, 138-152].
From February to April 2009, EPA collected sediment samples from Newtown Creek and project-specific background samples from the nearby Atlantic Basin. Surface samples (designated with an “A”) were collected from the 0- to 2-foot depth interval with a modified Van Veen dredge, and subsurface samples (designated with a “B”) were collected at depths ranging from 2 to 6 feet with a vibracore coring device [Ref. 23, pp. 7- 70; 25, pp. 4, 6-16, 20-23]. The samples were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs; Target Analyte List (TAL) metals; total organic carbon (TOC); and grain-size distribution [Ref. 25, pp. 1-5]. The analytical results indicate that metals, VOCs, SVOCs including PAHs, and PCBs are present in the Newtown Creek sediments at concentrations that meet the criteria for observed release [see Section 2.4.1]. These contaminants may have entered Newtown Creek via several transport pathways or mechanisms, including spillage, direct disposal or discharge, contaminated ground water discharge, or storm water runoff [Ref. 9, pp. 4, 6; 11, pp. 20-24; 12, pp. 21-22]. The variety and distribution of contaminants suggest that the sediment contamination originated at a variety of sources [Tables 1 and 2, Figures 2 and 3; Ref. 26 through 46 – see Section 2.4.1].
Other portions of the HRS documentation record explain that the contamination in the sediments cannot be attributed to any individual source. Page 38 of the HRS documentation record at proposal specifies the complexities in identifying a specific contributor of contamination to the Creek as follows:
Sediments in Newtown Creek are contaminated with metals, VOCs, SVOCs including PAHs, and PCBs for a length of more than 3 miles [see Section 2.2]. The origin of these hazardous substances in the contaminated sediments has not been identified due to the presence of multiple possible sources for each substance. There are numerous routes that contamination can be taking to reach the water body and underlying sediments, including spillage during product shipping and handling, direct disposal and discharge, storm water runoff, and air deposition. As a result, the source(s) of all the contamination in any particular location in the creek cannot be determined.
Page 39 of the HRS documentation record at proposal continues:
The contaminants detected in the creek sediments can come from a wide variety of industrial and other anthropogenic activities [Ref. 9, pp. 3-6; 11, pp. 12, 20-24; 12, pp. 21-22; 13, pp. 3-6]. For instance, more than 30 different types of source contributing PAHs to the New York/New Jersey Harbor watershed have been identified [Ref. 55, p. 50]. Possible PAH sources include transportation-related activities such as petroleum spills, vehicle exhaust, and tire wear; creosote-treated marine pilings, utility poles, and railroad ties; and contaminated properties including MGPs [Ref. 55, pp. 21, 50, 85-86]. Likewise, cadmium could be attributed to the widespread use and disposal of nickel- cadmium (Ni-Cd) batteries, application of fertilizers and biosolids with subsequent runoff, or contaminated properties [Ref. 56, pp. 12-15]. CSOs and storm water runoff are major contributors of PCBs to the Harbor, with a variety of contaminated properties or facilities as the likely contributors to those wastestreams [Ref. 57, p. 18]. Metals (including copper), PCBs, SVOCs, and VOCs have all been detected at concentrations exceeding surface water quality criteria in CSO and storm water discharges to Newtown Creek [Ref. 11, pp. 23-24]. EPA identified hundreds of potential contamination sources of hazardous substances in the Newtown Creek watershed [Ref. 58, pp. 3-4, 6-68, 72]. In
30 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
addition, the sediments in Newtown Creek are constantly being disturbed and transported by tidal influx, storm water and CSO flow surges, and dredging for navigational purposes [Ref. 8, p. 10; 9, p. 4; 11, pp. 11, 21-22; 12, p. 22].
Furthermore, pages 39 through 42 of the HRS documentation record at proposal highlight specific facilities identified as possible contributors of hazardous substances to the Newtown Creek sediments. These include the Phelps Dodge site (aka the Laurel Hill site), the BCF Oil property, Quanta Resources property, National Grid (formerly KeySpan and Brooklyn Union Gas), and the Greenpoint Petroleum Remediation Project. The HRS documentation record at proposal states that, “[w]hile these facilities or properties are thought to be contributing to the contamination in the Creek, they are not thought to be the only sources of contamination.”
A large number of possible sources have contributed to the contamination of the Creek sediments. Some have been positively identified as having contributed to the contamination in general; many others have not been conclusively linked to the contamination due to the long-term industrial use of the Creek. Portions of the hazardous substances in the Creek, such as PAHs, are known to have been associated with former MGPs; however, other sources such as historical petroleum spills could have contributed these substances. Likewise, PCBs are known to have been contributed by discharge events from CSOs, yet other known contributors have been identified, such as the BCP Oil property. Explicitly attributing contamination in any portion of the Creek to a specific upland facility or operation is not feasible at this site, and no individual contributor can be singled out as having caused the significant increase of contamination in the Creek. Thus, the contaminated sediment source identified at the Newtown Creek site is appropriately identified according to the HRS definition of “source,” as the Creek is composed of contaminated surface water sediments with no identified source.
Regarding the upland source contributors to the contamination, the identification of these areas would affect the extent of site, which EPA explained is not fully delineated at proposal. For more information see section 3.4, Extent of Site, of this support document and 74 FR 45811, September 23, 2009.
Regarding the commenter’s assertion that the level of detail described in the draft HRS Guidance Manual, Interim Final, as associated with an ESI was not attained in determining the sources of contamination to the Creek, sufficient data from extensive investigations was already established at the time of listing which equaled or exceeded the level of effort associated with an ESI. The objective of such an ESI would be to collect samples to attribute hazardous substances to site operations and to fully characterize the site sources. As shown above, significant investigations have been completed, and multiple former and current operators along the Creek have been identified to have contributed contamination to the site. Thus, further investigations beyond what had been completed at the time of proposal are not warranted because additional data gathered would not clearly identify the original sources of contamination, nor aid in the identification of original sources of contamination to the Creek.
This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place this site on the NPL.
3.14 Eligibility of Hazardous Waste
Comment: HydroQual alleged that the EPA HRS score calculations include a hazardous waste quantity factor which is based on the presumption that all Newtown Creek sediments meet the definition of hazardous waste. While HydroQual conceded that the sediments do contain hazardous substances, it asserted that the sediments are not, in fact, hazardous waste. HydroQual asserted that the results of NYCDEP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) testing on samples of Newtown Creek sediments from 8 locations revealed that the levels were below the concentrations for exhibiting the characteristic of toxicity, indicating that the sediments were not classified as hazardous on this basis.
31 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Because of these results, HydroQual maintains that EPA's use of the volume measure overstates the hazardous waste quantity and ultimately the HRS score, because it is based upon theoretical calculations of hazardous waste, which are refuted by hazardous waste testing
GLA asserted that the mouth of the Creek did not demonstrate the presence of hazardous waste, which would require disposal as such.
Response: A material need not be a “hazardous waste” under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to be addressed under CERCLA and a waste need only contain hazardous substances, or in some circumstances “pollutants or contaminants”. Hazardous substances are defined for HRS purposes as “CERCLA hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants as defined in CERCLA Sections 101(14) and 101(33), except where otherwise specifically noted in the HRS” (55 FR 51586, December 14, 1990). Additionally:
CERCLA Section 101(14) defines “hazardous substance” in the context of other Federal legislation, including substances listed pursuant to Sections 307(a) and 311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (known as RCRA), Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and substances that are the subject of an action under Section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Thus hazardous wastes as defined under RCRA are only a subset of the broader list of CERCLA hazardous substances.
CERCLA Section 102(a) empowers the Administrator to promulgate regulations designating other substances as hazardous if when released into the environment they may present substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the environment.
CERCLA Section 101(33) defines “pollutant or contaminant” as including but not limited to “any element, substance, compound, or mixture, including disease-causing agents, which after release into the environment and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their offspring.” Substances meeting that definition may also be addressed under CERCLA. Section 3.15.3, Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Substances, of this support document addresses the comments regarding the use of “hazardous waste” in the hazardous waste quantity evaluation.
This comment has no effect on the HRS score or the decision to place this site on the NPL.
3.15 Hazardous Waste Quantity
Comment: HydroQual alleged that the evaluation of the hazardous waste quantity factor presented in the HRS documentation record at proposal is flawed for various reasons. The following subsections address specific assertions regarding the evaluation of hazardous waste quantity:
• 3.15.1 Unallocated Source • 3.15.2 Source Type • 3.15.3 Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Substances
Response: A hazardous waste quantity factor value based on Tier C volume was correctly determined according to the HRS for the Newtown Creek site.
32 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
HRS Section 2.4.2, Hazardous waste quantity, states:
Evaluate the hazardous waste quantity factor by first assigning each source (or area of observed contamination) a source hazardous waste quantity value as specified below. Sum these values to obtain the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway being evaluated.
In evaluating the hazardous waste quantity factor for the three migration pathways, allocate hazardous substances and hazardous wastestreams to specific sources in the manner specified in section 2.2.2, except: consider hazardous substances and hazardous wastestreams that cannot be allocated to any specific source to constitute a separate “unallocated source” for purposes of evaluating only this factor for the three migration pathways. Do not, however, include a hazardous substance or hazardous wastestream in the unallocated source for a migration pathway if there is definitive information indicating that the substance or wastestream could only have been placed in sources with a containment factor value of 0 for that migration pathway.
HRS Section 2.4.2.1, Source hazardous waste quantity, states:
For each of the three migration pathways, assign a source hazardous waste quantity value to each source (including the unallocated source) having a containment factor value greater than 0 for the pathway being evaluated. Consider the unallocated source to have a containment factor value greater than 0 for each migration pathway.
. . . .
For all pathways, evaluate source hazardous waste quantity using the following four measures in the following hierarchy:
• Hazardous constituent quantity [Tier A] • Hazardous wastestream quantity [Tier B] • Volume [Tier C] • Area [Tier D]
For the hazardous constituent quantity, the total mass of CERCLA hazardous substances allocated to the source has not been documented, thus the use of Tier A was not applicable in determining hazardous waste quantity. Refer to section 3.15.3, Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Substances, of this support document for further discussion on how hazardous waste is considered under the HRS in determining hazardous waste quantity.
Considering the history of industry along the Creek and the multiple contributors to the contamination discussed in section 3.13, Contaminated Sediment Source, of this support document, the mass of hazardous wastestreams that ever entered the Creek could not be documented, thus the use of Tier B was not applicable in assigning a source hazardous waste quantity.
HRS Section 2.4.2.1.3, Volume, states:
Evaluate the volume measure using the volume of the source (or the volume of the area of observed contamination). . . .
33 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Based on the volume, designated as V, assign a value to the volume measure as follows:
• For the migration pathways, assign the source a value for volume using the appropriate Tier C equation of Table 2-5.
Hazardous substances were documented as associated with the contaminated sediment source, as described in section 3.13, Contaminated Sediment Source, of this support document. Page 35 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describes the method used in estimating the volume of the source hazardous waste quantity:
Analytical results for the February-April 2009 sampling event, as well as previous sampling events, show that contaminated sediments are located throughout Newtown Creek [see Sections 2.2.1 and 2.4.1]. The creek and its branches have a total surface area of approximately 165 to 170 acres [Ref. 12, p. 53; 13, p. 2]. For the purpose of this calculation, EPA uses the more conservative value of 165 acres (i.e., approximately 7,187,400 square feet). The top depth of contaminated subsurface samples ranged from 2 to 4 feet, with a majority of the samples having a top depth of 4 feet [see Table 2]. Based on the top-depth values, the column of contaminated sediments averages approximately 3.7 feet. The volume of contaminated sediments in Newtown Creek is calculated as follows:
Volume (yd3) = (7,187,400 ft2 × 3.7 ft) ÷ (27 ft3/ yd3) = 984,940 yd3
This is considered to be a conservative (i.e., low) estimate since EPA did not delineate the full vertical extent of contamination. The source type is ‘Other’, so the volume value is divided by 2.5 to obtain the assigned value, as shown below [Ref. 1, p. 51591, Section 2.4.2.1.3, Table 2-5].
Therefore, the calculated volume of contaminated sediments established above, was divided by 2.5 to obtain a volume assigned value of 393,976. The divisor of 2.5 was selected as per Table 2-5 of the HRS, considering the source type as ‘Other’.
As directed by the HRS, if the volume measure can be determined, the area measure is not completed. Thus, the area measure, or Tier D, was not calculated in the evaluation of source hazardous waste quantity.
3.15.1 Unallocated Source
Comment: HydroQual stated that EPA improperly characterized the Newtown Creek sediments as an unallocated source. HydroQual describes that unallocated sources are defined by USEPA in the HRS Final Rule on page 51590. It cites:
In evaluating the hazardous waste quantity factor...consider hazardous substances and hazardous waste streams that cannot be allocated to any specific source to constitute a separate “unallocated source” for the purposes of evaluating only this factor for the three migration pathways.
Response: The contaminated sediments in Newtown Creek were correctly characterized as a contaminated sediment source, and not as an unallocated source. As explained in section 3.15,
34 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Contaminated Sediment Source, of this support document, the source was established according to the HRS definition of “source.”
HRS Section 2.4.2, Hazardous waste quantity, uses the phrase “unallocated source.” It states in relevant part:
In evaluating the hazardous waste quantity factor for the three migration pathways, allocate hazardous substances and hazardous wastestreams to specific sources in the manner specified in section 2.2.2, except: consider hazardous substances and hazardous wastestreams that cannot be allocated to any specific source to constitute a separate “unallocated source” for purposes of evaluating only this factor for the three migration pathways. Do not, however, include a hazardous substance or hazardous wastestream in the unallocated source for a migration pathway if there is definitive information indicating that the substance or wastestream could only have been placed in sources with a containment factor value of 0 for that migration pathway. [emphasis added]
HRS Section 2.2.2, Identify hazardous substances associated with a source, identified in the City’s quote from HRS Section 2.4.2 (above) does not use the phrase “unallocated source.” This section states:
In some instances, a hazardous substance can be documented as being present at a site (for example, by labels, manifests, oral or written statements), but the specific source(s) containing that hazardous substance cannot be documented. For the three migration pathways, in those instances when the specific source(s) cannot be documented for a hazardous substance, consider the hazardous substance to be present in each source at the site, except sources for which definitive information indicates that the hazardous substance was not or could not be present. [emphasis added]
Thus, an unallocated source is identified when specific hazardous substances and wastestreams cannot be allocated to an existing source at a site. In the case of the Newtown Creek site, however, as discussed in section 3.13, Contaminated Sediment Plume Source, of this support document, the hazardous substances in the Creek can be allocated to the contaminated sediments source, an existing source, and it would be incorrect to allocate them to an unallocated source at this site.
This comment has no effect on the HRS score or the decision to place this site on the NPL.
3.15.2 Source Type
Comment: HydroQual asserted that the source type “other” assigned for Source 1 is not accurate, and that this error has inflated the hazardous waste quantity. HydroQual claimed that:
[t]he EPA calculation for hazardous waste quantity factor involves the use of a divisor of 2.5. EPA’s use of the 2.5 divisor suggests Newtown Creek sediments are a source of category “Other”. Alternatively, the divisor for the “Soil” source category is 2500. EPA’s choice of “Other” for Newtown Creek sediments rather than “Soil” increases the estimated amount of hazardous substances one thousand times. In reality, Newtown Creek sediments probably fall somewhere between the “Other” and “Soil” source categories.
35 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
HydroQual pointed out that the HRS provides a hierarchy of four measures to evaluate source hazardous waste quantity (hazardous constituent quantity, hazardous wastestream quantity, volume, and area, in that order), and requires that only the first two measures be used for unallocated sources.
Response: The source was correctly evaluated according to the HRS as a contaminated sediment source, and the source type ‘other’ was correctly applied to the contaminated sediment source. Therefore the correct hazardous waste quantity equation and divisor of 2.5 was used to generate a waste quantity estimate for the source.
HRS Section 1.1, Definitions, defines a source as:
[a]ny area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a hazardous substance. Sources do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water, or surface water sediments that have become contaminated by migration, except: in the case of either a ground water plume with no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified source, the plume or contaminated sediments may be considered a source. [emphasis added]
This HRS definition clearly distinguishes between soil and sediment by separately mentioning soils (in the phrase “soils that have become contaminated . . .”) and “surface water sediment” (in “surface water sediments that have become contaminated . . .”)
The contaminated samples used to characterize Source 1 were clearly from sediments below the Newtown Creek water, and per the HRS definition of source, are surface water sediments, not soil. Thus, sediments cannot reasonably be interpreted as contaminated soil when choosing a hazardous waste quantity evaluation equation from HRS Table 2-5. The only type of source listed in Table 2-5 that is applicable to this source is source type ‘Other’. As the other types of sources listed in Table 2-5 do not apply to the source (such as ‘Landfill,’ ‘Surface impoundment,’ ‘Drums,’ ‘Tanks and containers other than drums,’ ‘Contaminated soil,’ or ‘Pile’), only the source type ‘Other’ is applicable in the evaluation of the source hazardous waste quantity at this site.
This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or on the decision to place the site on the NPL.
3.15.3 Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Substances
Comment: While HydroQual conceded that the sediments do contain hazardous substances, it asserted that the sediments are not a hazardous waste, and therefore EPA's use of the volume measure in the hazardous waste quantity evaluation overstates the hazardous waste quantity and ultimately the HRS score.
Response: The consideration of the sediments as a RCRA hazardous waste was not incorporated into the hazardous waste quantity factor value calculated for the source, as hazardous constituent quantity was not determined. The HRS accounts for RCRA hazardous waste only in determining the Tier A quantity estimate.
HRS Section 2.4.2.1.1, Hazardous constituent quantity, Tier A, addresses the consideration of RCRA hazardous waste in an HRS waste quantity calculation. It states:
Evaluate hazardous constituent quantity for the source (or area of observed contamination) based solely on the mass of CERCLA hazardous substances (as defined in
36 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
CERCLA section 101(14), as amended) allocated to the source (or area of observed contamination), except:
• For a hazardous waste listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1076 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., determine its mass for the evaluation of this measure as follows:
o If the hazardous waste is listed solely for Hazard Code T (toxic waste), include only the mass of constituents in the hazardous waste that are CERCLA hazardous substances and not the mass of the entire hazardous waste.
o If the hazardous waste is listed for any other Hazard Code (including T plus any other Hazard Code), include the mass of the entire hazardous waste.
• For a RCRA hazardous waste that exhibits the characteristics identified under section 3001 of RCRA, as amended, determine its mass for the evaluation of this measure as follows:
o If the hazardous waste exhibits only the characteristic of toxicity (or only the characteristic of EP toxicity), include only the mass of constituents in the hazardous waste that are CERCLA hazardous substances and not the mass of the entire hazardous waste.
o If the hazardous waste exhibits any other characteristic identified under section 3002 (including any other characteristic plus the characteristic of toxicity [or the characteristic of EP toxicity]), include the mass of the entire hazardous waste.
Also, HRS Section 2.4.2.1.2, Hazardous wastestream quantity, states:
Evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity for the source (or area of observed contamination) based on the mass of hazardous wastestreams plus the mass of any additional CERCLA pollutants and contaminants (as defined in CERCLA section 101(33), as amended) that are allocated to the source (or area of observed contamination). For a wastestream that consists solely of a hazardous waste listed pursuant to section 3001 of RCRA, as amended or that consists solely of a RCRA hazardous waste that exhibits the characteristics identified under section 3001 of RCRA, as amended, include the mass of that entire hazardous waste in the evaluation of this measure.
