|
|
Search | Index | Home | Glossary | Contact Us |
|
|
|
PUBLIC COMMENT RELEASE
PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
CERCLIS NO. DC9170024310
Prepared by:
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
July 12, 2001
FOREWORD
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, is
an agency of the U.S. Public Health Service. It was established by Congress in
1980 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), also known as the Superfund law. This law set up a fund to
identify and clean up our country's hazardous waste sites. The Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA, and the individual states regulate the investigation and
clean up of the sites.
Since 1986, ATSDR has been required by law to conduct a public
health assessment at each of the sites on the EPA National Priorities List. The
aim of these evaluations is to find out if people are being exposed to hazardous
substances and, if so, whether that exposure is harmful and should be stopped or
reduced. (The legal definition of a health assessment is included on the inside
front cover.) If appropriate, ATSDR also conducts public health assessments when
petitioned by concerned individuals. Public health assessments are carried out
by environmental and health scientists from ATSDR and from the states with which
ATSDR has cooperative agreements.
Exposure: As the first step in the evaluation, ATSDR
scientists review environmental data to see how much contamination is at a site,
where it is, and how people might come into contact with it. Generally, ATSDR
does not collect its own environmental sampling data but reviews information
provided by EPA, other government agencies, businesses, and the public. When
there is not enough environmental information available, the report will
indicate what further sampling data are needed.
Health Effects: If the review of the environmental data
shows that people have or could come into contact with hazardous substances,
ATSDR scientists then evaluate whether or not there will be any harmful effects
from these exposures. The report focuses on public health, or the health impact
on the community as a whole, rather than on individual risks. Again, ATSDR
generally makes use of existing scientific information, which can include the
results of medical, toxicologic and epidemiologic studies and the data collected
in disease registries. The science of environmental health is still developing,
and sometimes scientific information on the health effects of certain substances
is not available. When this is so, the report will suggest what further research
studies are needed.
Conclusions: The report presents conclusions about the level
of health threat, if any, posed by a site and recommends ways to stop or reduce
exposure in its public health action plan. ATSDR is primarily an advisory
agency, so usually these reports identify what actions are appropriate to be
undertaken by EPA, other responsible parties, or the research or education
divisions of ATSDR. However, if there is an urgent health threat, ATSDR can
issue a public health advisory warning people of the danger. ATSDR can also
authorize health education or pilot studies of health effects, full-scale
epidemiology studies, disease registries, surveillance studies or research on
specific hazardous substances.
Interactive Process: The health assessment is an interactive
process. ATSDR solicits and evaluates information from numerous city, state and
federal agencies, the companies responsible for cleaning up the site, and the
community. It then shares its conclusions with them. Agencies are asked to
respond to an early version of the report to make sure that the data they have
provided is accurate and current. When informed of ATSDR's conclusions and
recommendations, sometimes the agencies will begin to act on them before the
final release of the report.
Community: ATSDR also needs to learn what people in the area
know about the site and what concerns they may have about its impact on their
health. Consequently, throughout the evaluation process, ATSDR actively gathers
information and comments from the people who live or work near a site, including
residents of the area, civic leaders, health professionals and community groups.
To ensure that the report responds to the community's health concerns, an early
version is also distributed to the public for their comments. All the comments
received from the public are responded to in the final version of the report.
Comments: If, after reading this report, you have questions or comments, we encourage you to send them to us. Letters should be addressed as follows:
Attention: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
1600 Clifton Road (E-56)
Atlanta, GA 30333.
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Site Description and History
Remedial and Regulatory History
Demographics and Land Use
Natural Resources
ATSDR Activities
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Introduction
Concern: Groundwater
Concern: Surface Water and Sediment
Concern: Soil
Concern: Locally-Caught Fish
COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS
ATSDR CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN
REFERENCES
TABLES
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Summary of Sites at Washington Navy Yard
Appendix B: ATSDR Assessment Methodology and Comparison Values
Appendix C: ATSDR Estimates of Human Exposure Doses and Health Effects
Appendix D: Glossary
Table 1. Exposure Hazards Summary, Washington Navy Yard
Table 2. Maximum Detected Contaminant Levels in Fish Fillet Samples, Lower Anacostia
Table 3. Exposure Pathways at Washington Navy Yard
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CMS corrective measures study
COC contaminants of concern
CREG cancer risk evaluation guide
CV comparison value
DC ERA Washington, DC, Environmental Regulation Administration
DDT 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane
EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
EMEG environmental media evaluation guide
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
GSA General Services Administration
MCL EPA=s maximum contaminant level
NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NFA no further action
NPL National Priorities List
PA preliminary assessment
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDD polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (Adioxin@)
PHAP Public Health Action Plan
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppt parts per trillion
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFI RCRA Facility Investigation
SI site investigation
SSI special sampling investigation
SVOC semi-volatile organic compound
2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TEF toxicity equivalent factor
TEQ TCDD-equivalent
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
Fg/dL micrograms per deciliter
VOC volatile organic compound
WNY Washington Navy Yard
Washington Navy Yard (WNY), an active military facility, encompasses
63.3 acres of land in southeastern Washington, DC It lies on the Anacostia River
in a heavily urbanized area with industrial, commercial, residential, and vacant
properties in the immediate vicinity. Since its inception in 1799, WNY has supported
diverse functions, including shipbuilding (in the 1800s), ordnance research
and construction (mid-1800s to 1945), and administrative duties (1945 to present).
WNY employed nearly 25,000 on-site workers at its peak operation during World
War II. Currently, approximately 5,400 military and civilian personnel work
at WNY.
WNY was proposed for listing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Priorities List in 1998, primarily because of contamination detected in the adjacent Anacostia River, on-site sediment, and on-site soil (USAF 1998). Past activities at WNY have also impacted groundwater underlying the property. The primary contaminants of concern are metals (metals in groundwater and lead in surface soil), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (in surface water, sediment, and fish), and dioxins (in sediment). These contaminants, as well as some petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and other semi-volatile organic compounds, have been detected at levels above the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry=s (ATSDR) health-based comparison values.
ATSDR conducted site visits in February and September of 1999. ATSDR learned that local community members had expressed concern about the environmental quality of the Anacostia River in the WNY vicinity, but did not identify any specific community health concerns attributed to WNY.
ATSDR reviewed and evaluated groundwater data. Methylene chloride is the primary contaminant of concern, but chloroform and metals were also detected slightly above ATSDR comparison values for drinking water. There is, however, no public exposure to groundwater contaminants. Groundwater underlying WNY has not been used as a source of drinking water, nor will it be used for potable water in the future. WNY and the Washington, DC area receives its drinking water from a non-impacted area of the Potomac River, far upstream of the city. Because there is no public exposure to groundwater underlying WNY, ATSDR concludes that it does not pose a public health hazard.
To address community concerns about the environmental quality of the Anacostia River, ATSDR reviewed surface water and sediment quality data from both on- and off-site locations.
Although some contamination appears to originate from upstream, non-point sources, WNY storm drainage ditches and sewer outfalls also contribute to the river pollutant load. How much of the pollution originates from WNY operations is not known. Contaminants were detected primarily in sediments, both in the WNY storm drainage ditches and the Anacostia River. PCBs are the primary contaminant of concern, although polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, pesticides, and dioxins were detected above ATSDR comparison values. More data are needed to fully characterize the nature and extent of surface water and sediment contamination. Minimal, if any, public exposure occurs to the surface water and sediment of the Anacostia River. Local residents do not swim or drink from WNY runoff, outfalls, or the Anacostia River. Incidental exposures to the contaminant levels detected in local surface water and sediment are not likely to pose a public health hazard. Therefore, ATSDR concludes that past, current, and future exposures to on- and off-site surface water and sediment pose no apparent public health hazards.
ATSDR also reviewed on-site soil data and evaluated potential public health exposure at 16 locations at WNY where past military operations resulted in contamination. At 15 of the 16 sites, ATSDR concluded that soil contaminants do not pose a public health hazard because: 1) contaminants in on-site soil were detected at levels that do not pose a public health hazard, and/or 2) contamination was located in areas where public exposure was infrequent or unlikely (e.g., subsurface soil, industrial areas, paved areas). The other site, Admiral=s Row (Site 10), contained surface soil lead concentrations above the ATSDR comparison value for soil. Due to insufficient historical data on the extent of and exposure to this lead contamination, the exact health implications from past exposures can not be assessed. Current and future exposures have been prevented by interim measures implemented by the Navy, including fencing, sign posting, land use restrictions, and public education efforts. ATSDR concludes that current and potential future exposures to on-site soil pose no apparent public health hazards. Past soil exposure to Admiral=s Row surface soil is a completed exposure pathway with the potential for adverse health effects to children, but, due to the lack of historical data, the health implications from past exposure can not be assessed.
The consumption of locally-caught fish is another completed exposure pathway in the WNY vicinity. Despite a fish consumption advisory issued by the Washington, DC Department of Public Health in 1989, some citizens continue to eat fish and eel caught from the lower Anacostia River near WNY. The Washington, DC Department of Public Health advises the general public not to eat catfish, carp, or eel and to limit consumption of largemouth bass, sunfish, and other fish. The fish advisory encourages the practice of catch-and-release. Fish in the lower Anacostia River have been impacted primarily by PCBs, although metals, pesticides, and dioxins were also detected in tissue samples. Detected concentrations of PCBs and the pesticide chlordane in local fish may pose a public health hazard if consumed in sufficient quantities. ATSDR concludes that a past, current, and future public health hazard could exist for fishers who routinely consume sufficient amounts of locally-caught fish; the fish consumption advisory for the Anacostia River should continue to be observed.
ATSDR concludes that groundwater, surface water, and sediment at WNY do not pose public health hazards. However, past exposure to on-site surface soil at Admiral=s Row is a completed exposure pathway with the potential for adverse health effects to children. ATSDR also concludes that consumption of locally caught fish could pose a Public Health Hazard in the WNY vicinity.
The Washington Navy Yard (WNY) is an active military facility located on 63.3 acres of urban land bordering the Anacostia River in southeastern Washington, DC WNY began operations in 1799 as a shipbuilding facility (NFEC 1996). Today, it is the Navy=s oldest shore station and the longest continuously operated federal facility in the United States (NGF no date).
WNY operations and its primary role have evolved over the past two centuries. Shipbuilding dominated yard activities in the early 1800s, giving way to canon and large gun manufacturing for ships in the mid-1800s (NFEC 2001). Until the end of World War II, ordnance production was the principal WNY function (NGF no date). From 1945 to present, the primary activity of the WNY has been administrative.
As WNY=s function changed over the years, so did the yard=s physical size. Historically, additional property was added by filling a shallow embayment of the Anacostia River and Tiber Creek, a tributary entering the Anacostia River from the north. During World War II, at its largest, the yard occupied approximately 127 acres. As WNY=s role shifted from primarily manufacturing to administration, 63.5 acres of the facility were sold to the General Services Administration (GSA) for administrative purposes (NFEC 1996).
WNY has identified a number of potential waste sites that have resulted from historical and modern-day industrial operations. The primary contaminant of concern found on site is lead in surface soil from peeling lead-based paint that has flaked off of WNY buildings. Other contaminants have been detected in the adjacent Anacostia River and sediment, but are not necessarily associated with WNY operations. These off-site contaminants include metals (lead, arsenic, mercury, iron, beryllium), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs or Adioxins@). Most WNY contamination occurs in limited access areas, such as surface soil in Admiral=s Row, sediment in stormwater sewer outfalls and drainage ditches, and surface water in the Anacostia River.
Remedial and Regulatory History
Numerous WNY investigations have been conducted, are ongoing, or have been planned to determine the nature and extent of environmental contamination associated with yard activities. Investigations began in 1985, after WNY submitted a ANotification of Hazardous Waste Activity@ to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and identified itself as a generator of hazardous wastes (specifically PCBs). In 1988, the Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity prepared a preliminary assessment (PA) report that indicated the presence of petroleum releases in soil and groundwater at WNY. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) prepared a follow-up PA report in 1993 using historical documents, personnel interviews, and consultations with state and federal agencies to identify 16 areas of concern at WNY requiring further study.
EPA Region III prepared a special sampling investigation (SSI) report in 1995 to determine which areas required no further action, additional investigation, or a removal action. In 1996, the final site investigation (SI) report presented the investigation results of 13 sites, 2 areas of concern, and the underlying groundwater. Samples were taken and analyzed from groundwater, surface water, surface soil, subsurface soil (more than 6 inches under the surface), and river sediments. The SI recommended six sites (Site 5, Site 6, Site 8, Site 10, Site 11, and Site 14) for further detailed investigation (NFEC 1996).
On the basis of the 1996 SI report, the Navy has conducted removal actions and/or Engineering Evaluations/Cost Analyses (EE/CA) at Site 6, Site 10, Site 14, and 16 (NFEC 2001). The Navy is in the process of completing the removal action on the WNY storm sewer system. The Navy conducted site removal evaluations at Sites 7, 11, and 13, which indicated that no removal actions were warranted. The requirement to perform the removal evaluations at these sites arose from a legal settlement between the Navy and the Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund (formerly the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund). Known as the Earth Justice Consent Decree, this agreement was reached in 1998 after Earth Justice expressed concern about potential Anacostia River hazards and about the timeliness of Navy remediation activities. Based on the SI findings of no human health risk at Sites 7 and 13, however, these removal evaluations will probably not develop into remedial activities at these locations (Miller 1999).
The Navy and EPA signed a final Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Consent Order, effective on July 16, 1997, to conduct a two-phase RCRA facility investigation (RFI) and perform a corrective measures study (CMS). The RFI will further investigate WNY sites, characterize contaminant sources, confirm contaminant releases, and assess environmental and human health impacts; the CMS will identify and evaluate site-specific remediation options, if necessary. Because of a recent and unexpected detection of free-phase mercury in subsurface soil underlying a parking lot, the Navy will perform an additional RFI at Site 16 (NFEC 1999). The Navy performed a time critical removal action at Site 16 when free phase mercury was discovered in a soil boring. Less than 5 cubic feet of soil containing small amounts of free-phase mercury was found and removed (NFEC 2001).
