United States

Environmental Protection 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Agency Washington, DC 20460 September 2010

O ce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

# EPA

Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List

Final Rule – Newtown Creek

# Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List

Final Rule
Newtown Creek

S eptember 20 10

Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Office of Solid Waste and Em ergency Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

i 

### Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... iii

Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ iv

Background of the NPL

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... iv

Development of the NPL

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... v

Hazard Ranking Sys tem

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... v

Other Mechanisms for Listing

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. vi

Organization of this Document

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... vii

Glossary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. vii

1. List of Commenters and Correspondence

................................ ................................ .................... 1

2. Site Description

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 6

3. Summary of Comments

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 6

3.1 Support for Listing and Other Non

- Opposing Comments

................................ .......................... 10

3.1.1 General Support and Support with Requests

................................ ................................ ......................... 10

3.1.2 Other Non

- Opposing Concerns and Considerations

................................ ................................ .............. 11

3.2 Delay Listing

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 12

3.3 Purpose of Listing

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 12

3.4 Extent of Site

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 14

3.5 Liability

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 15

3.6 Economic Impacts of Listing

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 17

3.7 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

................................ ................................ ................... 19

3. 8 Other Non

- listing Activities

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 21

3.9 Additional Pathways Not Scored

................................ ................................ ................................ 24

3.10 Releases Below Regulatory Limit

................................ ................................ ............................... 25

3.11 Challenge to HRS

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 26

3.12 Public Health Assessment/Human Health Risk Assessment

................................ ...................... 28

3.13 Contaminated Sediment Source

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 28

3.14 Eligibility of Hazardous Waste

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 31

3.15 Hazardous Waste Quantity

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 32

3.15.1 Unallocated Source

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 34

3.15.2 Source Type

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35

3.15.3 Hazardous Waste/Ha zardous Substances

................................ ................................ .......................... 36

3.16 Likelihood of Release

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 38Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

ii 3.16.1 Sediment Bed Eligibility

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 39

3.16.2 Use of Background Samples in Establishing an Observed Release

................................ .................. 40

3.16.3 Use of Qualified Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 42

3 .16.4 Results Below CRQLs

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 46

3.16.5 Sample Similarity

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 47

3.16.6 Clarity of HRS Observed Release Tables

................................ ................................ .......................... 54

3.16.7 Attribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 55

3.16.8 Contamination in Mouth of Creek

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 56

3.17 Waste Characteris tics

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 59

3.17.1 Toxicity/Bioaccumulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 59

3.17.2 Bioavailability

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 64

3.18 Targets

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 65

3.18.1 Human Food Chain Fishery

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 65

3.18.2 Fishery in Mouth of Newtown Creek

................................ ................................ ................................ 66

3.18.3 Scoring of Migratory Fish

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 68

3.18.4 Resources

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 69

3.18.5 Sensitive Environment

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 69

3.18.6 Potential Environmental Targets

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 71

3.19 HRS Site Rescoring

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 73

4. Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 74

Attachment 1 Alternate Evaluation TablesNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

iii 

## Executive Summary

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or th reatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that EPA update the list at least annually

.

This document provides responses to public comments received on the Newtown Creek site, proposed on September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48511 ). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under EPA’s Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule pub lished in the Federal Register in September

2010.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

iv 

## Introduction

This document explains the rationale for adding the Newtown Creek site in Brooklyn/Queens, New York

, to the National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and provides re sponses to public comments received on this site listing proposal . The EPA proposed this site to the NPL on September 23, 2009 (7 4 FR 48511 ). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in September 20 1 0.



### Background of the NPL

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq . in response to the dangers of uncontro lled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Public Law No. 99

- 499, stat., 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the

revised National Oil and Hazardous Substan ces Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP, further revised by EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and

Novembe r 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth guidelines and procedures needed to respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. On March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), EPA further revised the NCP in response to SARA.

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the exten t practicable, take into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal

action.

Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions or

on a short

- term or temporary basis (CER CLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long

- term in nature and involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA Section 101). Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA, were included in the HRS. EPA promulgated the HRS as Appendix A of the NCP (47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in response to SARA, and established the effective date for the HRS revisions as March 15, 1991.

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the HRS be used to prepare a list of national priorities among the known releas es or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of the NCP, is the NPL.

An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that t ime, an HRS score of 28.5 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NPL of at least 400 sites, as suggested by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently on March 4, 2010 (7 5 FR 9790 ). The Agen cy also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to add sites to the NPL. The most recent proposal was on March 4, 2010 (7 5 FR 9843 ).Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

v 

### Development of the NPL

The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of th e Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96

- 848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).

The priority list serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to an y person. Subsequent government actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.

The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to

assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to

determine what CERCLA

- financed remedial act ion(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA

- financed remedial action.

CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list priority sites among the known releases or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and S ection 105(a)(8)(A) directs EPA to consider certain enumerated and other appropriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, EPA has the discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities exist, placin g sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, EPA has chosen not to place certain types of sites on the NPL even though CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later determines that s ites not listed as a matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency may consider placing them on the NPL.



### Hazard Ranking System

The HRS is the principle mechanism EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a

numericall y based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations

-- the preliminary assessment and site inspection

-- to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to human health or the environment. HRS scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which EPA funds remedial response actions, because the information collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate response for a particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, EPA re lies on further, more detailed studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.

The HRS uses a structured value analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical

values to factors that relate to or indicate risk, based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped into three categories. Each category has a maximum value. The categories are:

**•** likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the

env ironment;Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

vi **•** characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); and

**•** people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.

Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:

**•** Ground Water Migration (S gw ) - drinking water

**•** Surface Water Migration (S

sw ) The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood migration and ground water to surface water. - drinking water

- human food chain

- sensitive environments

**•** Soil Exposure (S

s )

- resident population - nearby population

- sensitive environments

**•** Air Migration (S

a ) - population

- sensitive environments

After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are combined using th e following root

- mean

- square equation to determine the overall site score (S), which ranges from 0 to 100 :



### 4 S + S + S + S = S 2

a 2

s 2

sw 2

gw

I f all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even if only one pathway sc ore is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some extremely dangerous sites pose threats through only one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of hazardous substances can contaminate drinking water wells, but

-- if the drums are buried deep enough and the substances not very volatile

-- not surface water or air.



### Other Mechanisms for Listing

There are two mechanisms other than the HRS by which sites can be placed on the NPL. The first of these mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to designate one site as its highest priority regardless of score. The last mechanism, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requir ements:

**•** Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;

**•** EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public heal th; andNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

vii **•** EPA anticipates it will be more cost

- effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency removal authority to respond to the site.



### Organization of this Document

The following section contains EPA responses to site

- specific public com ments received on the proposal

of the Newtown Creek site on September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48511 ). The site discussion begins with a list of commenters, followed by a site description, a summary of comments, and Agency responses to each comment. A concluding statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the site.



### Glossary

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text:

AALAC Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory Concentrations

Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

A TSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criterion

BCF Bioconcentration factor

CCV Continuing calibration verification

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, 42 U.S.C. S ections 9601 et seq ., also known as Superfund

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CLP Contract Laboratory Program

COPC Contaminant of potential concern

CRP Community Relations Plan

CRQL Contract required quantitation limit

CSO Combined sewer overflow

DL Detect ion limit

DO Dissolved oxygen

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EqP Equilibrium partitioning

ER

- M Effects range median

ESI Expanded Site Inspection

EWVIDCO East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Development Corporation

FHA Federal Housing Administratio n

FR Federal Register

GLA Greenpoint Landing Associates LLC

GMDC Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center

GWAPP Greenpoint Waterfront Association for Parks and Planning

HRS Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCPNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

viii HRS score Overall site score calcul ated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to

100

LOEC Lowest observed effect concentration

logk
ow n

- octanol

- water partition coefficient

MDL Method detection limit

MGP Manufactured gas plant

μg/kg Microgram per kilogram

mg/kg Milligram per kilogram

NAG Neighbors Allied for Good Growth

NCA Newtown Creek Alliance

NCMC Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R.

Part 300

NOEC No observed effect concentration

NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP

NYCDCP New York City Department of City Planning

NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection

NYCDPR New York City Department of Parks and Recreation

NYCEDC New York City Economic Development Corporation

NYCHPD New York City Housing Preservation and Development

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

OSA Open Space Alliance for North Brooklyn

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB Poly chlorinated biphenyl

PRP Potentially responsible party

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RI/FS Remedial investigation and feasibility study

ROD Record of Decision

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SQL Sample quantitation limit

SVO C Semi

- volatile organic compound

TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

TDL Target distance limit

TLM Target

- lipid model

TOC Total organic carbon

VOC Volatile organic compound

WPCP Water Pollution Control PlantNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

1 

## 1. List of Commenters and Correspo ndence

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0004 Correspondence, dated January 20 , 2009, from Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner, New York Department of Environmental Corporation

, letter requesting placement of the Newtown Creek site on the

National Priorities L ist (NPL)

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0005 Correspondence, dated October 08 , 2009, from Terry Jeng, memorandum authorizing extension of the

comm ent period for EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 0588

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0006 Comment, dated October 16, 2009, from Anonymous

Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0007 Comment, dated December 1, 2009, from Raychel Ryan

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0008 Comment, dated November 1, 2009, from Edgar Freud

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0009 Comment, dated December 3, 2009, from Anonymous

Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0010 Comment, dated December 6, 2009, from Tom Brooklyn, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0011 Comment, dated December 9, 2009, from Anonymous

Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0012 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from T. Rodriguez

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0013 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Geraldine

Sosa

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0014 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Orlando

Osorio

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0015 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Alexandra

Sumner

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0016 Commen t, dated December 21, 2009, from D. Compitello

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0017 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from S. House

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0018 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Amarilys

Ace vedo, Public CommenterNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

2 EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0019 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from N.

Bloomfield

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0020 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from Laura Asmal

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0021 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from K. Sport

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0022 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from Tevon

Reddick

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0023 Comment, dated December 18, 2 009, from I. Ramos

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0024 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Freddy Ogando

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0025 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Tabitha

Addison

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0026 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Candice Reyes

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0027 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Joseph Crowley, Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Congress of the Un ited States

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0027.1 Comment attachment, dated December 22, 2009, from Joseph Crowley, Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Congress of the United States

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0028 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Anonymous

Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0029 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Brian T. Coleman, CEO, Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center (GMDC)

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0030 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Anonymous

Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0031 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Anonymous

Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0032 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from D.