As data for evaluating hazardous constituent quantity (Tier A) was not adequately determined, these measures were not calculated; the Tier C volume measure was calculated. Thus, the use of RCRA hazardous waste designation in the hazardous waste quantity estimate was not incorporated into the waste quantity calculation.
This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
37 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
3.16 Likelihood of Release
Comment: Several commenters, including HydroQual, GLA, ENVIRON, and ELM, challenged the identification of observed releases of contaminants to Newtown Creek. Although the City stated that it agreed that there was an observed release and that a likelihood of release factor category value of 550 was appropriately assigned, it did have several objections to the evidence supporting this value.
Specific comments regarding the likelihood of release component of the HRS score are addressed in the following subsections. • 3.16.1 Sediment Bed Eligibility • 3.16.2 Use of Background Samples in Establishing an Observed Release • 3.16.3 Use of Qualified Data • 3.16.4 Results Below CRQLs • 3.16.5 Sample Similarity • 3.16.6 Clarity of HRS Observed Release Tables • 3.16.7 Attribution • 3.16.8 Contamination in Mouth of Creek
Response: The likelihood of release value for the Newtown Creek site was appropriately assigned according to the HRS, as multiple observed releases by chemical analysis were documented. While the specific comments raised are addressed in subsections below, to provide background information before responding specifically to these comments the following discussion establishes the HRS requirements for doing so and what information was presented in the HRS documentation record at proposal to document the likelihood of release evaluation.
HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release, states:
Likelihood of release is a measure of the likelihood that a waste has been or will be released to the environment. The likelihood of release factor category is assigned the maximum value of 550 for a migration pathway whenever the criteria for an observed release are met for that pathway. . . . Establish an observed release either by direct observation of the release of a hazardous substance into the media being evaluated (for example, surface water) or by chemical analysis of samples appropriate to the pathway being evaluated (see sections 3, 4, and 6). The minimum standard to establish an observed release by chemical analysis is analytical evidence of a hazardous substance in the media significantly above the background level. Further, some portion of the release must be attributable to the site. Use the criteria in Table 2-3 as the standard for determining analytical significance.
Hence, Table 2-3 states that an observed release is established under the following circumstances:
• If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit.
• If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, an observed release is established when the sample measurement is 3 times or more above the background concentration.
38 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Further, HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release, contains the directions used to establish an observed release to the surface water migration pathway. It states in part:
Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the site has released a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. . . .
• Chemical analysis:
o Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3).
-Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background concentrations – for example, compare surface water samples to surface water background concentrations.
-For benthic samples, limit comparisons to essentially sessile organisms.
o Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to establish the observed release, except: when the site itself consists of contaminated sediments with no identified source, no separate attribution is required. [emphasis added]
If an observed release can be established for a watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 550 to that watershed, enter this value in Table 4-1, and proceed to section 4.1.2.1.3.
Page 38 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, under the heading “Chemical Analysis,” states that “[a]n observed release by chemical analysis is documented in Newtown Creek between sample location NC-SD71A in English Kills and sample location NC-SD01B, approximately 3 miles downstream.” Tables 3 and 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal display the background and observed release concentrations of hazardous substances found in the Newtown Creek sediments. These tables show that samples throughout the Creek sediments meet the criteria of an observed release, as hazardous substances have been detected significantly above background concentrations.
As cited in section 3.13, Contaminated Sediment Source, of this support document, the HRS documentation record at proposal discusses that the source consists of contaminated sediments with no identified source. Thus, the site itself consists of contaminated sediments, and attributing some portion of the significant increase of hazardous substances to the site is not required by the HRS.
An observed release by chemical analysis has been documented according to the HRS, and the likelihood of release factor category value of 550 was assigned for the site.
3.16.1 Sediment Bed Eligibility
Comment: HydroQual asserted that considering the sediment bed as a release is in contradiction with the stagnant nature of the Creek, and that contaminants have a low probability of movement.
39 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Response: The Newtown Creek sediment bed was correctly considered a release according to the HRS. A “release,” under CERCLA section 101(22) is defined as “[a]ny spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment... ”
The HRS defines “site” as:
Area(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has otherwise come to be located. . .”
As explained in section 3.13, Contaminated Sediment Source, of this support document, hazardous substances were associated with the contaminated sediments through sampling and the release could not be attributed to a known source. The documentation of an observed release by chemical analysis, as established in section 3.16, Likelihood of Release, of this support document, establishes that hazardous substances have come to be located in the sediments and therefore constituted a release. In addition, the sediment bed is a site because it is the area of a release.
That Newtown Creek might be stagnant does not contradict the finding that a release has occurred to the environment. Whether or not the Creek is stagnant is not a consideration in the definition of a release or the evaluation of a site in accordance with the HRS. Furthermore, if the commenter is claiming that the “stagnant” nature of the Creek means contaminants in the sediments cannot further migrate, this is not correct. For example, the Creek is not stagnant, as illustrated by its tidal nature.
Also, for HRS purposes, the hazardous substances within the sediment bed are not considered to be contained. As directed by HRS Section 4.1.2.1.2.1.1, Containment, and as documented on page 19 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the contaminated sediments are not contained, as hazardous substances have been documented in the Creek, and neither a maintained engineering cover, nor a functioning maintained runoff control system was documented.
This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
3.16.2 Use of Background Samples in Establishing an Observed Release
Comment: HydroQual, GLA, ENVIRON, and other commenters expressed doubt that downstream background samples can serve as adequate evidence that a release occurred and that the release is attributable to the Newtown Creek site.
HydroQual and GLA questioned the criteria used to evaluate an observed release at the site. HydroQual stated that “[t]he concept of three times background concentration makes more sense for comparing an immediately upstream location to a contiguous site in that it implies a constituent was necessarily introduced in the immediate vicinity to produce a factor of three concentration increase.” HydroQual alleged that because the Atlantic Basin is disconnected from Newtown Creek, a factor of three or more difference in concentration does not prove a release directly to Newtown Creek, “just a release somewhere that didn’t reach the Atlantic Basin or was different than that reaching the Atlantic Basin.”
HydroQual also stated that “[t]he attribution isn’t as apparent when the background site and scored site are disconnected.”
40 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Response: Background samples were appropriately compared to contaminated samples in establishing an observed release from the Newtown Creek site. In addition, attribution is not required when scoring a contaminated sediment source.
The HRS does not identify requirements or define conditions for establishing background levels of contaminants. The HRS addresses background only in the context of identifying an observed release of a hazardous substance to the environment by chemical analysis. HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release, states in relevant part:
Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the site has release a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. Base this demonstration on either:
• Direct observation: . . .
• Chemical analysis:
o Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3)
- Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background concentrations—for example compare surface water samples to surface water background concentrations.
Pages 20 and 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal explain the reasoning behind the selection of the background samples from which to determine a background level:
Since the contamination begins at the head of the creek, it was not possible to obtain upstream samples [from the Creek]. Therefore, samples collected from a nearby similar water body, Atlantic Basin, were used to establish background concentrations. Figure 3 provides the map of the background sample locations in the Atlantic Basin.
Background levels are used in the identification of a significant increase in contaminant concentrations due to the release from the site and therefore should reflect the concentrations of the released substances in the absence of the release. Although background locations are ideally chosen upgradient of the observed release samples, this was not possible at the Newtown Creek site because the entire Creek is contaminated. The background samples selected downstream from the source in the Atlantic Basin provide adequate evidence that the contaminated sediments of the site exhibit a significant increase in hazardous substances in that they reflect as much as possible, given the unique situation at this site, what contamination levels would be at the site if it were not for the site-related release.
As explained above, the background sample locations are only used as a reference point in the HRS evaluation to establish that a significant increase in contaminant levels in the release samples has occurred. Background samples downstream of the Creek were used to establish background levels, but from areas with as similar as possible physical conditions and that would be impacted by sources not considered part of the site. The background samples were not used to establish attribution.
This comment has no effect on the HRS site score, or on the decision to place this site on the NPL.
41 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
3.16.3 Use of Qualified Data
Comment: HydroQual questioned the use of analytical results flagged with the “J” analytical data qualifier in the evaluation of an observed release in Newtown Creek. HydroQual stated that:
much of the data, especially for cadmium and other metals, used to determine releases were laboratory estimates, i.e., ‘J-flagged’, rather than true laboratory measurements. While EPA followed accepted protocols for using ‘J-flagged’ data and attempted to compensate for uncertainty, the release determination is compromised because of the ‘J- flagged’ estimates. Given the importance associated with the HRS score and potential NPL listing, alternative calculations, omitting ‘J-flagged’ estimates, should also be considered by EPA before reaching a final listing conclusion.
Response: That some of the analytical data used in the determination of observed releases by chemical analysis at the Newtown Creek site were “J” qualified4 was appropriately accounted for in the identification of the observed releases. This consideration involved identifying the reasons for the assignment of the “J” qualifier and determining if the accuracy of the analyses was sufficient to meet the requirements for identifying an observed release. To ensure this was the case, the data in question has been re-examined and the rationale for using this data in the HRS evaluation is presented below.
HRS Requirements for Establishing an Observed Release As applicable to this site, according to HRS Table 2-3, when the release sample concentration is above the sample quantitation limit (SQL), to establish an observed release by chemical analysis, the following criteria must be met:
• If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit.
• If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, an observed release is established when the sample measurement is 3 times or more above the background concentration.
The terms “sample quantitation limit” and “detection limit” are defined in HRS Section 1.1. The HRS defines the SQL as the
[q]uantity of a substance that can be reasonably quantified given the limits of detection for the methods of analysis and sample characteristics that may affect quantitation (for example, dilution, concentration).
The HRS defines the detection limit (DL) as the [l]owest amount [of a substance] that can be distinguished from the normal random “noise” of an analytical instrument or method. For HRS purposes the detection limit used is the method detection limit (MDL) or for real time field instruments, the detection limit of the instrument as used in the field.
4 A “J” qualifier applied to a sample result indicates that the analyte was positively identified and the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample (due either to the quality of the data generated because certain quality control criteria were not met, or the concentration of the analyte was below the quantitation limit).
42 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
The data quality objective for establishing an observed release therefore is that the concentration of a contaminant must be sufficiently accurate to ensure that one of the two above criteria is met depending on whether the background sample concentration is less than or greater than/equal to the detection limit.
Court Decisions Regarding Use of Qualified Data The Courts have specifically ruled on the use of qualified data in the scoring of a site using the HRS. In the case of Board of Regents of the University of Washington v. EPA, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, June 25, 1996, the Court, in response to the petitioner's challenge regarding the quality of the data being fed into the complex HRS model—specifically, the usability of “J” qualified data (and data with other documentation issues)—stated that “EPA does not face a standard of absolute perfection. . . . Rather, it is statutorily required to ‘assure to the maximum extent feasible,’ that it ‘accurately assesses the relative degree of risk,’” [emphasis in original] and that “[i]t would hardly make sense for the courts to respond to the resulting evidence by treating a lab’s findings as fatally defective whenever it comes up short in any way.” The Court also said that “[i]f there are ‘minor contractual deficiencies,’ the appropriate response is to review the deficiencies on a ‘case–by-case’ basis to determine their impact on the ‘usability of the data.’”
Also in this decision, the Court repeated a statement in an earlier NPL HRS case (Eagle–Picher Indus., Inc. v. EPA, 759 F.2d. 905, 921, D.C. Cir. 1985) in explanation of when EPA has met its obligations as: “The EPA has thus ‘examined [the] relevant data and . . . articulated a rational explanation for its action.’” [clarification in original]
EPA is therefore not required to limit its use of data to absolutely perfect results; there is no reason to consider an alternative site score excluding qualified data as was suggested by HydroQual. As further detailed below, EPA has made reasonable efforts to address potential shortcomings in the accuracy for individual qualified results, ensuring that each observed release is established with confidence.
CLP Use of “J” Qualifier The samples for the Newtown Creek site were analyzed under the EPA Superfund Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). This program was “developed for CERCLA waste site samples to fill the need for legally defensible analytical results supported by a high level of quality assurance and documentation” (HRS Section 1.1). A key part of the CLP program is to document the quality of the analytical results through the analysis of quality control samples commensurate with the analysis for field samples and by tracking the capabilities of the analytical procedures to provide accurate results when analyzing samples with variable physical properties. When a possible limitation is found in the analysis but the analysis is considered “in control,” a “J” qualifier is assigned to the analytical result. (If the limitation is sufficient to indicate the analysis was out of control and the results are unusable, an “R” qualifier is assigned.) The “J” qualifier reflects that the result is considered to be qualitatively accurate—the substance is present, but there is a possibility that the result may be an estimated quantity.
Consideration of Possible Bias in Establishing an Observed Release As identified by the commenter, EPA has an established protocol for demonstrating that in some cases “J” qualified data is of sufficient quality to use in establishing an observed release by chemical analysis in an HRS evaluation. This procedure considers why the “J” was assigned in terms of the direction of the possible bias. For example, if the result is possibly higher than the true value, the qualified result is considered “biased high”. Four directions of bias are evaluated: biased high, biased low, unknown bias, and no bias. Unknown bias is assigned when the quality control problem indicates a possible problem in the analysis but is not specific enough to indicate a direction. No bias is assigned when the qualifier is assigned to identify that some issue was noted but the quantitation of the concentration was not impacted by the issue.
43 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
By knowing whether there is a possible bias, the direction and estimated upper or lower bound of the possible bias, and whether a sample is being used to establish a background or release concentration, it can be shown whether the results meet the observed release criteria as identified in HRS Table 2.3 (and cited above). “J” qualified results can be used as is in the following situations:
• For a “J” qualified background sample: o If the background sample concentration is above the MDL and the result is biased high but the release sample is 3 times higher, the background sample result as is can be used because even if the true value were lower than the measured value, the “three times background concentration” criteria for an observed release would still be met.
o If the background sample concentration is not detected and the result is biased high but the release is higher than the SQL, the background sample result as is can be used because even if the true value were lower than the measured value, the “greater than the SQL” criteria for an observed release would still be met.
• For a “J” qualified release sample: o If the release sample result is biased low but still meets the observed release criteria, the result may be used as is because even if the true value were higher than the measured value, the observed release criteria would still be met.
In other situations, it is necessary to consider what the upper or lower bound of the true value could be if the measured value is possibly biased. This estimated bound is referred to as the “adjusted value.” The observed release criteria are met based on the adjusted value in the following situations:
• If a “J” qualified background sample result is equal to or above the MDL and the result is possibly biased low or the bias direction is unknown, an adjusted background sample concentration is generated by multiplying the background result by an adjustment factor designed to estimate the upper bound. If the release sample concentration remains at least three times higher than this estimated upper bound, then the observed release criteria are considered met.
• If a “J” qualified release sample result is possibly biased high or the bias is unknown, an adjusted release concentration is generated by dividing the release result by an adjustment factor designed to estimate the lower bound. If the estimated lower bound is greater than the SQL and still at least three times the background concentration (or greater than the SQL if the background concentration was not detected), then the observed release criteria are considered met.
• If the background is possibly biased low and the release is possibly biased high or the direction of bias for both is unknown, an estimated upper bound background concentration and lower bound release concentration are generated; these adjusted values are compared to verify that the observed release criteria are met.
Effectively, a background concentration will only be adjusted upward and/or a release concentration adjusted downward to compensate for potential bias. Also, these estimated bounds are temporary estimates generated only for the purpose of ensuring that observed release criteria are still met when potential bias may affect results within the HRS documentation record; this adjustment is not a permanent alteration of the original results produced by the laboratory.
Consideration of “J” Qualified Data in Newtown Creek Results at Time of Proposal
44 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Tables 3 and 4 were presented in the HRS documentation record at proposal to document more than 100 samples that met the observed release criteria. As identified in these tables, certain of the observed releases were established using “J” qualified data. Of the background results for metals that were “J” qualified, most were qualified because the percent moisture in the sample was above 50%. Other reasons included issues with the matrix spike, repeatability in lab duplicates, and repeatability in the ICP serial dilution. For organic analyte results, some release sample results were “J” qualified because the sample moisture content was greater than 70% and less than 90%. Other reasons included for PCBs were failure to meet absolute percent difference criteria and failure to meet continuing calibration verification (CCV) percent difference criteria. Some results were qualified for more than one of the above reasons.
As shown in Tables 3 and 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, all “J” qualified data was considered to be biased unknown. This assumption, as explained above, meant that the estimated upper and lower bounds were determined for all the “J” qualified sample results. This resulted in adjustment of concentration in situations where it is unnecessary, e.g., as when there was no bias, high-biased background data, or low-biased release data.
In Tables 3 and 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the column labeled “Adjusted Background” lists the greatest background concentration, or the greatest adjusted background concentration if the background was “J” qualified, or the greatest background SQL if the analyte was not detected in any background samples. Then, this value was multiplied by 3 (if detected) to set the release sample concentration necessary to establish an observed release when the release sample result was not qualified [listed in the column labeled “Adjusted Background x3 (non-J must exceed)”]. To facilitate the display of the large amount of data, instead of calculating an adjusted release concentration for “J” qualified release sample results, a second column [labeled “Adj. BG x3 x Adj. Factor (J must exceed)”] displays the value from the previous column multiplied again by the adjustment factor; this is the value a “J” qualified release result must exceed to establish an observed release. Only those release sample results that were above the appropriate concentration necessary to establish an observed release were identified as meeting observed release criteria. These samples results were bolded in Tables 3 and 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal.
EPA Alternate Observed Release Evaluation Omitting Potentially Biased Background and Release Results Additionally, EPA has reviewed the analytical results used to establish observed releases at the site, and even if EPA were to omit “’J flagged’ estimates” as the commenter suggested, the HRS site score would not change.
In the process of this review, the impact of the actual bias associated with each “J” qualified analytical result has been determined, and results were omitted only when the reason for the “J” qualifier indicated a possible bias (meaning that the result may be an estimated quantity). Based on this review, alternate observed release tables have been revised and added as an attachment to this support document. (See tables within Attachment 1 of this support document). This set of revised tables only represents an assessment of an alternate scenario in which potentially biased data are excluded. Qualified data are still appropriately included in the site evaluation in the HRS documentation record at promulgation.
For “J” qualified background sample results for which the “J” is applied only to indicate that a result was between the detection and quantitation limits, there is no implied bias. These results were not omitted from the alternate observed release evaluation.
For the metals results that were qualified only for moisture content above 50%, there is no associated bias; these results can be used with no further consideration and were not omitted from the alternate observed release evaluation. Standard laboratory techniques employed for the detection of metals in
45 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
various media are not affected by moisture content. In brief, metals are extracted from samples by employing an acid extraction technique, which dissolves the analytes prior to instrumental analysis. Whether or not there is a high level of moisture within the initial sample, the moisture does not interfere with the acid extraction process. Thus, no bias is associated with samples qualified based on this issue. For the other “J” qualified metal samples, the bias is considered unknown; unknown-biased results were omitted from this alternate evaluation.
Organic results qualified only for the moisture content being between 70% and 90% were considered biased low. This is because the methodology used to extract organic compounds is affected by high sample moisture content in that all organics might not be extracted and thus not included in the results. PCB results associated with the absolute percent difference issue are considered biased high. PCB results associated with the CCV percent difference issue are considered to be affected by unknown bias. Organic results associated with high, low, or unknown bias were omitted from this alternate evaluation.