In 1998, EPA placed WNY on its National Priorities List (NPL) on August 27, 1998, part of EPA=s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as ASuperfund.@ As a Superfund site, the RCRA Consent Order activities have been integrated into the Navy=s CERCLA remediation obligations. On June 30, 1999, EPA and Navy officials and the DC Mayors office signed a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA). The FFA was signed to ensure that environmental impacts from past operations were thoroughly investigated and appropriate remedial actions are undertaken to protect people and the environment. Future cleanup activities at WNY will continue under the requirements of CERCLA and the Department of Defense Installation Restoration Program. Because WNY is in the early stages of the Superfund process, completed environmental investigations and available data are limited.
To characterize the population and identify the presence of sensitive subpopulations, such as young children, in the vicinity of WNY, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) examines the demographics of the nearby communities. This information also provides detail on residential history in a particular area that helps ATSDR assess time frames of potential human exposure to contaminants. The demographic and housing data for WNY and the surrounding areas, historically and at present, are outlined in this section. Current demographics are based on U.S. Census data from 1990 2). Based on the 1990 data, there are approximately 50,528 people residing within one mile of WNY.
WNY lies in an urban setting and adjacent land use varies
considerably. Within less than a one mile radius of the facility there are
industrial, commercial, residential, and vacant properties. WNY is bordered on
the north by commercial and vacant commercial properties along M Street, on the
east by an abandoned industrial area along 11th Street, on the west by the
Southeast Federal Center owned by GSA, and on the south by the Anacostia River.
The WNY facility itself consists of administrative, supply, and storage buildings; residences; and training facilities. Approximately nine acres of WNY has been listed on the National Register of Historic Districts. The district includes a Naval museum that was opened to the public in 1993 (WNY 2001). Almost 95% of the WNY is covered by buildings, asphalt, and other impervious surfaces (CH2MHILL 1999). Two combined and two separate effluent outfall pipes owned by Washington, DC, underlie WNY and flow into the Anacostia River. Many of the former industrial and storage buildings have been converted to office buildings. Additional renovations are currently underway at several more buildings to create more office space for future employees.
Throughout its history, WNY has provided thousands of jobs for D.C.-area residents. At the turn-of-the-century, WNY employed approximately 2,000 individuals. When the facility was operating at its peak, during World War II, nearly 25,000 people worked at WNY. Today, WNY employs an average of 5,400 military and civilian personnel. Future plans to further expand the WNY employment base include relocating the Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters from Crystal City, Virginia, to WNY by the year 2001 (Brief History Fact Sheet no date; ATSDR 1999a).
On-site residential areas have historically housed several hundred people and remain occupied today by Navy officers and their families. Designated Admiral=s Row (Site 10), the residential area consists of a group of buildings located along Warrington Avenue. Admiral=s Row includes approximately 20 quarters, three buildings, and a recreational park known as Leutze Park (CH2MHILL 1998). Leutze Park serves as the parade ground for official change of command and retirement ceremonies. The quarters and buildings are multi-storied residences with adjacent areas consisting of grass, pavement, concrete, and other buildings. Historically, Admiral=s Row facilities were painted with lead-based paint. It is unknown how many children (or what age children) lived in these residences in the past. Currently, one minor (17 years old) lives on site (ATSDR 1999a).
Access to the entire site is restricted by a perimeter wall. Security guards are stationed at gate entrances. Individuals with direct access to the site include on-site employees, on-site residents, and on-site workers under contract with the Navy to conduct various building and lawn maintenance activities. Adult and child visitors and recreational users may also pass through security clearance. Bus tours are conducted on site and the Navy Museum (Building 76) receives visitors daily (except holidays). (As of January 2000, the Navy Museum building was closed for renovations. During renovations, visitors could view the exhibits at the Navy Museum Annex [Building 70] and at the Navy Art Gallery [Building 67]). Two parks located at WNY are visited by the public. Luetze Park, located in the north-central part of the site, is an unfenced recreational area that is used for public access. Luetze Park is the only substantial on-site vegetated area. In the future, there may also be additional residential development on site (NFEC 1996). Willard Park, across from the Navy Museum on the banks of the Anacostia River, displays naval ordnance used in battle from the Civil War to the Vietnam era (WNY 2001).
WNY lies on the banks of the Anacostia River in a historically natural wetlands area that has been filled to accommodate urban development expansions. Prior to 1800, approximately one-third of WNY property was covered by a shallow embayment, but wetlands no longer exist in the WNY vicinity. Upstream from WNY and outside of Washington, DC, agricultural and forested areas remain and drain into the large Anacostia River watershed. Less than two miles downstream from WNY, the Anacostia River merges with the Potomac River and flows into the Chesapeake Bay.
Local groundwater is not used as a drinking water source in Washington,
DC, nor is surface water from the Anacostia River. Washington, DC, receives
its drinking water from a non-impacted area of the Potomac River, far upstream
of the city. WNY is connected to the Washington, DC, drinking water system.
There are no private wells in the vicinity or other sources of drinking water
at WNY (Miller 1999).
Many groups have been formed to protect the natural resources of the Anacostia and other water bodies in the area. In 1999, the Anacostia Watershed Toxics Alliance was formed to review existing research data and evaluate the entire watershed.
In July 1998, ATSDR published a Health Consultation for the Anacostia River Initiative, Washington, DC (ATSDR 1998). This Health Consultation did not specifically address environmental contamination issues related to WNY, but evaluated the safety of consuming fish caught in the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. ATSDR concluded that the reported concentrations of chemical residues in fish from the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers could pose a public health hazard for sport fishers.
In February 1999, ATSDR conducted a site visit at WNY. ATSDR viewed on-base sites and remediation efforts, as well as off-base residential areas, the GSA property, and both sides of the Anacostia River. ATSDR met with representatives from the Naval District Washington, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, the Naval Research Laboratory, EPA Region III, and the Washington, DC, Department of Public Health. ATSDR did not identify any specific community health concerns attributed to WNY, but learned that local community members had expressed concern about the environmental quality of the Anacostia River in the WNY vicinity (ATSDR 1999a).
Due to changes in technical staff, ATSDR conducted a follow-up site visit in September 1999. No additional public health issues or community concerns were identified by ATSDR during the site visit. In June 2000, ATSDR met with the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) and presented an overview of ATSDR and the public health assessment process. Prior to the RAB, we met with representatives of the DC Department of Health and others agencies to let them know of our activities. Navy representatives gave ATSDR an off-site tour of areas surrounding WNY.
ATSDR held public availability sessions on September 26 and 27, 2000 to obtain community concerns. The sessions were held at the Van Ness Elementary School and the Anacostia Park Pavilion. Although the general public did not attend these sessions, ATSDR spoke with representatives of the National Park Service and The Student Conservation Association, Inc. and fishermen fishing in Anacostia Park.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
In preparing this public health assessment, ATSDR reviewed and evaluated information provided in the referenced documents. Documents prepared for the CERCLA program must meet specific standards for adequate quality assurance and control measures for chain-of-custody procedures, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The environmental data presented in this public health assessment are from Navy remedial site investigations, Anacostia River monitoring data; municipal drinking water reports; and other information provided primarily by Navy, EPA, and Washington, DC Department of Public Health reports. Based on our evaluation, ATSDR determined that the quality of environmental data available in most site-related documents for WNY is adequate to make public health decisions.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
In this section, exposure pathways are evaluated to determine
whether people accessing or living near WNY could have been (past scenario), are
(current scenario), or will be (future scenario) exposed to site-related
contaminants. In evaluating exposure pathways, ATSDR determines whether exposure
to contaminated media has occurred, is occurring, or will occur through
ingestion, dermal (skin) contact, or inhalation of contaminants. If the
contamination is located in an area where exposure is not likely, no public
health hazard will be expected to occur (for instance, where contaminated soil
is located in an area that is fenced and access is restricted). Exposure to
contaminants does not necessarily result in adverse health effects. For a health
hazard to be possible, the contaminants must be present in large enough amounts
to cause harm, and the exposure must be for a long enough time for the effect to
be possible. To determine whether completed pathways pose a potential health
hazard, ATSDR compares contaminant concentrations to health-based comparison
values.
Comparison values are calculated from available scientific literature on exposure and health effects. These values, which are defined for each of the different media, reflect the estimated maximum contaminant concentration for a given chemical that is not likely to cause adverse health effects, given a standard daily ingestion rate and standard body weight. If contaminant concentrations are above comparison values or background concentrations, ATSDR further analyzes exposure variables (for example, duration and frequency) and the toxicology of the contaminant.
ATSDR evaluated available information on underlying groundwater,
local surface water, the WNY investigation sites, and locally-caught
fish to determine if they pose any past, current, or potential future public
health hazards. After fully evaluating potential human exposure pathways at WNY,
ATSDR concluded that public exposures (past, current, and future) to
groundwater, surface water, sediment, and most soil are not likely to
result in adverse human health effects because contamination in these media is
below levels of health concern and/or there is no public exposure to
contamination in these media. ATSDR identified past exposure to on-site Admiral=s
Row surface soils and the consumption of locally-caught fish as completed
exposure pathways. Information on the various contaminated media, exposure
pathways, and exposure doses is summarized in Table 1, Appendix A, Appendix B,
Appendix C, and the following text. Appendix D provides a glossary to explain
related key words and terms.
The following discussion evaluates community concerns about potential human exposure via contaminated groundwater, surface water, sediment, soil, and locally-caught fish. ATSDR=s conclusions regarding the past, current, and potential future exposures to various environmental media on and in the vicinity of WNY are based on an evaluation of information gathered from site investigations, groundwater monitoring data, surface water investigations, and observations compiled during site visits.
Could exposure to contaminants in groundwater result in adverse human health effects for residents, employees, or visitors of WNY or for residents of neighboring communities?
Discussion:
Hydrogeology
Although groundwater underlying Washington, DC, generally occurs in unconfined
conditions, the fill and underlying clay at WNY result in semi-confined conditions
(CH2MHILL 1999). On a small scale, the heterogeneous nature of the fill material
likely influences the direction of groundwater flow beneath WNY. Due to WNY
topography, the underlying watertable level varies, from approximately 55 feet
above sea level in the northeast corner to slightly above sea level along the
waterfront (NFEC 1996). The Anacostia River is believed to be the ultimate discharge
point for groundwater (CH2MHILL 1999).
Groundwater Use
Groundwater is not used, and never has been used, as a drinking water source
in Washington, DC WNY and the surrounding community obtain drinking water from
a routinely-monitored municipal source that meets all Washington, DC, and federal
and state drinking water standards (e.g., EPA=s
maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]). Current and future exposures to contaminated
groundwater are unlikely because the groundwater will not be used for domestic
water supplies. There are no future plans to place potable wells in the area
(ATSDR 1999a). WNY and the surrounding community will continue to receive water
from the Washington, DC, municipal drinking water system (ATSDR 1999a).
Groundwater Quality
Past activities at WNY affected groundwater underlying military
property. VOCs, SVOCs, and metals were detected in groundwater underlying WNY,
most at concentrations below ATSDR comparison values for drinking water.
Methylene chloride (detected up to 17 parts per billion [ppb]) and chloroform
(up to 12 ppb), were the only VOCs exceeding their respective ATSDR comparison
values for drinking water (5 ppb and 6 ppb, respectively) (NFEC 1996, NFEC
1999). Methylene chloride also exceeded EPA=s
MCL of 5 ppb. Acetone, 1,2-dichloroethene (total), acenaphthene, fluorene,
butylbenzylphthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and di-n-octylphthalate were
frequently detected at concentrations at or below ATSDR comparison values.
Seventeen metals were detected in the groundwater. Metals detected at levels
above ATSDR comparison values included aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
iron, lead, manganese, and vanadium. Lead in groundwater underlying WNY exceeded
the federal action level of 15 ppb at the following sites: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,
Building 201, and the Navy Yard monitoring wells (NFEC 1996).
Appendix A summarizes sampling results for each site. Groundwater samples were collected from Sites 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, Building 201, and the Navy Yard monitoring wells. No groundwater samples were collected from Sites 1, 8, 11, 12, or 13.
Evaluation of Potential Public Health Hazards
Even though groundwater contamination has been detected, there is no public
exposure to groundwater underlying or in the vicinity of WNY. Private wells
are not located in the WNY vicinity and local residents receive water from the
Washington, DC, municipal drinking water system. Because there is no exposure,
ATSDR concludes that groundwater poses no public health hazard.
Concern: Surface Water and Sediment
Could exposure to surface water and sediment contaminants in the WNY vicinity result in adverse health effects for local employees, residents, or visitors?
Conclusions:
Discussion
Surface Water Hydrology and Sediment Characteristics
Numerous hydrologic factors influence the Anacostia River in the
WNY vicinity. Agricultural areas, forested land, and heavily urbanized zones
feed surface water runoff into the river, and groundwater underlying WNY also
appears to discharge into the river (CH2MHILL 1999). Less than 2 miles
downstream of WNY, the flow of the Anacostia River slows as it joins the Potomac
River. Because of its proximity to the Chesapeake Bay, the Anacostia River is
also tidally influenced. Local urbanization and loss of wetland and forested
areas in the Anacostia watershed have changed hydrology patterns and reduced the
river=s natural capacity to filter
stormwater, thereby facilitating chemical contaminant transport via sediment
movements.
Much of the WNY property bordering the Anacostia River is filled land. Because of the fill=s flat topography, water tends to flow slowly, especially at the mouth of the Anacostia River. This sluggish movement, coupled with the fact that the river in the WNY area is tidally influenced, creates an environment in which pollutants linger instead of being washed out by quickly moving water. On average, it takes materials in the lower Anacostia River 20 to 40 days (and over 100 days in times of drought) to reach the Chesapeake Bay (Interstate Commission 1996, USACE 1990). This flow pattern appears to deposit and concentrate significant amounts of upstream contaminants and sediments in the WNY vicinity (EPA and Chesapeake Bay Program Office 1999).
Historically, many industries were based along the banks of the Anacostia River and have had some impact on surface water and sediment quality. Other contaminant sources include mercury from the production of alkaline batteries, PCBs from power utilities, and arsenic from pesticides (EPA 2000).
Approximately 450 storm sewer outfalls owned by the Washington, DC, Water and Sewer Authority discharge storm water runoff directly into the area=s local surface waters. Of these, 136 storm water outfalls discharge into the Anacostia watershed. During large rain storms, 15 combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls discharge raw sewage and stormwater directly to the DC portion of the tidal Anacostia River. One hundred and ten storm sewer outfalls discharge into the tidal Anacostia River. Four outfallsCtwo CSO and two storm sewer outfallsCunderlie WNY property and have discharged to the River. Washington, DC, has not yet tested or monitored its municipal outfalls, but the Navy recently conducted some preliminary sampling.