Richardson

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0033 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Andreas

Cohrssen

, Public CommenterNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

3 EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0034 Comment, dated December 21, 2009, from Anonymous

Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0035 Comment, dated December 21, 200 9, from Laura

Hofmann

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0035.1 Comment attachment, dated December 21, 2009, from

Laura Hofmann

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0036 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Susan

Albrecht

, Co

- Chair, Neighbors Allied for Good Growth

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0036.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from

Susan Albrecht

, Co

- Chair, Neighbors Allied for Good

Growth

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0037 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Joseph Conley

, Chairman, Community Board 2, Queens

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0037.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Joseph Conley

, Chairman, Community Board 2, Queens

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0038 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from Kate Schmid

, Director, Newtown Creek Alliance (NCA)

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0038.1 Comment attachment, dated December 18, 2009, from

Kate Schmid

, Director, Newtown Creek Alliance (NCA)

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0039 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Anonymous

Public Commenter

EPA

- H Q

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0040 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from L. Brenner

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0041 C omment , dated December 23 , 2009, from Barbara

Zukowski

, Maspeth Holistic Psychotherapy Services

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0042 Comment , dated December 18, 2009, from Wanderlin Tejada, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0042.1 Comment attachment, dated December 18, 2009, from Wanderlin Tejada, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0043 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Jerr y Ross

, Texaco, Inc.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0043.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Jerry Ross

, Texaco, Inc.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0043.2 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Jerry Ross

, Texaco, Inc.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

4 EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 058 8

- 0044 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Michael Heimbinder, Executive Director, HabitatMap; Member,

Newtown Creek Alliance

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0045 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Cas Holloway, City of New York, Office of the Mayor

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0045.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Cas Holloway, City of New York, Office of the Mayor

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0046 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Stephanie Thayer, Executive Director

, Open Space Alliance for North Brooklyn (OSA)

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0046.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Stephanie Thayer, Executive Director

, Open Space Alliance for North Brooklyn (OSA)

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0047 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Jo seph R. Lentol, Assemblyman

, The Assembly State of New York, Albany

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0047.1 Comment attachment, dated December 22, 2009, from Joseph R. Lentol, Assemblyman

, The Assembly State of New York, Albany

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0048 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Phillip Musegaas, Hudson River Program Director, Riverkeeper, Inc.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0048.1 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Phillip Musegaas, Hudson River Program Director, Riverkeeper, Inc.

EPA

- HQ

- S FUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0048.2 Comment attachment, dated December 23, 2009, from Phillip Musegaas, Hudson River Program Director, Riverkeeper, Inc.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0049 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Christopher

Len

, Staff Attorney, NY/NJ Baykeeper

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0049.1 Comment attachment, dated December 22, 2009, from Christopher Len

, Staff Attorney, NY/NJ Baykeeper

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0050 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Dewey Thompson, Co

- Chair, Greenpoint Waterfront

Associatio n for Parks and Planning (GWAPP)

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0050.1 Comment attachment, dated December 22, 2009, from Dewey Thompson, Co

- Chair, Greenpoint Waterfront Association for Parks and Planning (GWAPP)Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

5 EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0051 Comment, dated Decembe r 23, 2009, from Stephen

Levin

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0052 Comment, dated December 29, 2009, Helen M.

Marshall

, President, Queens Borough

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0052.1 Comment attachment, dated December 29, 2009, Helen

M. Marshall

, Pres ident, Queens Borough

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0053 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, from Thomas V. Fusillo, Managing Principal, ENVIRON International Corporation on behalf of HDH LLC

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0053.1 Comment attachment , dated December 23, 2 009, from Thomas V. Fusillo, Managing Principal, ENVIRON International Corporation on behalf of HDH LLC

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0054 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Leah Archibald, Executive Director, East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Development Corporation (EWVIDCO)

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0054.1 Comment attachment, dated December 22, 2009, from Leah Archibald, Executive Director, East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Development Corporation (EWVIDCO)

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0055 Comment, dated Dec ember 5, 2009, from David

Gordon

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0056 Comment, dated December 18, 2009, from Nick Sherman, Operations Manager, William E. Williams Valve Corporation

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0057 Comment, dated December 23, 2009, fr om Daniel J. Toal, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP on behalf of Exxon Mobile Corporation

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0058 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Irene

Klementowicz

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0059 Comment, dated Decem ber 21, 2009, from Julie

Lawrence

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0059.1 Comment attachment, dated December 21, 2009, from

Julie Lawrence

, Public Commenter

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0060 Comment, dated December 17, 2009, from Irene

Klementowicz and Paul Turci, Co

- Chairs, Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee (NCMC)Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

6 EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0060.1 Comment attachment, dated December 17, 2009, from Irene Klementowicz and Paul Turci, Co

- Chairs, Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee (NCMC)

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 05 88

- 0061 Comment, dated December 22, 2009, from Mark A. Chertok, Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. and the Elm Group on behalf of Greenpoint Landing Associates, LLC



## 2. Site Description

The Newtown Creek site comprises more than three miles of Newtown Creek , includ ing the sediments within, on the border of Brooklyn and Queens, New York. The exact origin of the hazardous substances

in the contaminated sediments in various portions of the C reek has not been identified due to the presence of multiple possible so urces for each substance. The C reek, a tributary to the East River and part of the

New York

- New Jersey Harbor Estuary, trends north

- northwest and forms the northwestern

- most border between Brooklyn and Queens. The HRS evaluation for this site scored the surfac e water pathway. The

source included in the site is the contaminated sediments in the C reek , supported by sampling of over 100 surface and subsurface samples collected from February through April of 2009 , and analyzed under the EPA Superfund Contract Labo ratory Program (CLP). The HRS score is based on actual contamination of a human food chain fishery and part of a sensitive environment. The HRS documentation record at proposal presented analytical data showing contamination from metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi

- volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at levels meeting observed release criteria in sediment samples collected at numerous location s throughout the length of the C reek. Fishing and crabbing for h uman consumption occur in the Creek. In addition, the

C reek is considered an HRS

- eligible sensitive environment since it is part of an estuary identified as a sensitive area under the National Estuary Program.

In 2008, the U.S. Congress asked EPA to ev aluate Newtown Creek for Superfund status and investigate

four specific facilities along the C reek. These facilities are Phelps Dodge (the Laurel Hill site), BCF Oil, Quanta Resources, and National Grid (formerly KeySpan and Brooklyn Union Gas). While th ese facilities or properties are thought to be contributi ng to the contamination in the C reek, they are not the only probable or known sources of contamination. In fact, later in 2008, EPA completed an extensive

search which indicated that there are hundr eds of historic and existing possible contamination sources in the vicinity of Newtown Creek. The search revealed oil refineries and depots, former manufactured gas plants ( MGPs ) , chemical plants, manufacturing facilities, rail yards, auto repair shops, t ank cleaning companies, recycling and waste management facilities, various commercial enterprises, and facilities operated by various State and City agencies.



## 3. Summary of Comments

More than 55 public commenters submitted comments regarding the proposed NPL listing of the Newtown Creek site. More than 30 of those commenters indicated unconditional support for the NPL designation, while others provided support with specific requests for consideration. A few commenters submitted extensive technical and po licy comments, including the City of New York (herein referred to as the City) , HydroQual Inc. ( herein referred to as HydroQual, on behalf of the City of New York), Greenpoint Landing Associates ( herein referred to as GLA), ELM Group ( herein referred to as ELM, on behalf of GLA), E NVIRON International Corporation (on behalf of HDH LLC), Texaco Inc. (herein referred to as Texaco) , and ExxonMobil Corporation (herein referred to as ExxonMobil)

.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

7 Several commenters requested that EPA undertake various activi ties and include various considerations in performing post listing activities. These commenters included the Open Space Alliance for North Brooklyn (OSA); Stephen Levin, Council Member

- Elect for the 33rd District; Congressman Joseph Crowley, Representativ e from the 7th district of New York; the Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee (NCMC) ; and the City. These commenters requested that EPA develop the investigation and remediation plans in coordination with the current us es of and future plans for the C reek. Specifically, they expressed

concerns rega rding the continued use of the C reek and waterfront access during cleanup operations, how various permitting arrangements will be handled, and what efforts would be implemented to minimize

financial im pact on smal l business. These commenters also requested that EPA ensure waterfront parks and developments, such as the Hunter’s Point South project and planned park at 65 Commercial Street, are not delayed, or that other various plans, such as the planned dredging of Newtown and Whale Creeks

, are allowed to move forward as planned

.

The City and GLA expressed concern over the economic impacts of listing the Newtown Creek site. The City discussed a number of projects and initiatives it considers as being potentially impacted by a Superfund des ignation of Newtown Creek. GLA asserted that listing the mouth of the C reek may impede the development of projects in that area and bring a stigma which would impact housing values and the

availabili ty of financing.

The City asserted that NPL listing could be the most effective way to remediate extensive industrial contamination, yet stated that it has “concerns about the potential for a listing to delay critical investments in infrastructure, housing, open space, and small bu sinesses operati ons.” The City stated that it has assessed potential impacts that the NPL listing of Newtown Creek could have on ongoing and planned water quality and capital improvement projects and various City i nitiatives around the Creek. It discusse d its concerns regarding NPL designation and the City’s planned work on combined sewer overflows ( CSOs ) 1

- determine whether ongoing sediment loading will undermine the effectiveness of any remedy; stating that “the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) has planned approximately $500 million of water quality improvement wor k in Newtown Creek, approximately $380 million of which may be impac ted by a listing on the NPL.” The City asserted that EPA’s attention to, and support of the logistical demands of projects that are currently being undertaken by NYCDEP, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (NYCHPD), the New York City Department of City Planning ( NYCDCP ), the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR) and other City and State agencies, is of vital importance. The City stated its opinion that EPA can address many potentially negative impacts by committing the appropriate resources and working collaboratively with the City

, and impacted communities and stated that it seeks comprehensive written commitments from EPA that EPA will meet the shared expectations o f a

transparent process.

Texaco and Exxon Mobil requested that the listing be withdrawn or delayed until further information is gathered. Texaco presented “four fundamental issues that should be resolved” before EPA makes it s final decision to place the site on the NPL. In summarizing these four issues, Texaco asserted that EPA must:

- ascertain whether bacterial loading will render fi sh caught in the Creek unfit for human consumption

– even after the implementation of a sediment remedy;

- assess the effectiveness of sediment remedies that have been attempted at other similar sites with ongoing sediment and bacterial loading issues;

1 A CSO is a d ischarge of a mixture of storm water and domestic waste when the flow capacity of a sewer system is exceeded during rainstorms.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

8 - r eview the effectiveness achieved at other sites to determine if long

- term remedies will allow the

Creek to become fishable and fit for recreational uses.

Texaco challenged whether placing the site on the NPL met the purpose of listing. It stated that the “singular purpose for the HRS scoring is to make a regulatory decision as to whether a CERCLA Section 121 remedy is necessary,” and that the site should not be listed on the NPL until it can be ascertained that a remedy consistent with CERCLA Section 12 1 can be implemented. Exxon Mobil reflected the comments made by Texaco and stated that the ongoing sediment and bacterial loading of the Creek as a result of CSOs “endangers the efficacy and success of any potential remediation of sediments in the

Creek.”

Several commenters discussed specific considerations associated with liability. The East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Development Corporation (EWVIDCO) stated its concern regarding small businesses located on Newtown Creek, and how potential l iability may affect them. Community Board No. 2 and Newtown Creek Alliance ( N CA ) requested that EPA contact a ll of the businesses along the C reek to inform them of potential liability and ways to minimize liability . Exxon Mobil stated that contaminant

contributio n from Exxon Mobil ’s former terminal property “has not been a significant contributor to Newtown Creek’s current condition,” and that “there is no evidence that oil is currently seeping into the

creek from ExxonMobil’s property.” Exxon Mobil added that the City bears a substantial responsibility through the discharges of CSO s into the creek , and that CSOs “must be addressed before a permanent

remedial solution to the Creek can be de termined and implemented.” The City stated that it expects EPA

to conduct co mprehensive searches of industrial operators responsible for all significant sources of

contamination to the Creek.