In situations where a result is “J” qualified for more than one reason, the bias is considered unknown and the result omitted from the alternate evaluation.
The results of this review are presented in Attachment 1 of this support document. In each background table, the second-to-last column presents the selected background level for each substance (the greatest concentration detected in a background sample, or the greatest SQL if the analyte was not detected in the background samples). The release samples results presented all meet observed release criteria.
The results of EPA’s alternate evaluation are that observed releases by chemical analysis can be identified throughout the length of the creek based on the concentrations of multiple substances in analytical results for multiple samples even when potentially biased “J” qualified results are omitted. Even based on this alternate evaluation, the site score of 50.00 would not be affected.
In summary, EPA appropriately considered the possible bias of qualified data in establishing observed releases by chemical analysis at this site. Since EPA has properly used the “J” qualified data, there is no need to delete that data from the scoring in the HRS documentation record at proposal as suggested by the commenter.
3.16.4 Results Below CRQLs
Comment: ENVIRON questioned the quality of the data used to establish an observed release by chemical analysis and asserted that the background sample results were compromised by the failure to achieve the contract required quantitation limits (CRQL). ENVIRON stated that the “[s]election of Atlantic Basin as the reference site for Newtown Creek is, therefore, highly conservative and may not be a reasonable basis for assessing the significance of concentrations observed in Newtown Creek."
Response: The HRS does not require background samples to achieve quantitation limits, or have concentrations below the CRQL for use in establishing an observed release. In fact, the HRS specifies what to do when the background levels are below the CRQL [SQL]. The analytical data used to establish an observed release by chemical analysis at the Newtown Creek site were sufficient in demonstrating a significant increase of hazardous substances at this site.
46 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
The HRS defines a CRQL as the
[s]ubstance-specific level that a CLP laboratory must be able to routinely and reliably detect in specific sample matrices. It is not the lowest detectable level achievable, but rather the level that a CLP laboratory should reasonably quantify. The CRQL may or may not be equal to the quantitation limit of a given substance in a given sample.
Additionally, a sample quantitation limit (SQL) or a CRQLis considered by the HRS when evaluating the level of hazardous substances in the release samples, not in the background samples. Table 2-3 of the HRS directs that when the sample measurement is greater than or equal to the sample quantitation limit:
-If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit.
-If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, an observed release is established when the sample measurement is 3 times or more above the background concentration.
If the sample quantitation limit (SQL) cannot be established, determine if there is an observed release as follows.
-If the sample analysis was performed under the EPA Contract Laboratory Program, use the EPA contract-required quantitation limit (CRQL) in place of the SQL.
-If the sample analysis is not performed under the EPA Contract Laboratory Program, use the detection limit (DL) in place of the SQL.
The background sample results need not exceed the quantitation limit in order for an observed release by chemical analysis to be established in accordance with the HRS. In fact, as cited above, even when the background concentrations are not detected (thus being less than the quantitation limit), an observed release is established when the release sample results equal or exceed the sample quantitation limit.
Thus, that the background sample results (Atlantic Basin data) used in establishing an observed release were below the CRQL or sample quantitation limits, does not identify an analytical data quality issue affecting the validity of the measurement or the establishment of the observed release. Regarding the statement that the results were compromised by concentrations being below the CRQL, this is not a data quality issue. It simply means that the contaminant levels are below the CRQL – not that there was any problem in the analysis.
This comment has no effect on the HRS score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
3.16.5 Sample Similarity
Comment: Several commenters argued that the background samples used to establish an observed release were not appropriate because of differences between the physical properties of the background and release sediments.
HydroQual stated that the HRS evaluation to place the Newtown Creek site on the NPL was driven by the consideration of sediments in Newtown Creek compared to the differences measured in contaminants in sediments in the Atlantic Basin. HydroQual added that these comparisons were done on a bulk sediment
47 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
basis and did not account for physical differences between the sediments from these two locations, such as the differences in organic content. It continued:
The question of whether the Atlantic Basin sediments appear cleaner than Newtown Creek sediments because they received less source releases of contaminants or because they don’t have the capacity to strongly bind and retain contaminants remains unanswered by the analysis underlying the HRS review. The definition being used for an observed release is significance above background. Significance above background will be different on a bulk sediment basis and on an organic carbon normalized basis.
Environ, also commenting on the background samples, stated that:
since the background reference location used for the HRS evaluation does not reflect similar physical conditions as Newtown Creek, and data quality from the background location are inadequate for comparison with Newtown Creek data, the background data should be disregarded for the purpose of identifying whether or not Newtown Creek should be considered for the NPL.
HydroQual criticized the implied link in the HRS documentation record between CSO activity, TOC concentrations, and hazardous substance concentrations. HydroQual stated that:
The EPA HRS Documentation implies that high TOC levels are indicative of anthropogenic sources such as CSOs and the absence of high TOC indicates absence of hazardous sources. This logic is somewhat flawed in that while a CSO might very well be a source of TOC it is not necessarily a source of hazardous material. Similarly, a source of hazardous material (e.g., a transformer manufacturer) might not be a source of TOC. Further, TOC concentrations in the vicinity of a CSO outfall could be elevated for reasons other than the CSO (e.g., soil leaching, etc.)
HydroQual alleged that the comparison between background and release samples should have taken into account the differences in TOC concentrations, and that these differences should have been corrected for in order to yield an accurate evaluation. HydroQual stated that “[h]igher total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations in the sediment bed are reported for Newtown Creek than for the Atlantic Basin,” and that “[w]hen normalized for organic carbon, concentrations of a contaminant in different sediment samples are comparable.”
GLA stated that the use of Atlantic Basin as background skewed the results of the sampling in Newtown Creek, and resulted in “artificially elevated ‘observed releases’ upon which the proposed listing is predicated.” ELM stated:
[t]he sediments in the Atlantic Basin are characterized by a high sand content and low organic content, conditions that typically result in minimal binding of contaminants to those sediments. Consequently, these sediments will yield concentrations of contaminants that are skewed low due to the high sand and low organic content.
GLA commented that the Atlantic Basin differs materially from Newtown Creek, and thus, stated that Atlantic Basin sediments are “overly conservative” and are a “non-representative benchmark” to use for determining the presence or absence of ‘observed release’ contaminants.
48 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
HydroQual also criticized the implied link in the HRS documentation record between CSO activity, TOC concentrations, and hazardous substance concentrations. HydroQual stated that:
Another point is that the EPA HRS Documentation implies that high TOC levels are indicative of anthropogenic sources such as CSOs and the absence of high TOC indicates absence of hazardous sources. This logic is somewhat flawed in that while a CSO might very well be a source of TOC it is not necessarily a source of hazardous material. Similarly, a source of hazardous material (e.g., a transformer manufacturer) might not be a source of TOC. Further, TOC concentrations in the vicinity of a CSO outfall could be elevated for reasons other than the CSO (e.g., soil leaching, etc.)
Response: The background samples used in establishing an observed release from the Newtown Creek site are sufficiently similar to the release samples for the purposes of identifying observed releases within Newtown Creek. The HRS considers sample comparability in Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release. It states in part:
Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the site has released a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. . . .
• Chemical analysis:
o Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3).
-Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background concentrations – for example, compare surface water samples to surface water background concentrations [emphasis added].
The HRS addresses background only in the context of identifying an observed release of substances to the environment by chemical analysis. HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release, states:
The minimum standard to establish an observed release by chemical analysis is analytical evidence of a hazardous substance in the media significantly above the background level.
The similarity in the physical properties of background and release samples is considered in establishing an observed release by chemical analysis to ensure that the increase in contaminant concentrations is due to a release, and not just due to a difference in the physical makeup of the samples.
Why the samples are considered sufficiently similar to establish observed releases is discussed on pages 20 and 21 of HRS documentation record at proposal. Tables 1 and 2 on pages 22 and 23 of the HRS documentation record at proposal identify the sediment samples used in establishing an observed release from the site, including the 6 background samples used to establish the background levels of hazardous substances. Included in these tables are the various physical attributes of each sample, including the date and time of sample collection, depth of sample below top of sediment, and total organic content (TOC). Page 20 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describes why these samples were considered sufficiently similar to the Newtown Creek sediment samples to establish releases had occurred. It states:
49 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Since the contamination begins at the head of the creek, it was not possible to obtain upstream samples. Therefore, samples collected from a nearby similar water body, Atlantic Basin, were used to establish background concentrations. Figure 3 provides the map of the background sample locations in the Atlantic Basin. The background samples from Atlantic Basin and contaminated samples from Newtown Creek were handled the same procedurally and were similar physically, as described on pages 20 and 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal:
• Sampling Methods: The background and release sediment samples were all collected by EPA, using Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), during the sampling event from February-April 2009. Surface samples were collected with a Young-modified Van Veen dredge, and subsurface samples were collected with a vibracore [Ref. 23, pp. 7-70; 25, pp. 4, 6-16, 22-23].
• Analytical Procedures: The background and release samples were all analyzed for TAL metals by ChemTech Consulting Group of Mountainside, New Jersey and for TCL VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs by DataChem Laboratories of Salt Lake City, Utah [Ref. 25, pp. 25-132]. The chemical analyses were coordinated through the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), and EPA validated the analytical results according to Region 2 Data Validation guidelines [Ref. 26 through 46]. The samples were also analyzed for grain-size distribution according to EPA SOP Bio 8.2 (Bucket Method) and for TOC according to EPA SOP C-88 (Combustion/IR Method) at the EPA laboratory in Edison, New Jersey [Ref. 25, pp. 1-3; 47, pp. 1-55; 48, pp. 1-42; 74, pp. 1-9; 75, pp. 1-14].
• Physical Setting: The Newtown Creek and Atlantic Basin are both part of the same estuary (i.e., the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary) and are classified under the HRS as “Coastal tidal waters”, in which flow and depth characteristics are not considered to be applicable for the evaluation [Ref. 1, pp. 51605, 51613; 10, pp. 67].
• Sampling Depth: Background and release surface samples were all collected from the 0- to 2-foot interval below top of sediment, while background and release subsurface samples were collected at depths ranging from 2 to 6 feet below top of sediment (EPA evaluated surface and subsurface samples separately) [Ref. 25, pp. 616]. The height of the water column ranged from 14 to 24 feet for background locations and 7 to 23 feet for release locations [Ref. 24, pp. 1-137].
• Percent Moisture (based on Inorganic sample fraction): The percent moisture in the background samples ranged from approximately 61% to 71%, while percent moisture in the release samples ranged from approximately 30% to 82% [Ref. 26, pp. 6-14; 27, pp. 3, 19-38; 28, pp. 3-22, 36-44; 29, pp. 3-23, 31-50; 30, pp. 5-12; 37, pp. 5-13; 38, pp. 5-17; 41, pp. 5-18; 42, pp. 2-15; 43, pp. 5-22].
• Sample Description: Visual descriptions from core logs show that the sediments within Atlantic Basin and Newtown Creek consist predominantly of “soft muck” [Ref. 24, pp. 1-137]. Grain-size analyses show that most of the samples contain high percentages of fine-grained material (i.e., clay and silt), with the background samples showing the highest percentages of fines and lowest percentages of sand.
50 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Since many contaminants have a greater affinity for clay and silt than for sand, the reported background concentrations might be skewed high with respect to release concentrations [Ref. 47, pp. 2-54; 49, p. 6]. E PA considers this type of comparison to be a conservative one (i.e., higher scrutiny for data to meet observed release criteria).
• Total Organic Carbon: The analytical results indicate that TOC levels are higher in the Newtown Creek sediments than in the Atlantic Basin sediments [Ref. 48, pp. 1-42]. EPA considers this to be further indication that anthropogenic contributions (e.g., CSOs) have affected Newtown Creek more than Atlantic Basin, and that hazardous substance concentrations in Atlantic Basin are indicative of background conditions.
As cited above, background samples taken from the Atlantic Basin were compared to sediment samples in Newtown Creek using multiple criteria (i.e., same time frame, same sampling and analytical methods, same laboratories, similar physical setting and sampling depths, overlapping ranges of percent moisture values, and similar sediment descriptions), and were identified as sufficiently similar to show the increased concentrations were due to the release, not to the differences in the physical characteristics of the samples. The only characteristic that could be considered significantly different in the release and the background samples and possibly could cause a significant difference in contaminant levels between the two is the TOC levels.
Because of this difference in TOC levels, consideration was given to the issue of whether the difference could have been the cause of the significant increase separate from a release. As pointed out by the commenters, many organics preferentially adsorb to organic matter (measured in this case as TOC). Thus, if the level of organic matter in the background samples is lower than in the release samples, a higher concentration of organic hazardous substances in the release samples may be due simply to the difference in organic matter, not to a release.
However, while there is more organic matter in the release samples at this particular site, this does not document that there has not been a release of contaminants to the sediments in Newtown Creek. In fact, as explained in the HRS documentation record at proposal, the organic matter in the Creek at this site is part of the material released into the Creek and the difference in the organic levels in the background and release samples is a result of this release, and not an artifact of differences in the physical properties of the samples. Aside from CSOs, which have high levels of organic waste from humans and have contributed to the high levels of TOC measured in the Newtown Creek sediments, other contributors of both organic substances and contaminants have released to the Creek. As detailed on page 38 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, a wide variety of contributors of various organic substances have been identified, such as transportation-related activities, petroleum spills, creosote-treated marine pilings, utility poles, railroad ties, and contaminated properties including MGPs, all of which are known sources of organic wastes. Thus, for this site, the difference in organic content in the background and release samples is further evidence of a release in the Creek, not evidence to the contrary.
In addition, many of the organic hazardous substances found in the Creek sediment are themselves anthropomorphic in origin, e.g., PCBs and chlorinated solvents. The presence of these substances clearly is a result of a release.
Regarding HydroQual’s assertions that it is flawed to assert that high TOC levels are indicative of anthropogenic releases such as from CSOs, and the absence of high TOC indicates the absence of a source, given the setting at this site these assertions are justified and not flawed. They are supported both by the characteristics of the known sources of organic discharges to the Creek and by analytical data that
51 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
show not only are organic contaminants in higher concentrations in the Creek, but so are several inorganic contaminants ( e.g., metals), which the commenters acknowledge do not preferentially concentrate in organic matter. The presence of higher organic content in the Creek, according to the commenters’ assertions should depress the inorganic contaminant concentrations as much, if not more so than it could have elevated the organic contaminant concentrations; yet there are multiple observed releases of inorganic substances also identified in the Creek.
Furthermore, if the background and observed release results were normalized for TOC, as described in Attachment E of the City’s comments5, observed releases of organic substances would still be established throughout the Creek as well as observed releases of metals. Table 1 below highlights that observed releases of organic substances occur at various points throughout the extent of Newtown Creek after normalizing for TOC as presented by the commenter. To illustrate this, the samples in Table 1 below were selected from the mouth, middle portion, and head of the Creek (graphically presented on Figure 1 of this support document) to highlight that samples of commonly detected organic analytes (including those used in the waste characteristics evaluation) throughout the Creek would meet observed release criteria, even after normalizing for TOC. (Note that there are many other sample results that, if normalized for TOC, would still have resulted in organic hazardous substances exceeding observed release criteria, and would still result in establishing the extent of the contaminated sediment source and the HRS site score of 50.00 would remain.)
Table 1: TOC Normalized Concentrations of Organic Hazardous Substances
Pyrene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Result (µg/kg) Result (µg/kg) Result (µg/kg) % Organic Sample ID [Table 3 of the After TOC [Table 3 of the After TOC [Table 3 of the After TOC Matter HRS Normalization HRS Normalization HRS Normalization documentation (Result / % documentation (Result / % documentation (Result / % record at TOC)1 record at TOC)1 record at TOC)1 proposal] proposal] proposal] NC-SD107A (Highest 3.8% 75 J 1,973.7 45 J 1,184 49 J 1,289.5 Background detects) NC-SD01A 11.0% 690 6,272 730 6,636 NC-SD03A 5.0% 630 12,600 630 12,600 NC-SD22A 5.0% 1,400 28,000 820 16,400 820.0 16,400 NC-SD35A 7.0% 2,900 41,428 1,000 14,285 1,800.0 25,714 NC-SD62A 14.0% 12,000 85,714 2,800 20,000 3,900.0 27,857
Note: Bolded items in this table indicate that the organic carbon normalized results are at least 3 times greater than the highest TOC-normalized background results, thus still meeting HRS observed release criteria according to HRS Table 2-3. Items in italics indicate the highest detected background level of each analyte. J-qualified data presented in background samples above were below the sample quantitation limit and are not biased.
5 In Attachment E of the City’s comments, HydroQual presents the method for obtaining the carbon normalized values from sample “dry weight” results. Using this method to obtain the carbon normalized result, the sample result (dry weight), is divided by the percent total organic carbon within the sample. For example, the sample result of pyrene within sample NC-SD35A was 2,900 µg/kg, which when divided by the percent TOC within that sample (7%, or 0.07), results in an organic carbon normalized value of 41,428 µg/kg.
52 Sample locations listed above are labeled SDXXA • Surface Sediment Sample Location 1,200 600 0 1,200 Surface and Subsurface Sediment • Subsurface Sediment Sample Locations SOURCE: --- Sample Location Map 1. New York State Interactive Mapping Gateway. BrooklynNE_tileO.sid, BrooklynNE_tile1.sid, --Graphic Scale In Feet February - April 2009 • Reported Fishing I Crabbing Locations BrooklynNE_tile2.si d, BrooklynN E_tile3.sid, BrooklynNW_tileO.sid, BrooklynNW_tile1 .sid, BrooklynNW_tile2.sid, BrooklynNW_tile3.sid, accessed at http://www1.nysgis.state.ny.us. ffi O-ECT Newtown Creek, Brooklyn / Queens, New York ~ Documented Zone of Contamination September 2008. Newtown Creek NOTE: 2. Weston, Site Logbook, Newtown Creek Site, Document Control 1. ,AJI Sample IDs preceded by"Ne-" No. 524-4E-ADGW, February-April 2009. 3. Riverkeeper, Inc. Web Site (www.riverkeeper.org) and written communication. April 2009. EPA August 2010 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Aside from the observed releases of organic hazardous substances documented within Newtown Creek, observed releases of metals are still present even after normalizing for inorganic content in each sample. Based on the concept that background samples with higher total inorganic content can potentially have higher metals results, observed releases of metals would still be documented throughout the length of the Creek.
In summary, an observed release of both metals and organics has been documented at the Newtown Creek site, even after normalization of analytical data due to organic content (which, as explained above, is not an evaluation required by the HRS). Thus, the relatively higher level of TOC within the observed release samples compared to the background samples, does not compromise the integrity of the analysis of sample similarity between observed release and background samples or negate the identification of observed releases or the site score.
This comment has no effect on the site score or the decision to list the site on the NPL.
3.16.6 Clarity of HRS Observed Release Tables
Comment: HydroQual alleged that several tables within the HRS rule lack clarity, and that some of the language within these tables is misleading, particularly Tables 1 through 4. HydroQual stated that “[t]ables 1 through 4 in the HRS Documentation identify the samples as ‘Observed Release Concentrations,’” and that this naming convention “introduces the presumption that the sediment bed is a release independent of completing a comparison to background concentrations.”
Response: The tables within the HRS documentation record at proposal show all necessary analytical data and considerations of data quality issues needed in an HRS evaluation to establish an observed release by chemical analysis and document that observed release samples are contaminated significantly above background.