Surface Water Use
No one drinks surface water from the Anacostia River in the WNY
vicinity. Local fishers and boaters use the Anacostia River for recreational
purposes. There is a small boat yard and two yacht clubs immediately upstream
from WNY. Across the river is a public park accessed by fishers. Park visitors
and local residents do not normally swim in the Anacostia River in the WNY
vicinity, but swimming in this area is not prohibited.
Surface Water and Sediment Quality
The Anacostia River=s health is
impacted by a number of interrelated forces, including urban development, the
input of untreated sewage from combined sewer overflows, non-point source surface
runoff from agricultural activities and storm drains, and the release of chemical
contaminants from industrial and federal facilities (Washington, D.C.RA 1996).
Over the course of decades of Washington, DC, urbanization and demographic changes,
the lower Anacostia River in the WNY vicinity has experienced growing problems
with erosion, sedimentation, and the delivery of excess nutrients. For example,
during wet weather conditions, the combined sewers in the municipal Washington,
DC, system carry both wastewater and storm water in excess of the Blue Plains
Wastewater Treatment Plant=s peak
flow capacity of 740 million gallons per day. This results in overflow events
occurring 40 to 50 times per year, discharging approximately 1.3 billion gallons
of untreated wastewater into the Anacostia River and other adjacent waters (MWCOG
1997).
More often than not, the specific types and amounts of pollution contributed by WNY activities remain unknown, largely because point sources of chemical contaminants to the Anacostia River are virtually impossible to trace. Few industries or other point sources currently discharge effluent to the lower Anacostia River. Most river contamination appears to stem primarily from off-site non-point sources, past discharges, and/or continuing releases from storm and combined sewers. It is unlikely that surface water and sediment contamination in the vicinity results from current Navy activities, which are primarily administrative at WNY. Several localized WNY sites, however, may have historically been sources of certain contaminants. Sediments in the stormwater sewer lines and outfalls appear to have trapped these historically-released contaminants. Further monitoring of WNY sediment and stormwater discharges, however, is necessary to isolate the larger sources of chemical contaminants. The extent to which WNY sediment and stormwater lines currently contribute to the Anacostia River pollutant load remains unknown.
Recent surveys of the sediments in the Anacostia River (Velinsky et al. 1994, Wade et al. 1994) reveal significant concentrations of PCBs, PAHs, metals, and the pesticide chlordane (Velinsky et al. 1992). Long-term military, agricultural, and industrial activities on the banks of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers are potential sources of these contaminants. Most of the major contaminants in the river adhere to particles, indicating that they likely originated from upstream sources and traveled to WNY via sediment transport. The highest concentrations of many contaminants have been located in the sediments at the lower reaches of the Anacostia River near the confluence with the Potomac River, adjacent to WNY.
During the Navy=s Surface Investigation, six sediment samples were collected from the Anacostia River adjacent to WNY and one sediment sample was collected upstream to serve as a background sediment sample. Methylene chloride (up to 3 parts per million [PPM]), acetone (up to 100 PPM), and toluene (trace amounts) were the only VOCs detected in the seven sediment samples, all at concentrations below ATSDR comparison values for soil (no comparison values exist for sediments). A total of 24 SVOCs were detected in the sediment samples collected from the Anacostia River, all at concentrations below ATSDR comparison values for soil (NFEC 1996). In general, the SVOC concentrations appear to be increasing downstream. Metals detected in the sediment samples included copper (up to 260 PPM), lead (up to 234 PPM), nickel (up to 40.7 PPM), and zinc (up to 415 PPM). Pesticides were not detected in the seven sediment samples. However, PCBs (Aroclor 1260) were detected in all the sediment samples with the exception of the background sediment sample. The concentrations of PCBs ranged from 0.085 PPM to 12 PPM and appear to be increasing downstream (NFEC 1996). ATSDR does not have a comparison value for Aroclor 1260, so the maximum detected concentration was screened against the most conservative Aroclor compound comparison value for soil, which is Aroclor 1254. Detected PCB levels slightly exceeded the Aroclor 1245 comparison value of 10 PPM for an adult and 1 PPM for a child. The highest PCB concentrations in sediment were measured adjacent to and downstream from WNY.
During another investigation, concentrations of PAHs in Anacostia River sediment in the WNY vicinity ranged from 5.6 to 28.3 PPM (Wade et al. 1994). These concentrations exceed upstream Anacostia River and typical urban background concentrations, both reported in the range of ppb rather than PPM (ATSDR 1995). The elevated PAH concentrations in the lower Anacostia River likely result from sediment transport and deposition in the WNY vicinity rather than from WNY activities (Wade et al. 1994; Coffin et al. 1998; ATSDR 1999a).
During a 1996 sediment removal action from two stormwater sewer lines (outfall 5 and outfall 10, the Navy found that the stormwater line sediments contained high levels of metals (arsenic [up to 52.6 PPM], lead [up to 567 PPM], mercury [up to 1.2 PPM]) and PCBs (Aroclor 1260 [up to 38 PPM]). Elevated levels of PAHs were also detected in the sediment (see Appendix A for details). Sediment samples collected at the WNY waterfront in 1996 contained lower contaminant concentrations. The contamination in the outfalls may have originated from Sites 4 and 6 or from the off-site Southeast Federal Center (SEFC), which formerly was part of WNY during its industrial period. Surface water samples were then collected at Sites 6 and 14, both of which contained metals (arsenic [up to 65.4 ppb], cadmium [up to 7.2 ppb], iron [up to 42,000 ppb], and lead [up to 305 ppb]) and PCBs (Aroclor 1260 [up to 2.2 ppb]) (NFEC 1996). Even though the maximum detected contaminant concentrations occurred in close proximity to WNY, the portion attributable to WNY activities is unknown. Contaminant deposition is concentrated in the WNY area due to the natural flow, tidal, current, and mixing patterns of the river (Coffin et al. 1998).
In July 1998, the Navy issued an addendum to the Final Interim Measures Work Plan to address dioxin concerns. One sediment sample was collected for each of the storm sewers leading to outfalls 1 and 5 which release into the Anacostia River. Sediment from two storm sewers lines, at outfalls 1 and 5, contains dioxin. The toxicity equivalency factors for dioxin were detected above EPA=s residential screening level. Currently, however, the exact nature and concentration of the dioxin remain unknown. At present, the Navy is investigating the storm sewer lines and outfalls to fully characterize the extent of the contamination.
Evaluation of Potential Public Health Hazards
The outfalls underlying WNY are buried underground and discharge
into the Anacostia River at locations where there is no public access.
Therefore, no one is exposed to on-site surface water or sediment. Although the
public is not exposed to on-site surface water or sediment, ATSDR identified
several short-term exposure scenarios in the surrounding WNY vicinity (e.g.,
fishing and boating in the Anacostia River).
Currently, insufficient data exist to fully characterize the extent and nature of contamination in the Anacostia watershed. However, people do not swim or drink from WNY runoff, outfalls, or the Anacostia River; therefore, exposure to contaminated surface water and sediment is minimal and limited to infrequent dermal contact that might occur during fishing, boating, or other recreational activities. In addition, most of the contaminants detected above ATSDR comparison values (e.g., metals) are not easily absorbed through the skin. ATSDR concludes that such infrequent, short-duration exposure to chemical contaminants in surface water and sediment near WNY does not pose any apparent public health hazards.
Could exposure to surface soil at WNY result in adverse health effects for local employees, residents, or visitors?
Conclusions
Discussion
Topography
WNY lies on terrace deposits and filled areas of the Anacostia
River and slopes generally from the northern part of the facility southward to
the river. The ground surface elevation ranges from a high of approximately 55
feet above mean sea level in the northeast part of the facility to just above
mean sea level along the bulkhead adjacent to the Anacostia River. The soil
appears to consist primarily of poorly sorted silt, sand, and gravel, mixed with
variable amounts of construction materials, such as brick, concrete, and wood
(CH2MHILL 1999).
Admiral=s Row (Site 10) is the area of primary concern for surface soil contamination (CH2MHILL 1998, NFEC 1996). Admiral=s Row lies along Warrington Avenue and consists of a group of residential buildings and Luetze Park. Surrounding areas consist of grass, pavement, concrete, and other buildings. Some Admiral=s Row residences have fenced yards and gardens. Luetze Park is the only non-paved area accessible to public visitors and WNY residents.
Nature and Extent of Soil Contamination
The main source of surface soil contamination at WNY is lead paint from
buildings (Navy 1999). Because most other sites were paved, WNY surface soil
samples were only collected and analyzed for lead from the yards of the residences
located on Admiral=s Row. The maximum
detected lead concentration in surface soil (up to 18,700 PPM) exceeded EPA=s
residential soil level of 400 PPM (Navy 1999).
Ten surface soil samples were taken from Luetze Park located on Admiral=s Row. The maximum detected lead concentration in Luetze Park was 441 PPM, which slightly exceeded EPA=s residential soil level of 400 PPM The other nine samples contained detected lead levels below 400 PPM In all Luetze Park samples, the testing laboratory indicated that analytes were present, that the reported values may be biased high, and that the actual lead values are expected to be lower. Therefore, actual lead levels are likely below 400 PPM
Building 292 (Site 14) surface soil, collected below pavement and/or beneath the building, was analyzed for PCBs. Aroclor 1260 was detected at a maximum concentration of 20 PPM, which exceeds ATSDR=s comparison values of 10 PPM (adult) and 1 PPM (child) for Aroclor 1254 (NFEC 1996). (ATSDR does not have a comparison value for Aroclor 1260, so the maximum detected concentration of 20 PPM was screened against the most conservative Aroclor compound comparison value, which is Aroclor 1254).
The Navy found visible liquid mercury in subsurface soil in a confined area at Site 16, approximately 5 or 6 feet below ground surface and very close to the water table. Site 16 is a paved parking lot. In June 1999, the mercury contaminated soil was removed.
Evaluations of Potential Public Health Hazards
The likelihood that workers in their routine responsibilities
(e.g., landscaping, gardening, or construction), or residents and visitors
during their infrequent access to Admiral=s
Row soils, will contact the most contaminated soil for an extended period is
remote. If workers or trespassers do contact contaminated soil, exposure most
likely is intermittent and brief. Moreover, workers entering these areas must
wear protective clothing, which further reduces exposure and any associated
health effects. Such minimal, infrequent exposure to on-site contaminants, if it
occurs at all, would not be expected to result in adverse health impacts.
Appendix A provides a detailed evaluation of potential public health hazards
associated with soil contamination at each WNY site. All sites, except for
Admiral=s Row, are not associated with
any known public health hazards because: 1) no site-related contaminants are
present where exposure to the public could occur; 2) contaminant concentrations
detected are too low to pose a health hazard; and/or 3) past and current
exposures to the general public have been prevented. In addition, most WNY sites
(including Admiral=s Row) are
surrounded by perimeter fencing and covered surfaces (e.g., vegetative growth,
paved areas)Cboth of which prevent
and/or reduce potential exposure to contaminated soil. In other locations,
contamination occurs in inaccessible subsurface soils where exposure is not
possible.
Admiral=s Row surface soil is a completed past exposure pathway for on-site workers, residents, and visitors. Historically, public contact with Admiral=s Row surface soil was not deterred or restricted. Therefore, dermal contact with and incidental ingestion of lead concentrations above EPA=s residential soil level of 400 PPM likely occurred. Because all age groups have accessed WNY, either as residents or museum visitors, ATSDR evaluated potential health hazards at WNY for both adult and child past exposures (Appendix C). Based on ATSDR=s estimated exposure doses, past blood lead levels for children living at WNY may have been elevated above the recommended action level of 10Fg/dl in blood. Due to conservative assumptions in the calculation made by ATSDR, this estimated dose likely overestimates actual past exposure levels. Due to insufficient historical data on the extent of and exposure to this lead contamination, the exact health implications from past exposures can not be assessed.
To deter people from contacting contaminated surface soils at Admiral=s Row, the Navy currently enforces several interim measures. The Navy has constructed yard and garden fences surrounding contaminated areas of soil, posted signs warning the public about the contaminated surface soils, and implemented and enforced stringent land use restrictions to stop residents and the general public from contacting yard and garden soils. Only trained contractors following Occupational Safety and Health Administration safety requirements and wearing protective gear are currently permitted to dig, garden, and/or landscape in the Admiral=s Row vicinity. The Navy also initiated a public education program. This lead-awareness initiative alerts WNY construction workers, employees, and residents about the hazards of working and living in a 200-year old military base. These interim measures have effectively deterred WNY residents, employees, and visitors from contacting Admiral=s Row contaminated surface soils (ATSDR 1999a).
ATSDR concludes that current and potential future exposures to on-site soil pose no apparent public health hazards. Past soil exposure is a completed exposure pathway with the potential for adverse health effects to children, but, due to the lack of historical data, the health implications from past exposure can not be assessed.
Will eating fish caught from the lower Anacostia River near
WNY cause adverse health effects?
Conclusions
Discussion
The Anacostia River is a popular recreational fishing spot for Washington, D.C.-area anglers, particularly in the vicinity of Hains Point (at the confluence of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers). Most anglers fishing along the river practice catch and release fishing (82%), although some anglers still cook and eat their catches. Of the fish species inhabiting the river, catfish and bass are the most commonly caught species (DC Department of Health 1999). A public park (Anacostia Park) lies across the lower Anacostia River from WNY with posted signs to warn anglers against cleaning their catch on the picnic benches. During the site visit, however, ATSDR noted that public signs warning anglers against eating their catch are not readily apparent. We recommend that the National Park Service improve the fishing advisory signs so that they are more easily seen in Anacostia Park. The Washington, DC, Department of Public Health (DC Health Department) has posted signs in the area since it issued a fish consumption advisory for the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers in July 1989. We recommend additional fish advisory warning signs in visible locations along the lower reaches of the Anacostia River.
As noted in the Surface Water and Sediment discussion, the Anacostia River water quality and the sediment have been impacted by a number of pollutant sources, including urban development, untreated sewage from combined sewer overflows, non-point source surface runoff from agricultural activities and storm drains, and the release of chemical contaminants from industrial and federal facilities (Washington, D.C.RA 1996). Today, most river contamination stems primarily from off-site non-point sources, continued releases from past discharges, and/or continuing releases from storm and combined sewers. Because of a number of possible pollutant sources, the extent to which WNY has or currently contributes to the Anacostia River contamination remains unknown.