HydroQual, Environ, and GLA contested various elements of the HRS, including more consideration of

the actual site

- specific risk posed by t he site, the use of sample quantitation limits (SQL s )

, and the formula used to determine a significant increase in contaminant levels when identifying an observed

release. ENVRION stated that the procedures and information used by EPA in the listing proce ss do not adequately and scientifically evaluate the human and environmental risk posed by the site and that the site score is not scientifically linked to risk and unnecessarily includes areas exh ibiting “de minimis” risk. HydroQual stated that EPA has e stablished dr aft sediment quality guidelines, which considers organic carbon in assessing contaminant ecological threat; however, the HRS metric of “three times background” does not capture con taminant ecological threat. E NVIRON stated that “it seems arbi trary that sample measurements higher than the SQL or three times background concentration levels should define an observed contaminant release,” and that “the factor of three and the SQL have no relationship to an

environmental or human health impact.”

HydroQual submitted several comments challenging technical details associated with EPA’s HRS scoring of the Newtown Creek site. It stated that EPA improperly characterized the Newtown Creek sediments as an unallocated source and questioned if the sedimen t plume in Newtown Creek was an eligible sour ce of

contamination . Also, it questioned whether the appropriate source category and subsequent divisor used in the hazardous waste quantity evaluation was appropriately ass igned. HydroQual asserted that the H RS documentation record at proposal avoids the recognition of numerous sources of contamination and that CSO inputs of hazardous substances into the surface water are small relative t o other current sources. HydroQual also alleged that hazardous material testing results performed in Newtown Creek indicate that not all of the Creek sediments can be classified as hazardous waste, yet the HRS evaluation includes an overstated measure for volume based on the presumption that all the sediment in N ewtown Creek i s contaminated.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

9 Although HydroQual agreed that there was an observed release to Newtown Creek and that a likelihood of release factor category value of 550 was appropriat ely assigned, it stated several objections to the evidence supporting this value. It also asserted that considering the sediment bed as a release is in contradiction with the stagnant nature of the Creek, and that contaminants have a low probability of

movement. HydroQual, GLA, and ENVIRON contested downstream background samples taken fr om the

Atlantic Basin , and whether they serve as adequate evidence that a release occurred to Newtown Creek. These commenters alleged that samples used to establish an observed release were not suitable because the physical properties between the backgrou nd and release samples were not sufficiently similar. Specifically, HydroQual asserted that the comparisons of release samples to background samples were done on a bulk sediment basis and did not account for physical differences such as total organic cont ent
between sediments fr om these two locations. ENVIRON asserted that the background sample results were compromised by the failure to achieve the contract required quantitation limits (CRQL s ). It stated that the “[s]election of Atlantic Basin as the ref erence site for Newtown Creek is, therefore, highly conservative and may not be a reasonable basis for assessing the significance of concentrations o bserved

in Newtown Creek.”

HydroQual stated that the tables in the HRS documentation record at proposal “l ack clarity,” and contain misleading language such as that the naming convention applied to Tables 1 though 4 “introduces the presumption that the sediment bed is a release independent of completing a comparison to background

concentrations.” Additionally , HydroQual questioned the use of analytical results flagged with the “J” analytical data qualifier in the evaluation of an observed release in Newtown Creek. HydroQual stated

that:

much of the data, especially for cadmium and other metals, used to deter mine releases were laboratory estimates, i.e., ‘J

- flagged’, rather than true laboratory measurements. While EPA followed accepted protocols for using ‘J

- flagged’ data and attempted to compensate for uncertainty, the release determination is compromised be cause of the ‘J

flagged’ estimates. Given the importance associated with the HRS score and potential NPL listing, alternative calculations, omitting ‘J

- flagged’ estimates, should also be considered by EPA before reaching a final listing conclusion.

GLA a nd ENVIRON submitted comments opposing the establishment of the mouth of Newtown Creek as a part of the site. GLA asserted that the sediments in the mouth of the Creek exhibit substantially less

contamination than the remainder of the Creek and should not be considered as a pa rt of the site.

ENVIRON asserted that “[s]ince PCBs were not detected in surface sediments, there is no Human Food Chain Threat associated with surficial sediments sampled near the mou th of Newtown Creek.”

HydroQual questioned the methodology used to assign toxicity values to the hazardous substances in the HRS documentation record. The City asserted that the brackish nature of Newtown Creek and the wide range of salinity observed in the Creek are not ideal for HRS evaluation becau se factors used in the HRS scoring methods are specific to bioaccumulation and toxicity in either fresh water or salt water. It also stated that Newtown Creek is scored higher than if it were scored as entirely fresh water or as entirely salt

water.

ELM and ENVIRON questioned whether the hazardous substances in the sediments are bioavailabl e to cause toxicity. ENVIRON asserted that bioavailability could not be adequately assessed based solely on

sedimen t contaminant data. ELM contested that the chemica l processes in the Creek are essential in determining the bioavailability and thus the potential risk or lack thereof to a potentially affected target, and should be considered by EPA as part of the NPL listing process.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

10 HydroQual commented that it conside red the final value assigned for the human food chain threat appropriate, yet asserted that the protectiveness of the New York State health advisory is not a part of the

ev aluation of the fishery . ELM asserted that the fishery evaluation disregarded the f indings of fish population studies in the Upper New York Bay that “conclude that the fish population is composed primarily of migratory fish, which likely do not spend a significant portion of t heir lives in the Creek.”

HydroQual stated that “[g]iven th at the Newtown Creek is designated by the State of New York as a Class SD water body suitable for fish survival, a Sensitive Environments Rated Factor of 5 for ‘state designated areas for protection or maintenance of aquatic life’ is more appropriate for N ewtown Creek, than the 100 EPA assigned.” HydroQual suggested that a site

- specific, rather than a Harbor

- wide, sensitive environments factor is more appropriate for Newtown Creek. It added that the waters of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary cannot be established as subject to potential contamination for a sensitive environment because the Estuary already meets the criteria for an observed release since “there are a number of Superfund sites within t he NY/ NJ Harbor Estuary.”

Mr. Tom Brooklyn, Brooklyn resident, expressed concern that fish and shellfish are captured for human consumption in and around Newtown Creek , and that the contamination in Newtown Creek is adversely affecting the recreatio nal quality of NYC waters.



### 3.1 Support for Listing and Other Non

- Oppo sing Comments

Numerous commenters sent letters and notices of support or support with requests. Other commenters

described non

- opposing concerns and considerations.

3.1.1 General Support and Support with Requests

More than 35 individuals or groups supp orted the listing of Newtown Creek on the NPL . The majority of these commenters, comprising local residents and business owners, students, recreation enthusiasts, a community action group, and a community representative

, provided unconditional support for listing

. The remainder of the commenters provided support for NPL listing of Newtown Creek along with some concerns or request s that EPA take certain actions in conjunction with the listing. The City of New York stated that “a listing could be the most effective way to remediate the site,” although it stated concerns regarding the “potential for a listing to delay critical investments in infrastructure, housing, open space,

and small business es operations. ” These commenters , along with the City, include d the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (under authority delegated by the Governor of New York), Neighbors Allied for Good Growth (NAG), Community Board #2, Newtown Creek Alliance (NCA), Riverkeeper, Inc., and two individuals. Their requests for EPA included the following:

**•** Coordinate closely with the City and the State

.

**•** Allow for continued use of the Creek for recreation and commerce, and waterfront access to its parks and surrounding businesses during rem ediation to the extent possible

.

**•** Commit to a completely transparent and public process, emphasizing community outreach, including to businesses along with lower income, immigrant and other special communities

.

**•** Coordinate with and minimize logistical obstac les to businesses, providing access to or information about programs to support their functioning during the investigation and cleanup

process

.

**•** Provide a list of businesses that have dealt with the consequences of Superfund listing at analogous sites

.

**•** Coor dinate with relevant agencies on planned and potential infrastructure projects; minimize potential interruption along transportation corridors

.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

11 **•** Designate adequate staff and funds to the project

.

**•** Prioritize negotiations with potentially responsible parties ( PRPs ) to expedite the cleanup process

.

**•** Conduct adequate monitoring to ensure health and welfare of the community

.

**•** Consider the multi

- phase, multi

- year remedial investigation and feasibility study ( RI/FS ) work plan developed by NYSDEC, NY State Office of t he Attorney General, and several PRPs as investigation and remedial planning proceed

.

**•** Ensure the fruition of already planned or ongoing local community

- supported development projects

.

**•** Protect smaller businesses from unnecessary litigation and allow them to take diminutive settlements whenever possible

.

**•** Work with the community, the City, and the State to achieve a more progressive storm water

management system

.

Response : EPA has added the Newtown Creek site to the NPL. Listing makes a site eligible for re medial action funding under CERCL A, and EPA will examine the Newtown Creek site during the RI/FS phase of

the Superfund process to determine what response, if any, is appropriate. In response to the comments requesting coordination with local businesses a nd the community in general, as discussed in section 3. 8

, Other Non

- Listing Activities

, of this support document

, EPA will develop a Community Relations Plan (CRP) which will allow EPA to gather community concerns, including those of local businesses, and evaluate best methods to communicate and coordinate with all interested parties during the post listing stages of the Superfund process for the Newtown Creek site.

3.1.2 Other Non

- Opposing Concerns and Considerations

Other commenters expressed certain con cerns or requested that EPA consider certain elements after promulgation while not directly stat ing their position on placing the site on the NPL. These commenters included the Open Space Alliance for North Brooklyn (OSA) ; Stephen Levin, Council Member

- El ect for

the 33rd District ; Congressman Joseph Crowley, Representative from the 7th district of New York ; and the Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee (NCMC)

. These commenters expressed concerns for

continued use of the Creek and waterfront access, minimizin g financial impact on small business, and setting up workshops for small business owners. They also made requests that EPA ensure waterfront parks and developments, such as the Hunter’s Point South project and planned park at 65 Commercial

Street , are not delayed . Also, commenters requested that various plans move forward, such as the planned dredging of Newtown and Whale Creeks, and that EPA w ork with the City to find ways to offer assistance to small business owners if they have difficulty securing insu rance and/or loans for development . Commenters requested that EPA d evelop the investigation and remediation plans in coordination with the current uses of and future plans for the Creek

Response : The comments on waterfront parks, other developments, ass isting small business owners , and coordination of further investigation and remedial plans, are all outside of the listing process. As explained in section 3.8

, Other Non

- listing Activities, of this support document , considerations regarding remedy select ion, implementation, and funding are not factors in the decision to list a site on the NPL and

these activities are not part of the listing process . Therefore, the commenters’ issues on these topics are typically considered during later stages of the Supe rfund process as these activities typically occur after listing. Listing of a site simply informs the public that EPA has determined that the site poses sufficient threat to human health and the environment to warrant further investigation. It does not p redetermine the response actions, including coordination efforts with ongoing developments. The Superfund process offers numerous opportunities for public participation at NPL sites, in addition to commenting on site listing proposals, which are available to the commenters and all of the public.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

12 

### 3.2 Delay Listing

Comment : Texaco Inc. (herein referred to as Texaco) , ExxonMobil Corporation (herein referred to as ExxonMobil) , and Joseph R. Lentol, Assemblyman 50 th District, Kings County, New York , requested that EPA delay promulgation of the site to the NPL until the Newtown Creek Group RI/FS effort is completed.