As presented on pages 24 and 25 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, Tables 1 and 2, titled in part “Background and Observed Release Sample Information” present the specific sample identifier information and physical characteristics of each sample, such as sample identification numbers, date and time of sample collection, composition information (sand, silt, clay), depths of sample collection, and total organic content. Tables 3 and 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, titled in part “Background and Observed Release Concentrations” present the results of samples taken from the background location (Atlantic Basin) and the observed release location (Newtown Creek). Section 3.16.3, Use of Qualified Data, of this support document describes in detail how the tables were used to document an observed release at this site.
Regarding the commenter’s assertion that the naming convention applied in Tables 1 through 4 presumes that the sediment bed is a release independent of the completion of comparison of background, a comparison of background and release samples was completed to establish the significant increase of hazardous substances within the release samples to meet the HRS criteria to establish an observed release by chemical analysis (as discussed in section 3.16.3, Use of Qualified Data, of this support document). Specifically, the column titled “Background Concentrations” within Tables 3 and 4 presents the background levels, and the column titled “Observed Release Concentrations” shows the concentration that meets or exceeds observed release criteria. Also, as stated on page 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, those concentrations in Tables 2 and 4 that are presented in bold meet the criteria for an observed release. Thus, the tables themselves present comparison of background and release analytical data used in establishing an observed release.
This comment has no effect on the site score or on the decision to list the site on the NPL.
54 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
3.16.7 Attribution
Comment: HydroQual argued that CSO inputs of hazardous substances into the surface water are small relative to other current sources.
Response: An observed release of hazardous substances to Newtown Creek was assigned to the site. This observed release was not individually attributed to CSO’s or any other documented contributors to the contamination.
HRS section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed Release, states in relevant part:
Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the site has release a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. Base this demonstration on either:
• Direct observation: . . .
• Chemical analysis:
o Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3)
- Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background concentrations—for example compare surface water samples to surface water background concentrations. - . . . .
o Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to establish the observed release, except: when the site itself consists of contaminated sediments with no identified source, no separate attribution is required [emphasis added].
Page 38 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, under the heading Attribution, states:
Sediments in Newtown Creek are contaminated with metals, VOCs, SVOCs including PAHs, and PCBs for a length of more than 3 miles [see Section 2.2]. The origin of these hazardous substances in the contaminated sediments has not been identified due to the presence of multiple possible sources for each substance. There are numerous routes that contamination can be taking to reach the water body and underlying sediments, including spillage during product shipping and handling, direct disposal and discharge, storm water runoff, and air deposition. As a result, the source(s) of all the contamination in any particular location in the creek cannot be determined.
Thus, sediments at the Newtown Creek site have been documented as having hazardous substances above observed release criteria, and the site itself consists of contaminated sediments with no identified source. As such, attributing the significant increase of hazardous substances at the site to a specific origin is not required.
55 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Regarding HydroQual’s statement that inputs of hazardous substances as a result of CSO discharges are small relative to other sources, although the HRS documentation record at proposal does identify that CSOs are known contributors of various hazardous substances to the surface water migration pathway, no attribution has specifically been assigned to CSOs or other storm water discharges. In the sense that this comment is related to liability, see section 3.5, Liability, of this support document.
This comment has no effect on the site score or the decision to list the site on the NPL.
3.16.8 Contamination in Mouth of Creek
Comment: The City, GLA, ELM, and ENVIRON questioned the inclusion of the mouth of the Creek in the site, citing the difference in physical characteristics and contaminant levels between the mouth and body of Newtown Creek. The commenters alleged that the extent of contamination is not adequately characterized, and claimed the mouth presents no significant risk to humans or aquatic life.
ENVIRON, GLA, and ELM commented that the lower portions of the Creek (or mouth of Newtown Creek) contain sediments that have significantly less contamination and do not pose an unacceptable risk. According to GLA, inclusion of the mouth of the Creek as part of the site inappropriately taints the mouth as being more contaminated than it is and detracts the focus of the cleanup away from the contaminated sediments upstream.
GLA stated that EPA’s sediment data indicates:
a downstream concentration gradient from the headwaters of Newtown Creek to the confluence with the East River. Concentrations of SVOCs in sediments are substantially higher (3 to 4 times) and more frequently detected in sediments throughout the Creek than in the first 0.5 miles of the Creek . . . concentrations of PCBs are 5 to 10 times higher throughout the Creek than at the mouth. Frequency of COPC [contaminants of potential concern] detection also decreases from upstream to downstream, with only 2 surface samples downstream of Dutch Kills meeting the criteria for an ‘observed release.’
GLA added that:
NYCDEP’s sediment sampling in Newtown Creek and Whale Creek Canal . . . indicate a similar finding – concentrations of COPCs [contaminants of potential concern] in the mouth of Newtown Creek are markedly lower than the concentrations further up the Creek.
ELM stated that “of the 71 sample locations in Newtown Creek, 8 samples were fairly evenly distributed in the mouth of the Creek.” It added that of those 8 samples from the mouth of the Creek, observed release of SVOCs was met in 2 surface samples and 3 subsurface samples, and one sample met observed release of PCBs.
GLA claimed that the mouth of the Creek comprises a different environmental setting than the rest of the Creek, stating that the mouth of the Creek differs materially in its characteristics from the remainder of the Creek, including levels of contamination. ENVIRON echoed a similar contention. It stated that the lower portion of Newtown Creek does not warrant inclusion as part of the site because:
56 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
the data show that the observed conditions within the lower portion of Newtown Creek west of Manhattan Avenue/Vernon Boulevard are measurably different than the upper reaches of the Creek, the conditions in the lower portion of the Creek do not present a substantial risk to human health or the environment.
The City stated that the presented data:
indicates that contaminants are not uniformly distributed throughout the sediment in the Creek . . . further EPA investigation is necessary to identify the nature and extent of contamination throughout the length of the 3.8-mile waterway; to prevent a misrepresentation of the whole Creek as containing uniform amounts of hazardous materials; and to assist in identifying contributing upland sources.
ENVIRON asserted that the area near the mouth of Newtown Creek is not associated with the historic petroleum releases, and current data provided in the HRS documentation record at proposal shows petroleum contamination at the mouth of the Creek below that associated with risk to aquatic organisms.
Response: Sediments in the mouth of Newtown Creek are documented to contain many of the same hazardous substances at observed release levels as the rest of the Creek and are considered part of the site. At the Newtown Creek site, one contaminated sediment source running the entire length of the Creek has been correctly delineated, including the mouth of the Creek.
The HRS defines “site” as “[a]ny area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a hazardous substance.”
Also, the HRS defines a “source” as an:
[a]rea(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has otherwise come to be located. Sources do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water, or surface water sediments that have become contaminated by migration, except: in the case of either a ground water plume with no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified source, the plume or contaminated sediments may be considered a source.
Also, in establishing the target distance limit of the surface water pathway overland/flood migration component, HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target Distance Limit, states in relevant part:
For sites consisting solely of contaminated sediments with no identified source, determine the target distance limit as follows:
If there is no clearly defined direction of flow, begin measuring the target distance limit at the center of the area of observed sediment contamination. Extend the target distance limit as an arc either for 15 miles along the surface water or to the most distant sample point that meets the criteria for an observed release to that watershed, whichever is greater. Determine the area of observed sediment contamination based on available samples that meet the criteria for an observed release. [emphasis added]
Page 18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states that “[t]he analytical results indicate that metals, VOCs, SVOCs including PAHs, and PCBs are present in the Newtown Creek sediments at concentrations that meet the criteria for observed release.” Page 19 of the HRS documentation record states:
57 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
The EPA sampling results using observed release criteria show that contaminated sediments are located throughout Newtown Creek, from the navigable portion of English Kills (samples NC-SD71A and NC-SD71B) to the East River (samples NC-SD01A and NC-SD01B). The sample locations are shown in Figure 2.
Page 38 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:
An observed release by chemical analysis is documented in Newtown Creek between sample location NC-SD71A in English Kills and sample location NC-SD01B, approximately 3 miles downstream [see Section 2.2].
Hazardous substances that meet the criteria for an observed release to surface water were documented throughout the Creek (refer to Section 3.16, Likelihood of Release, of this support document). Thus, hazardous substances were identified as associated with the contaminated sediment source through sampling, and the distribution of the observed release samples determined the area of observed sediment contamination, which includes the mouth of the Creek
Table 1 below documents that hazardous substances were detected in surficial and subsurface sediments above observed release criteria in mouth sample locations; these locations are within the area delineated as the mouth of the Creek in Figure 1 of the comments submitted by GLA. Figure 1 in section 3.16.5, Sample Similarity, of this support document presents the geographic location of these samples.
Table 2: Hazardous Substances Detected in Mouth of Newtown Creek SAMPLE ID NC-SD01A NC-SD03A NC-SD01B NC-SD07B Hazardous Substance Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) Phenanthrene 600 440 1,200 420 Anthracene 780 440 Fluoranthene 1,100 440 1,300 420 640 480 Benzo(a)pyrene 690 440 630 420 610 480 Benzo(a)anthracene 730 440 630 420 600 480 Chrysene 680 440 650 420 600 480 Bis(2- 640 440 1,400 480 ethylhexyl)phthalate Benzo(b)fluoranthene 710 440 760 420 530 480 Aroclor-1242 120 92
That the levels of contamination of select hazardous substances are less in the mouth of the Creek than in other parts of the Creek does not preclude the findings that hazardous substances have been detected within the mouth sediments at levels meeting observed release criteria or the delineation of a single contaminated sediment source. Although EPA agrees that certain portions of the Creek sediment bed are more contaminated with certain hazardous substances than other portions of the Creek sediments,
58 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
hazardous substances are documented at greater than observed release concentrations within the mouth of the Creek and these locations are shown to be contiguous to the rest of the Creek. In fact, the same substances presented in Table 2 above are documented at various locations throughout the rest of the Creek (see 3.13, Contaminated Sediment Source, of this support document).
Furthermore, as samples within the mouth of the Creek contained hazardous substances meeting observed release criteria, the sediment in the mouth would qualify as a sediment source. However, samples upstream from the mouth are continuously contaminated with these and various hazardous substances, and as such, the contaminated sediment source constitutes the entire length of the Creek.
This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
3.17 Waste Characteristics
Comment: HydroQual, ELM, ENVIRON, and GLA commented on the adequacy of various portions of the waste characteristics component of the HRS score. Specific comments challenging this component are addressed in the following subsections:
• 3.17.1 Toxicity/Bioaccumulation • 3.17.2 Bioavailability
3.17.1 Toxicity/Bioaccumulation
Comment: HydroQual questioned the methodology used to assign toxicity values to the hazardous substances in the HRS documentation record. HydroQual asserted that the brackish nature of Newtown Creek and the wide range of salinity observed in the Creek are not ideal for HRS evaluation because factors used in the HRS scoring methods are specific to bioaccumulation and toxicity in either fresh water or salt water. It also stated that Newtown Creek is scored higher than if it were scored as entirely fresh water or as entirely salt water. The contaminants for which there are HRS scoring differences between fresh water and salt water include pyrene, silver, benzo(a)pyrene, and cadmium.
Response: The toxicity and bioaccumulation factor values have been assigned consistent with the HRS. The human toxicity factor value is used in the evaluation of the surface water human food chain threat; the ecosystem toxicity factor value is used in the evaluation of the surface water environmental threat. Bioaccumulation potential factor values are used in both the human food chain and environmental threats. The toxicity for the human food chain threat is assigned independent of salinity. However for this threat, the salinity of the water body is considered when assigning the bioaccumulation potential factor value. The ecosystem toxicity and bioaccumulation potential factor values are assigned based on salinity of the Creek.
Toxicity and the Surface Water Pathway Human Food Chain Threat Salinity is not considered when assigning the human toxicity factor value used in scoring the surface water human food chain threat. HRS Section 4.1.3.2.1.1, Toxicity, contains the directions for assigning the human toxicity factor value for the surface water pathway human food chain threat. It instructs the scorer to “[a]ssign a toxicity factor value to each hazardous substance as specified in section 2.4.1.1,” which states the following:
Evaluate toxicity for those hazardous substances at the site that are available to the pathway being scored. For all pathways and threats, except the surface water
59 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
environmental threat, evaluate human toxicity as specified below. For the surface water environmental threat, evaluate ecosystem toxicity as specified in section 4.1.3.2.1.1. Establish human toxicity factor values based on quantitative dose-response parameters for the following three types of toxicity:
• Cancer -- Use slope factors (also referred to as cancer potency factors) combined with weight-of-evidence ratings for carcinogenicity. If a slope factor is not available for a substance, use its ED10 value to estimate a slope factor as follows:
Slope factor = 1 / 6 (ED10) • Noncancer toxicological responses of chronic exposure -- use reference dose (RfD) values.
• Noncancer toxicological responses of acute exposure -- use acute toxicity parameters, such as the LD50.
Assign human toxicity factor values to a hazardous substance using Table 2-4, as follows:
• If RfD and slope factor values are both available for the hazardous substance, assign the substance a value from Table 2-4 for each. Select the higher of the two values assigned and use it as the overall toxicity factor value for the hazardous substance.
• If either an RfD or slope factor value is available, but not both, assign the hazardous substance an overall toxicity factor value from Table 2-4 based solely on the available value (RfD or slope factor).
• If neither an RfD nor slope factor value is available, assign the hazardous substance an overall toxicity factor value from Table 2-4 based solely on acute toxicity. That is, consider acute toxicity in Table 2-4 only when both RfD and slope factor values are not available.
• If neither an RfD, nor slope factor, nor acute toxicity value is available, assign the hazardous substance an overall toxicity factor value of 0 and use other hazardous substances for which information is available in evaluating the pathway.
Thus, the HRS does not instruct the scorer to consider salinity in the assignment of the toxicity value for the human food chain threat.
Page 44 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, section 4.1.3.2.1 (human food chain threat), presents the toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation factor values for each of the hazardous substances found in the observed release in the Creek sediments. The human toxicity values used for the human food chain threat, as specified by HRS Section 2.4.1.1, excerpted above, are based on carcinogenicity and non-cancer risk and do not vary based on fresh, brackish or salt water regime.
Therefore, this comment has no impact on the assignment of the toxicity factor value for the human food chain threat.
Bioaccumulation and the Surface Water Pathway Human Food Chain Threat
60 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
For the surface water pathway human food chain threat, salinity of the water is considered in assigning the bioaccumulation potential factor value. HRS Section 4.1.3.2.1.3, Bioaccumulation potential, for the surface water pathway human food chain threat, instructs the scorer to:
Use the following data hierarchy to assign a bioaccumulation potential factor value to each hazardous substance: • Bioconcentration factor (BCF) data. • Logarithm of the n-octanol-water partition coefficient (log Kow) data. • Water solubility data.
Assign a bioaccumulation potential factor value to each hazardous substance from Table 4-15.
If BCF data are available for any aquatic human food chain organism for the substance being evaluated, assign the bioaccumulation potential factor value to the hazardous substance as follows: • If BCF data are available for both fresh water and salt water for the hazardous substance, use the BCF data that correspond to the type of water body (that is, fresh water or salt water) in which the fisheries are located to assign the bioaccumulation potential factor value to the hazardous substance. • If, however, some of the fisheries being evaluated are in fresh water and some are in salt water, or if any are in brackish water, use the BCF data that yield the higher factor value to assign the bioaccumulation potential factor value to the hazardous substance. • If BCF data are available for either fresh water or salt water, but not for both, use the available BCF data to assign the bioaccumulation potential factor value to the hazardous substance. [emphasis added]
If BCF data are not available for the hazardous substance, use log Kow data to assign a bioaccumulation potential factor value to organic substances, but not to inorganic substances. If BCF data are not available, and if either log Kow data are not available, the log Kow is available but exceeds 6.0, or the substance is an inorganic substance, use water solubility data to assign a bioaccumulation potential factor value. Do not distinguish between fresh water and salt water in assigning the bioaccumulation potential factor value based on log Kow or water solubility data. If none of these data are available, assign the hazardous substance a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 0.5. [emphasis added]
Page 44 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, section 4.1.3.2.1 (human food chain threat), presents the toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation factor values for each of the hazardous substances found in the observed release in the Creek sediments and provides the citation to the source of the assigned values. The bioaccumulation potential factor values used for the human food chain threat, as specified by HRS Section 4.1.3.2.1.3, excerpted above, are assigned based on the hierarchy of data specified in the HRS, and the factor values used in the calculation of the threat score (the highest combined value, see HRS Section 4.1.3.2.1.4) are based on BCF data. Thus the values are assigned based on Newtown Creek being a brackish water body, documented in the footnote to the table on page 45 of the HRS documentation record at proposal (and not contested by HydroQual). It states:
61 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
NYCDEP has reported salinity measurements ranging from 18.5 to 22.8 parts per thousand (ppt) for Newtown Creek in the vicinity of Kosciuszko Bridge, which carries the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, making it brackish water [Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 52, p. 112]. The HRS (Section 4.1.3.2.1.3) states that if any fisheries being evaluated are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and salt water bioaccumulation potential factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1, p. 51617]. Therefore, the higher Food Chain Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Values are used for the Newtown Creek fishery.
Toxicity/Bioaccumulation and the Surface Water Pathway Environmental Threat For the surface water pathway environmental threat, both the toxicity and the bioaccumulation potential factor values are assigned values for each substance reflecting the salinity of the water body. HRS Section 4.1.4.2.1.1, Ecosystem toxicity, specifies the following:
Assign an ecosystem toxicity factor value from Table 4-19 to each hazardous substance on the basis of the following data hierarchy: • EPA chronic Ambient Water Quality Criterion (AWQC) for the substance.
• EPA chronic Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory Concentrations (AALAC) for the substance.
• EPA acute AWQC for the substance.
• EPA acute AALAC for the substance.
• Lowest LC50 value for the substance.
In assigning the ecosystem toxicity factor value to the hazardous substance:
• If either an EPA chronic AWQC or AALAC is available for the hazardous substance, use it to assign the ecosystem toxicity factor value. Use the chronic AWQC in preference to the chronic AALAC when both are available.
• If neither is available, use the EPA acute AWQC or AALAC to assign the ecosystem toxicity factor value. Use the acute AWQC in preference to the acute AALAC.
• If none of the chronic and acute AWQCs and AALACs is available, use the lowest LC50 value to assign the ecosystem toxicity factor value.
• If an LC50 value is also not available, assign an ecosystem toxicity factor value of 0 to the hazardous substance and use other hazardous substances for which data are available in evaluating the pathway.
If an ecosystem toxicity factor value of 0 is assigned to all hazardous substances eligible to be evaluated for the watershed (that is, insufficient data are available for evaluating all the substances), use a default value of 100 as the ecosystem toxicity factor value for all these hazardous substances.
With regard to the AWQC, AALAC, or LC50 selected for assigning the ecosystem toxicity factor value to the hazardous substance:
62 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
• If values for the selected AWQC, AALAC, or LC50 are available for both fresh water and marine water for the hazardous substance, use the value that corresponds to the type of water body (that is, fresh water or salt water) in which the sensitive environments are located to assign the ecosystem toxicity factor value to the hazardous substance.
• If, however, some of the sensitive environments being evaluated are in fresh water and some are in salt water, or if any are in brackish water, use the value (fresh water or marine) that yields the higher factor value to the hazardous substance.