Even though the levels of chemical contaminants in surface water or sediment of the Anacostia River are relatively low, the levels of contaminants in fish tissue are high enough to pose health concerns to people who eat fish. The contaminants build up in fish over time as a result of a very slow rate of elimination. Larger, older fish tend to accumulate the highest levels of contaminants (EPA 1994).
In 1989, the Washington, DC, Department of Health issued a public health advisory, urging anglers to limit their consumption of channel catfish, carp, and eel caught in the DC waters of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. This advisory was primarily based on elevated levels of PCBs and chlordane in fish (see Fish Tissue Data section below). These species were targeted because they generally have a high body fat content that readily bioaccumulates contaminants and because they are bottom feeders in frequent contact with contaminated sediments. The Washington, DC, Department of Health advised citizens to consume no more than one locally caught meal (one-half pound) per week and to eat only skinless, boneless fillets. The advisory discouraged women of childbearing age, nursing mothers, and pre-schoolers from eating any locally caught fish (DC DCRA 1994a).
Based on annual fish tissue data gathered by the Washington, DC, Environmental Regulation Administration (DC ERA), the Washington, DC, Department of Health reviewed and updated their fish consumption advisory with stronger language in 1994 (Interstate Commission 1996). The upgraded advisory called for a total ban on the consumption of locally caught catfish, carp, and eel (bottom-feeding species). Additionally, it advised citizens to eat only one-half pound per week of sunfish, one-half pound per month of largemouth bass, and 1 to 4 meals per month of other fish from the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. The Washington DC, Department of Health advised people to choose younger and smaller fish of legal size and encouraged catch-and-release fishing over consumption (DC DCRA 1994b). According to Washington, DC, Department of Health officials, the vast majority of the public adheres to these posted warnings, but some community members continue to eat fish and eel caught from the lower Anacostia River.
Fish Tissue Data
A number of fish tissue studies have been conducted by various agencies
and groups to assess trends in contaminants concentrations in the fish from
both the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. Many studies report contaminant levels
above action or tolerance levels designed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) to protect consumers of commercial fish. The two primary contaminants
of concern are PCBs and chlordane (Velinsky and Cummins 1994, Sommerfield and
Cummins 1989). FDA=s action or tolerance
levels, used by ATSDR as screening values and referenced in the following discussion,
are (all wet weight): PCBs, 2.0 PPM; chlordane, 0.3 PPM; dieldrin, 0.3 PPM;
1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDT), 5.0 PPM; and mercury, 1.0
PPM
Many of the available studies report findings of contaminants in fish samples collected from various points along the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers and in more than one fish sample type (i.e., fillet, carcass, and whole fish). For the purposes of this public health assessment, ATSDR was most interested in assessing data for fish most likely affected by WNY-related contaminants and for fish types most relevant to local population=s eating habits. Therefore, ATSDR evaluated:
Between 1987 and 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1987), DC ERA (1989), the DC Environmental Control Division (1991), and Velinsky and Cummins (1989 to 1992) conducted studies to characterize chemical residues in fish from the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. Fish, predominantly channel catfish, common carp, largemouth bass, brown bullhead, sunfish, and American eel, were collected and analyzed for PCBs and pesticides; selected samples were analyzed for metals, VOCs, SVOCs, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. In addition to fillet (skinned and deboned) samples, certain studies also analyzed whole body and carcass samples for contaminant concentrations (Velinsky et al. 1992; Velinsky and Cummins 1994).
In general, the 1987-1992 data indicate that detectable levels of many chemicals were present in edible, as well as whole body and carcass, samples of fish from the Anacostia River. The chemicals ranged from trace levels of metals, such as mercury and lead, to higher levels of organic compounds, such as pesticides and PCBs. In fact, in each study PCBs and the pesticide chlordane exceeded their respective FDA action or tolerance levels. The highest levels of contaminants tended to be in bottom feeding fish, such as channel catfish and American eel. PCBs and chlordane were detected at levels up to 2.4 PPM and 0.622 PPM, respectively, in channel catfish caught from the lower Anacostia River. [Higher PCB levels were reported for whole body (2.4 PPM) and carcass (2.9 PPM) samples.] Top level predators typically accumulate less PCBs and other organic compounds, owing to less body fat. Based on the fish tissue data, it was clear that PCBs and chlordane were present at concentrations of public health concern (Velinsky and Cummins 1994).
As of 1996, Velinsky and Cummins had collected and analyzed 20 fish sample composites. The composites were obtained from the DC=s Environmental Regulation Administration (DC ERA) archived inventories of samples collected in 1993, 1994, and 1995. Not all species were collected from the same location each year. The samples were analyzed for more than 129 chemical contaminants. PCBs, chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, and mercury were detected in one or more species of fish, but generally at concentrations below FDA action or tolerance levels. Based on their fish tissue data, however, Velinsky and Cummins still concluded that PCBs and chlordane were present in fish tissue at concentrations of public health concern (Velinsky and Cummins 1996). Table 2 summarizes the maximum contaminant concentrations detected in fish fillet samples collected from the lower Anacostia River.
In the fall 2000, DC ERA and EPA conducted a fish tissue study along the Anacostia River. Findings of this study will not become final until mid-2001. Preliminary results, however, appear to confirm previous historical findings, mainly that PCB and chlordane are the primary contaminants of concern and are repeatedly detected at concentrations above FDA action levels, especially in bottom-dwelling fish species such as the channel catfish, carp, and American eel (Anacostia River Watershed Database and Mapping Project, NOAA 1999; Velinsky 2000). Based on results from the anticipated fish tissue study, the DC Health Department will revise its Anacostia River fish consumption advisory as necessary (Bekele 2000). ATSDR will also review these data as soon as they become available.
In summary: (1) historical fish tissue data (1987-1992) for the lower Anacostia River indicate that the FDA action or tolerance levels for PCBs and chlordane have been exceeded in fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, and American eel, thus prompting the Washington, DC, Department of Health to issue a fish consumption advisory for the lower Anacostia River; (2) more recent fish tissue data (1993-1995) show lower PCB and chlordane concentrations, at levels generally below the FDA action or tolerance levels but still of public health significance; and (3) additional fish tissue data for the lower Anacostia River will become final in May 2001.
Evaluation of Potential Public Health Hazards
Of all contaminants detected in fish from the lower Anacostia
River, only PCBs and chlordane exceeded their respective FDA action or tolerance
levels. These FDA action or tolerance levels served as preliminary screening
values, but ATSDR did not consider them to be very conservative for several
reasons: (1) the FDA action levels apply only to fish sold in interstate
commerce, (2) the FDA action levels factor in economic considerations and are
not as conservative as health-based action levels, and (3) fish consumption
rates for sport anglers could be higher than those assumed for the consumption
of commercially bought fish. Therefore, ATSDR conservatively estimated exposure
doses for individuals who eat fish contaminated with PCBs and chlordane from the
lower Anacostia River. Appendix C describes the method and conservative
assumptions ATSDR used to estimate exposure doses and potential health effects.
The estimated exposure dose for PCBs exceeded levels considered acceptable for
the general population. Based on current, available information, ATSDR
concludes the consumption of local fish could pose a public health hazard and
the no fish consumption advisory for the Anacostia River should continue to be
observed. Additional signs urging people to adhere to the advisory may be needed
at key public access points along the Anacostia River.
The community surrounding WNY has concerns regarding the Anacostia River=s surface water quality. No public health hazards were specifically attributed to local surface water contamination, nor were WNY operations implicated as the primary source of Anacostia River pollutants. The public, however, expressed a desire for WNY to immediately address the issue by implementing remediation efforts to improve local surface water quality. The status of the various sites at WNY and remediation projects are outlined in the Public Health Action Plan section and Appendix A of this report.
On September 26 and 27, 2000, ATSDR held sessions for the public to express their health and environmental concerns with respect to WNY. Our public sessions were held at Van Ness Elementary School and the Anacostia Park Pavilion. During these sessions, ATSDR spoke with representatives from the National Park Service, the Student Conservation Association, Inc., and the Navy. ATSDR also spoke with eight fishermen in Anacostia Park on September 27. Three fishermen said they were catching-and-releasing while 5 others indicated they eat the fish sometimes and were not aware of consumption advisories.
ATSDR recognizes that infants and children may be more sensitive to exposures than adults in communities with contamination in their water, soil, air, or food. This sensitivity is a result of a number of factors. Children are more likely to be exposed to soil or surface water contamination because they play outdoors and often bring food into contaminated areas. For example, children may come into contact with and ingest soil particles at higher rates than adults do; also, some children with a behavior trait known as Apica@ are more likely than others to ingest soil and other nonfood items. Children are shorter than adults, which means they can breath dust, soil, and any vapors close to the ground. Also, they are smaller, resulting in higher doses of chemical exposure per body weight. The developing body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if toxic exposures occur during critical growth stages. Because children depend completely on adults for risk identification and management decisions, ATSDR is committed to evaluating their special interest at sites such as WNY, as part of the ATSDR Child Health Initiative.
ATSDR has attempted to identify populations of children in the vicinity of WNY and any completed exposure pathways to these children. During the 1999 ATSDR site visit, one adolescent child under the age of 18 lived on WNY property. The community surrounding WNY contains residential neighborhoods with children and schools, but children cannot easily trespass on to WNY property due to perimeter fencing and military security measures. Children, however, may infrequently visit WNY during group tours and visits to the on-site museum. The tours and museum do not expose WNY visitors to contaminated areas or public health hazards.
Residential and visiting children may access Luetze Park, but not Admiral=s Row gardens and house lawns which contain lead levels above 400 PPM Access to Admiral=s Row is prevented by site fencing and land use restrictions. Luetze Park is grass covered and contains surface soil lead concentrations too low to pose a public health hazard to children.
In the past, prior to Naval land use restrictions, there may have been limited child exposure to the lead-contaminated surface soil. Currently, all child exposures to on-site contaminants are prevented because children do not drink the underlying groundwater, contact Admiral=s Row surface soils, access subsurface soils, or come into contact with any other known contaminated areas.
The Anacostia River has been impacted by chemical pollutants released into the river from a variety of sources. Children should not come into prolonged direct contact with the pollutants since children do not swim in the Anacostia River. Children may eat fish from the river, however, if parents do not follow the Washington, DC, fish consumption advisory for the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. If children do eat locally-caught fish, the chemical residues in the fish could pose a public health hazard for children. ATSDR recommends that children and parents observe the Washington, DC, fish consumption advisory. We also recommend raising awareness about the fishing advisory among residents and health care providers.
ATSDR concludes that past, current, and future exposures to groundwater, surface water, and sediment do not pose a public health hazard for children because exposure is minimal, if it occurs at all. Past exposure to lead in surface soil at Admiral=s Row is a completed exposure pathway with the potential to have adversely affected child health. The consumption of local fish poses a potential child health hazard and children should not eat fish caught in the lower reaches of the Anacostia River.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on an evaluation of available information, ATSDR has reached the following conclusions:
The Public Health Action Plan (PHAP) for WNY contains a description of actions taken and those to be taken, as necessary, by ATSDR, the Navy, EPA, EPA Region III, and Washington, DC, Department of Public Health at and in the vicinity of the base subsequent to the completion of this public health assessment. The purpose of the PHAP is to ensure that the public health assessment not only identifies public health hazards, but provides a plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting from exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. The public health actions that are completed, being implemented, or planned are as follows:
Completed Actions
On the basis of the 1996 Site Investigation report, the
Navy has conducted removal actions and/or Engineering Evaluations/Cost
Analysis at five sites:
Ongoing/Planned Actions
1. The Navy=s removal of contaminated sediments from the storm sewers is on-going.
2. Site removal evaluations will be conducted at Sites 7, 11, and 13.
3. The Navy will continue to create and enforce land use controls, as necessary, to ensure that the public is not exposed to any contaminated areas unfit for residential use.
4. Washington, DC, Department of Public Health will post additional fish advisory warning signs in visible locations along the lower reaches of the Anacostia River.
5. In August 2000, DC ERA and EPA initiated another fish tissue study. The DC Health Department will revise its Anacostia River fish consumption advisory, if necessary, based on these new data.
6. ATSDR will reassess any new data when they become available and reevaluate, if necessary, its conclusions of potential public health hazards.
PREPARERS OF REPORT
This report was prepared under the direction and supervision of:
| Laura Frazier Environmental Health Scientist Federal Facilities Assessment Branch Division of Health Assessment and Consultation |
| Gary Campbell, Ph.D. Environmental Health Scientist Federal Facilities Assessment Branch Division of Health Assessment and Consultation |
| Tom Stukas Regional Representative ATSDR Region 3 |
ATSDR. 1995. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Update). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Research Triangle Institute. August 1995.
ATSDR. 1998. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Health Consultation, Anacostia River Initiative, Washington, District of Columbia, July 8, 1998.
ATSDR 1999a. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Site visit to Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC February 16, 1999 through February 18, 1999. Site lead: Amanda Stoddard, Environmental Health Scientist.
ATSDR. 1999b. Toxicological Profile for Lead (Update). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Research Triangle Institute. July 1999.
ATSDR. 2000. Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Update). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Syracuse Research Corporation. November 2000.
Bekele, J. 2000. Phone conversation between Jerusalem Bekele, Office of Water Quality, Washington, DC Department of Health and ERG, regarding recent Anacostia River water quality and fish tissue studies. ATSDR Record of Communication. July 28, 2000
Block, E. 1990. Organochlorine Residues and Histopathological Examination of Fish from the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, Washington, DC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD.
CH2MHILL. 1998. Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Admiral=s Row - Site 10, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC, Department of the Navy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. CTO-0040. June 1998.
CH2MHILL. 1999. Final Update One Corrective Action Management Plan for RCRA Facility Investigation and Removal Actions, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC, Department of the Navy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. CTO-58. January 1999.
Coffin, R., M. Orr, L. Cifuentes, and J. Pohlman. 1998. Contaminant Distribution and Fate in Anacostia River Sediments: Particulate Transport Survey. Naval Research Laboratory. NRL/MR/6115B98-8139. February 27, 1998.
DC DCRA. 1994a. District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. The District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment, 1994 Report to the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Congress Pursuant to Section 305(b) Clean Water Act, DCRA/Environmental Regulation Administration, Washington, DC
DC DCRA. 1994b. District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. District of Columbia Fishing Regulations, DCRA/Environmental Regulation Administration, Washington, DC
DC Department of Health. 1999. Project Performance Report, F-2-R-13, 1998 Recreational Fishing Survey of the District of Columbia. Government of the District of Columbia. Department of Health. Environmental Health Administration. Fisheries and Wildlife Division.