. Texaco suggested that either the proposal for listing should be withdrawn or the site should remain proposed pending the outcome of the RI/FS, ev aluations of risk, and “ remedy implementability ” in view of continuing discharges. Texaco commented that it and four other companies comprising the Newtown Creek Group are negotiating with EPA to conduct an RI/FS of Newtown Creek to assist EPA in

answerin g questions regarding sediment and bacteria loading in Newtown Creek and effectiveness of

sediment remediati on at other similar sites.

ExxonMobil stated that given the benefits of the current cooperative contribution that ExxonMobil and

the rest of the N ewtown Creek Group have made to the efforts of addressing Newtown Creek, and the continuing questions regarding the City’s ongoing contamination of the Creek, “[ExxonMobil] respectfully submit that EPA should defer its decision on listing the Site until th e comprehensive investigation has been carrie d out.”

Joseph R. Lentol, Assemblyman 50 th District, Kings County, New York, urged EPA to spend more time in discussing directly with the community the effects listing will have on the communities surrounding

the Creek , before issuing a final decision on listing the site . While he supported the proposal

, Mr. Lentol explained that there is confusion over whether the advance of such a designation will be at the expense of other open space priorities that the Ci t y is close to obtaining.

Response : Placing a site on the NPL is not delayed to complete a thorough investigation of the site or to allow negotiations regarding remediation to be completed. P roceeding with the listing process need not

inhibit efforts t o determine remediation

. If the Newtown Creek Group or any designated PRP wishes to expedite cleanup efforts, it may undertake the RI/FS and/or remedial design/remedial action stages under EPA supervision and pursuant to appropriate agreements with govern mental authorities (under enforcement authorities of CERCLA or those of other statutes). Placing a site on the NPL does not encumber or preclude PRPs from entering into these agreements. EPA has entered into many such agreements before and after a site’s promulgation to the NPL, and such an alternative is available to

others

.

Regarding dissemination of information to residents, a Community Relations Plan (CRP) is usually developed as part of the Superfund process and every attempt is made to ensure tha t community relations is a continuing activity designed to meet the specific needs of the community. In addition

, EPA has attended and participated in public meetings to which it was invited. See the response in 3.8

, Other Non

Listing Activities

, of this support document for more information on the CRP.



### 3.3 Purpose of Listing

Comment : Texaco challenged whether placing this site on the NPL met the purpose of listing

. Texaco

stated that the

singular purpose for the HRS scoring is to make a regulatory d ecision as to whether a CERCLA Section 121 remedy is necessary. An obvious and unavoidable prerequisite for the HRS process is determining that a permanent long

- term remedy consistent with the statutory mandate of

CERCLA Se ction 121 can be achieved.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

13 Te xaco commented that CERCLA Section 121 establishes a statutory preference for remedies that are permanent, requiring an assessment of technologies that are designed to meet this statutory objective, and this assessment must consider long

- term effectiveness of remedial technologies. Texaco stated that listing

Newtown Creek on the NPL must be evaluated with in the context of CERCLA legislation that gives EPA the authority to engage in this rulemaking.

Texaco commented that placing the Newtown Creek site on the NPL at this time is not necessary to accomplish the objectives of an RI/FS and listing will only serve to create public expectations t hat may

not be achievable. Texaco also stated that it is not timely to finalize the site on the NPL until it can be

a scertained that a remedy consistent with CERCLA Sectio n 121 can be implemented.

Texaco asserted that EPA must address

, prior to finalizing the site on the NPL

, the effectiveness of sediment remedies that have been attempted at similar sites where “ongo ing sediment and bacterial” sources exist as in Newtown Creek. On this issue, Texaco commented that it is unclear if EPA has conducted the necessary CERCLA Section 121 assessment of the effectiveness of long

- term remedial technologies.

Texaco provided a summary of its assessment of the legislative history of CERCLA Section 121 to bolster its claims that EPA must engage a permanent and effective remedy to address sediment and bacterial loading in Newtown Creek. Texaco summarized that by 1986 “Congress was dissatisfied with the implementation of CERCLA, in part, due to EPA’s perceived focus on temporary, rather than

permanent solutions at Superfund sites .” Texaco stated that when Congress passed SARA in 1986, SARA added to or amended several provisions of CERCLA, such as adding “Section 121, ‘Cleanup Standards,’ to CERCLA, which included a stated preference for permanent solutions at Superfund sites, and a mandate that EPA consider the permanence of the remedy during the selection process.” Texaco

also com mented that the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate debates make it clear that

their intent is that EPA u se permanent solutions at Superfund sites to the m aximum extent practicable. Texaco concluded that it is not timely to finalize the site on the NPL until it is ascertained that a remedy consistent with statutory parameters set forth in CERCLA Secti on 121 can be implemented.

Response : Contrary to the Texaco comment, the purpose of the listing process is not to make long

- term remedy decis ions. Hazardous waste remedies are evaluated in the feasibility studies that are a part of the RI/FS phase of the Superfund process

. T he listing process is explained in section 105 of CERCLA. Section 121 of CERCLA, as amended by SARA in 1986, does not a pply to the listing process.

As illustrated by the sequence of numbered sections in CERCLA, listing comes before remedy selection.

P ermanent remedy is not selected without considerabl y more information than needed for NPL listing. The purpose of NPL l isting is explained in the Federal Register Notice of February 21, 1990 (Volume 55, Number 35) excerpted below.

The purpose of the NPL, therefore, is primarily to serve as an informational and management tool. The initial identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to

determine what CERCLA

- financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation.

The HRS is intended to be a “ rough list ” of prioritized hazardous sites; a “ first step in a process

-- nothing more, nothing less ” Eagl e Picher Indus. v. EPA , 759 F.2d 922, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Eagle Picher II).Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

14 The Texaco comments on remedy will be addressed either during or following the completion of the

RI/FS

. The RI/FS characterizes conditions and hazards at the site comprehensi vely and considers possible cleanup alternatives. After the RI/FS is completed and EPA has recommended a preferred cleanup alternative, the EPA Regional Office sends to all interested parties a Proposed Plan outlining the cleanup alternatives studied and explaining the process for selection of the preferred alternative. At this time, EPA also begins a public comment period during which citizens are encouraged to submit comments regarding all alternatives. Once th is public comment period ends, a Responsiv eness Summary is developed , which contains EPA responses to the public comments on the remedy selection . The Responsiveness Summary becomes part of the Record of Decision (ROD) that provides official documentation of the remedy chosen for the site.

Reg arding CERCLA as amended by SARA, Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA requires that the National Contingency Plan ( NCP ) include “ criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking rem edial action and, to the extent practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action. ” The federal regulations that explain the “criteria for determining priorities” were last revised and published in

the C ode of F ederal R egulations (CFR) on December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532) as Appendix A of 40 CFR

Part 300. A s explained in the 1990 F ederal R egister , these regulations do not include evaluating or determining hazardous waste remedies.



### 3.4 Extent of S ite

Comment : Several commenters questioned or commented on the physical extent of the proposed site. The City of New York (referred to herein as the City), ENVIRON International Corporation (herein referred to as ENVIRON) , and Greenpoint Landing Associat es LLC ( herein referred to as GLA) all inquired about the uniformity of the contamination in Newtown Creek.

The City suggested that further investigation is necessary to identify the extent of contamination throughout the 3.8 mile waterway to prevent a misrepresentation of the whole Creek as being

contaminated and to assist in identifying upland sources. The City also requested that the EPA clearly state the geographic limits of Superfund and the scope of interest under CERCLA. The City is specifically interested in the spatial delineation of the site along the East River waterfront. The City also

request ed that “ EPA develop clear criteria to establish technical limits for EPA jurisdiction under CERCLA for upland parcels within the broader Newtown Cree k watershe d,” and that these criteria

include :

**•** Defining the standards for ground water impact below which EPA has no interest

**•** S etting distance limits from the Creek beyond which EPA has no interest

**•** P roviding site

- specific technical criteria (e.g.

, whethe r ground water flow from beneath a specific property discharges in to the Creek)

.

HydroQual also commented that :

in scoring the Creek, while upland sources, such as soils, may have contributed to contamination in the Creek sediments, such upland areas a re not part and parcel of an NPL designation for the Creek. If upland areas are to be considered, they should be viewed in the context of s eparate upland sites.

Response : While the contaminated sediment s are a continuous plume of contamination through out the sampled area, including the mouth of Newtown Creek, the geographic boundaries of the site need not beNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

15 determined at listing . Placing a site on the NPL is based on an evaluation, in accordance with the HRS, of a release of hazardous substances, pol lutants, or contaminants. However, the fact that EPA initially identifies and lists the release based on a review of contamination at a certain parcel of property does not necessarily mean that the site boundaries are limited to that parcel.

CERCLA Se ction 105(a)(8)(A) requires EPA to list national priorities among the known “releases or threatened releases” of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. Further, CERCLA Section 101(a) defines a “facili ty” as the “site” where a hazardous substance has been “deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located.” The “come to be located” language gives EPA broad authority to clean up contamination when it has spread from the original source.

The revised HRS (55 FR 51587, December 14, 1990) elaborates on the “come to be located” language, defining “site” as “area(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has otherwise come to be located. Such areas may incl ude multiple sources, and may include the area

between the sources.”

On September 23, 2009 (74 FR 45811), in proposing the Newtown Creek site to the NPL, EPA stated:

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither

f easible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. . . . [T]he HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination ‘has come to located’ before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. . . .During the RI/FS [remedial investig ation/feasibility study] process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. . . . [T]he known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time.

Until the RI/FS process has been completed for Newtown Creek and a remedial action (if any) selected,

the extent of contamination in the Newtown Creek area cannot be estimated , nor can the ultimate

dimensions of the Newtown Creek NPL site be described . Even during a remedial action (e.g., the removal of buried waste), it may be found that contamination has spread further than previously

estimated.



### 3. 5 Liability

Comment : Several commenters provided their opinions and documentati on regarding the possible origins

of contamination in the Creek

. The City, Texaco, and ExxonMobil provide d some historical background of industrial activity along Newtown Creek that started in the 1850’s and establishes the large number of companies that have operated along the Creek and have potentially directly pollute d into the Creek.

Texaco and ExxonMobil presented a summary of the history of their presence and operations on Newtown Creek. Additionally, Community Board No. 2 and N CA requested that EP A contact all of the

businesses a long Newtown Creek.