• If a value for the selected AWQC, AALAC, or LC50 is available for either fresh water or marine water, but not for both, use the available one to assign an ecosystem toxicity factor value to the hazardous substance. [emphasis added]
For assigning an ecosystem bioaccumulation potential factor value, HRS Section 4.1.4.2.1.3, Ecosystem bioaccumulation potential, for the surface water environmental threat, instructs the scorer to:
Assign an ecosystem bioaccumulation potential factor value to each hazardous substance in the same manner specified for the bioaccumulation potential factor in section 4.1.3.2.1.3, except:
• Use BCF data for all aquatic organisms, not just for aquatic human food chain organisms. • Use the BCF data that corresponds to the type of water body (that is, fresh water or salt water) in which the sensitive environments (not fisheries) are located [emphasis added].
As quoted earlier in this section of this support document, HRS Section 4.1.3.2.1.3 states that when using BCF data to assign this value, for brackish water to use the higher of the freshwater and saltwater values.
Page 50 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, section 4.1.4.2.1 (environmental threat), presents the ecosystem toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation potential factor values for each of the hazardous substances found in the observed release in the Creek sediments. As instructed in HRS Sections 4.1.4.2.1.1 and 4.1.4.2.1.3, excerpted above, the ecosystem toxicity and bioaccumulation potential values are also assigned according to the HRS, and the assigned values in the table are based on whether the water body contains fresh, brackish or salt water. The following footnote from the table explains why the selected ecosystem toxicity and bioaccumulation potential factor values are used:
NYCDEP has reported salinity measurements ranging from 18.5 to 22.8 parts per thousand (ppt) for Newtown Creek in the vicinity of Kosciuszko Bridge, which carries the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, making it brackish water [Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 52, p. 112]. The HRS (Section 4.1.4.2.1.1) states that if any sensitive environments being evaluated are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and marine water toxicity factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1, p. 51621]. Therefore, the higher Ecosystem Toxicity Factor Value for each hazardous substance is used for Newtown Creek. Similarly, the HRS (Section 4.1.4.2.1.3) states
63 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
that if any sensitive environments being evaluated are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and salt water bioaccumulation potential factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1, pp. 51617, 51622]. Therefore, the higher Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value for each hazardous substance is used for Newtown Creek.
Thus, since Newtown Creek is a brackish water body, the ecosystem toxicity and bioaccumulation potential factor values for each substance were assigned the highest of the freshwater and saltwater values in accordance with the provisions of HRS Sections 2.4.1.1, 4.1.4.2.1.3, and 4.1.4.2.1.1. The bioaccumulation potential factor values used in determining the threat score (the highest of all the combined values, see HRS Section 4.1.4.2.1.4) were all selected using BCF data.
This comment has no effect on the HRS score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
3.17.2 Bioavailability
Comment: ENVIRON questioned whether the hazardous substances in the sediments are bioavailable to cause toxicity. Similarly, ELM commented that the chemical processes in the Creek should be considered to assess bioavailability.
ENVIRON asserted that bioavailability could not be adequately assessed based solely on sediment contaminant data. ELM commented that the chemical processes in the Creek are essential in determining the bioavailability and thus the potential risk or lack thereof to a potentially affected target, and should be considered by EPA as part of the NPL listing process. GLA stated that the older sediments are buried by new material sequestering the highest contaminant concentrations below the biologically active zone. GLA added that the high organic content and very low oxygen conditions in the sediment significantly decrease bioavailability of contaminants to aquatic organisms, thereby lowering risk to this population.
ENVIRON also made the following comments:
USEPA (2003) derived a more complex target lipid model (TLM) to evaluate risks of PAHs to aquatic organisms. Because this method is based on the concentration of a chemical within an organism, it inherently accounts for sediment ingestion and all other possible exposure pathways. . . . In the TLM, the organic carbon-normalized PAH concentration in site sediments is divided by the USEPA (2003) calculated organic carbon-normalized NOECs for PAHs, and the individual values (i.e., hazard quotients, HQs) added together. When the sum of the individual HQs is less than 1, it can be concluded that there is no risk to aquatic organisms. Based on the data reported in the HRS documentation, the highest sum of TLM NOECs in surface sediments is 0.3 at location 35A (see Table 1). Although a value of 13 is found in subsurface sediment at location 13B, these samples were collected at 3.5 to 6 feet below the sediment-water interface, while organisms are normally considered to be present in the top 6 inches below the sediment-water interface. Because the subsurface sediments were collected well below the bioactive zone there is no exposure pathway to aquatic organisms and, therefore, the concentrations reported for location 13B do not represent a significant risk.
Response: The HRS does not consider the bioavailability of hazardous substances in an HRS evaluation.
These comments have no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place this site on the NPL.
64 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
3.18 Targets
HydroQual, ENVIRON, ELM, and a public commenter commented on the human food chain threat targets and sensitive environments targets evaluated in the HRS documentation record at proposal. The following subsections address specific comments relating to targets scoring in the HRS evaluation:
• 3.18.1 Human Food Chain Fishery • 3.18.2 Fishery in Mouth of Newtown Creek • 3.18.3 Scoring of Migratory Fish • 3.18.4 Resources • 3.18.5 Sensitive Environment • 3.18.6 Potential Environmental Targets
3.18.1 Human Food Chain Fishery
Comment: HydroQual asserted that although it considered the final HRS target value appropriate, the protectiveness of the New York State health advisory is not a part of the evaluation of the fishery.
Response: The human food chain threat of the Newtown Creek fishery was properly established according to the HRS. Specifically, HRS Section 4.1.3.3 states:
Evaluate two target factors for each watershed: food chain individual and population. For both factors, determine whether the target fisheries are subject to actual or potential human food chain contamination.
Consider a fishery (or portion of a fishery) within the target distance limit of the watershed to be subject to actual human food chain contamination if any of the following apply:
• A hazardous substance having a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater is present either in an observed release by direct observation to the watershed or in a surface water or sediment sample from the watershed at a level that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed from the site, and at least a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the observed release (that is, it is located either at the point of direct observation or at or between the probable point of entry and the most distant sampling point establishing the observed release).
Page 46 of the HRS documentation record at proposal under the title, Human Food Chain Threat – Targets, documents that this requirement was met, stating:
Blue-claw crabs, bluefish, weakfish, striped bass, and other species inhabit the creek, and fishing and crabbing for human consumption occurs [Ref. 7, pp. 2, 5; 8, p. 11; 21, p. 13; 22, pp. 1-2; 24, p. 143; 52, p. 93; 68, p. 3; 69, p. 1]. Subsistence fishing has been observed in Newtown Creek at Dutch Kills, and crabbing for consumption has been observed at the end of Manhattan Avenue in Brooklyn [Ref. 7, p. 5; 21, p. 13; 22, pp. 1-2; 68, p. 3; 69, p. 1]. These locations are both within the zone of contamination for the Newtown Creek site [Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record]. Therefore, Actual Contamination is documented, and the target fishery is evaluated for Actual Human Food Chain Contamination. There are no media-specific benchmarks for sediment, so the
65 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
target fishery is subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51620- 51621].
This page of the HRS documentation record at proposal goes on to list 31 hazardous substances that meet the observed release criteria and have a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater, any of which would have been sufficient to establish actual contamination within the fishery. In addition, the act of fishing for human consumption was documented within the area encompassed by the samples containing these substances, thereby establishing the threat to the fishery in accordance with HRS Section 4.1.3.3. Thus, the site-specific information used in obtaining the HRS score for the human food chain threat of the surface water migration pathway, and for the overall site score, is consistent with the requirements of the HRS.
Regarding HydroQual’s assertion that the “protectiveness” of the New York state health advisory is not included in the fishery evaluation, there is no provision in the HRS to consider the possible reduction in risk that might be caused by a fish advisory in an HRS evaluation.
Within the HRS sections directing the scoring of the human food chain threat (Sections 4.1.3.1, 4.1.3.2, and 4.1.3.3), there is only one provision for considering any kind of fish advisory, and it is for a closure of a fishery (i.e., ban on any consumption), not simply an advisory to limit consumption. This is in HRS Section 4.1.3.3, which states, in part:
Consider a fishery (or portion of a fishery) within the target distance limit of the watershed to be subject to actual human food chain contamination if any of the following apply:
. . .
The fishery is closed, and a hazardous substance for which the fishery has been closed has been documented in an observed release to the watershed from the site, and at least a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the observed release.
Under this provision, if a fish closure advisory has been issued which states that a specified area is closed to fishing (i.e., that no fishing for consumption is to take place there) and the other conditions stated above apply, the fishery is scored as if it were an active fishery that was contaminated due to the site (i.e., subject to actual contamination). Thus, the fish closure advisory acts to include the fishery in the HRS score, not to exclude it.
Additionally, section 3.11, Challenge to HRS, of this support document, details that the site-specific risk assessment will be performed as part of the Superfund process that occurs in a separate stage of the Superfund process. At that time, the information regarding site-specific risk will be considered.
This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
3.18.2 Fishery in Mouth of Newtown Creek
Comment: ENVIRON asserted that potential access points for subsistence fishing are located upstream from the lower portions of the Creek and that “[s]ince PCBs were not detected in surface sediments, there is no Human Food Chain Threat associated with surficial sediments sampled near the mouth of Newtown Creek.”
66 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Response: The HRS evaluation of the human food chain threat, including the presence of at least a part of a human food chain fishery as actually contaminated, does not depend on the presence of a fishery associated with sediments in the mouth of Newtown Creek.
As detailed in section 3.18.1, Human Food Chain Fishery, of this support document, consistent with HRS Section 4.1.3.3, site-specific information was used in establishing that there is at least part of a human food chain fishery that is considered to be actually contaminated in Newtown Creek. HRS Section 4.1.3.3 in part states to score a fishery as present at a site as follows:
Consider a fishery (or portion of a fishery) within the target distance limit of the watershed to be subject to actual human food chain contamination if any of the following apply:
• A hazardous substance having a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater is present either in an observed release by direct observation to the watershed or in a surface water or sediment sample from the watershed at a level that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed from the site, and at least a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the observed release (that is, it is located either at the point of direct observation or at or between the probable point of entry and the most distant sampling point establishing the observed release).
. . .
The HRS does not require that the fishery be documented coextensive with the zone of contamination at the site.
Section 4.1.3.3, Human Food Chain Threat – Targets, of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:
Subsistence fishing has been observed in Newtown Creek at Dutch Kills, and crabbing for consumption has been observed at the end of Manhattan Avenue in Brooklyn [Ref. 7, p. 5; 21, p. 13; 22, pp. 1-2; 68, p. 3; 69, p. 1]. These locations are both within the zone of contamination for the Newtown Creek site [Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record]. Therefore, Actual Contamination is documented, and the target fishery is evaluated for Actual Human Food Chain Contamination. There are no media-specific benchmarks for sediment, so the target fishery is subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592- 51593, 51620-51621].
As discussed in section 3.16.8, Contamination in Mouth of Creek, of this support document, contamination from the mouth to the rest of the Creek is contiguous, meaning that the boundary of the observed release is documented as extending from the mouth to the upper reaches of the Creek. Subsistence fishing at a particular portion of the Creek within the boundary of the observed release (i.e., the zone of contamination) was documented as cited above. As stated in HRS Section 4.1.3.3, the boundary of the observed release extends from the probable point of entry to the most distant sampling point establishing an observed release. As discussed in section 3.13 and 3.16 of this support document, the entire contaminated sediment source was defined by those samples that meet the observed release criteria, including several samples in the mouth of the Creek.
Regarding the statement that PCBs were not found in surface sediments in the mouth of the Creek, as stated above, the presence of an actually contaminated fishery for this site is based on HRS Section 4.1.3.3, which directs the scorer to establish an actually contaminated fishery if:
67 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
A hazardous substance having a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater is present either in an observed release by direct observation to the watershed or in a surface water or sediment sample from the watershed at a level that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed from the site . . .
Thus, in evaluating whether a fishery is subject to actual contamination, there is no restriction that the observed release be established in surface sediments. In addition, the presence of an actually contaminated fishery at this site is established not only by the presence of PCB contamination. Observed releases of several other hazardous substances with bioaccumulation potential factor values of 500 or greater, were used for this purpose; including benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, pyrene, and other substances used to assign the human food chain threat score (see pages 50 and 51 of the HRS documentation record at proposal), all of which were also found in observed release samples from the mouth of the Creek (see section 3.16.8, Contamination in Mouth of Creek, of this support document). Therefore, the absence of PCB contamination in surface samples in the mouth of the Creek did not limit the identification of an actually contaminated fishery.
This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
3.18.3 Scoring of Migratory Fish
Comment: ELM asserted that EPA disregarded the findings of fish population studies in the Upper New York Bay that “conclude that the fish population is composed primarily of migratory fish, which likely do not spend a significant portion of their lives in the Creek.”
Response: In accordance with the provisions of the HRS, the migration characteristics of various fish within the scored fishery were not considered in the HRS evaluation of the fishery as a Level II fishery.
HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat-targets, is the only section within the HRS that refers to the length of time an organism spends within a Level I or Level II fishery. This section discusses the methodology for determining the level of actual contamination from samples, including tissue samples from essentially sessile, benthic organisms, as well as other specified aquatic organisms that meet the criteria for actual food chain contamination. When using tissue samples to determine if a fishery is Level I or Level II, this HRS section states in relevant part:
Use only those additional tissue samples and only those hazardous substances in the tissue samples that meet all the following criteria:
….
The tissue sample is from a species of aquatic human food chain organism that spends extended periods of time within the boundaries of the actual food chain contamination for the site and that is not an essentially sessile, benthic organism.
On page 46, the HRS documentation record at proposal identifies the fishery in the Creek as a Level II fishery, stating:
Blue-claw crabs, bluefish, weakfish, striped bass, and other species inhabit the creek, and fishing and crabbing for human consumption occurs [Ref. 7, pp. 2, 5; 8, p. 11; 21, p. 13; 22, pp. 1-2; 24, p. 143; 52, p. 93; 68, p. 3; 69, p. 1]. Subsistence fishing has been observed in Newtown Creek at Dutch Kills, and crabbing for consumption has been
68 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
observed at the end of Manhattan Avenue in Brooklyn [Ref. 7, p. 5; 21, p. 13; 22, pp. 1-2; 68, p. 3; 69, p. 1]. These locations are both within the zone of contamination for the Newtown Creek site [Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record]. Therefore, Actual Contamination is documented, and the target fishery is evaluated for Actual Human Food Chain Contamination. There are no media-specific benchmarks for sediment, so the target fishery is subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51620- 51621].
As discussed in section 3.18.1, Human Food Chain Fishery, of this support document, the above section of the HRS documentation record at proposal goes on to present documentation of the Level II contamination in the fishery, using sediment samples containing hazardous substances with a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or more throughout the contaminated sediment source and the Creek.
Thus, as sediment samples were used in the determination of the level of actual contamination for the scored Level II fishery, and not tissue samples, the migratory nature of the fish within the fishery was not a point of consideration in the scoring of the human food chain fishery.
This comment has no effect on the site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
3.18.4 Resources
Comment: Tom Brooklyn, in support of the listing, commented on how the contamination in the Creek “is also adversely affecting the recreational quality of waters not only in the immediate area, but all over NYC waters . . .”
Response: The HRS considers recreational use in a site evaluation when scoring the resources factor, however this factor was not included in the HRS evaluation (See HRS Section 4.1.2.3.3, Resources).
This comment has no effect on the site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
3.18.5 Sensitive Environment
Comment: HydroQual expressed that “[g]iven that the Newtown Creek is designated by the State of New York as a Class SD water body suitable for fish survival, a Sensitive Environments Rated Factor of 5 for ‘state designated areas for protection or maintenance of aquatic life’ is more appropriate for Newtown Creek, than the 100 EPA assigned.” HydroQual suggested that a site-specific, rather than a Harbor-wide, sensitive environments factor is more appropriate for Newtown Creek. According to HydroQual, the Newtown Creek 2007 Waterbody/Watershed Facility Plan concludes the following:
• There are no outstanding national resource waters, national marine sanctuaries, public drinking water intakes or their designated protection areas, or shellfish beds within the Newtown Creek waterbody or the East River. • The Newtown Creek, its tributaries and branches, are not designated by the State of New York for recreational uses. There are no primary contact recreation waters such as bathing beaches in the waterbody.
GLA commented that it is unrealistic to evaluate Newtown Creek as a sensitive environment that has a potential to be restored to pre-development conditions. It added that the conditions of the Creek, a stagnant system within which freshwater tributaries have been eliminated, will undoubtedly remain for the foreseeable future.
69 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
Response: The sensitive environment value of a Level II sensitive environment for sensitive areas identified under the National Estuary Program has been appropriately assigned in accordance with the HRS. HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1, Sensitive environments, instructs the scorer to:
Evaluate sensitive environments along the hazardous substance migration path for the watershed based on three factors: Level I concentrations, Level II concentrations, and potential contamination.
HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target distance limit, directs that for sites consisting solely of contaminated sediments with no identified source, the target distance limit is defined as follows:
If there is no clearly defined direction of flow, begin measuring the target distance limit at the center of the area of observed sediment contamination. Extend the target distance limit as an arc either for 15 miles along the surface water or to the most distant sample point that meets the criteria for an observed release to that watershed, whichever is greater. Determine the area of observed sediment contamination based on available samples that meet the criteria for an observed release. [emphasis added]
HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations, states “[a]ssign value(s) from Table 4–23 to each sensitive environment subject to Level II concentrations. Do not include sensitive environments already counted for Table 4–23 under the Level I concentrations factor for this watershed.”
HRS Table 4-23, Sensitive Environments Rating Values, contains the following listed sensitive environment and notes that it receives an assigned value of 100: “Sensitive areas identified under National Estuary Program or Near Coastal Waters Program.”
Page 37 of the HRS documentation record at proposal documents that:
Newtown Creek is a tidal arm of the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary that forms the northwestern-most border between the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens [Figures 1 and 2 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 4, p. 1; 6, p. 1; 7, p. 3; 8, pp. 9-10; 9, p. 3; 10, pp. 6-7]. It is tributary to the East River and includes five branches along its 3.5- to 4.3-mile reach: (from east to west) English Kills, East Branch, Maspeth Creek, Whale Creek, and Dutch Kills [Ref. 4, p. 1; 6, p. 1; 7, p. 5; 8, p. 10; 9, p. 3; 11, p. 11; 12, pp. 52-53].
Page 53 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states :
Newtown Creek is part of the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary, which is a sensitive area identified under the National Estuary Program [Ref. 10, pp. 1-10]. Therefore, Actual Contamination is documented, and the target sensitive environment is evaluated for Actual Contamination. There are no media-specific benchmarks for sediment, so the target sensitive environment is subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592- 51593, 51624-51625].
Reference 10 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the official EPA Web site for the National Estuary Program, clearly identifies the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary as part of the National Estuary Program. The Web site also describes the East River as part of the core area of the New York- New Jersey Harbor Estuary, and in its description of that Estuary specifically states that it includes “the
70 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
tidally influenced portions of all rivers and streams that empty into the [New York] Harbor.” Thus, because Newtown Creek empties into the East River, it is clearly part of the designated area.