EPA and Chesapeake Bay Program Office. February 1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories. Volume II: Risk assessment and fish consumption limits. Office of Science and Technology. Office of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC June 15, 1994.
EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. What Happens When It Rains? Addressing Wet Weather Pollution Challenges in the Washington Metropolitan Area (Draft Report). February 12, 1999.
EPA. 2000. EPA Environmental News, U.S. Navy Research Vessel Helps Anacostia Watershed with Chemical Contaminant Cleanup, July 19, 2000.
Interstate Commission. 1996. Anacostia River Toxics Management Action PlanCDRAFT. (Submitted by) Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, (Submitted to) District of Columbia Environmental Regulation Administration. April 8, 1996.
Miller, P. 1999. Paul Miller of the Navy, ATSDR record of communication with Eastern Research Group, regarding a site update and data gaps. July 28, 1999.
MWCOG. 1997. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Draft Anacostia Watershed Restoration Progress and Conditions Report 1990-1996. Washington, DC 1997.
Navy. 1999. Draft Final Site Management Plan Fulfilling Submission Requirements for: Final Corrective Action Management Plan (CAMP). Department of the Navy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Contract No. N62470-95-D-6007 CTO-58). Norfolk, Virginia. July 1999.
NFEC. 1996. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the Navy Chesapeake Division. Final Site Investigation, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC, Volume 1 of 111, Text. CTO-0289. September 1996.
NFEC. 1999. Draft final management plan. Fulfilling submission requirements for: Final corrective action management plan (CAMP). Department of the Navy. Atlantic Division. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. July 1999.
NFEC. 2001. Personal correspondence from Lance Laughmiller, Installation Restoration Section, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. April 24, 2001.
Final corrective action management plan (CAMP). Department of the Navy. Atlantic Division. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. July 1999.
NGF. No date. United States Naval Gun Factory. Brief History of the Washington Navy Yard: Fact Sheet. United States Navy.
NOAA. 1999. Developed by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration, Coastal Protection and Restoration Division. Anacostia River Watershed Database and Mapping Project. Release One. November 1999. CD-Rom database provided to ATSDR June, 2000. Contains water quality, sediment, and fish tissue data from EPA, NOAA, and state departments.
Pinkney, A.E., W.H. Burton, L.C. Scott, and J.B. Frithsen (1993) An Assessment of Potential Effects of the January 1992 Oil Spill in the Anacostia River, Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.
Pinkney, A., J.C. Harshbarger, E.W. May, and M. Melancon. 2000. Tumor prevalence and biomarkers of exposure and response in Brown Bullheads (Ameiurus nebulosus) from the Tidal Potomac River Watershed. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. CBFO-C99-04. March 2000.
Sommerfield, M. and J.D. Cummins. 1989. Statistical Analysis of Fish Tissue Toxics Data Collected by the District of Columbia. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD.
USACE. 1990. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Anacostia River and Tributaries, District of Columbia and Maryland, Reconnaissance Report. USACE Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD.
Velinsky, D.J., H.C. Haywood, T.L. Wade, and E. Reinharz. 1992. Sediment Contamination Studies of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers Around the District of Columbia, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Report # 94-2, Rockville, MD.
Velinsky, DJ, B. Gruessner, and C. Haywood. 1994. Determination of the Volume of Contaminated Sediments in the Anacostia River: District of Columbia (Draft Report). Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Regulation Administration. 1994.
Velinsky, DJ and JD Cummins. 1994. Distribution of Chemical Contaminants in Wild Fish Species in Washington, DC, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Report # 94-1, Rockville, MD.
Velinsky, DJ and JD Cummins. 1996. Distribution of Chemical Contaminants in 1993-1995 Wild Fish Species in Washington, DC, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Report # 96-1, Rockville, MD. July 1996.
Velinsky, DJ 2000. David J. Velinsky of the Academy of Natural Sciences, ATSDR record of communication with Eastern Research Group, regarding a site update and data gaps. August 21, 2000.
Wade, TL, DJ Velinsky, E. Reinharz, and C.E. Schlekat. 1994. Tidal River Sediments in the Washington, DC Area. II. Distribution and Sources of Organic Contaminants. 1994.
Washington, D.C.RA. 1996. Washington, District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Environmental Regulation Administration. Anacostia River Toxics Management Action Plan (Draft). April 8, 1996.
Washington Navy Yard (WNY). 2001. The Naval Center. Washington Navy Yard web page. http://www.history.navy.mil.branches/nhcorg8.htm. January 2001.
|
Table 1. Exposure Hazards Summary, Washington Navy Yard |
||||
|
Exposure Scenario |
Time Frame |
Exposure Yes/No |
Hazard |
Actions Taken/Recommended |
|
Exposure to groundwater underlying WNY. |
Past |
Past, current, and future: No |
No hazard |
$ No actions are necessary to protect public health. |
|
Dermal contact with surface water and sediments, both on- and off-site. |
Past |
Past, current, and future: Minimal exposure, if any, to surface water and sediment. Local residents do not swim or drink from WNY runoff, outfalls, or the Anacostia River. |
No apparent hazard |
$
The Navy and Washington, DC, Department of Public Health will sample storm
sewer outfalls. $ The Navy=s removal action of contaminated sediments from the WNY storm sewer system is ongoing. |
|
Dermal contact with surface soil at Admiral=s Row (Site 10). |
Past Current Future |
Past: Yes |
Past: possible health hazard for children Current and future: No apparent hazard |
$
It is not known whether or not children were exposed to hazardous soil
lead levels in the past, but current exposure is prevented by Navy interim
actions (fencing, sign posting, and land use restrictions). $
The Navy initiated an education awareness program to further reduce
risks. $ The Navy has or will remove contaminated soils, including those from Admiral=s Row. |
|
Consumption of contaminated fish caught in the lower reaches of the Anacostia River.
|
Past Current Future |
Past, current, and future: Yes |
Past, current, and future: Hazard |
$
Anacostia River fish toxicity is a regional issue. $
Washington, DC, Department of Public Health has instituted an advisory
against eating fish caught from the Anacostia River. The advisory was
reviewed and updated with stronger language in 1994. $ Washington, DC, Department of Public Health will post additional fish advisory warning signs and continue its public outreach programs. We recommend that the National Park Service improve the fishing advisory signs so that they are more easily seen in Anacostia Park. |
Table 2. Summary of Lower Anacostia River Fish Tissue Studies
|
Contaminant |
Study/Database |
Maximum Concentration |
Date Sample Collected |
FDA Action or Tolerance Level
|
|
Mercury |
Pinkney et al. 1993 |
0.144 (Carp) 0.091 (COC) 0.164 (AE) |
1992 1994 1980-1995 |
1 |
|
Lead |
Pinkney et al. 1993 |
0.037 (Carp) |
1992 |
no value |
|
PAHs, total |
Pinkney et al. 1993 |
0.306 (Carp) |
1992 |
no value |
|
Naphthalene |
Velinsky and Cummins 19961 |
0.052 (CC) |
1993 |
no value |
|
PCBs, total 2 |
Pinkney et al. 1993 |
17.951(CC) 2.4 (CC) |
1992 |
2 |
|
DDT, total |
Pinkney et al. 1993 |
2.048 (Carp) |
1992 |
5 |
|
Chlordane 2 |
Pinkney et al. 1993 |
2.456 (Carp)
0.182 (CC) 0.622 (CC) |
1992 |
0.3 |
|
Dieldrin |
Velinsky and Cummins 19961 |
0.0254 (CC) |
1993 |
0.3 |
Key: BB = brown bullhead; CC = channel catfish; COC = common catfish; AE = American eel. Bolded values exceeded FDA action or tolerance levels.
1 In addition to presenting new data (1993-1995), Velinsky and Cummins (1996) summarized data for three other studies: Block 1990; Sommerfield and Cummins 1989; and Velinsky and Cummins 1994.
2 Higher PCB (up to 17 PPM) and chlordane (2.456 PPM) concentrations in lower Anacostia River fish were reported by Pinkney et al. (1993), a study which was initiated after a January 1992 oil spill unrelated to WNY operations. It is unclear why fish tissue contaminant concentrations reported in the Pinkney study are much higher than those reported by other studies. A close examination of the methods used and quality assurance and quality control results produced no specific causes. Fish collected for the Pinkney study may have been old, large, and from locations of higher pollutant load, factors that greatly influence fish tissue contaminant concentrations.
Table 3. Exposure Pathways at Washington Navy Yard
|
PATHWAY NAME |
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION |
ENVIRON-MENTAL MEDIUM |
POINT OF EXPOSURE |
ROUTE OF EXPOSURE |
TIME OF EXPOSURE |
EXPOSED POP. |
COMMENTS |
|
Groundwater (on-site)
|
WNY activities have affected groundwater underlying military property, with methylene chloride, chloroform, and metals being the main contaminants of concern. |
Groundwater
|
!
None
|
! None |
Past, Current, and Future: ! No exposures have or will occur. Underlying groundwater does not supply on-site drinking water. |
Past,
Current, and Future: |
Past, Current
and Future: ! All on- and off-site residents receive drinking water from a municipal source which meets all federal and state drinking water standards (e.g., EPA=s MCL). Groundwater underlying WNY poses no public health hazards because there is no exposure. |
|
Surface Water and Sediment
|
PCBs, PAHs, metals, and pesticides from numerous unidentified point and nonpoint sources in the Anacostia watershed, potentially including WNY activities and on-site storm drainage network.
|
Surface water and sediment |
Off-site exposure to surface water and sediment (Anacostia River) |
Dermal contact |
Past, Current and Future: ! Minimal exposure, if any, to surface water and sediment will occur. Local residents do not swim or drink from WNY runoff, outfalls, or the Anacostia River. |
Past, Current and Future: ! Local residents
|
Past, Current and Future: !
Most of the contamination in the WNY vicinity occurs in WNY drainage ditches
and the Anacostia River sediment. There is minimal, if any, public exposure
to these sediment. !
No one drinks local surface waters so there is no public exposure to this
water. !
Incidental exposure to sediment is not likely to present a public health
hazard. |
|
Soil (on-site)
|
Admiral=s Row (Site 10) surface soils contained lead concentrations (up to 18,700 PPM) above ATSDR comparison values for residential areas. The primary contamination source is lead paint peeling from WNY buildings.
|
Soil |
Past: ! On-site surface soil at specific residential houses on Admiral=s Row. Current and Future: ! Exposure to contaminated surface soil is largely prevented because the majority of the land=s surface is paved, covered by buildings, fenced, and/or lies in restricted land use locations. |
Incidental ingestion of or dermal contact with contaminated soil or inhalation of fugitive dust |
Past: ! Incidental exposure of unknown duration. Current and Future: ! None. |
Past: ! On-site residents, workers, trespassers, and (most susceptible) children. Current and Future: ! None. |
Past: !
People may have been exposed to elevated lead levels in surface soil that
may have posed child health hazards. ! Due to insufficient historical data on the extent of lead contamination, the exact child health implications from past exposures remain indeterminate. Current and Future: ! The public is not exposed to contaminated surface soils because Navy interim actions (e.g., fencing, sign posting, land use restrictions) prevent exposure to contaminated areas. Past exposure to Admiral=s Row surface soil is a completed exposure pathway that may have posed a child health hazard. Current and future exposures to WNY surface soils pose no apparent health hazard. |
|
Consumption of Local Fish (Off-site in the lower reaches of the Anacostia River, in the WNY vicinity)
|
PCBs, PAHs, metals, and pesticides from numerous unidentified point and nonpoint sources in the Anacostia watershed, potentially including WNY activities and on-site storm drainage network. |
Local fish populations |
Consumption of locally-caught fish |
Ingestion |
Past, Current, and Future: ! Unknown. |
Past, Current, and Future: ! Local anglers who disregard the Washington, DC, Public Health no fish consumption advisory.
|
Past, Current, and Future: !