Texaco stated that in 1991 a petroleum seep was found along the bulkhead in an old terminal and they entered a Consent Order with the NYSDEC in 2005 to prevent seepage which proved successful. Texaco

also stated that NYSDEC has entered into Consent Orders with many other facilities along Newtown Creek that all require further investigation and remediation on th eir respective properties.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

1 6 ExxonMobil stated that :

Seepage from ExxonMobil’s former termi nal property has not been a significant contributor to Newtown Creek’s current condition. Contrary to certain misconceptions, there was never a massive spill of petroleum products from ExxonMobil or its predecessors into Newtown Creek and there is no evide nce that oil is currently seeping

into the C reek fr om ExxonMobil’s property.

ExxonMobil also claimed that it has implemented containment and collection projects around the Creek to minimize and contain seeps along the Creek which

, “[ a ] s a result of these efforts, s heens resulting from seepage from ExxonMobil’s properties have been eliminated

. ” ExxonMobil further state d that a petroleum seep from the Meeker Avenue site has been under control for 15 years and that the oil sheens

that are found on the Creek are caused by untreated discharges from the City’s municipal wastewater treatment system duri ng heavy rain events

. ExxonMobil stated that the City bears a substantial responsibility through the discharges of CSO into the Creek, and notes that CSOs “ must be addressed

before a permanent remedial solution to the Creek can be determined and implemented

. ” ExxonMobil stated that based on the data for the current conditions of the Creek, “it is believed that the major drivers for any future remedy are unrelated to ExxonMo bil or its predecessors.”

The City stated that it is concerned that CSO work and portions of the capital improvement projects may raise liability claims under CERCLA, which the City asserted could be responsible for the movement of

contaminate d sediments from the site to uncontaminated downstream areas (such as in

- stream aeration and dredging leaching or suspending sediment to downstream locations).

ELM stated it has no knowledge of historic or current releases from the GLA property, a prope rty adjacent to Newtown Creek and the East River in the northwestern

- most portion of the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn, and that the contaminant levels in the mouth of the Creek near the GLA property are lower than in the remaining por tions of the Creek. ELM added that the contaminants of potential concern (C OPCs ) “ reflect input from both upstream sources and the East River. ”

The City asserted that :

without clear guidance from EPA to property owners

. . . as to whether an individual property is a potent ial source of liability and if so, how to assess potential liability, the uncertainty may f urther hinder development.

Community Board No. 2 and Newtown Creek Alliance requested that EPA contact all of the businesses along the Creek (particularly small bu sinesses) to inform them of potential liability as well as ways to minimize liability

.

The City request ed that :

EPA execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the S tate of New York and the C ity of

New York that provides liability release for past and futu re volunteers who agree to perform cleanup of contaminated property under the authority of recognized S tate and City Brownfield Cleanup Programs.

It added that EPA currently has no agreement with the State or City that would honor remediation completion certificates under the Brownfield Cleanup Program or Voluntary Cleanup Program for the 28 nearby sites, and companies receiving these certificates are concerned that they are not going to be released from CERCLA liability af ter completing the program

.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

17 R esponse : Liability for cleanup at Newtown Creek is not established at the time of NPL listing

. The act of placing a site on the NPL does not establish or reflect a decision on whether any party may be liable for response costs, nor is liability considered when evaluating a site under the HRS. Liability and cost issues are not relevant to the HRS scoring of sites which is the basis for the NPL listing of the Newtown Creek site. Therefore, any determination of potentially responsibility parties and any deci sion of the Court addressing liability issues are not considered at this stage of the listing process

.



### 3. 6 Economic Impacts of Listing

Comment : The City of New York and other commenters expressed concerns on the economic impact of listing. Their comment s included concerns on the impact on capital improvement projects, delay resulting in additional costs, discouragement of new economic investment and development, litigation cost for property owners and prospective purchasers, Federal Housing Administratio n ( FHA ) financing, difficulty for small businesses, real estate values, planned redevelopm ent residential projects

.

The City stated that it “has assessed potential impacts of a listing on the NPL on the ongoing and planned water quality and capital improv ement projects and City initiatives in and around Newtown Creek.” It emphasized that :

Pursuant to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYS DEC”) Combined Sewer Overflow Order, NYS DEC Case #CO2

- 20000107

- 8, the New York City Depar tment of Environmental Protection (“NYC DEP”) has planned approximately $500 million of water quality improvement work in Newtown Creek, approximately $380 million of which may be impact ed by a listing on the NPL.

The City listed a number of projects an d initiatives that are potentially impacted by the Superfund designation of Newtown Creek, including the Hunter’s Point South Plan, Greenpoint

- Williamsburg Land Use and Waterfront Plan, and two New York City Department of Capital Work and Water Quality Imp rovement Projects: The Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Work and the Capital Improvement Projects

- East River Sludge Dock Relocat ion. The City stated that the department :

has committed to undertake a number of projects in Newtown Creek to reduce CSOs, capture floatables, increase dissolved oxygen (“DO”) levels and perform dredging. These projects will improve water quality, mitigate seasonal odors, and improve quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods.

The City also stated that :

D uring the plann ing process for the CSO program and capital improvements, NYC DEP has consistently reached out to and received strong support from the community and

elected officials . T he City is concerned that a final listing on the NPL could have negative impacts on va rious improvement projects already planned and budgete d for

Newtown Creek . . . ”

The City commented that its economic analysis of a Superfund designation would have “significant potential economic impacts associated with delays

. . . to planned investmen ts in the area caused by an NPL listing.” The City asserted that “[t]he New York City Economic Development Corporation (“NYCEDC”) conducted an analysis of the tax impact of a Superfund designation on the area within one

quarter mile radius of Newtown Cre ek (“Newtown Creek Corridor”).” As a result of this analysis, theNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

18 City stated that if the “Superfund designation moves forward and delays these projects ... it will cost the City between $515 million and $743 million in lost tax revenue depending on the len gth of the cleanup.”

The City emphasized that :

W ithout adequate commitment from EPA, listing Newtown Creek on the NPL could delay or halt planned improvements and result in additional costs to the City. These are undesirable impacts for any project, but particularly undesirable in this context given the

current economic climate.

The City expressed concerns regarding the planned developments around the Creek, stating that “listing on the NPL could deter economic investment in the vicinity of the Creek

. ” It also added that listing could complicate public and private financing; cause property owners along the waterfront to be caught up in massive complex expensive CERCLA litigation; decrease appraised property values; complicate financing involving the Fe deral housing Administration (FHA); and have negative impacts on business along the Creek, especially concerning the ability to obtain financing

. The City requested that EPA make

active efforts to avoid disruptions to the local economy during the investig ation and remedial program

, and seeks explicit assurances fr om EPA to this effect.

GLA stated that “listing the mouth of the Creek would place a Superfund site in the midst of the locus of substantial residential redevelopment efforts...” GLA asserted that “[l]umping together the less

contaminated mouth of the Creek with the much more contaminated remainder of that water body unfairly attaches a stigma to these properties, and makes financing more difficult...” GLA further asserted that “listing of the [Creek] mouth may impede the development of approximately 4,000 units of desperately needed middle

- class and affordable housing unit.” GLA stated the Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) has developed a plan to remove the East River sludge storage tan k,

which serves the Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant ( W P CP ) . GLA added that NYCDEP is in the midst of implementing this plan and “[t]he overall plan would cost upward of $100 million, which could be jeopardiz ed by the listing.”

GLA also comme nted that studies of real estate values adjacent to contaminated properties demonstrate that “NPL listing carries a stigma that adversely impacts property values.” Commenting on Hunter’s Point South and other redevelopment projects, GLA added that “[i]t m ay be difficult to obtain financing for residential dwelling on a Superfund site given the drop in land values

- particularly in light of USEPA’s acknowledgement that the cleanup would probably not occur u ntil fifteen years hence.”

An anonymous public co mmenter while supporting the listing also stated that “[ t ] he Creek’s pollution carries a stigma ” and that “[t] here may be a slight decrease in property value, however, over time, with the completion of the Superfund cleaning ; the propert y will have more va lue. ” L. Brenner, a public commenter, also stated, “ [c] urrently, the Creek’s pollution carries a stigma which is detri mental to property value.”

EWVIDCO commented that it is “ deeply concerned about the impact that a Superfund designation would

have on the 1000 industrial businesses nearby the Creek and the 33,000 res idents that they employ.”
However, EWVIDCO expressed its “ fervent desire to have Newtown Creek cleaned up ” (without specifying a mechanism)

. EWVIDCO stated its concern that small businesse s located on Newtown Creek may be identified by the EPA as a “potentially responsib le polluter” when they can not afford to pay the cleanup costs. EWVIDCO also expressed concern regarding the “ enforcement assumption ” under Superfund. In particular, EWVIDC O expressed concern about the following issues and requested that EPA provide information and/or clarification on each of these issues:Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

19 **•** t he continued availability of financing and insurance for businesses, especially those engaged in expansion ;

**•** p roperty o wners' ability to transfer or sell property during the long investigation and cleanup period ;

**•** d irect operational impact cleanup activities will have on adjacent firms, especially firms that use

the Creek for transport ;

**•** s mall business liability if either th e EPA or one of the “big five” identifies them as a potential ly responsible polluter.

Response : Any negative impacts noted by the above commenter s would be engendered by the

contamination in the area, not by placing the site on the NPL

. In fact, l isti ng will result in positive economic impacts when the site contamination has been addressed. The commenter neglects the possibility property values and other economic attributes of the area are already affected by current public knowledge of contamination

. While NPL listing certainly provides additional public information on the Newtown Creek contamination, it also provides opportunity for residents, business owners, investors and potential investors to gain detailed knowledge and express their concerns an d ideas for final solutions in the public forums offered during other phases of the Superfund process.

B oth costs and benefits can be associated with listing a site. Among the benefits associated with listing a

site on the NPL are increased health and environmental protection as a result of increased public awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the potential for federally financed remedial actions, the addition of a site to the NPL could accelerate privately financed, voluntary cleanup effort s. Listing sites as national priority targets also may give States increased support for funding responses at particular sites. As a result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower human exposure to high

- risk chemicals, and higher quality s urface water, ground water, soil, and air. Therefore, it is possible that any perceived or actual negative fluctuations in property values or development opportunities that may result from contamination may be countered by positive fluctuations when a CER CLA investigation and any necessary cleanup are completed.