Regarding HydroQual’s comment that, since the Creek is designated by the State as a Class SD water body suitable for fish survival, it would qualify as a 'state designated area for protection or maintenance of aquatic life,' while this would warrant an additional sensitive environment assigned value of 5 as directed by Table 4-23 of the HRS, this does not negate or preclude the National Estuary Program designation or the corresponding assigned value of 100.
In reference to GLA's comment regarding the potential to restore Newtown Creek to pre-development conditions, this is a consideration that is typically addressed during the remediation stages and as such, is not part of the HRS scoring or NPL listing process.
This comment has no effect on the HRS score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
3.18.6 Potential Environmental Targets
Comment: HydroQual stated that EPA’s HRS training materials indicate that potential contamination is established if no portion of the sensitive environment falls within an area that meets the criteria for an observed release. It added that the waters of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary cannot be established as subject to potential contamination for a sensitive environment because the Estuary already meets the criteria for an observed release since “there are a number of Superfund sites within the NY/ NJ Harbor Estuary.”
Response: EPA did not score a sensitive environment subject to potential contamination within the environmental threat for the surface water migration pathway at this site. The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary was evaluated as a sensitive environment subject to actual Level II contamination.
However, despite the existence of contaminants originating at other nearby Superfund sites, a sensitive environment subject to potential contamination could have been scored at this site if the sensitive environment was not subject to actual Level I or Level II contamination.
HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target distance limit, directs the user to create a target distance limit (TDL):
The target distance limit defines the maximum distance over which targets are considered in evaluating the site. Determine a separate target distance limit for each watershed as follows:
• If there is no observed release to surface water in the watershed or if there is an observed release only by direct observation (see section 4.1.2.1.1), begin measuring the target distance limit for the watershed at the probable point of entry to surface water and extend it for 15 miles along the surface water from that point.
• If there is an observed release from the site to the surface water in the watershed that is based on sampling, begin measuring the target distance limit for the watershed at the probable point of entry; extend the target distance limit either for 15 miles along the surface water or to the most distant sample point that meets the criteria for an observed release to that watershed, whichever is greater.
. . .
71 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
For sites consisting solely of contaminated sediments with no identified source, determine the target distance limit as follows:
. . .
If there is no clearly defined direction of flow, begin measuring the target distance limit at the center of the area of observed sediment contamination. Extend the target distance limit as an arc either for 15 miles along the surface water or to the most distant sample point that meets the criteria for an observed release to that watershed, whichever is greater. Determine the area of observed sediment contamination based on available samples that meet the criteria for an observed release.
This same section then describes the evaluation of targets:
For these contaminated sediment sites, include only those targets (for example, intakes, fisheries, sensitive environments) that are within or contiguous to the hazardous substance migration path and located, wholly or partially, within the target distance limit for the site. Determine whether these targets are subject to actual or potential contamination as follows:
• If a target is located, partially or wholly, within the area of observed sediment contamination, evaluate it as subject to actual contamination, except as otherwise specified for fisheries in section 4.1.3.3 and wetlands in section 4.1.4.3.1.1. - If a drinking water target is subject to actual contamination, evaluate it using Level II concentrations. If a human food chain target or environmental target is subject to actual contamination, evaluate it using Level I or Level II concentrations, as appropriate (see sections 4.1.3.3 and 4.1.4.3.1).
• If a target is located, partially or wholly, within the target distance limit for the watershed, but not within the area of observed sediment contamination, evaluate it as subject to potential contamination.
HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1, Sensitive environments, directs the scorer to:
[e]valuate sensitive environments along the hazardous substance migration path for the watershed based on three factors: Level I concentrations, Level II concentrations, and potential contamination.
Determine which factor applies to each sensitive environment as specified in section 4.1.2.3, except: use ecological-based benchmarks (Table 4–22) rather than health-based benchmarks (Table 3–10) in determining the level of contamination from samples. In determining the level of actual contamination, use a point of direct observation anywhere within the sensitive environment or samples (that is, surface water, benthic, or sediment samples) taken anywhere within or beyond the sensitive environment (or anywhere adjacent to or beyond the sensitive environment if it is contiguous to the migration path).
HRS Section 4.1.2.3, Drinking water threat targets, states:
. . . If the actual contamination is based on an observed release by direct observation, use Level II concentrations for that intake. However, if the actual contamination is based on
72 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
an observed release from samples, determine which level applies for the intake by comparing the exposure concentrations from samples (or comparable samples) to health- based benchmarks as specified in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. Use the health-based benchmarks from table 3–10 (section 3.3.1) in determining the level of contamination from samples. For contaminated sediments with no identified source, evaluate the actual contamination using Level II concentrations.
HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.1, Level I concentrations, then instructs the scorer to “[a]ssign value(s) from Table 4–23 to each sensitive environment subject to Level I concentrations.” HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations, instructs the scorer to “[a]ssign value(s) from Table 4–23 to each sensitive environment subject to Level II concentrations. Do not include sensitive environments already counted for Table 4–23 under the Level I concentrations factor for this watershed.” HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.3, Potential contamination, directs the scorer to “[a]ssign value(s) from Table 4–23 to each sensitive environment subject to potential contamination. Do not include sensitive environments already counted for Table 4–23 under the Level I or Level II concentrations factors.”
The HRS has no requirement to consider whether a sensitive environment is subject to contamination from a Superfund site other than the site being evaluated. The HRS scores a sensitive environment based on the highest level of contamination to which the sensitive environment is subject. Had the New York- New Jersey Harbor Estuary not already been subject to Level II contamination attributed to the Newtown Creek site, the Estuary’s partial presence within the TDL would have made it eligible for evaluation as a sensitive environment subject to potential contamination from the site.
If EPA were to exclude a target from evaluation for one site based on the fact that it was also subject to contamination migrating from a second site, this would amount to neglect of the actual or potential contaminant exposure the target may receive from the first site.
This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
3.19 HRS Site Rescoring
Comment: HydroQual argued that a site score of less than 28.50 could be established on the basis of sensitive environment and hazardous waste quantity factor considerations only.
Regarding assertions related to the rescoring presented in Table 1 of HydroQual’s comments, it argued that using all of the other factors assigned by EPA with the exception of the site-specific sensitive area factor and hazardous waste quantity factor, the HRS could be as low as 16.7, as compared with the site score of 50 as presented in the HRS documentation record at proposal.
Response: As established in sections 3.15, 3.16, and 3.17 of this support document, the HRS score and supporting factors of the likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets factors were properly considered according to the HRS. Therefore, rescoring them with the commenter’s suggested values is not appropriate.
This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.
73 Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010
4. Conclusion
The original HRS score of this site was 50.00. Based on the above response to comments, the score remains unchanged. The final scores for the Newtown Creek site are:
Ground Water Not Scored Surface Water 100.00 Soil Exposure Not Scored Air Not Scored HRS Site Score 50.00
74
Attachment 1
Alternate Evaluation Tables Table A Alternate Evaluation Background Concentrations Surface Samples (0'-2') - February 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
Background Concentrations SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD107A NC-SD108A NC-SD109A NC-SD110A NC-SD111A NC-SD112A Maximum Direction EPA Sample No. (M)B5E77 (M)B5E79 (M)B5E81 (M)B5E83 (M)B5E85 (M)B5E87 Background of Bias Date: 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 Depth (ft) 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 Comments Reference(s) 23, p. 26; 24, p. 23, p. 26; 24, p. 24, p. 78; 25, pp. 23, p. 26; 24, p. 23, p. 27; 24, p. 23, p. 27; 24, p. 76; 25, pp. 67, 72 75; 25, pp. 67, 67, 72 77; 25, pp. 67, 80; 25, pp. 67, 79; 25, pp. 67, Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Arsenic 12.3 J 3.2 12.3 J No Bias Cadmium 1.6 UJ 1.6 1.5 UJ 1.5 1.5 UJ 1.5 1.6 UJ 1.6 1.6 UJ 1.6 1.6 UJ 1.6 1.6 UJ No Bias Chromium 71.9 J 3.1 68.4 J 3.0 67 J 3.1 75 J 3.2 67.6 J 3.3 67.8 J 3.2 75 J No Bias Copper 98.4 J 8.0 98.4 J No Bias Lead 112 J 3.1 103 J 3.0 104 J 3.1 110 J 3.2 102 J 3.3 112 J No Bias Nickel 27.9 J 12.4 28.8 J 12.1 26 J 12.3 29.8 J 12.6 28.4 J 13.1 28.8 J 12.8 29.8 J No Bias Silver 2.4 J 3.2 2.4 J No Bias Zinc 217 J 18.6 216 J 18.1 205 J 18.5 231 J 18.9 210 J 19.7 217 J 19.2 231 J No Bias Reference(s) 29, pp. 46, 60-63, 29, pp. 47, 60- 29, pp. 48, 60- 29, pp. 49, 60- 29, pp. 50, 60- 29, pp. 23, 60- 92-93 63, 93 63, 93-94 63, 94 63, 94-95 62, 79 VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Chlorobenzene 25 UJ 25 24 U 24 22 U 22 24 U 24 25 U 25 24 U 24 25 U Isopropylbenzene 25 UJ 25 24 U 24 22 U 22 24 U 24 25 U 25 24 U 24 25 U Reference(s) 35, pp. 17, 22, 95, 35, pp. 17, 96, 35, pp. 17, 97, 35, pp. 17, 98, 35, pp. 17, 99, 35, pp. 17, 100, 208-209 210-211 211-212 213-214 214-215 216-217 SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acenaphthene 520 U 520 550 U 550 550 U 550 560 U 560 540 U 540 560 U No Bias Fluorene 520 U 520 550 U 550 550 U 550 560 U 560 540 U 540 560 U No Bias Phenanthrene 25 J 520 24 J 550 19 J 550 20 J 560 23 J 540 560 U No Bias Anthracene 520 U 520 550 U 550 550 U 550 560 U 560 540 U 540 560 U No Bias Fluoranthene 42 J 520 41 J 550 35 J 550 43 J 560 46 J 540 560 U No Bias Pyrene 49 J 520 45 J 550 34 J 550 44 J 560 48 J 540 560 U No Bias Butylbenzylphthalate 520 U 520 550 U 550 550 U 550 560 U 560 540 U 540 560 U No Bias Benzo(a)anthracene 33 J 520 30 J 550 27 J 550 30 J 560 35 J 540 560 U No Bias Chrysene 36 J 520 32 J 550 27 J 550 28 J 560 31 J 540 560 U No Bias Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 520 U 520 550 U 550 550 U 550 560 U 560 540 U 540 560 U No Bias Benzo(b)fluoranthene 36 J 520 35 J 550 32 J 550 35 J 560 42 J 540 560 U No Bias Benzo(a)pyrene 36 J 520 31 J 550 29 J 550 29 J 560 34 J 540 560 U No Bias Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 29 J 520 28 J 550 27 J 550 27 J 560 27 J 540 560 U No Bias Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 31 J 520 27 J 550 24 J 550 24 J 560 28 J 540 560 U No Bias Reference(s) 35, pp. 23-25, 35, pp. 23-25, 35, pp. 23-25, 35, pp. 23-25, 35, pp. 23-25, 116-117, 234- 118-119, 236- 120-121, 238- 122-123, 240- 124-125, 242- PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Aroclor-1242 110 UJ 110 100 U 100 110 U 110 110 U 110 110 U 110 110 U 110 110 U Aroclor-1254 110 UJ 110 100 U 100 110 U 110 110 U 110 110 U 110 110 U 110 110 U Reference(s) 35, pp. 29-32, 35, pp. 29, 141, 35, pp. 29, 142, 35, pp. 29, 143, 35, pp. 29, 144, 35, pp. 29, 145, 140, 248 248 248 249 249 249
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit U - not detected SQL - Sample quantitation limit J - qualified data mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram Table B Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Surface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
Observed Release Concentrations SAT2 Sample No. Background Level NC-SD01A NC-SD03A NC-SD21A NC-SD22A NC-SD23A NC-SD24A EPA Sample No. (M)B5DJ5 (M)B5DJ9 (M)B5DN5 (M)B5DN7 (M)B5DN9 (M)B5DP1 Date: 2/11/2009 2/11/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 Depth (ft) 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 Comments MS/MSD MS/MSD Reference(s) 23, pp. 8-9; 24, p. 2; 25, 23, p. 9; 24, p. 3; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 23; 25, 23, p. 18; 24, p. 22; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 26; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 27; 25, pp. 25-26 pp. 25-26 pp. 40, 47 pp. 40, 49 pp. 40, 47 pp. 40, 47 Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Arsenic 12.3 Cadmium 1.6 U 3.5 1.3 6.1 1.4 3.5 1.5 4.4 1.4 Chromium 75 Copper 129.3 J Lead 149.8 J Nickel 29.8 Silver 4.5 J Zinc 231 Reference(s) 28, pp. 10, 55-57, 63 28, pp. 11, 55-57, 66 28, pp. 12, 55-57, 66 28, pp. 13, 55-57, 67
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Chlorobenzene 25 U Isopropylbenzene 25 U Reference(s)
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acenaphthene 560 U Fluorene 560 U Phenanthrene 560 U 600 440 1,200 420 Anthracene 560 U 780 440 Fluoranthene 560 U 1,100 440 1,300 420 1,300 480 Pyrene 560 U 1,400 480 Butylbenzylphthalate 560 U 670 480 Benzo(a)anthracene 560 U 730 440 630 420 820 480 Chrysene 560 U 680 440 650 420 740 480 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 560 U 640 440 4,200 480 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 560 U 710 440 760 420 1,100 480 Benzo(a)pyrene 560 U 690 440 630 420 820 480 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 560 U 670 480 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 560 U 710 480 Reference(s) 30, pp. 25-26, 61 30, pp. 33-34, 68-69 33, pp. 90-91, 265
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Aroclor-1242 110 U Aroclor-1254 110 U Reference(s)
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table B Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Surface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD25A NC-SD26A NC-SD27A NC-SD28A NC-SD29A NC-SD30A NC-SD31A EPA Sample No. (M)B5DP3 (M)B5DP5 (M)B5DP7 (M)B5DP9 (M)B5DQ1 (M)B5DQ3 (M)B5DQ5 Date: 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 Depth (ft) 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 Comments Reference(s) 23, p. 19; 24, p. 28; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 29; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 30; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 31; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 33; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 32; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 34; 25, pp. 41, 47 pp. 41, 47 pp. 41, 47 pp. 41, 48 pp. 41, 48 pp. 41, 48 pp. 41, 48 Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Arsenic Cadmium 36.8 1.3 2.0 0.9416196 4.2 1.4 5.0 1.4 4.1 1.5 6.2 1.4 4.8 1.6 Chromium 395 2.6 Copper 1,280 6.6 Lead Nickel 348 10.5 Silver Zinc 2,170 15.8 Reference(s) 28, pp. 14, 55-57, 68 28, pp. 15, 55-57, 68 28, pp. 16, 55-57, 69 28, pp. 17, 55-57, 69-70 28, pp. 18, 55-57, 70 28, pp. 19, 55-57, 71 28, pp. 20, 55-57, 71
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene Reference(s)
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene 640 460 Pyrene 720 460 Butylbenzylphthalate Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 3,400 460 1,100 460 Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Reference(s) 33, pp. 96, 271 33, pp. 19, 193
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s)
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table B Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Surface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD32A NC-SD33A NC-SD34A NC-SD35A NC-SD36A NC-SD37A NC-SD38A EPA Sample No. (M)B5DQ7 (M)B5DQ9 (M)B5DR1 (M)B5DR3 (M)B5DR5 (M)B5DR7 (M)B5DR9 Date: 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 Depth (ft) 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 Comments Reference(s) 23, p. 19; 24, p. 35; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 36; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 37; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 39; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 38; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 40; 25, 23, p. 20; 24, p. 41; 25, pp. 41, 48 pp. 41, 48 pp. 41, 48 pp. 41, 50 pp. 43, 48 pp. 43, 50 pp. 43, 50 Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Arsenic Cadmium 5.8 1.6 5.4 1.6 5.2 1.6 17.0 1.6 8.2 1.8 9.0 1.7 Chromium Copper 520 3.5 1,010 8.0 667 9.1 709 8.4 Lead Nickel 140 5.6 173 12.9 Silver Zinc Reference(s) 28, pp. 21, 55-57, 72 28, pp. 22, 55-57, 73 28, pp. 36, 55-57, 74 28, pp. 37, 55-57, 74-75 28, pp. 38, 55-57, 75 28, pp. 39, 55-57, 76 28, pp. 40, 55-57, 76