Fish in the lower Anacostia River have been impacted primarily by PCBs,
although metals, pesticides, and dioxins were also detected in fish tissue. ! PCB concentrations in local fish may pose a public health hazard if consumed. Past, current, and future consumption of locally-caught fish poses a potential public health hazard; the no fish consumption advisory for the Anacostia River should continue to be observed. |
Appendix A: Summary of Sites at Washington Navy Yard
|
Site |
Site Description/Waste Disposal History |
Investigation Results/Environmental Monitoring Results |
Corrective Activities and/or Current Status |
Evaluation of Public Health Hazards |
| Building 201 | This site includes Building 201 and the adjacent soils. It is a two-story concrete and brick building. It was constructed as a maintenance facility for automotive equipment and official Government cars. Building 201 was investigated because past and current public works operations are suspected of contributing to the contamination found in site soil and groundwater. |
Groundwater: Two groundwater samples were collected from Building 201. No volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticide/polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), or oil and grease were detected in either of the groundwater samples. Some metals exceeded the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) comparison values for drinking water: antimony up to 23.6 parts per billion (ppb), arsenic up to 10.2 ppb, iron up to 43,500 ppb, lead up to 51.2 ppb, and manganese up to 555 ppb. Soil: Surface soil samples have not been collected at Building 201. Surface Water: There is no surface water at Building 201. |
Current Status: ! No Further Action (NFA) site. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure to groundwater at Building 201. Soil: Surface soil is inaccessible because Building 201 is paved and developed. ATSDR concludes that Building 201 poses no public health hazards. |
|
Operable Unit 1 Basewide Groundwater |
The basewide groundwater will be investigated as a single unit for the entire Washington Navy Yard (WNY). Various industrial operations have occurred at the facility since its establishment in 1799. All of the identified sites in this table and other potential off-site sources may be impacting the groundwater at WNY. There are no known potable groundwater sources existing on or near the WNY. |
Groundwater: Solvents, metals, PCBs, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, and other chemicals have been identified on the WNY. Chloroform (up to 12 ppb) was the only VOC detected above ATSDR comparison values for drinking water. Acetone, 1,2-dichloroethene (total), acenaphthene, fluorene, butylbenzylphthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and di-n-octylphthalate were frequently detected at concentrations at or below ATSDR comparison values. Methylene chloride was detected above ATSDR comparison values at concentrations up to 17 ppb. Metals detected above ATSDR comparison values in groundwater included arsenic (up to 31.2 ppb), iron (up to 84,000 ppb), and lead (up to 2,950 ppb). Beryllium was also detected up to 7.8 ppb, but this figure is below the ATSDR comparison value. Pesticides, PCBs, TPH, and oil and grease were not detected or were detected below ATSDR comparison values for drinking water. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected (up to 5 ppb), but this detect is not considered to be a site contaminant because bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is a common laboratory contaminant and it was detected in the associated quality assurance/quality control samples. |
Current Status: ! The Navy is planning further investigations to characterize the extent and magnitude of the contamination. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure to WNY groundwater. ATSDR concludes that WNY groundwater poses no public health hazards. |
|
Site 1 Building 22 |
Site 1 is comprised of a multistoried brick building, Building 22, and the soils directly adjacent to the building. Surrounding areas consist of pavement, concrete, and other buildings. It is the location of a former foundry for the manufacture of brass cannons, shells, and shot. Other machinery has also been constructed where Building 22 currently is located. Activities in this building included a 6-inch gun shop, miscellaneous shop, an erecting shop, a general machine shop, and a laundry facility. |
Groundwater: No groundwater was collected from Site 1. Soil: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations exceeding ATSDR comparison values were arsenic (5.9 parts per million [PPM]), beryllium (4.6 PPM), and lead (58.2 PPM). The following were also detected, but below ATSDR comparison values: aluminum (15,300 PPM), barium (59.6 PPM), chromium (18.6 PPM), and manganese (203 PPM). Surface Water: There is no surface water at Site 1. |
Current Status: ! NFA site. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure to groundwater at Site 1. Soil: Surface soil is largely inaccessible because Site 1 is paved and developed. ATSDR concludes that Site 1 poses no public health hazards. |
|
Site 2 Buildings 33, 36, 37, 39, 109 |
Site 2 is a multistoried brick structure, that includes Buildings 33, 36, 37, 39, 109, and the adjacent soils. The surrounding area consists of pavement, concrete, and other buildings. Building 33 was constructed in 1855 as part of the major expansion of the manufacturing complex at the WNY. Building 33 has been converted from a gun carriage shop to a general machine shop, a civil defense storage, a storage/supply, and is presently a general warehouse. An acid room and flammable storage area existed in Building 33A, as well as a mechanical room, restroom, and locker room. Potential hazardous substances associated with general machine shop operations may be assumed to include solvents, such as carbon tetrachloride, and metals used in paint spraying. Other buildings at Site 2 were storage and warehousing locations. |
Groundwater: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations were arsenic (5.8 ppb), beryllium (2.9 ppb), lead (51.8 ppb), manganese ( 1,460 ppb), and methylene chloride (2,400 ppb), all of which exceed ATSDR comparison values. Soil: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations for arsenic (11.2 PPM) exceeds ATSDR comparison values, while the maximum detected concentration of iron (63,600 PPM) does not. Surface Water: There is no surface water at Site 2. |
Current Status: ! NFA site. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure to groundwater at Site 2. Soil: Surface soil is largely inaccessible because Site 2 is paved and developed. ATSDR concludes that Site 2 poses no public health hazards. |
|
Site 3 Building 40/41 |
Site 3, a sloped, grassy area, is the former location of Building 40/41, which was a multistoried building. The surrounding area consists of pavement, concrete, and other buildings. Gun pits, the depths of which ranged from approximately 24 feet to 69 feet below the lower floor, were filled with rubble or granular material. Additionally, underground rooms beneath Dahlgren Avenue were left in place after demolition of Buildings 40/41. Through the years, Building 40/41 was transformed from a gun shop to a plating shop, and then to offices until it was demolished in 1977. Typically, a large variety of heavy metals, acids, cleaners, and caustics are used during plating operations. Also, during the period when Building 40/41 operated as a Fire Control School it is possible that solvents or other organic chemicals were used to initiate fires for training purposes. |
Groundwater: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations that exceed ATSDR comparison values were arsenic (6.0 ppb), beryllium (5.9 ppb), bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (5.0 ppb), iron (27,300 ppb), lead (57.2 ppb), and manganese (746 ppb). Soil: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations that exceed ATSDR comparison values were arsenic (4.2 PPM) and beryllium (4.2 PPM). The maximum concentration detected for iron (55,700 PPM) did not exceed ATSDR comparison values. Surface Water: There is no surface water at Site 3. |
Current Status: ! NFA site. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure to groundwater at Site 3. Soil: Visitors may infrequently be exposed to Site 3 soils via dermal contact and incidental ingestion. Such infrequent exposure to contaminant concentrations detected in Site 3 soils, however, is unlikely to result in adverse human health effects. ATSDR concludes that Site 3 poses no apparent public health hazards. |
|
Site 4 Buildings 44, 46, 108, 67 |
Site 4 includes Buildings 44, 46, 108, 67, and the soil adjacent to these buildings. They are multistoried, brick buildings. Surrounding areas consist of pavement, concrete, and other buildings. Building 46 was used as a copper rolling mill, cartridge case shop, metal pressings shop, Navy Exhibit Center, offices, and warehouse. Currently, the building contains the Navy Exhibit Center, shop, and warehouse. Building 46 also contains waste channels, scale pits, and various other pits under the flooring of the building. Building 108 was originally used in 1872 as an Anchor and Faggoting Shop. The building also was used for a cartridge case shop, chemical laboratory, seamen shop, offices, and storage. Based on historic operational processes associated with Building 108, residues may be present. Wastes associated with the processes listed above may include solvents, phenols, and metals. In addition, it should be noted that an industrial sewer line, apparently used for conveying industrial waste, ran north and south between Buildings 108 and 67. The Building 67 site can be traced back to 1898. The building was used as a cartridge case shop, primer shop, furnace room, metal pressings shop, storage, and Navy Exchange Center. Acid pits were also located in the northern portions of the building. Building 44 lies between Dahlgren Avenue and Harwood Streets, but its historical use is unknown. |
Groundwater: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations were beryllium (5.8 ppb), chloromethane (42.0 ppb), lead (38.2 ppb), manganese (1,640 ppb), methylene chloride (18.0 ppb), and nickel (532 ppb), all of which exceed ATSDR comparison values. Soil: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations were arsenic (8.1 PPM), which exceeds ATSDR comparison values, and beryllium (1.3 PPM) and iron (33,200 PPM), which do not. Surface Water: Samples from the sewer line at Site 4 contained maximum detected contaminant concentrations of copper (3,550 ppb), lead (3,570 ppb), mercury (810 ppb), and PCBs (3.8 ppb), all of which exceed ATSDR comparison values. Sediment: Samples from the sewer line at Site 4 contained maximum detected contaminant concentrations of mercury (810 PPM) and PCBs (3.8 PPM), which exceed ATSDR comparison values, and copper (3,780 PPM) and lead (3,570 PPM), which do not. |
Corrective Activities: ! In 1996, the Navy began conducting sediment removal actions. These removal actions, planned to continue through 2001, will include sediment at Site 4. Current Status: ! A Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Work Plan is being prepared. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure
to groundwater at Site 4. Surface Water: There is minimal, if any, public exposure to the sewer line at Site 4. Sediment: There is minimal, if any, public exposure to the sewer line sediment at Site 4. ATSDR concludes that Site 4 poses no apparent public health hazards. |
|
Site 5 Building 73 |
Site 5 includes Building 73 and the adjacent soils. Building 73 is a multistoried brick building. Surrounding areas consist of pavement, concrete, and other buildings. The Building 73 location can be traced back to 1845 when an ordnance laboratory was established on this site. The 1872 Plan of the WNY shows the area to be a vacant lot. The 1898 Plan indicates that underground storage tanks were present on this site. Building 73 was constructed during 1901-1902 and used as a specialized gun mount shop. The building also was utilized as a secondary mount shop, rough in shop, erecting shop annex, broadside mount shop annex, Shop 28 Annex 2, and an aluminum cleaning facility containing 10 above ground storage tanks used for iridite, alkaline for etching, degreasing with sump pumps, deoxidizers, and alkaline for nonetching. Historically, it is know that solvents, phenols, and metals were used in cleaning, cooling, and paint spraying activities. During the period when the building was utilized as an aluminum cleaning facility, a variety of wastes could have been generated. |
Groundwater: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations were arsenic (61.7 ppb), beryllium (6.9 ppb), chloromethane (22.0 ppb), copper (3,910 ppb), lead 1,080 ppb), manganese (4, 170 ppb), methylene chloride (14.0 ppb), and nickel (3,190 ppb), all of which exceed ATSDR comparison values. Aluminum (23,100 ppb) was also detected, but at a concentration below ATSDR comparison values. Soil: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations were arsenic (83.6 PPM) and benzo(a)pyrene (0.29 PPM), which exceed ATSDR comparison values, and beryllium (1.1 PPM), iron (53,900 PPM), and lead (4,420 PPM), which do not. Surface Water: There is no surface water at Site 5. |
Current Status: ! NFA site. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure to groundwater at Site 5. Soil: Surface soil is largely inaccessible because Site 5 is paved and developed. ATSDR concludes that Site 5 poses no public health hazards. |
|
Site 6 Building 116/118, 197 |
Site 6 is surrounded by perimeter fencing and includes Buildings 197, 116, and 118 and the adjacent soils. These are multistoried brick buildings that are currently under re-construction. Surrounding areas consist of pavement, concrete, and other buildings. Prior to construction of Building 197, an old scale pit, a fuel oil tank, Building 126, Building 127, and Building 150 were scheduled to be removed to facilitate the placement of the building=s foundation. A gun pit situated 12 feet below the ground floor level was installed in the northern end of the building. The building was utilized as a gun assembly shop and currently is abandoned. It is known that solvents such as carbon tetrachloride were used for cleaning, while metals (lead, chromium, cadmium, and antimony) were used in paint-spraying operations. Fuel oils, greases, metals, and solvents may have contributed to the contamination found in the soil and groundwater at Site 6. The area of Buildings 116 and 118 can be traced back to 1904 as it was gradually filled in with fill of unknown materials prior to 1902. Building 116 has operated as the boiler house since its construction and Building 118 has operated as the WNY power plant. An ash sedimentation pit was located south of Building 116 that was converted to a coal storage area in later years. |
Groundwater: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations were beryllium (9.8 ppb), bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (9.0 ppb), cadmium (5.8 ppb), lead 469 ppb), manganese (432 ppb), methylene chloride (17.0 ppb), and nickel (232 ppb), all of which exceed ATSDR comparison values. Soil: Arsenic (31.1 PPM) was detected in excess of ATSDR comparison values. Maximum detected contaminant concentrations which did not exceed ATSDR comparison values were benzo(a)anthracene (1.6 PPM), benzo(a)pyrene (1.2 PPM), benzo(a)fluroanthene (2.2 PPM), beryllium (1.3 PPM), dibenz(ah)anthracene (0.33 PPM), indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (1.1 PPM), and lead (730 PPM). Surface Water: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations were arsenic (65.4 ppb), cadmium (7.2 ppb), lead (305 ppb), manganese (990 ppb), and PCBs (2.2 ppb), all of which exceed ATSDR comparison values. Sediment: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations which exceed ATSDR comparison values were arsenic (52.6 PPM), benzo(a)pyrene (1.3 PPM), cadmium (2.4 PPM), PCBs (38 PPM), and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (490 PPM). Additionally, chrysene (2.1 PPM) dibenz(ah)anthracene (0.32 PPM), lead (567 PPM), mercury (1.2 PPM), nickel (84.7 PPM) were detected at levels below ATSDR comparison values. |
Corrective Activities: ! At the Coal Storage Yard (south of Building 116), the Navy conducted soil removal actions and abatement of PCBs, dioxins, heavy metals, PAHs, and other detected contaminants. Corrective activities were completed in November 1997. ! In 1996, the Navy began conducting sediment removal actions. These removal actions, planned to continue through 2001, have included sediment at Site 6. Current Status: ! A RCRA Work Plan is being prepared. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure to groundwater at Site 6. Soil: Due to perimeter fencing surrounding the site, there is minimal, if any, public exposure to Site 6 soils. Surface Water: There is minimal, if any, public exposure to the sewer line at Site 6. Sediment: There is minimal, if any, public exposure to the sewer line sediment at Site 6. ATSDR concludes that Site 6 poses no apparent public health hazards |
|
Site 7 Building 126 |
Site 7 includes Building 126 and the adjacent soils. Building 126 is a multistoried brick building. Surrounding areas consist of pavement, concrete, and other buildings. The Building 126 site can be traced back to 1939 when it was in operation as the receiving station laundry. Offices and the Naval Command System Support Activity also utilized this facility. Solvents such as perchloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride associated with laundry facility processes may have contributed to the contamination found in soil and groundwater at Site 7. |
Groundwater: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations were arsenic (16.9 ppb), lead (656 ppb), manganese (237 ppb), and methylene chloride (14.0 ppb), all of which exceed ATSDR comparison values. Soil: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations which exceed ATSDR comparison values were arsenic (11.3 PPM), benzo(a)anthracene (21 PPM), benzo(a)pyrene (25 PPM), benzo(b)fluroanthene (22 PPM), and benzo[k]fluroanthene (9.8 PPM). Not in excess of ATSDR comparison values were beryllium (0.62 PPM), chrysene (21 PPM), dibenz(ah)anthracene (0.45 PPM), and indeno (1,2,3-CD)pyrene. Surface Water: There is no surface water at Site 7. |
Current Status: ! A revised final Investigation Work Plan was submitted in January 1999 for Site 7. ! The Navy is conducting site removal evaluations at Site 7.