Regarding the commenters’ concerns for the impact of site listing on remedial activities and the attendant costs, the discussion of costs in the Federal Register is by necessity only of a general nature. The proposed rule clearly states that including a site on the NPL does not cause EPA necessarily to take remedial action, or that any action is required by, nor liability for site response costs assigned to, any party or the owner of any specific party (74 FR 48511 ). Any Agency actions that may impose costs on firms are based on discretionary decisions and are made on a case

- by

- case basis. Also, responsible parties may bear some or all the costs of the RI/FS and subsequent work, or the costs may be shared by EPA and the States. Therefore, expenditures cited by the commenter s are associated with events that occur during a different stage of the Superfund process , not with the listing itself. However, EPA is aware of the City’s cleanup projects an d will consider them while determining further actions



### 3. 7 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

Comment : The City, Texaco, ExxonMobil, and NCMC commented on the designing and performing of

an RI/FS . The City requested that EPA promptly initiate a re medial program and engage a comprehensive investigation to identify all historical contributions of contaminants to Newtown Creek sediments, including operations of entities under State Consent Orders or under the jurisdiction of other

State or Feder al pro grams. The City also requested that EPA consider the use of “ spatially defined operable units ” for the purpose of accomplishing the most expeditious and effective cleanup. It explained that the remedial program for Newtown Creek could distinguish more hi ghly contaminated areas in the upper reaches of the Creek from less contaminated areas near the mouth of the Creek . It added that thisNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

20 approach could enable greater flexibility in the consideration o f interim removal actions. The City additionally reques ted that EPA investigate and pursue enforcement of ongoing illegal discharges from unpermitted pipes, conveyances and ground water into Newtown Creek, and that the EPA conduct its remedial program with the most comprehensive form of communi ty participation

.

The City stated that in a letter dated January 20, 2009

, from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Alexander Grannis, recommending Newtown Creek for NPL consideration, Commissioner Grannis “ strongly suggested ” that a work plan submitted by a group of five responsible parties known as the Newtown Creek Group, “ be considered in any future actions USEPA may have for the Creek

. ” The C ity included Commissioner Grannis’ letter dated January 20, 2009

, as Appe ndix A to its commen ts. This letter is also provided in the EPA docket for the Newtown Creek site (Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2009

- 0588

- 0004).

The City commented that it received from EPA the Newton Creek Group’s Creekwide R I/FS work plan (referred to as the “Work Plan”) for r eview during the NPL comment period for the Newtown Creek site. The City provided its assessment of the Work Plan as Appendix B to the City’s comments and concludes

that “it [the Work Plan] fails to provide a sufficient Remedial Investigation scope to sup port a Feasibility Study or produce a remedy that would be protective of human h ealth and the environment.” The City requested EPA critically evaluate the Newtown Creek Group Work Plan for Newtown Creek, and

summarized defic iencies in the Work Plan as : 1) insufficient scope of proposed field work and research to produce adequate data to support a proper Feasibility Study, Record of Decision and Remedial Action that would be protective of human health and the environment; 2) improperly designed Remedial

I nvestigation elements that are insufficient to provide data or information to support the goals of the Remedial Investigation or Feasibility Study (including artifacts of the Work Plan originally submitted to NYS DEC, which had a short

- term focus for deliv erables and was not conceived or intended to satisfy the Superfund process); and, 3) an inaccurate and incomplete Conceptual Site Model that fails to recognize numerous historical industrial sources of contamination or incorporate informative and illuminat ing existing environment al data for Newtown Creek.

Texaco commented that the RI/FS can be structured to answer questions regardi ng remedy implementation. Texaco stated that it and four other companies (the “Newtown Creek Group”) are negotiating with EP A to conduct an RI/FS of Newtown Creek to assist EPA in answering questions regarding sediment and bacteria loading in Newtown Creek and the effectiveness of sediment remediation at other similar sites. Texaco concluded that timely activities would be for EPA to enter into an Administrative Order on Consent with the Newtown Creek Group to perform an RI/FS, as well as to identify and notify other potentially responsible parties to assist in the process and participate in the funding of the RI/FS.

ExxonMobi l commented that it has been working voluntarily with other potentially responsible parties to develop an investigation and remediation plan for Newtown Creek. It asserted that the complexity of the potential sources of contamination in the Creek warrants that the first step in determining remedial action

is “ scientifically sound investigation of current and past contamination sources to determine the appropriate course of action and to evaluate the responsibility for the Creek’s conditions. ” ExxonMobil

a dded that in this spirit, it has been working with the Newtown Creek Group, which came together at the request of the New York State Attorney General in coordination with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and has continued to work toge ther as EPA has taken t he lead on Newtown

Creek. ExxonMobil stated:

The NCG is developing a comprehensive investigative plan to determine the environmental condition of the Creek and identify appropriate remedial actions. The goal of the comprehensive i nvestigation, which will be paid for by potentially responsibleNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

21 parties, is to understand both historic and current sources of pollution in order to develop an effective plan to add ress the Site.

The Newtown Creek Monitoring Committee (NCMC) sta ted that it “ supports the clean up of Newtown Creek in the most expeditious manner possible, ” and sets forth a number of considerations it believes are important in achieving that objective, including the continuation of planned dredging projects, the preservation of Newtown Creek Nature Walk, and the commitment of the appropriate leve l of resources to the project.

Response : T he Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study is a separate stage of the Superfund process that takes place after a site is proposed to the N PL (see section 3.3, Purpose of Listing, of this support
document ) . As such, comments pertaining to the RI/FS do not affect the HRS score or impact the listing

process. During the course of the Superfund process, the public will have the opportunity to c omment on
EPA’s activities.



### 3. 8 Other Non

- listing Activities

Comments : Several commenters, including the City, Texaco, ENVIRON , ExxonMobil, New York/New Jersey Baykeeper, Riverkeeper, Inc., and several others

, requested EPA action on or information

regar ding activities that typically are associated with or follow placing a site on the NPL but are not part of the listing process. These requests covered a variety of topics, including determining the breadth of the investigation, determining site

- specific r isk, selection of remedial actions, identification of potentially responsible parties (PRPs), financing the cleanup, public participation, coordination with local and State governments, protection of innocent landowners, estimate of timelines for project a ctivities, and coordination with preexisting remediation and development projects. Specific non

- listing topics raised by

the commenters are listed below.

Breadth of Remedial Activities GLA questioned the breadth, approach, and the effectiveness of the re mediation of Newtown Creek and whether various aspects of the cleanup had been considered. Specifically, GLA asked if EPA had

considered the projected bacterial loading information in the Creek, what current bacterial levels currently exist at different p oints in the Creek, and what the affects of aeration activities on bacterial levels would be. Also, GLA asked whether dredging would result in an increase in water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen

.

Texaco commented that, if EPA determines tha t NPL listing would not result in the Creek being fishable or fit for recreational activities, a premature NPL listing will only exa cerbate false expectations.

Also, Texaco questioned whether the technologies employed to remediate other sediments were ef fective in preventing recontamination

.

Enforcement during P lanning and R emediation

NCA discussed that it expect s EPA to consider a strict enforcement of water quality criteria and property remediation goals

.

Coordination with Business and City/State Pr oject Interests Several commenters including the City, GLA, NCA , and Greenpoint Waterfront Association for Parks and Planning ( GWA PP ) commented on the need to coordinate with development projects and business operations. Commenters highlighted the fact th at Newtown Creek is an active, urban waterway with several businesses and project plans, and that EPA would need to coordinate with these interests to

maintain business continui ty and employment in the area . The City requested EPA’s coordination withNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

22 vari ous New York State and New York City development plans and strategies, and an intergovernmental collaboration across all City, State, and Federal entitie s involved with the site . Brian T. Coleman, CEO, Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center ( GMDC ) , ha d several concerns regarding the impact on small business operations from Superfund listing, including how EPA will protect small business interests along the Creek.

Public Outreach Several commenters including the City, Joseph R. Lentol, Assemblyman, St ate of New York, Susan Albrecht, Co

- chair, Neighbors Allied for Good Growth, and Julie Lawrence, Brooklyn resident, requested EPA effectively communicate with the community using the appropriate tools and resources, the various aspects of the Superfund pro cess and its potent ial effects on the area . Specific activities requested by commenters covered a variety of topics, including:

**•** Requests for EPA to give additional consideration to those members of the community who have

limited access to information who may be the most directly affected, such as the elderly, and

lower

- income or immigrant populations.

**•** Requests for EPA to assure the continued safety of sensitive subpopulations such as day care centers, schools, and senior facilities du ring the Superfund process.

**•** Requests for commitments from EPA to address various aspects of public outreach, including issues with zoning changes, safety issues, and acce ss to the Creek.

**•** Requests for EPA to develop committees to facilitate communication between various loca l, st ate,
and federal entities.

Investigations of Historical Contributions of Contamination The City requested that EPA investigate all historical contributions of contaminants to the Newtown Creek sediment, and conduct a comprehensive PRP search to iden tify current and historic industrial operators responsible for the significant sources of contamination.

Commitment of Resources

NCMC , the City, and other commenters requested that EPA commit the necessary resources or technical

collaboration in order to achieve a resolution at the site. The City and ExxonMobil requested EPA take a collaborative approach which pools technical resources and technologies in order to achieve a more efficient and reliable investig ation and ultimate resolution. Also, the City requested that “EPA dedicate remedial program staff to provide direct and timely engagement with the City and surrounding communities” during th e entire remedial program.

NCMC discussed the level of complexity involved with the efforts associated with cl ean

- up of Newtown Creek and requested that EPA “commit the requisite resources necessary to manage what could be one of its largest sites.”

Timelines and Expediting Efforts Several commenters requested the expedited completion of various stages of the Sup erfund process and the establishment of timelines for significant accomplishments. Other commenters requested EPA expedite permitting and regulatory review processes so that work can be completed in a timely manner on

various re development projects.

Coo rdination with Other Remedial Projects Several commenters, including the City, raised concerns over the potential interaction between ongoing or planned remediation projects and the Superfund designation of Newtown Creek. Such topics included:Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

23 **•** Complicat ions that may arise out of developers’ interest in enrolling in the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program or the City’s Local B rownfield Cleanup Program

**•** Requests that EPA work with the City and the State of New York to address CERCLA liability

release s for volunteers of State or City cleanup programs.

**•** The compatibility of Superfund with the performance of required remedial investigations or remedial actions already underway in Newtown Creek, such as the existing aeration system.

CSO, Stormwater Disc harge, Sediment Loading Some commenters, including the City, Hyd roQual, Texaco, and ExxonMobil

, questioned or commented on issues concerning CSOs, sediment loading

, and remediation efforts on the proposed site. HydroQual commented that during precipitatio n events CSOs discharge d irectly into Newtown Creek. The City is concerned with planned work that may later be found to be inconsistent with, or otherwise interfere with, the performance of required r emedial actions. Texaco stated that there are no natur al freshwater flows into Newtown Creek; it should be determined whether ongoing sediment and bacterial loading will undermine the effectiveness of any remedy prior to the abatement of the ongoing sedimentation . Texaco listed a number of questions on bacte rial loading which it feels remains unanswered and impacts EPA’s ability to achieve a permanent remedy for Newton Creek. Texaco questioned whether the city will meet the goal of making Newton Creek fishable and capable of supporting recreational uses in t h e foreseeable

future. Texaco also asserted that the City’s plan for CSO abatement will reduce CSO discharge up to 66%, but total untreated discharge will remain over 1 billion gallons per year. Texaco stated that it does

not believe the 2005 CSO Consent Order will allow for effective cleanup of Newtown Creek and expressed that listing should not occur until it is apparent that a long te rm remedy can be achieved.