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene Reference(s)
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene 980 300 Anthracene 820 300 Fluoranthene 3,200 300 Pyrene 2,900 300 Butylbenzylphthalate Benzo(a)anthracene 1,800 300 Chrysene 1,600 300 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 950 550 600 560 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1,100 300 Benzo(a)pyrene 1,000 300 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Reference(s) 33, pp. 102-103, 276- 33, pp. 33, 206 33, pp. 106, 280 277
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s)
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table B Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Surface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD39A NC-SD40A NC-SD41A NC-SD42A NC-SD43A NC-SD44A NC-SD45A EPA Sample No. (M)B5DS1 (M)B5DS3 (M)B5DS5 (M)B5DS7 (M)B5DS9 (M)B5DT1 (M)B5DT3 Date: 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 Depth (ft) 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 Comments MS/MSD Reference(s) 23, p. 21; 24, p. 42; 25, 23, p. 21; 24, p. 43; 25, 23, p. 21; 24, p. 44; 25, 23, p. 21; 24, p. 45; 25, 23, p. 21; 24, p. 46; 25, 23, p. 21; 24, p. 47; 25, 23, p. 21; 24, p. 48; 25, pp. 55, 64 pp. 55, 64 pp. 55, 64 pp. 55, 64 pp. 55, 64 pp. 55, 64 pp. 56, 64 Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Arsenic Cadmium 8.3 1.6 32.3 1.7 7.5 1.6 5.4 1.9 6.5 1.6 7.0 1.7 9.0 1.5 Chromium 375 3.4 Copper 753 8.1 2,160 8.4 769 7.8 643 9.4 802 7.9 1,060 8.5 1,070 7.7 Lead Nickel 290 13.5 Silver Zinc 2,140 20.2 Reference(s) 29, pp. 3, 60-62, 64 29, pp. 4, 60-62, 64-65 29, pp. 5, 60-62, 65 29, pp. 6, 60-62, 68 29, pp. 7, 60-62, 68 29, pp. 8, 60-62, 69 29, pp. 9, 60-62, 70
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene Reference(s)
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene 660 550 Anthracene Fluoranthene 1,000 550 Pyrene 1,000 550 Butylbenzylphthalate Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Reference(s) 34, pp. 83, 247
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s)
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table B Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Surface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD46A NC-SD47A NC-SD48A NC-SD49A NC-SD50A NC-SD51A NC-SD52A EPA Sample No. (M)B5DT5 (M)B5DT7 (M)B5DT9 (M)B5DW1 (M)B5DW3 (M)B5DW5 (M)B5DW7 Date: 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 Depth (ft) 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 Comments Reference(s) 23, p. 21; 24, p. 49; 25, 23, p. 21; 24, p. 50; 25, 23, p. 21; 24, p. 51; 25, 23, p. 22; 24, p. 53; 25, 23, p. 22; 24, p. 52; 25, 23, p. 22; 24, p. 55; 25, 23, p. 22; 24, p. 54; 25, pp. 56, 64 pp. 56, 64 pp. 56, 64 pp. 57, 64 pp. 56, 65 pp. 57, 65 pp. 58, 65 Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Arsenic 197 3.9 Cadmium 11.8 1.6 13.5 1.4 13.2 1.5 14.9 1.6 8.2 1.2 94.6 1.9 24.5 2.0 Chromium 848 3.9 Copper 1,670 8.1 1,730 7.2 1,850 7.6 1,840 7.9 1,360 5.8 11,000 9.7 2,700 10.0 Lead Nickel 184 11.6 197 12.2 181 12.6 1,420 15.5 287 15.9 Silver Zinc 6,530 23.3 2,020 23.9 Reference(s) 29, pp. 10, 60-62, 70 29, pp. 11, 60-62, 71 29, pp. 12, 60-62, 72 29, pp. 13, 60-62, 72 29, pp. 14, 60-62, 73 29, pp. 15, 60-62, 73-74 29, pp. 16, 60-62, 74-75
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Chlorobenzene 69 J 31 Isopropylbenzene Reference(s) 34, pp. 40-41, 150, 204- 205 SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene 760 500 Pyrene 680 500 Butylbenzylphthalate Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Reference(s) 34, pp. 95, 254
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s)
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table B Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Surface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD53A NC-SD54A NC-SD55A NC-SD56A NC-SD57A NC-SD93A NC-SD58A EPA Sample No. (M)B5DW9 (M)B5DX1 (M)B5DX3 (M)B5DX5 (M)B5DX7 (M)B5E49 (M)B5DX9 Date: 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/26/2009 Depth (ft) 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 Comments Dup. (SD57A) Reference(s) 23, p. 22; 24, p. 57; 25, 23, p. 22; 24, p. 56; 25, 23, p. 23; 24, p. 59; 25, 23, p. 22; 24, p. 58; 25, 23, p. 25; 24, p. 61; 25, 23, p. 25; 24, p. 61; 25, 23, p. 23; 24, p. 60; 25, pp. 58, 65 pp. 59, 65 pp. 59, 65 pp. 60, 65 pp. 65, 73 pp. 65, 67 pp. 60, 65 Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Arsenic 189 3.6 Cadmium 124 1.8 26.5 2.0 62.2 2.2 44.1 2.1 36.1 2.7 38.5 2.8 29.5 2.5 Chromium 1,000 3.6 616 4.3 448 4.3 393 5.6 Copper 12,100 8.9 2,660 9.8 5,310 10.8 4,170 10.6 2,530 13.7 2,680 14.1 2,480 12.3 Lead Nickel 1,420 14.2 328 15.7 695 17.2 514 17.0 361 22.0 378 22.6 328 19.6 Silver Zinc 7,340 21.4 2,530 23.5 4,440 25.9 3,370 25.5 2,850 33.0 2,990 33.9 2,430 29.4 Reference(s) 29, pp. 17, 60-62, 75 29, pp. 18, 60-62, 75-76 29, pp. 19, 60-62, 76-77 29, pp. 20, 60-62, 77 29, pp. 21, 60-62, 77-78 29, pp. 44, 60-63, 91 29, pp. 22, 60-62, 78-79
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene Reference(s)
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Butylbenzylphthalate Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Reference(s)
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s)
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table B Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Surface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD59A NC-SD60A NC-SD61A NC-SD62A NC-SD63A NC-SD64A NC-SD65A EPA Sample No. (M)B5DY1 (M)B5DY3 (M)B5DY5 (M)B5DY7 (M)B5DY9 (M)B5DZ1 (M)B5DZ3 Date: 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 Depth (ft) 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 Comments MS/MSD Reference(s) 23, p. 25; 24, p. 63; 25, 23, p. 25; 24, p. 62; 25, 23, p. 25; 24, p. 65; 25, 23, p. 25; 24, p. 64; 25, 23, p. 25; 24, p. 67; 25, 23, p. 25; 24, p. 66; 25, 23, p. 26; 24, p. 69; 25, pp. 65, 74 pp. 65, 74 pp. 66, 71 pp. 66, 75 pp. 66, 71 pp. 66, 71 pp. 66, 71 Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Arsenic Cadmium 36.5 2.5 40.0 2.3 17.0 2.5 4.3 0.7 11.4 2.2 21.8 1.0 43.4 2.4 Chromium 381 5.0 411 4.6 509 4.8 Copper Lead 737 4.6 838 5.0 870 4.8 Nickel 341 20.1 360 18.4 281 20.0 138 6.0 182 8.0 398 19.2 Silver Zinc 2,910 30.2 3,190 27.6 2,220 30.0 3,560 9.0 1,650 26.7 1,880 12.0 4,110 28.8 Reference(s) 29, pp. 31, 60-63, 81 29, pp. 32, 60-63, 81-82 29, pp. 33, 60-63, 82-83 29, pp. 34, 60-63, 85 29, pp. 35, 60-63, 85-86 29, pp. 36, 60-63, 86 29, pp. 37, 60-63, 86-87
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene 78 12 Reference(s) 35, pp. 38, 154 SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene 7,900 2,400 Pyrene 12,000 2,400 2,100 2,100 Butylbenzylphthalate Benzo(a)anthracene 3,900 2,400 Chrysene 3,600 2,400 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 16,000 2,400 11,000 2,100 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2,700 2,400 Benzo(a)pyrene 2,800 2,400 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Reference(s) 35, pp. 56-57, 176-177 35, pp. 108, 228
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s)
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table B Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Surface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD66A NC-SD67A NC-SD68A NC-SD69A NC-SD94A NC-SD70A NC-SD71A EPA Sample No. (M)B5DZ5 (M)B5DZ7 (M)B5DZ9 (M)B5E01 (M)B5E51 (M)B5E03 (M)B5E05 Date: 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 Depth (ft) 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 Comments Dup. (SD69A) Reference(s) 23, p. 25; 24, p. 68; 25, 23, p. 26; 24, p. 70; 25, 23, p. 26; 24, p. 71; 25, 23, p. 26; 24, p. 72; 25, 23, p. 26; 24, p. 72; 25, 23, p. 26; 24, p. 73; 25, 23, p. 26; 24, p. 74; 25, pp. 66, 71 pp. 66, 76 pp. 66, 76 pp. 66, 77 pp. 66, 77 pp. 66, 78 pp. 66, 78 Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Arsenic Cadmium 6.2 J 1.9 42.9 1.5 60.0 1.5 41.7 1.9 56.0 1.9 140 1.6 457 1.6 Chromium 461 3.1 526 3.0 406 3.9 500 3.8 982 3.2 2,140 3.3 Copper Lead 759 3.0 910 3.9 973 3.8 1,440 3.2 2,080 3.3 Nickel 361 12.3 428 12.1 357 15.6 429 15.3 709 12.8 1,790 13.1 Silver Zinc 1,700 22.6 3,450 18.4 3,940 18.2 2,930 23.3 3,490 22.9 5,900 19.2 9,210 19.6 Reference(s) 29, pp. 38, 60-63, 87-88 29, pp. 39, 60-63, 88 29, pp. 40, 60-63, 88-89 29, pp. 41, 60-63, 89 29, pp. 45, 60-63, 91-92 29, pp. 42, 60-63, 90 29, pp. 43, 60-63, 90-91
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene Reference(s)
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acenaphthene 1,700 1,400 Fluorene Phenanthrene 4,900 1,400 800 550 Anthracene 1,900 1,400 Fluoranthene 880 860 3,300 1,400 1,000 550 Pyrene 1,200 860 5,000 1,400 1,400 550 Butylbenzylphthalate Benzo(a)anthracene 2,000 1,400 Chrysene 1,800 1,400 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 6,000 860 9,000 1,400 54,000 7,900 8,200 550 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1,500 1,400 Benzo(a)pyrene 1,500 1,400 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Reference(s) 35, pp. 58, 178 35, pp. 60-61, 180 35, pp. 8, 11, 62, 181- 35, pp. 64, 184 35, pp.66, 186 182
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Aroclor-1242 2,300 110 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s) 35, pp. 15, 87, 196
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table B Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Surface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD74A NC-SD75A NC-SD76A EPA Sample No. (M)B5E11 (M)B5E13 (M)B5E15 Date: 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 Depth (ft) 0-2 0-2 0-2 Comments Reference(s) 23, p. 18; 24, p. 21; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 24; 25, 23, p. 19; 24, p. 25; 25, pp. 43, 49 pp. 43, 47 pp. 43, 47 Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Arsenic Cadmium 5.8 1.5 3.3 1.5 13.3 2.2 Chromium Copper 595 11.1 Lead Nickel Silver Zinc Reference(s) 28, pp. 41, 55-57, 77 28, pp. 42, 55-57, 77 28, pp. 43, 55-57, 78
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene Reference(s)
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Butylbenzylphthalate Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Reference(s)
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s)
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table C Alternate Evaluation Background Concentrations Subsurface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
Background Concentrations SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD107B NC-SD108B NC-SD109B NC-SD110B NC-SD111B NC-SD112B Maximum Direction EPA Sample No. (M)B5E78 (M)B5E80 (M)B5E82 (M)B5E84 (M)B5E86 (M)B5E88 Background of Bias Date: 3/10/2009 3/10/2009 3/10/2009 3/10/2009 3/10/2009 3/10/2009 Depth (feet) 4.0-6.0 4.0-5.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-5.5 Comments Reference(s) 23, p. 33; 24, p. 23, p. 33; 24, p. 23, p. 33; 24, p. 23, p. 33; 24, p. 23, p. 33; 24, p. 23, p. 33; 24, p. 81; 25, pp. 82-83 82; 25, pp. 82-83 83; 25, pp. 82-83 84; 25, pp. 82-83 85; 25, pp. 82-83 86; 25, pp. 82-83 Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Antimony 16.5 UJ 16.5 16.7 UJ 16.7 16.2 UJ 16.2 17.2 UJ 17.2 16 UJ 16.0 18.2 UJ 18.2 18.2 UJ No Bias Arsenic 14.4 J 2.8 14.1 J 2.8 14.2 J 2.7 13.1 J 2.9 15.3 J 2.7 13.6 J 3.0 15.3 J No Bias Cadmium 1.4 UJ 1.4 1.4 UJ 1.4 1.4 UJ 1.4 1.4 UJ 1.4 2.1 J 1.3 1.5 UJ 1.5 2.1 J No Bias Chromium 94.6 J 2.8 74.9 J 2.8 92.1 J 2.7 85 J 2.9 134 J 2.7 95.4 J 3.0 134 J No Bias Cobalt 12.8 J 13.8 13.3 J 13.9 12.7 J 13.5 11.9 J 14.3 12 J 13.3 11.9 J 15.2 13.3 J No Bias Nickel 37.2 J 11.0 34.9 J 11.1 41.4 J 10.8 34 J 11.5 38.6 J 10.7 41.5 J 12.1 41.5 J No Bias Selenium 9.6 UJ 9.6 9.7 UJ 9.7 9.5 UJ 9.5 10 UJ 10.0 9.3 UJ 9.3 10.6 UJ 10.6 10.6 UJ No Bias Reference(s) 36, pp. 2-5, 14-15 36, pp. 2-4, 8, 16- 36, pp. 2-4, 9, 17 36, pp. 2-4, 10, 17- 36, pp. 2-4, 11, 18- 36, pp. 2-4, 12, 19 17 18 19 VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetone 50 33 150 45 75 36 85 45 130 43 110 42 150 Chloroform 16 U 16 23 U 23 18 U 18 22 U 22 21 U 21 21 U 21 23 U Chlorobenzene 16 U 16 23 U 23 18 U 18 22 U 22 21 U 21 21 U 21 23 U Isopropylbenzene 16 U 16 23 U 23 18 U 18 22 U 22 21 U 21 21 U 21 23 U Reference(s) 46, pp. 108, 281- 46, pp. 109, 283- 46, pp. 110, 284- 46, pp. 111, 285- 46, pp. 112, 287- 46, pp. 113, 288- 282 284 285 286 288 289 SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetophenone 41 J 440 41 J 510 42 J 450 38 J 450 55 J 450 90 J 490 510 U No Bias Naphthalene 43 J 440 37 J 510 35 J 450 29 J 450 25 J 450 49 J 490 510 U No Bias 2-Methylnaphthalene 440 U 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 23 J 490 510 U No Bias 1,1'-Biphenyl 440 U 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 490 U 490 510 U No Bias Acenaphthylene 440 U 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 33 J 490 510 U No Bias Acenaphthene 440 U 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 17 J 490 510 U No Bias Dibenzofuran 440 U 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 490 U 490 510 U No Bias Fluorene 440 U 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 15 J 490 510 U No Bias Phenanthrene 16 J 440 510 U 510 14 J 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 80 J 490 510 U No Bias Anthracene 440 U 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 45 J 490 510 U No Bias Carbazole 440 U 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 490 U 490 510 U No Bias Fluoranthene 38 J 440 16 J 510 31 J 450 450 U 450 14 J 450 490 U 490 510 U No Bias Pyrene 440 U 440 21 J 510 38 J 450 450 U 450 14 J 450 210 J 490 210 J No Bias Benzo(a)anthracene 30 J 440 17 J 510 28 J 450 450 U 450 14 J 450 130 J 490 510 U No Bias Chrysene 30 J 440 510 U 510 27 J 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 140 J 490 510 U No Bias Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 440 U 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 1,200 U 490 1,200 U No Bias Benzo(b)fluoranthene 32 J 440 510 U 510 32 J 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 170 J 490 170 J No Bias Benzo(k)fluoranthene 16 J 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 51 J 490 510 U No Bias Benzo(a)pyrene 32 J 440 510 U 510 23 J 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 150 J 490 510 U No Bias Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 440 U 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 81 J 490 510 U No Bias Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 440 U 440 510 U 510 450 U 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 26 J 490 510 U No Bias Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 22 J 440 510 U 510 17 J 450 450 U 450 450 U 450 98 J 490 510 U No Bias Reference(s) 46, pp. 119-120, 46, pp. 121-122, 46, pp. 123-124, 46, pp. 125-126, 46, pp. 127-128, 46, pp. 129-130, 296-298 298-300 300-302 302-303 304-305 305-307 PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Aroclor-1242 85 U 85 98 U 98 88 U 88 88 U 88 87 U 87 94 U 94 98 U Aroclor-1254 85 U 85 98 U 98 88 U 88 88 U 88 87 U 87 94 U 94 98 U Reference(s) 46, pp. 139, 310 46, pp. 140, 311 46, pp. 141, 311 46, pp. 142, 311 46, pp. 143, 311 46, pp.144, 312
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit U - not detected SQL - Sample quantitation limit J - qualified data mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram Table D Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Subsurface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
Observed Release Concentrations SAT2 Sample No. Background Level NC-SD01B NC-SD07B NC-SD08B NC-SD09B NC-SD10B NC-SD13B NC-SD14B NC-SD15B EPA Sample No. B5DJ6 B5DK8 B5DL0 (M)B5DL2 (M)B5DL4 B5DM0 (M)B5DM2 (M)B5DM4 Date: 2/11/2009 2/17/2009 2/17/2009 2/17/2009 2/17/2009 2/18/2009 3/13/2009 3/19/2009 Depth (feet) 3.5-4.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-4.8 4.0-6.0 4.0-4.5 4.0-5.5 Comments Reference(s) 23, p. 9; 24, p. 2; 25, 23, p. 12; 24, p. 7; 25, 23, p. 12; 24, p. 8; 25, 23, p. 12; 24, p. 9; 25, 23, p. 13; 24, p. 10; 25, 23, p. 15; 24, p. 13; 25, 23, p. 37; 24, p. 88; 25, 23, p. 50; 24, p. 105; 25, Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Antimony 18.2 U Arsenic 15.3 Cadmium 2.1 20.3 1.2 27.4 1.3 28.9 1.4 28.6 1.1 Chromium 134 Cobalt 13.3 Nickel 41.5 510 9.1 Selenium 10.6 U Reference(s) 27, pp. 30, 52, 60 27, pp. 32, 52, 61 37, pp. 3, 9, 16 38, pp. 3, 5, 18
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Acetone 150 Chloroform 23 U Chlorobenzene 23 U Isopropylbenzene 23 U Reference(s)
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetophenone 510 U Naphthalene 510 U 3,000 1,500 1,600 390 2-Methylnaphthalene 510 U 910 390 2,300 1,500 1,1'-Biphenyl 510 U Acenaphthylene 510 U Acenaphthene 510 U 15,000 1,500 1,500 390 Dibenzofuran 510 U 10,000 1,500 890 390 Fluorene 510 U 580 390 24,000 1,500 1,800 390 Phenanthrene 510 U 1,800 390 84,000 1,500 4,700 390 Anthracene 510 U 87,000 1,500 2,400 390 Carbazole 510 U 10,000 1,500 560 390 Fluoranthene 510 U 640 480 1,100 390 56,000 1,500 Pyrene 210 J 1,200 390 41,000 1,500 Benzo(a)anthracene 510 U 600 480 520 390 18,000 1,500 Chrysene 510 U 600 480 24,000 1,500 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1,200 U 1,400 480 5,100 440 3,700 390 1,900 420 4,000 1,500 4,300 390 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 170 J 530 480 12,000 1,500 720 390 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 510 U 4,500 1,500 Benzo(a)pyrene 510 U 610 480 9,500 1,500 630 390 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 510 U 4,900 1,500 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 510 U Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 510 U 3,600 1,500 Reference(s) 30, pp. 27-28, 63 31, pp. 89, 207 31, pp. 95, 211 31, pp.100-101, 214-215 31, pp.107, 219 32, pp. 32-33, 101-102 39, pp.37-38, 91-92