|
Groundwater: There is no public exposure to groundwater at Site 7. Soil: Even though the site is mostly paved and developed, visitors may infrequently be exposed to Site 7 soils via dermal contact and incidental ingestion. Such infrequent exposure to contaminant concentrations detected in Site 7 soils, however, is unlikely to result in adverse human health effects. ATSDR concludes that Site 7 poses no apparent public health hazards. |
|
Site 8 Building 211 |
Site 8 includes Building 211 and the adjacent soils. Building 211 is a single-story building. Surrounding areas consist of the Anacostia River, grass, pavement, concrete, and other buildings. Building 211 can be traced back to 1942 when it was utilized for paint and oil storage. In addition, it has been used to store other flammables and chemicals. Presently, Building 211 is a CPO Club. Based on past activities and the possibility of spills, residues from the products stored on these premises may have contributed to the contamination found in the soils at Site 8. |
Groundwater: No groundwater was collected from Site 8. Soil: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations were arsenic (22.4 PPM) and benzo(a)pyrene (0.51 PPM), which were in excess of ATSDR comparison values, and beryllium (0.94 PPM) and dibenz(ah)anthracene (0.14 PPM), which were not. Surface Water and Sediment: One sediment sample was taken in the vicinity of Site 8. VOCs were not detected. Pesticides, PCBs, and metals were detected below ATSDR comparison values. All detected SVOCs were below ATSDR comparison values for soil, including acenaphthene (740 ppb), chrysene (3,100 ppb), fluoranthene (13,000 ppb), fluorene (1,300 ppb), phenanthrene (11,000 ppb), and pyrene (10,000 ppb). |
Current Status: ! NFA site. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure
to groundwater at Site 8. Soil: Surface soil is inaccessible
to the general public. Not only is Site 5 mostly paved and developed,
it also lies on the far southwest corner of WNY, far removed from visitor
locations. Surface Water and Sediment: Contaminant
concentrations are too low to pose a public health hazard. Additionally,
public exposure to Site 8 sediments and the Anacostia River is minimal,
if it occurs at all. ATSDR concludes that Site 8 poses no public health hazards. |
|
Site 9 Building 219/220 |
Site 9 includes Buildings 219 and 220 and the adjacent soils. Both Buildings 219 and 220 are multistoried brick buildings. Surrounding areas consist of grass, pavement, concrete, and other buildings. Building 219 can be traced back to 1944 when it was known as the Gauge Laboratory Building. The building also operated as offices, a chemical laboratory, and the home of the Naval Weapons Quality Assurance Officer. Building 219 may have served as a machine shop. Mercury, a material associated with typical gauge laboratories, may have been released. This building was constructed with wooden floors that would not have provided as substantial a barrier between the floor/wastes and the environment as a concrete floor, indicating a possible greater impact to soils from former spills. |
Groundwater: The maximum detected contaminant concentrations were beryllium (5.3 ppb), lead (7.6 ppb), manganese (440 ppb), and nickel (1,880 ppb), all of which exceed ATSDR comparison values Soil: Arsenic (4.3 PPM) was detected in excess of ATSDR comparison values. Beryllium (0.68 PPM) was also detected, but did not exceed ATSDR comparison values. Surface Water: There is no surface water at Site 9. |
Current Status: ! NFA site. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure to groundwater at Site 9. Soil: Even though the site is mostly paved and developed, visitors may infrequently be exposed to Site 9 soils via dermal contact and incidental ingestion. Such infrequent exposure to contaminant concentrations detected in Site 9 soils, however, is unlikely to result in adverse human health effects. ATSDR concludes that Site 9 poses no public health hazards. |
|
Site 10 Admirals Row |
Admirals Row is the designation given to a group of buildings located along Warrington Avenue. These buildings currently are used as housing for officers of the Navy and include Quarters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, M-1, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, W, Y, Buildings 1, 59, 61, and Leutze Park. These buildings are multistoried residences with adjacent areas consisting of grass, pavement, concrete, and other buildings. Maintenance of these buildings with lead-based paint is believed to be the source of lead-contaminated soil. |
Groundwater: No groundwater was collected from Site 10. Soil: The maximum detected lead concentration (18,700 PPM) exceeded the ATSDR comparison value of 400 PPM The greatest lead concentrations were in surface soils adjacent to Admiral=s Row quarters. Surface Water: There is no surface water at Site 10. |
Corrective Activities: ! The Navy will conduct abatement activities to remove lead from the soil. Current Status: ! An Engineering Evaluations/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) report was finalized in February 1998. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure
to groundwater at Site 10. |
|
Site 11 Incinerators |
A 1979 Naval Facilities Engineering Command drawing shows that three incinerators were removed along with the top 6 inches of soil. Prior to demolition, these former incinerators were located south of Building 1666 and east of Building 218. The present day use of this site is as a parking lot. Adjacent areas to this location consist of pavement, concrete, and other buildings. Because of the unknown nature of the materials incinerated, contaminants from these operations may have contributed to the contamination found in the soil at Site 12. |
Groundwater: No groundwater was collected from Site 11. Soil: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations which exceed ATSDR comparison values were arsenic (33.2 PPM), benzo(a)athracene (15.0 PPM), benzo(a)pyrene (12.0 PPM), benzo(b)fluroanthene (20.0 PPM), beryllium (5.4 PPM), benzo(k)fluroanthene (5.0 PPM), and dibenz(ah)anthracene (3.9 PPM). Also detected, but not in excess of ATSDR comparison values were chrysene (13.0 PPM), indeno (1,2,3-CD)pyrene (7.1 PPM), and lead (851 PPM). Surface Water: There is no surface water at Site 11. |
Current Status: ! A revised final Investigation Work Plan was submitted in January 1999 for Site 11. ! The Navy is conducting site removal evaluations at Site 11. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure
to groundwater at Site 11. |
|
Site 12 Stormwater Lines from Site 4 and Outfall 5 |
Site 12 consisted of the stormwater line running from the area of Site 4 to outfall 5. The potential source of this contaminated sediment may have included past releases from Site 4. Site 12 is currently considered past of Site 4. |
The site contained elevated levels of metals, PAHs, and PCBs (see Site 4). |
See Site 4. |
See Site 4. |
|
Site 13 Building 290 |
Site 13 includes Building 290 and the soil adjacent to the building. It is located south of Admirals Row and north of Building 40/41. The building was suspected to have housed PCB-containing equipment in the past. PCBs have been found in the soil. |
Groundwater: No groundwater was collected from Site 13. Soil: Maximum detected contaminant concentrations were PCBs (10.0 PPM), which exceeds ATSDR comparison values. Surface Water: There is no surface water at Site 13. |
Current Status: ! The Navy is conducting site removal evaluations at Site 13. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure
to groundwater at Site 13. |
|
Site 14 Building 292 |
Site 14 includes Building 292 and the adjacent soils. It is a small single story building. Surrounding areas consist of paved parking and other brick buildings. The building previously housed a PCB-containing portable generator. The leaking generator is believed to have impacted the soils. Presently, there are no PCBs housed in this building.
|
Groundwater: Groundwater concentrations were below ATSDR comparison values for drinking water. Soil: Maximum detected contaminant concentration was PCBs (20.0 PPM) in surface soil. Surface Water: Analytical results of a standing water sample from the Building 292 basement did not indicate detectable concentrations of SVOCs or pesticides/PCB; only low levels of TPH were detected. All contaminant concentrations are below ATSDR comparison values for drinking water. |
Corrective Activities: ! The Navy completed a soil removal action and abatement of PCBs in November 1997. Current Status: ! NFA site. |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure
to groundwater at Site 14. |
|
Site 15 Stormwater Lines from Site 6 to Outfall 10
|
Site 15 consists of the stormwater line running from the area of Site 6 to outfall 10. The potential sources of Site 15 contaminants may have included Site 6 and off-site contaminated soil from the General Services Administration property. Site 15 is currently considered part of Site 6. |
Site 15 contained levels of PCB, PAHs, and metals in sediment above EPA screening criteria (see Site 6). |
See Site 6. |
See Site 6. |
|
Site 16 Building 71 |
The area defined as Site 16 is a paved parking lot area located in the south-central portion of the WNY, adjacent to the Anacostia River. Site 16 encompasses Building 71 and its current and former underground storage tanks; several existing monitoring wells; stormwater lines traversing the site; and an area where free-phase mercury was discovered in the subsurface. The stormwater lines that run through the site terminate at outfalls 5 and 6. At one time, 13 underground storage tanks existed at Site 16, both within and surrounding Building 71.
|
Groundwater: Groundwater was not sampled underlying Site 16. Soil: Visible liquid mercury was found in a confined subsurface soil area at Site 16, approximately 5 or 6 feet below ground surface and very close to the water table. Surface Water: Surface water has not yet been sampled at Site 16.
|
Corrective Activities: |
Groundwater: There is no public exposure to groundwater at Site 16. Soil: Surface soil is inaccessible at Site 16 because the area is paved. Similarly, the subsurface mercury is inaccessible to the public. ATSDR concludes that Site 16 poses no public health hazards. |
References:NFEC 1996 and 1999; CH2MHILL 1998 and 1999.
Appendix B: ATSDR Assessment Methodology and Comparison Values
Human Exposure Pathway Evaluation and the Use of ATSDR Comparison Values
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
assesses a site by evaluating the level of exposure in potential or completed
exposure pathways. An exposure pathway is the way chemicals may enter a person=s
body to cause a health effect. It includes all the steps between the release of
a chemical and the population exposed, including: (1) a chemical release source,
(2) chemical movement, (3) a place where people can come into contact with the
chemical, (4) a route of human exposure, and (5) a population that could be
exposed. In this assessment, ATSDR evaluates chemicals in environmental media
that people residing near a site may consume, inhale, or contact.
Health assessors use comparison values (CVs) as screening tools
to evaluate environmental data that is relevant to the exposure pathways. CVs
represent media-specific contaminant concentrations that are used to select
contaminants for further evaluation to determine the possibility of adverse
health effects. CVs used in this document include ATSDR=s
environmental media evaluation guide (EMEG) and cancer risk evaluation guide (CREG).
CVs are derived from available health guidelines, such as ATSDR=s
minimal risk levels and EPA=s cancer
slope factor
CVs used in this PHA include:
Cancer Slope Factor (CSF):Usually derived from dose-response models and expressed in mg/kg/day, CSFs describe the inherent potency of carcinogens and estimate an upper limit on the likelihood that lifetime exposure to a particular chemical could lead to excess cancer deaths.
Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG):Estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in a million (10-6) persons exposed over a 70-year life span. ATSDR=s CREGs are calculated from EPA=s cancer potency factors.
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration:EPA combines reference doses and carcinogenic potency slopes with "standard" exposure scenarios to calculate risk-based concentrations, which are chemical concentrations corresponding to fixed levels of risk (i.e., a hazard quotient of 1, or lifetime cancer risk of 10-6, whichever occurs at a lower concentration) in water, air, fish tissue, and soil.
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL):The lowest dose of a chemical that produced an adverse-effect when it was administered to animals in a toxicity study.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL):The MCL is the drinking water stand established by EPA. It is the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water that is delivered to a free-flowing outlet. MCLs are considered protective of human health over a lifetime (70 years) for individuals consuming 2 liters of water per day.
Minimal Risk Levels (MRL):MRLs are estimates of daily human exposure to a chemical
(i.e., doses expressed in mg/kg/day) that are unlikely to be associated with
any appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer effects over a specified
duration of exposure. MRLs are calculated using data from human and animal
studies and are reported for acute (< 14 days), intermediate
(15-364 days), and chronic (> 365 days) exposures. MRLs are
published in ATSDR Toxicological Profiles for specific chemicals.
The derivation of a CV uses conservative exposure assumptions,
resulting in values that are much lower than exposure concentrations observed to
cause adverse health effects; thus, insuring the CVs are protective of public
health in essentially all exposure situations. That is, if the concentrations in
the exposure medium are less than the CV, the exposures are not of health
concern and no further analysis of the pathway is required. However, while
concentrations below the CV are not expected to lead to any observable health
effect, it should not be inferred that a concentration greater than the CV will
necessarily lead to adverse effects. Depending on site-specific environmental
exposure factors (for example, duration of exposure) and activities of people
that result in exposure (time spent in area of contamination), exposure to
levels above the CV may or may not lead to a health effect. Therefore, ATSDR's
CVs are not used to predict the occurrence of adverse health effects.
The CVs used in this evaluation are defined as follows: The CREG is a concentration at which excess cancer risk is not likely to exceed one case of cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. The CREG is a very conservative CV that is used to estimate cancer risk. Exposure to a concentration equal to or less than the CREG is defined as an insignificant risk and is an acceptable level of exposure over a lifetime. The risk from exposure is not considered as a significant risk unless the exposure concentration is approximately 10 times the CREG and exposure occurs over several years. The EMEG is a concentration at which daily exposure for a lifetime is unlikely to result in adverse noncancerous effects.
Selecting Contaminants of Concern
Contaminants of concern (COCs) are the site-specific chemical
substances that the health assessor selects for further evaluation of potential
health effects. Identifying COCs is a process that requires the assessor to
examine contaminant concentrations at the site, the quality of environmental
sampling data, and the potential for human exposure. A thorough review of each
of these issues is required to accurately select COCs in the site-specific human
exposure pathway. The following text describes the selection process.
In the first step of the COC selection process, the maximum
contaminant concentrations were compared directly to health-based CVs. ATSDR
considered site-specific exposure factors to ensure selection of appropriate
health CVs. If the maximum concentration reported for a chemical was less than
the health CV, ATSDR concluded that exposure to that chemical was not of public
health concern; therefore, no further data review was required for that
chemical. However, if the maximum concentration was greater than the health CV,
the chemical was selected for additional data review. In addition, any chemicals
detected that did not have relevant health CVs were also selected for additional
data review.
CVs have not been developed for some contaminants, and, based on new scientific information other CVs may be determined to be inappropriate for the specific type of exposure. In those cases, the contaminants are included as COCs if current scientific information indicates exposure to those contaminants may be of public health concern.
The next step of the process requires a more in-depth review of data for each of the contaminants selected. Factors used in the selection of the COCs included the number of samples with detections above the minimum detection limit, the number of samples with detections above an acute or chronic health CV, and the potential for exposure at the monitoring location.
Appendix C: ATSDR Estimates of Human Exposure Doses and Health Effects
Derivation of ATSDR=s
Estimated Exposure Doses
To determine whether non-cancer and cancer effects are a
concern, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) estimated
adult and child exposure doses or body burdens for Washington Navy Yard (WNY)
completed exposure pathways. Specifically, ATSDR evaluated child (past) exposure
to lead in surface soil and adult and child (past, current, and future) exposure
to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chlordane in fish
Past Exposure to Lead in Surface Soil
Lead was identified as the contaminant of primary concern in
surface soil at Admiral=s Row.
Currently, health-based criteria are not available for evaluating the non-cancer
effects of lead exposure. ATSDR and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
have not developed health-based criteria, largely because a threshold level (a
level at which no adverse health effects will occur) for many non-cancer health
effects has not been identified in infants and younger children (i.e., the most
sensitive populations).