Texaco and ExxonMobil expressed concern that ongoing problems associated with CSOs must be

a ddressed before a permanent remedial solution c an be determined and achieved. Edgar Freud stated that bypass events occur at the wastewater treatment facility nearly 30 times per year and are most often the result of high flow rates du ring precipitation e vents. GLA requested EPA study the fluvial mechanics of the surface water system associated with the site.

Response : Considerations regarding remedy selection, implementation, and funding are not factors in the

decision to list a site on the NPL and th ese decisions are not made at the listing stage. Therefore, the commenters’ questions on these topics are addressed during other stages of the Superfund process as these activities typically occur after listing. Listing of a site simply informs the publi c that EPA has determined that the site poses sufficient threat to human health and the environment to warrant further investigation. It does not predetermine the response actions. The Superfund process offers numerous opportunities for public participati on at NPL sites, in addition to commenting on site listing proposals, which are available to the commenters and all of the public.

To the extent practicable, the EPA Regional Office 2

**•** Public meetings at which EPA presents a summary of technical information regarding the site and citizens can ask questions or comment. develops a Community Relations Plan (CRP) before RI/FS field work begin s. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 300.430(c), t he CRP is the “work plan” for community relations activities that EPA will conduct during the entire cleanup process. In developing a CRP, Regional staff interview State and local officials and interested citizens to learn about citizen concerns, site conditions, and local history. This information is used to formulate a schedule of activities designed to keep citizens apprised and to keep EPA aware of community concerns. Typical community relations activities may i nclude:

**•** Small, informal public sessions at which EPA representatives are available to citizens.

2 For Newtown Creek Region 2 outreach information see the following webpage: http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/newtowncreek/Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

24 **•** Development and distribu tion of fact sheets to keep citizens up

- to

- date on site activities.

For each site, an “information repository” is established, usually in a library or town hall, containing reports, studies, fact sheets, and other documents containing information about th e site. The EPA Regional Office continually updates the repository and ensures that the facility housing the repository has copying capabilities.

After the RI/FS is completed and EPA has recommended a preferred cleanup alternative, the EPA Regional Offic e sends to all interested parties a Proposed Plan outlining the cleanup alternatives studied and explaining the process for selection of the preferred alternative. At this time, a public comment period begins during which citizens are encouraged to submit comments regarding all alternatives. After

th is public comment period ends, a Responsiveness Summary is developed , which contains EPA responses to public comments. The Responsiveness Summary becomes part of the Record of Decision (ROD), which provides o fficial documentation of the remedy chosen for the site.

E very attempt is made to ensure that community relations is a continuing activity designed to meet the specific needs of the community. Anyone wanting information on a specific site should contact the Community Relations staff in the a ppropriate EPA Regional Office.



### 3. 9 Additional Pathways Not Scored

Comment : HydroQual stated that EPA’s decision to not score the ground water, soil exposure, and air pathways is technically supportable. It provided the following as rationale for its position:

The absence of water supply; the low permeability of the surficial sediment deposits which limit the groundwater pathway; the organic rich nature of the upper sediments which help to limit migration potential via groundwater; and the virtually absent potential for air impacts from this water body, all indicate that these pathways are irrelevant. . . For all of these reasons, the groundwater, soil, and air pathways are not considered further.

Response : T he HRS does not require scoring all four pathways if scoring those pathways does not change the listing decision

. However, EPA did not state that the ground water, soil

, and /or air pathways are irrelevant for Newtown Creek. Instead, as i ndicated on the cover sh eet of the HRS documentation record at proposal, “

... Ground Water, Soil Exposure, and Air Pathways might be evaluated further during future investigations because evaluation of those pathways might lead to identification of contributing

sources of sediment c ontamination. ”

To the extent practicable, EPA attempts to score all pathways that pose a significant threat. If the contribution of a pathway is minimal to the overall score, in general, that pathway will not be scored

.

The HRS is intended to be a “roug h list” of prioritized hazardous sites; a “first step in a process

-- nothing more, nothing less” Eagle Picher Indus. v. EPA , 759 F.2d 922, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Eagle Picher II). EPA would like to investigate each possible site completely and thoroughly pr ior to evaluating a site for proposal to the NPL, but EPA must reconcile the need for certainty before action with the need for inexpensive, expeditious procedures to identify potentially hazardous sites. In this case, the HRS site score considering only the surface water pathway was 50.00, well above the cutoff score of 28.50. Hence, there was no need to expend resources evaluating other pathwaysNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

25 

### 3. 10 Releases Below Regulatory Limit

Comment : HydroQual commented that the HRS documentation record states that “[m]etals, (including copper), PCBs, SVOCs, and VOCs have all been detected at concentrations exceeding surface water quality criteria in CSO and storm water discharges to Newtown Creek.” HydroQual then emphasized that

water quality criteria are appl icable to surface waters, not effluents. HydroQual asserted that the CSO characterized by EPA are more accurately characterized as contaminant conveyors to which surface water quality standards do not apply. Environ and H y droQual also comment ed that the c ontaminant levels in

the Creek were below vari ous regulatory criteria, includ ing N YSDEC sediment quality values, such as the

lowest observed effects concentrations for p olycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon s ( PAHs ) , and State soil cleanup levels, and EPA ’s “no ob served effect concentration” for PAHs.

Response : Whether or not ambient water quality criteria were properly compared to contaminant levels

in effluents or the contaminant levels in the Creek used to identify observed releases (or for other purposes) is not relevant to the HRS evaluation of this site ; the s e comparison s w ere not used in the HRS scoring of the site.

First, t he discussion comparing c ontaminant levels in discharges to ambient water quality criteria was presented only for the purpose of ill ustrating the relative magnitude of hazardous substance concentrations in discharges to Newtown Creek. This finding was not used in the HRS scoring of the

site.

Fur ther mor e, contaminant levels need not be above regulatory criteria to b e used in identi fying releases or for other HRS scoring purposes

. CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list on the NPL

“ releases ” of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants according to specific criteria set out in CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(A). The defin ition of “ release ” in CERCLA Section 101(22) exempts certain releases from its scope, but it does not exempt releases below regulatory limits, and even if discharges occur within regulatory limits set by those Federal laws enumerated in CERCLA Section 101( 10) the discharges may be considered releases under CERCLA and, if appropriate under the HRS, placed on the NPL. CERCLA exempts Federally

- permitted releases only from the notification (Section 103(a)) and

cost

- recovery (107(j)) sections of the statute; su ch releases remain subject to the other sections of the

statute.

As the Agency explained r egarding observed releases specifically, o n July 16, 1982, when responding to public comments on the proposed (original) HRS (47 FR 31188), and again on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40665), the idea that releases within regulatory limits should not be considered “ observed releases ” specifically, and not used in general

, was rejected . As the Agency noted in 1982 :

emission or effluent limits do not necessarily represent l evels which cause no harm to public health or the environment. These limitations are frequently established on the basis of economic impacts or achievability.

By contrast, an observed release represents a 100 percent likelihood that substances can migrat e from the site (47 FR 31188, July 16, 1982).

Section 2.3 of the present HRS (55 FR 51589, December 14, 1990) states that an observed release can be established either by direct observation or by chemical analysis. An observed release by chemical analysi s has occurred when a contaminant is measured significantly above background level if some portion of the release is attributable to the site. Even though levels may be lower than regulatory limits,

an observed release has nevertheless occurred if the mea sured levels are significantly higher than background levels.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

26 Of course, the observed release factor alone is not intended to reflect the relative hazard presented by the particular release. Instead, the relative hazard of the site is approximated by the total HRS score, which incorporates the observed release factors with other factors such as waste characteristics (including waste quantity, toxicity, and persistence) and targets. This total HRS score reflects the hazard of the site relative only to the other sites that have been scored. The actual degree of contamination and its effects are more fully determined during the Remedial Investigation.



### 3. 11 Challenge to HRS

Comment : HydroQual and ENVIRON submitted several comments applicable to the listin g of all sites in general as well as specifically to the listing of the Newtown Creek site. These comments include:

**•** Change the Significant Difference Criteria for Establishing on Observed Release : HydroQual stated that “it seems arbitrary that sample me asurements higher than the SQL or three times background concentration levels should define an observed contaminant release. The factor of three and the SQL have no relationship to an environmental or human health impact.” Similarly, ENVIRON commented th at the SQL is an analytical objective and provides no information concerning risk. It added that “since analytical techniques are constantly being improved, the SQL will be subject to change over time. Therefore, the SQL should not be a basis for listing a site to the NPL. ”

**•** Change the HRS to a Site

- Specific Risk

- based Approach : ENVIRON stated that the overall

HRS site score of 50 .00 is “not scientifically linked to risk and although the score may be refined at a later date, unnecessary inclusion of ar eas exhibiting de minimis risk at the outset casts a heavy burden of proof of innocence.” ENVIRON stated, “[t]his unnecessary burden of proof should be avoided by taking a science and risk

- based approach to listing at the outset.”

ENVIRON stated that “th e proposed listing is based on a mechanical ranking system which does not distinguish between conditions causing unacceptable risk and those causing de minimis risk.”

**•** Use Organic Carbon Normalized Analytical Data to Establish Observed Releases : Environ

stated that bo th NYSDEC and USEPA consider that the risk from non

- polar organic chemicals is best evaluated by equilibrium partitioning (EqP) methods which evaluate the distri bution of a chemical between organic compounds in sediments and the sediment por e water. It stated that a more advanced method, the target

- lipid model (TLM), evaluates the partitioning between OC and

th e lipid portion of an organism, and that i n both methods, the resulting OC

- normalized concentration is compared to an OC

- normalized se diment toxicity benchmark. Environ stated, “[w] hen the PAH concentrations detected in samples from the lower portion of the Creek are OC

normalized, they fall below the NYSDEC sediment quality value and the USEPA no observed effect concentration (NOEC) fo r PAHs. When concentrations of PAHs are less than their screening values, risk is considered to be de minimis. ”

**•** Identify Risk only at Sample locations, not between Sample locations : Environ stated that “[t] here is no significant risk from surface sedimen ts as far upstream as location 35A. The same

is true of subsurface sediments

– the data do not indicate evidence of significant risk from location 03A (there is no data for location 01A) to location 13A. Locations 13A and 35A are farther upstream from the mouth of the Creek. ”

**•** Use Benchmarks not included in the Present HRS : ENVIRON statedNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

27 t he lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) is the appropriate screening

level benchmark. The NYSDEC (1999) LOEC for PAHs is the effects range median (ER

- M) of 3 5.5 mg/kg derived from Long and Morgan (1990)

. There

were no reported total PAH concentrations in sediments exceeding the ER

- M

from the mouth of the Creek to surface sediment location 35A or subsurface

sediment location 09A (see Table 1). Therefore, as d etermined by the NYSDEC methods, the data do not indicate unacceptable risk or E nvironmental T hreat to populations or individual aquatic organisms in the lower portion of the Creek.

. . .

c oncentrations in the lower portion of the Creek ( represented by sam pling locations 01A, 03A and 09A ) are below the NYSDEC unrestricted use soil cleanup objectives (6 NYCRR Subpart 375

- 6), which are based on direct exposure assumptions that likely overestimate the exposure to Creek sediments.