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Aroclor-1242 98 U 120 92 Aroclor-1254 98 U 220 82 Reference(s) 31, pp. 125, 228 31, pp. 131, 230
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table D Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Subsurface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD17B NC-SD18B NC-SD19B NC-SD21B NC-SD22B NC-SD23B NC-SD24B NC-SD25B NC-SD26B EPA Sample No. (M)B5DM8 (M)B5DN0 (M)B5DN2 (M)B5DN6 (M)B5DN8 (M)B5DP0 (M)B5DP2 (M)B5DP4 (M)B5DP6 Date: 3/13/2009 3/13/2009 3/13/2009 3/16/2009 3/16/2009 3/17/2009 3/17/2009 3/17/2009 3/17/2009 Depth (feet) 4.0-5.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-5.0 4.0-5.0 3.0-3.5 2.5-3 4.0-6.0 3.5-4.0 Comments Reference(s) 23, p. 38; 24, p. 91; 25, 23, p. 38; 24, p. 90; 25, 23, p. 38; 24, p. 92; 25, pp. 23, p. 41; 24, p. 96; 25, 23, p. 41; 24, p. 98; 25, 23, p. 44; 24, p. 100; 25, pp. 23, p. 44; 24, p. 99; 25, 23, p. 46; 24, p. 102; 25, 23, p. 45; 24, p. 101; 25, Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Antimony Arsenic Cadmium 17.5 1.4 27.1 1.4 19.7 1.0 Chromium Cobalt Nickel 540 10.0 310 9.9 545 10.5 378 7.7 396 8.1 348 8.5 Selenium 44.2 8.7 Reference(s) 37, pp. 3, 11, 17 37, pp. 3, 12, 18 37, pp. 3, 13, 19 42, pp. 6, 18-19, 23 42, pp. 7, 18-19, 23-24 42, pp. 8, 18-19, 24-25 42, pp. 9, 25 42, pp. 10, 18-19, 25-26 42, pp. 11, 18-19, 26
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Acetone Chloroform Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene Reference(s)
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetophenone 530 430 Naphthalene 13,000 10,000 8,000 430 560 410 2,800 430 1,100 330 2,500 450 2-Methylnaphthalene 6,000 430 520 410 2,500 430 1,200 330 2,200 450 1,1'-Biphenyl 1,200 430 Acenaphthylene 610 430 Acenaphthene 17,000 10,000 6,100 430 560 410 1,800 430 1,100 330 1,300 450 Dibenzofuran 11,000 10,000 4,700 430 1,100 430 650 330 920 450 Fluorene 21,000 10,000 9,600 430 690 410 3,100 430 1,500 330 2,400 450 Phenanthrene 78,000 10,000 47,000 430 2,900 410 540 440 10,000 430 5,900 330 8,400 450 Anthracene 32,000 10,000 6,100 430 930 410 3,500 430 1,400 330 2,500 450 Carbazole 680 430 Fluoranthene 590 450 53,000 10,000 31,000 430 8,200 430 3,700 330 5,600 450 Pyrene 37,000 10,000 21,000 430 5,500 430 3,200 330 4,600 450 Benzo(a)anthracene 17,000 10,000 9,200 430 2,800 430 1,500 330 2,500 450 Chrysene 14,000 10,000 8,600 430 2,700 430 1,500 330 2,300 450 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Benzo(b)fluoranthene 11,000 10,000 4,800 430 1,800 430 950 330 1,400 450 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1,800 430 670 430 Benzo(a)pyrene 4,300 430 1,500 430 840 330 1,000 450 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1,700 430 710 430 520 450 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 640 430 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,300 430 640 430 Reference(s) 46, pp. 34, 213 46, pp. 38-39, 216-217 46, pp. 42-43, 219-221 46, pp. 46, 223-224 46, pp. 48, 226 46, pp. 50-51, 227-229 46, pp. 54-55, 231-232 46, pp. 58-59, 235-236
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s)
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table D Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Subsurface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD27B NC-SD28B NC-SD29B NC-SD30B NC-SD31B NC-SD32B NC-SD33B NC-SD34B NC-SD36B EPA Sample No. (M)B5DP8 (M)B5DQ0 (M)B5DQ2 (M)B5DQ4 (M)B5DQ6 (M)B5DQ8 (M)B5DR0 (M)B5DR2 (M)B5DR6 Date: 3/18/2009 3/18/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/20/2009 3/20/2009 3/20/2009 Depth (feet) 2.75-3.25 2.0-3.0 4.0-5.5 4.0-6.0 3.5-4.0 3.5-4.0 3.5-4.5 3.5-4.0 4.0-4.5 Comments MS/MSD Reference(s) 23, p. 48; 24, p. 104; 25, 23, p. 48; 24, p. 103; 25, 23, p. 50; 24, p. 108; 25, 23, p. 50; 24, p. 106; 25, 23, p. 50; 24, p. 107; 25, 23, p. 50; 24, p. 109; 25, 23, p. 53; 24, p. 111; 25, 23, p. 53; 24, p. 110; 25, 23, p. 53; 24, p. 112; 25, Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium 721 2.5 682 2.4 Cobalt Nickel 178 6.5 808 9.9 363 9.0 1,150 9.6 1,830 10.5 634 9.9 637 9.0 323 11.8 755 9.5 Selenium Reference(s) 38, pp. 6, 19 38, pp. 3, 7, 19 38, pp. 3, 8, 20 38, pp. 3, 9, 20-21 38, pp. 3, 10, 21 38, pp. 3, 14, 23-24 38, pp. 3, 15, 24 38, pp. 3, 16, 25 38, pp. 3, 17, 25-26
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetone Chloroform 1,600 1,400 Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene 1,300 1,200 1,600 1,300 Reference(s) 39, pp. 30, 81 39, pp. 32, 84-85 39, pp. 33, 85-86
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetophenone Naphthalene 700 280 620 410 2,300 410 1,100 420 2-Methylnaphthalene 590 280 2,100 410 10,000 410 5,700 420 790 390 1,1'-Biphenyl 830 410 Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene 550 280 890 410 2,500 410 570 420 Dibenzofuran 1,100 410 Fluorene 810 280 1,100 410 1,800 410 970 420 Phenanthrene 3,700 280 790 420 3,800 410 12,000 410 9,100 420 1,100 440 2,200 390 830 400 Anthracene 1,200 280 960 410 Carbazole Fluoranthene 2,500 280 1,600 410 2,300 410 830 440 1,400 390 Pyrene 1,800 280 2,200 410 4,300 410 1,100 440 1,600 390 Benzo(a)anthracene 1,100 280 1,100 410 1,800 410 550 440 860 390 Chrysene 1,100 280 800 410 2,300 410 480 440 700 390 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 22,000 410 9,400 410 6,900 420 6,600 440 6,900 390 2,800 400 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 580 280 680 410 1,100 410 660 390 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene 570 280 580 410 1,100 410 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 560 410 Reference(s) 39, pp. 39-40, 93-94 39, pp. 41, 96 39, pp. 43-44, 97-98 39, pp. 47-48, 100-102 39, pp. 51, 104-105 39, pp. 55, 108-109 40, pp. 7-8, 46-47 40, pp. 13, 52-53
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Aroclor-1242 920 81 1,100 81 650 85 370 75 800 78 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s) 39, pp. 67, 117 39, pp. 71, 118 39, pp. 77, 119 40, pp. 18, 56 40, pp. 20, 56
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table D Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Subsurface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD38B NC-SD39B NC-SD93B NC-SD42B NC-SD45B NC-SD46B NC-SD47B NC-SD48B NC-SD49B EPA Sample No. (M)B5DS0 (M)B5DS2 (M)B5E50 (M)B5DS8 (M)B5DT4 (M)B5DT6 (M)B5DT8 (M)B5DW0 (M)B5DW2 Date: 3/25/2009 3/25/2009 3/25/2009 3/25/2009 3/25/2009 3/25/2009 3/25/2009 3/25/2009 3/31/2009 Depth (feet) 2.0-3.0 4.0-5.5 4.0-5.5 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-5.5 4.0-60 4.0-6.0 Comments Dup. (SD39B) Reference(s) 23, p. 58; 24, p. 113; 25, 23, p. 58; 24, p. 114; 25, pp. 23, p. 58; 24, p. 114; 25, 23, p. 58; 24, p. 115; 25, 23, p. 59; 24, p. 116; 25, 23, p. 59; 24, p. 117; 25, 23, p. 59; 24, p. 118; 25, 23, p. 59; 24, p. 119; 25, 23, p. 64; 24, 9. 123; 25, Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Antimony 54.8 13.8 Arsenic 109 1.6 152 2.7 157 2.4 621 2.1 191 2.7 Cadmium 70.7 1.4 65.1 1.4 86.4 1.3 95.3 1.4 82.4 1.2 67.1 1.1 99.7 1.3 Chromium 703 2.7 828 2.5 1,060 2.7 875 2.4 824 2.7 Cobalt Nickel 558 11.3 815 10.8 1,200 10.2 421 6.6 1,490 10.8 1,640 9.6 5,010 8.5 1,760 10.6 Selenium 12.6 5.7 189 8.0 Reference(s) 41, pp. 3-5, 20-21 41, pp. 3-4, 6, 21 41, pp. 3-4, 18, 29 41, pp. 3-4, 7, 21-22 41, pp. 3-4, 8, 22-23 41, pp. 3-4, 12, 25 41, pp. 3-4, 13, 25-26 41, pp. 3-4, 14, 26 43, pp. 4-5, 24-25
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Acetone Chloroform Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene Reference(s)
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetophenone Naphthalene 2,600 1,100 6,900 770 2-Methylnaphthalene 2,700 1,100 5,700 770 1,1'-Biphenyl Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene 4,500 2,000 2,400 770 Dibenzofuran Fluorene 5,800 2,000 2,200 770 Phenanthrene 3,200 1,900 3,000 830 7,000 2,000 1,600 420 1,400 360 4,700 1,100 900 360 9,400 770 Anthracene 6,500 2,000 530 420 2,300 770 Carbazole Fluoranthene 660 450 2,500 1,900 2,000 830 16,000 2,000 1,300 420 910 360 2,000 1,100 560 360 4,100 770 Pyrene 3,100 1,900 5,300 770 Benzo(a)anthracene 1,700 830 11,000 2,000 830 420 570 360 2,200 770 Chrysene 1,200 830 11,000 2,000 750 420 520 360 1,300 1,100 2,200 770 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 6,700 450 24,000 1,900 27,000 830 5,700 420 7,200 360 3,900 1,100 7,100 360 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 930 830 6,500 2,000 550 420 1,800 770 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene 840 830 7,400 2,000 580 420 1,900 770 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3,000 2,000 890 770 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3,000 2,000 920 770 Reference(s) 44, pp. 19, 127 44, pp. 21, 128-129 44, pp. 43-44, 149 44, pp. 23-24, 130-131 44, pp. 25-26, 132-133 44, pp. 27, 134 44, pp. 31, 137-138 44, pp. 33, 140 45, pp. 24-25, 140-141
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Aroclor-1242 300 87 660 82 730 71 590 70 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s) 44, pp. 61, 159 44, pp. 65, 160 44, pp. 66, 160 44, pp. 69, 161
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table D Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Subsurface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD50B NC-SD51B NC-SD52B NC-SD53B NC-SD54B NC-SD55B NC-SD56B NC-SD57B NC-SD58B EPA Sample No. (M)B5DW4 (M)B5DW6 (M)B5DW8 (M)B5DX0 (M)B5DX2 (M)B5DX4 (M)B5DX6 (M)B5DX8 (M)B5DY0 Date: 3/26/2009 3/31/2009 3/26/2009 3/31/2009 3/26/2009 3/31/2009 3/31/2009 3/31/2009 3/31/2009 Depth (feet) 3.0-3.5 4.0-6.0 4.0-5.5 4.0-5.5 4.0-5.5 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 Comments MS/MSD Reference(s) 23, p. 61; 24, p. 120; 25, 23, p. 65; 24, p. 124; 25, 23, p. 62; 24, p. 121; 25, 23, p. 65; 24, p. 125; 25, 23, p. 62; 24, p. 122; 25, 23, p. 65; 24, p. 126; 25, 23, p. 65; 24, p. 128; 25, 23, p. 65; 24, p. 127; 25, 23, p. 65; 24, p. 129; 25, Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Antimony 53.2 16.9 43.5 17.3 Arsenic 442 2.4 481 2.8 394 2.7 Cadmium 53.9 1.2 158 1.4 105 1.4 Chromium 840 2.4 1,080 2.8 904 2.7 Cobalt 77.2 13.9 Nickel 4,690 9.7 4,570 11.1 2,660 10.9 Selenium 35.3 9.7 Reference(s) 41, pp. 4, 15, 27 43, pp. 4, 6, 25 41, pp. 4, 16, 27-28 41, pp. 4, 17, 28 43, pp. 4, 11, 28-29
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetone Chloroform Chlorobenzene 28,000 1,500 Isopropylbenzene 3,600 1,500 9,600 1,400 1,800 1,500 Reference(s) 45, pp. 3, 110 45, pp. 4, 112 45, pp. 5, 113 45, pp. 9, 119
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetophenone Naphthalene 5,700 1,200 1,600 470 920 440 4,700 900 9,400 1,900 86,000 7,100 5,200 960 2,300 530 5,500 920 2-Methylnaphthalene 4,200 1,200 2,600 470 1,500 440 2,000 900 7,500 1,900 29,000 7,100 4,800 960 1,000 530 8,100 920 1,1'-Biphenyl Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene 1,700 1,200 720 470 730 440 1,100 900 4,200 1,900 9,900 7,100 1,500 960 750 530 4,000 920 Dibenzofuran Fluorene 1,700 1,200 720 470 990 440 3,800 1,900 1,400 960 560 530 2,700 920 Phenanthrene 7,700 1,200 4,200 470 3,800 440 3,600 900 16,000 1,900 15,000 7,100 7,000 960 2,400 530 11,000 920 Anthracene 1,900 1,200 560 440 4,100 1,900 1,400 960 620 530 3,300 920 Carbazole Fluoranthene 4,000 1,200 1,300 470 1,500 440 1,500 900 9,400 1,900 3,100 960 910 530 4,900 920 Pyrene 5,300 1,200 2,000 470 2,400 440 2,400 900 13,000 1,900 8,200 7,100 4,500 960 1,800 530 7,300 920 Benzo(a)anthracene 2,300 1,200 750 470 1,000 440 3,800 1,900 1,900 960 770 530 2,700 920 Chrysene 2,500 1,200 810 470 840 440 920 900 4,200 1,900 1,800 960 600 530 2,500 920 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4,000 470 6,600 440 6,300 900 19,000 1,900 6,300 530 5,000 920 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1,500 1,200 570 470 730 440 3,200 1,900 1,500 960 600 530 2,800 920 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene 1,600 1,200 620 470 680 440 3,200 1,900 1,700 960 670 530 3,300 920 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1,600 920 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,500 920 Reference(s) 44, pp. 37-38, 142-144 45, pp. 26-27, 141-143 44, pp. 39-40, 144-146 45, pp. 28, 143-144 44, pp. 41-42, 146-147 45, pp. 30, 145-146 45, pp. 32-33, 147-148 45, pp. 34-35, 149-150 45, pp. 36-37, 150-152
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s)
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table D Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Subsurface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD59B NC-SD60B NC-SD63B NC-SD94B NC-SD65B NC-SD67B NC-SD68B NC-SD69B NC-SD71B EPA Sample No. (M)B5DY2 (M)B5DY4 (M)B5DZ0 (M)B5E52 (M)B5DZ4 (M)B5DZ8 (M)B5E00 (M)B5E02 (M)B5E06 Date: 3/31/2009 3/31/2009 4/1/2009 4/1/2009 4/1/2009 3/31/2009 4/1/2009 4/1/2009 4/1/2009 Depth (feet) 4.0-5.5 4.0-5.5 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 3.5-4.5 4.0-5.5 3.5-4.0 Comments Dup. (SD63B) MS/MSD Reference(s) 23, p. 66; 24, p. 131; 25, 23, p. 65; 24, p. 130; 25, 23, p. 67; 24, p. 133; 25, 23, p. 67; 24, p. 133; 25, 23, p. 67; 24, p. 134; 25, 23, p. 66; 24, p. 132; 25, 23, p. 68; 24, p. 135; 25, pp. 23, p.69; 24, p. 137; 25, 23, p. 68; 24, p. 136; 25, Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Antimony 53.6 19.3 49.6 18.0 46.8 17.9 49.3 18.9 52.9 18.1 59.8 18.9 40.2 17.1 Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Nickel Selenium 58 7.4 Reference(s) 43, pp. 4, 14, 30 43, pp. 4, 15, 31 43, pp. 4, 16, 31-32 43, pp. 4, 22, 35-36 43, pp. 4, 17, 32 43, pp. 4, 19, 33-34 43, pp. 4, 20, 34 43, pp. 4, 21, 34-35
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetone 3,300 2,900 Chloroform Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene 7,400 1,300 1,900 1,900 Reference(s) 45, pp. 14, 126 45, pp. 15, 128 45, pp. 17, 130
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetophenone Naphthalene 1,600 750 61,000 7,700 1,600 1,000 78,000 8,300 85,000 11,000 1,800 1,100 2-Methylnaphthalene 1,600 750 31,000 7,700 2,700 1,500 2,400 1,000 1,500 1,000 28,000 8,300 18,000 11,000 1,700 1,100 1,1'-Biphenyl Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene 1,500 750 12,000 7,700 9,200 8,300 Dibenzofuran Fluorene 1,500 750 Phenanthrene 6,000 750 24,000 7,700 4,300 1,500 4,700 1,000 2,600 1,000 32,000 8,300 36,000 11,000 3,100 1,100 5,000 1,900 Anthracene 1,500 750 8,300 7,700 11,000 8,300 14,000 11,000 Carbazole Fluoranthene 2,800 750 8,100 7,700 1,900 1,500 1,700 1,000 15,000 8,300 30,000 11,000 1,200 1,100 5,300 1,900 Pyrene 3,700 750 14,000 7,700 4,000 1,500 2,900 1,000 1,800 1,000 22,000 8,300 34,000 11,000 2,200 1,100 5,300 1,900 Benzo(a)anthracene 1,700 750 1,000 1,000 9,700 8,300 20,000 11,000 2,300 1,900 Chrysene 1,500 750 1,000 1,000 9,000 8,300 17,000 11,000 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 11,000 1,500 6,800 1,000 7,700 1,000 6,400 1,100 12,000 1,900 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1,000 750 29,000 J 11,000 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene 1,200 750 21,000 11,000 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 13,000 11,000 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Reference(s) 45, pp. 38-39, 152-153 45, pp. 40, 154-155 45, pp. 42, 156-157 45, pp. 54, 167-168 45, pp. 45, 158-159 45, pp. 46, 159-161 45, pp. 48-49, 161-163 45, pp. 50, 163-164 45, pp. 52, 166
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s)
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration Table D Alternate Evaluation Observed Release Concentrations Subsurface Samples - February-April 2009 Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NY
SAT2 Sample No. NC-SD74B NC-SD75B NC-SD76B NC-SD92B EPA Sample No. (M)B5E12 (M)B5E14 (M)B5E16 (M)B5E48 Date: 3/16/2009 3/16/2009 3/16/2009 3/16/2009 Depth (feet) 4.0-4.5 3.5-4.0 4.0-6.0 4.0-6.0 Comments Dup. (SD76B) Reference(s) 23, p. 41; 24, p. 97; 25, 23, p. 40; 24, p. 94; 25, 23, p. 41; 24, p. 95; 25, 23, p. 41; 24, p. 95; 25, pp. Metals (mg/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium 768 2.8 699 2.6 Cobalt Nickel 809 11.0 392 10.3 662 10.3 579 10.2 Selenium Reference(s) 42, pp. 12, 18-19, 27 42, pp. 13, 18-19, 27-28 42, pp. 14, 18-19, 28 42, pp. 15, 18-19, 28-29
VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Acetone Chloroform Chlorobenzene Isopropylbenzene Reference(s)
SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Acetophenone Naphthalene 1,100 430 520 400 2-Methylnaphthalene 1,200 430 1,1'-Biphenyl Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene 1,100 430 650 400 Dibenzofuran 820 430 Fluorene 1,500 430 850 400 Phenanthrene 7,500 430 2,900 400 510 410 Anthracene 2,500 430 Carbazole Fluoranthene 6,500 430 2,400 400 650 410 Pyrene 4,200 430 3,100 400 680 410 Benzo(a)anthracene 2,200 430 1,500 400 Chrysene 2,000 430 1,300 400 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 9,100 400 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1,200 430 1,200 400 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene 950 430 850 400 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 570 400 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 520 400 Reference(s) 46, pp. 64-65, 240-241 46, pp. 68-69, 244-245 46, pp. 72, 249
PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight) Result SQL Result SQL Result SQL Aroclor-1242 240 89 470 77 200 79 Aroclor-1254 Reference(s) 46, pp. 103, 261 46, pp. 105, 261 46, pp. 106, 261
CRQL - Contract required quantitation limit SQL - Sample quantitation limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram U - not detected ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram J - qualified data Background level chosen from the highest background concentration