Correlations between blood lead levels and adverse effects are
fairly well understood, however, and are studied to evaluate the potential for
adverse health effects (e.g., nervous system effects, slowed child growth, and
developmental brain damage). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
considers children to have an elevated level of lead if the amount of lead in
the blood is at least 10 Fg/dl Medical evaluations
and environmental investigations and remediation should be performed when blood
lead levels in children reach 20 Fg/dl Medical
treatment may be necessary in children if the lead concentration in blood is
higher than 45 Fg/dl
In the absence of measured blood lead levels in children who
lived at WNY (no blood lead studies or other health outcome studies were
conducted in the past), ATSDR applied an approach that has been devised to
estimate blood lead levels from known, media-specific contaminant
concentrations. The approach has been developed based on the results of numerous
studies that have attempted to correlate environmental lead levels with blood
lead levels. The model that has been developed to estimate blood lead levels
considers the extent to which lead in water, soil, air, and food may cause blood
lead levels to rise. ATSDR regards the model as a useful screening tool and used
it to evaluate lead exposures at WNY.
ATSDR estimated the possible contribution of soil lead to blood
lead using soil concentrations measured during recent site investigations, based
on a maximum detected concentration of 18,700 PPM lead. Studies have generally
concluded that, for every 0.0007 to 0.0068 Fg/dl
increase in blood lead levels, there is a linear increase of 1 part per million
(PPM) in soil lead concentrations (ATSDR 1999b). Using this screening approach,
ATSDR estimated that past blood lead levels may have ranged between 13 Fg/dl
and 127 Fg/dl in children who lived at WNY. Based
on these estimates, blood lead levels for children living at WNY may have been
elevated.
This calculation, however, is extremely conservative and likely
over estimates child blood lead levels. It assumes that all WNY soil contained
the maximum detected lead level of 18,700 PPM In reality, however, many areas
in Admiral=s Row contained lead levels
below 400 PPM (which would not be expected to be associated with adverse health
effects). Furthermore, it assumes that 100% of this lead was bioavailable (i.e.,
readily available for absorption in the body). Lead bioavailability is affected
by a number of factors including solubility, particle size, and medium. Other
factors affecting the relationship between soil and blood lead levels include
the depth of soil sampled, sampling method, soil characteristics, specific land
uses, cleanliness of the home, age and mouthing activities of the children,
and many other factors. In addition, impacts from other possible lead sources
were not considered. Without detailed knowledge about WNY past conditions, ATSDR=s
estimates cannot be used to draw any firm conclusions, but provide some perspective
regarding the results of possible past exposures.
Current and future exposures to lead in surface soil have been
eliminated because children no longer have access to the contaminated soils at
Admiral=s Row.
Past, Current, and Future Exposures to PCBs and Chlordane from
Consumption of Locally-Caught Fish
Evaluation of Potential Public Health Hazards
ATSDR used the following equation to estimate exposure doses
from Anacostia River fish:
Estimated exposure dose = Conc. x IR x FI x EF x ED
BW x AT
where:
Conc = Maximum concentration in fish (mg/kg)
IR = Ingestion rate: 0.032 kg/day (approximately five 8-ounce meals per month), average consumption of fish and shellfish from estuarine and freshwater by sport fisherpersons for the general U.S. population.
FI = Fraction ingested from contaminant source (assumed 100%)
EF = Exposure frequency, or number of exposure events: 365 days
ED = Exposure duration, or the duration over which exposure occurs: adult = 30 years
BW = Body weight (kg): adult = 70 kg (154 pounds)
AT = Averaging time, or the time period over which cumulative exposures are averaged 30 years for non-cancer effects; 70 years for cancer effects)
Determination of Human Health Effects PCBs
Non-cancer Effects
PCBs were the contaminants detected at the highest concentrations and
posing the greatest potential health hazard to individuals eating fish caught
in the lower Anacostia River. Local anglers in the Washington, DC area reportedly
eat catfish more often then eels, so ATSDR based its estimated exposure dose
on a sport angler who eats an average of 32 grams of catfish a day (or five
8-ounce meals a month) contaminated with the maximum PCB concentration (2.4
PPM). The estimated dose of 1.1 x 10-3 mg/kg/day for adults exceeds
ATSDR=s minimal risk level (MRL) for
PCBs (Aroclor 1254) of 2 x 10-5 mg/kg/day for non-cancer health effects.
No evidence exists documenting adverse effects in humans from oral exposure to PCBs, but a variety of adverse effects have been observed and are well documented in animal studies. The difference between human and animal studies may be attributed to differences in species susceptibility, or more likely, the fact that most animal studies administer doses that greatly exceed those found in human exposure scenarios. Animal toxicity studies of oral PCB exposure have documented numerous adverse effects, including hepatic, gastrointestinal, hematological, dermal, immunological, neurological, developmental, and reproductive problems. Other effects of oral PCB exposure include body weight loss and thyroid toxicity (ATSDR 1999), but at levels much higher than the estimated exposures to lower Anacostia River fish. None of these adverse effects are expected from ATSDR=s conservatively estimated PCB exposure from the consumption of lower Anacostia River fish. The estimated exposure dose for consuming lower Anacostia River fish is approximately one order of magnitude lower than the most conservative No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) found in other chronic oral animal studies, and approximately three orders of magnitude lower than the NOAELs in the majority of chronic oral animal studies (ATSDR 1999). Therefore, ATSDR does not expect any adverse non-cancer effects to result from consuming lower Anacostia River fish with the reported levels of PCB contamination. In order to ensure the protection of public health, however, ATSDR recommends that people continue observing the Washington, DC, Department of Health no consumption fish advisory warning for the Anacostia River.
Cancer Effects
A number of animal studies have examined the possibility of PCBs
causing cancer, but epidemiological studies in humans do not provide enough
information to determine if PCBs are carcinogenic. Several reviews of
epidemiological studies (primarily, worker exposures to PCBs) have been
inconclusive or have not shown an association between PCBs and cancer (Cogliano
1998; Danse et al. 1997; Kimbrough 1995; Longnecker et al. 1997; Smith 1997;
Swanson et al. 1995; Vater et al. 1995; Ward et al. 1997 [as cited in ATSDR
1999c]). Compared to the cancer effect level found in animal studies, ATSDR=s
estimated human exposure dose of 4.7 x 10-4 mg/kg/day for adults is
approximately four orders of magnitude lower than the administered doses that
induced cancer effects in rats. Rats that ingested certain PCB mixtures over
their lifetimes developed liver cancer. Based on these animal studies, EPA
classifies PCBs as a Category B2 carcinogen, indicating that it is a probable
human carcinogen. The EPA=s National
Center for Environmental Assessment recommended that a cancer slope factor of
2.0 (mg/kg/day)-1 be used for PCBs in biota. Therefore, the cancer
risk from eating catfish from the lower Anacostia and Potomac Rivers under the
assumed exposure scenario would be (ATSDR 1999c):
2.0 (mg/kg/day)-1 x (4.7 x 10-4 mg/kg/day) = 1 x 10-4
This risk level (1 x 10-4) is just within the range typically acceptable for the general population. However, it should also be noted that the risk level calculation is extremely conservative and likely overestimates exposures. For example, it does not account for the fact that people may eat only the meat of a fish and not the skin (where fat tissue and PCBs are primarily stored). Moreover, given the inconclusive link between oral PCB exposure and human cancer, it is highly unlikely that the consumption of lower Anacostia River fish is going to result in adverse cancer effects for the local population. As a prudent public health measure, however, ATSDR, recommends that people continue to observe the no fish consumption advisory for the Anacostia River.
Chlordane
Non-cancer Effects
ATSDR identified chlordane as another potential contaminant of concern to
individuals eating fish caught in the lower Anacostia River. It was detected
at a maximum concentration of 0.622 PPM in catfish caught in the WNY vicinity.
Chlordane is a very fat soluble compound; therefore, it is generally detected
in fish with high body fat content (e.g., eels and catfish) and concentrated
in the fish skin and other fatty tissues. Numerous animal and human studies
have investigated the toxic effects of chlordane. Chronic studies of chlordane
in animals have considered and found the liver to be the primary target organ,
whereas occupational studies of workers with chronic chlordane exposure have
not established any effect (neurologic, hepatic, or hematotoxic). Recent epidemiological
results from a non-occupationally exposed cohort, however, show evidence of
neurotoxicity, including tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue, and confusion.
Epidemiological studies also suggest that chronic exposure to low levels of
chlordane affects the liver (ATSDR 1994).
As described above for PCBs, ATSDR based its estimated exposure dose on a sport fisherperson who eats an average of 32 grams of catfish a day contaminated with the maximum chlordane concentration (0.622 PPM). The estimated dose of 2.8 x 10-4 mg/kg/day for adults does not exceed ATSDR=s chlordane MRL of 1 x 10-3 mg/kg/day for non-cancer health effects. The estimated dose for lower Anacostia River anglers is approximately four to five orders of magnitude lower than the lowest doses resulting in observable health effects in animals. Such limited exposure to chlordane from the consumption of locally caught fish will not likely result in an increased risk of adverse non-cancer effects.
Cancer Effects
A number of animal studies have examined the possibility of
chlordane causing cancer, but epidemiological studies in humans do not provide
enough information to determine if chlordane is carcinogenic. The results of
animal studies sufficiently show that oral chlordane treatment induces benign or
malignant liver tumors in mice. The liver is also the target organ for cancer in
rats. The evidence for chlordane exposure leading to cancer in humans is
tentative, but based on the animal studies, EPA classifies chlordane as a
Category B2 carcinogen (probable human carcinogen). The EPA=s
National Center for Environmental Assessment recommended that a cancer slope
factor of 1.3 (mg/kg/day)-1 be used for chlordane in biota.
Therefore, the cancer risk from eating catfish from the lower Anacostia River
under the assumed exposure scenario would be (ATSDR 1994):
1.3 (mg/kg/day)-1 x (1.2 x 10-4 mg/kg/day) = 2 x 10-5
This risk level (2 x 10-5) is within the risk range typically acceptable for the general population. This risk level calculation is extremely conservative and likely overestimates exposures. For example, it does not account for the fact that people may eat only the meat of a fish and not the skin (where fat tissue and chlordane are primarily stored). Moreover, given the inconclusive link between oral chlordane exposure and human cancer, it is highly unlikely that the consumption of fish from the lower Anacostia River is going to result in adverse cancer effects for the local population (ATSDR 1994). As a prudent public health measure, however, ATSDR, recommends that people continue to observe the no fish consumption advisory for the Anacostia River.
Background Level
A typical or average level of a chemical in the environment.
Background often refers to naturally occurring or uncontaminated levels.
Carcinogen
Any substance that may produce cancer.
Comparison Values
Estimated contaminant concentrations in specific media that
are not likely to cause adverse health effects, given a standard daily
ingestion rate and standard body weight. The comparison values are calculated
from the scientific literature available on exposure and health effects.
Concentration
The amount of one substance dissolved or contained in a given
amount of another. For example, sea water contains a higher concentration of
salt than fresh water.
Contaminant
Any substance or material that enters a system where it is not
normally found or found in greater concentrations than background levels.
Dose
The amount of substance to which a person is exposed. Dose
often takes body weight into account.
Environmental Contamination
The presence of hazardous substances in the environment. From
the public health perspective, environmental contamination is addressed when
it potentially affects the health and quality of life of people living and
working near the contamination.
Exposure
Contact with a chemical by swallowing, by breathing, or by
direct contact (such as through the skin or eyes). Exposure may be short term
(acute) or long term (chronic).
Hazard
A source of risk that does not necessarily imply potential for
occurrence. A hazard produces risk only if an exposure pathway exists, and if
exposures create the possibility of adverse consequences.
Ingestion
Swallowing (such as eating or drinking). Chemicals can get in
or on food, drink, utensils, cigarettes, or hands where they can be ingested.
After ingestion, chemicals can be absorbed into the blood and distributed
throughout the body.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
MCLs represent contaminant concentrations in drinking water
that EPA deems protective of public health (considering the availability and
economics of water treatment technology) over a lifetime (70 years) at an
exposure rate of 2 liters of water per day.
Media
Soil, water, air, plants, animals, or any other parts of the
environment that can contain contaminants.
Minimal Risk Level (MRL)
An MRL is defined as an estimate of daily human exposure to a
substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects
(non-cancer) over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are derived when
reliable and sufficient data exist to identify the target organ(s) of effect
or the most sensitive health effect(s) for a specific duration via a given
route of exposure. MRLs are based on non-cancer health effects only. MRLs can
be derived for acute, intermediate and chronic duration exposures by the
inhalation and oral routes.
National Priorities List (NPL)
EPA=s listing of
sites that have undergone preliminary assessment and site inspection to
determine which locations pose an immediate threat to persons living or
working near the release. These sites are most in need of cleanup.
Plume
An area of chemicals in a particular medium, such as air or
groundwater, moving away from its source in a long band or column. A plume can
be a column of smoke from a chimney or chemicals moving with groundwater.
Potentially Exposed
The condition where valid information, usually analytical
environmental data, indicates the presence of contaminant(s) of a public
health concern in one or more environmental media contacting humans (e.g.,
air, drinking water, soil, food chain, surface water), and there is evidence
that some of those persons may have an identified route(s) of exposure (e.g.,
drinking contaminated water, breathing contaminated air, having contact with
contaminated soil, or eating contaminated food).
Public Health Assessment
The evaluation of data and information on the release of
hazardous substances into the environment in order to assess any current or
future impact on public health, develop health advisories or other
recommendations, and identify studies or actions needed to evaluate and
mitigate or prevent human health effects; also, the document resulting from
that evaluation.
Public Health Hazard
Sites that pose a public health hazard as the result of
long-term exposures to hazardous substances.
Route of Exposure
The path in which a person may contact a chemical substance.
For example, drinking (ingestion) and bathing (skin contact) are two different
routes of exposure to contaminants that may be found in water.
Volatile organic compound (VOC)
Substance containing carbon and different proportions of other elements such
as hydrogen, oxygen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, sulfur, or nitrogen; these
substances easily become vapors or gases. A significant number of the VOCs are
commonly used as solvents (e.g., paint thinners, lacquer thinner, degreasers,
dry cleaning fluids).
This page last updated/reviewed on October 15, 2001
Contact Name: Maria Gosa/ mjg4@cdc.gov
ATSDR Home |
Search |
Index |
Glossary |
Contact Us
About ATSDR |
News Archive |
ToxFAQs |
HazDat |
Public Health Assessments
Privacy Policy |
External Links Disclaimer |
Accessibility
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services