**•** Use Alternative Methods to Q uantify Levels of Risk Within The Surface Water Pathway

Threats : ENVIRON asserted that two independent quantitative methods published by NYSDEC (2007) and USEPA (2003) support a determination that the concentrations detected in the lower portion of Newtow n Creek represent a de minimis risk and environmental threat, and no human food chain threat is expected for concentrations detected in the lower portion of Newtown Creek.

ENVIRON summarized that “[b]ased on the assessment of potential ecological risks as sociated with reported concentrations in sediment samples from the lower portion of Newtown Creek, it can be concluded that the contamination of Newtown Creek by historic PAH releases has not created conditions in this portion of the Creek that are hazardo us to aquatic organisms.”

**•** Consider Bioavailability in Determining Risk : GLA commented that the high organic carbon content and very low oxygen conditions in sediment significantly decrease bioavailability of contaminants to aquatic organisms, thereby l owering risk to this population. GLA asserted that this factor was not taken into account in EPA’s food chain analysis in the HRS documentation

record. ELM stated that the physical and chemical processes in the Creek are essential to determining the bioa vailability of associated contaminants to targets and thus, determining “the potential for risk (or lack thereof) to a potentially affected population, assuming there is a legitimate probability that that population has a risk of being exposed. It stated, “G iven the processes expected to be present in the Creek, they should be considered by USEPA as part of the

NPL listing process . . . .”

**•** Consider State Soil Cleanup Levels based on Organic Content in Establishing Risk : HydroQual commented that “NYSDEC guidance for determining cleanup levels recommends adjusting site soil cleanup objectives based on soil organic carbon content.” HydroQual

stated that:

EPA has established draft sediment quality guidelines on a contaminant per mass organic carbon basis which could instead be used to assess the relevance to an ecological threat represented by contaminant concentrations at Newtown Creek. The draft sediment quality guidelines, unlike the higher and the SQL and three times background metrics used in HRS sco re, are tied to ecological effects. Unfortunately, the draft sediment quality guidelines are available for only a

limited number of contaminants and are not mentione d in HRS scoring guidance.

Response : The HRS and the process used in placing site s on the NPL was promulgated on December 14,

1990 ( 55 FR 51569) , and comments directed at the HRS are not relevant to the proposal to place the

Newtown Creek site on the NPL , nor do such comments affect the Newtown Creek site score.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

28 

### 3. 12 Public Health Asses sment/Human Health Risk Assessment

Comment : The City requested that EPA provide assistance to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR ) “to conduct a rigorous and expedited Public Health Assessment and that EPA begin the baseline Human Health Risk Assessment of the proposed Superfund site .” OSA requested that EPA conduct an analysis of the health impacts of creek contamination on local residents as well as the potential health i mpact of the remediation.

Response : A public health asse ssment will be performed for Newtown Creek NPL because CERCLA mandates ATSDR prepare a public health assessment for each site on (or proposed for inclusion on) the National Priorities List (NPL ). However, CERCLA does not require ATSDR to begin or issue a public health assessment before or during the listing process. The Human Health Risk Assessment is part of the RI/FS stage of the Superfund process and does not impact the listing process.



### 3. 13 Contaminated Sediment Source

Comment : HydroQual questioned whether or not the sediment in the Creek was an eligible source. It distinguished between what it considered original upland sources and contaminated sediments and

asserted that the Creek should be considered the receptor for contaminants discharged from adjacent industrial properties rather than the original source of these contaminants

. T he City urged EPA to thoroughly investigate the origin of all sources, known and unknown, along the entire length of the Creek. HydroQual added that it is clear from t he nature and location of contamination in the Creek that several upland sources are major contributors

, but that these upland sources are not part and parcel of the Newtown Creek NPL designation.

HydroQual asserted the HRS documentation record at propos al avoids recognition of numerous sources that can be identified with a high degree of certainty from spill reports

, data and remedial investigations performed on Newtown Creek. HydroQual suggested that the CERCLA legislation provides for joint and

severa l liability, and multiple sources are easily accommodated

.

HydroQual stated that it is not clear if the level of detail outlined in the HRS Guidance Manual for an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) was undertaken prior to developing an HRS score for the Newt own Creek

site. HydroQual stated that the distinction of whether the contamination in Newtown Creek sediments are from known/identified or unknown/unidentified sources is fundamentally important to the HRS scoring because the HRS Training Manual 3

3 HRS Training Manual available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/training/hrstrain/htmain/4source.htm indicate s that a reas of contaminated surface water sediments arising from discharges from known sources are not sources for purposes of HRS scoring.

HydroQual then noted that EPA characterizes Newtown Creek sediments as a source based on the provision from HRS Section 1.1 that, in the case of “either a ground water plume with no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified source, the plume or contaminated sediments may be considered a source.” HydroQual then stated “[h]owever, t his is not the case for

Newtown Creek where numerous sources have been identified.”

Texaco asserted that sampled effluent from CSOs shows that they contribute hazardous substances to the

Creek. HydroQual asserted that CSOs are not sources, yet are conve yors of hazardous substances and that the amount discharge from CSOs is overstated in the HRS documentation record

.

Response : The source was identified as a contaminated sediment source according to HRS criteria. HRS Section 1.1, Definitions

, defines “ Source” as:Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

29 Any area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated by migration of a hazardous substance. Sources do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface wate r, or surface water sediments that have become contaminated by migration, except: in the case of either a ground water plume with no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified source, the plume or contaminated sediments ma y be

considered a source.

H ence
, the HRS presents two requirements for sediment to be considered a source in the HRS evaluation. First, the sediment must contain hazardous substances, and second, the exact source or sources of the

hazardous substances in any particular location of the Creek could not be identified

.

The HRS documentation record at proposal demonstrates that the two HRS requirements for identifying a contaminated sediment source have been met. Page 18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal details the characteristics of the source (Source 1):

Source 1 consists of contaminated sediments in Newtown Creek. There are several hazardous substances affecting the creek sediments, including metals, VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs [see Section 2.4.1]

. The origin of these hazardous substances in the contaminated sediments has not been identified due to the presence of multiple possible

sources for each substance. As a result, the source(s) of all the contamination in any particular location in the cr eek cannot be determined. The upland areas adjacent to this source have been heavily industrialized since the 1850s. Historical or current industrial activities along and within the creek have included oil refining, storage, and distribution; copper smel ting; waste oil, scrap metal, soil, and concrete recycling; petrochemical, chemical, paint, fertilizer, glue, and dry ice manufacture; energy production at MGPs and natural gas facilities; shipbuilding and aluminum manufacture for airplanes; cement and

lum ber production and storage; coal yards; fat rendering, hide tanning, sugar refining, and canning; and transport of fuel, raw materials, and products [Ref. 7, pp. 1, 3, 7, 13; 8, p. 10; 9, pp. 4

- 6; 11, pp. 12

- 16; 13, pp. 1

- 5; 14, pp. 7

- 8; 16, p. 3; 17, p. 5 ; 18, pp. 6, 11

- 12]. In addition, discharge of raw sewage directly into the water occurred from 1865 to 1967. Although there have been upgrades to the Newtown Creek WPCP, the creek is still the receiving water body for industrial discharges, CSO discharges , and storm water from the surrounding neighborhoods [Ref. 6, p. 1; 8, p. 10; 9, pp. 5, 8; 11, pp. 11, 20

- 22, 103; 12, pp. 21

- 22, 96

- 102; 20, pp. 2

- 3].

H istorical sampling activities have shown the existence of hazardous substances within the Creek

sedime nts. P age 18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:

Numerous past investigations with varying scopes have been conducted within and around Newtown Creek, with most of the focus on specific properties or specific segments of the creek [Ref. 8, pp. 15

- 21; 11, pp. 7, 97, 104

- 113; 14, pp. 5

- 18, 38

- 40; 16, pp. 2

- 4; 17, pp. 4, 33

- 34; 18, pp. 13

- 14, 51; 19, pp. 1

- 3]. Some of these studies have shown the presence of various contaminants at elevated levels in the creek sediments.

Historical NYCDEP sed iment sampling data indicate high concentrations of metals, VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs [Ref. 11, pp. 27

- 28, 180

- 183]. Sediment sampling by PDRC from March 2004 to August 2005 showed percent levels (i.e., greater than 10,000 mg/kg) of copper and zinc, and PCBs up to 106,000 μg/kg [Ref. 11, pp. 29

- 43, 105

- 113, 1005

- 1032, 1055

- 1097]. Other metals, pesticides, and PAHs were also detected above NYSDEC screening criteria [Ref. 11, pp. 60

- 65, 1005

- 1032, 1055

- 1097]. The pattern ofNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

30 contamination indicates that contami nants and pollutants from various sources are intermingled within the Newtown Creek sediments [Ref. 11, pp. 60

- 65, 138

- 152].

From February to April 2009, EPA collected sediment samples from Newtown Creek and project

- specific background samples from the ne arby Atlantic Basin. Surface samples (designated with an “A”) were collected from the 0

- to 2

- foot depth interval with a modified Van Veen dredge, and subsurface samples (designated with a “B”) were collected at depths ranging from 2 to 6 feet with a vibr acore coring device [Ref. 23, pp. 7

- 70; 25, pp. 4, 6

- 16, 20

- 23]. The samples were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs; Target Analyte List (TAL) metals; total organic carbon (TOC); and grain

- size distribution [Ref. 25, pp. 1

- 5]. The analytical results indicate that metals, VOCs, SVOCs including PAHs, and PCBs are present in the Newtown Creek sediments at concentrations that meet the criteria for observed release [see Section 2.4.1]. These contaminants may have entered Newtown Cr eek via several transport pathways or mechanisms, including spillage, direct disposal or discharge, contaminated ground water discharge, or storm water runoff [Ref. 9, pp. 4, 6; 11, pp. 20

- 24; 12, pp. 21

- 22]. The variety and distribution of contaminants s uggest that the sediment contamination originated at a variety of sources [Tables 1 and 2, Figures 2 and 3; Ref. 26 through 46

– see Section 2.4.1].

Other portions of the HRS documentation record explain that the contamination in the sediments cannot

be a ttributed to any individual source. Page 38 of the HRS documentation record at proposal specifies the complexities in identifying a specific contributor of contamination to the Creek as follows :

Sediments in Newtown Creek are contaminated with metals, VO Cs, SVOCs including PAHs, and PCBs for a length of more than 3 miles [see Section 2.2]. The origin of these

hazardous substances in the contaminated sediments has not been identified due to the presence of multiple possible sources for each substance. Th ere are numerous routes that contamination can be taking to reach the water body and underlying sediments, including spillage during product shipping and handling, direct disposal and discharge, storm water runoff, and air deposition. As a result, the sou rce(s) of all the contamination in any particular location in the creek cannot be determined.

Page 39 of the HRS documentation record at proposal continues:

The contaminants detected in the creek sediments can come from a wide variety of

industrial and o ther anthropogenic activities [Ref. 9, pp. 3

- 6; 11, pp. 12, 20

- 24; 12, pp.

21

- 22; 13, pp. 3

- 6]. For instance, more than 30 different types of source contributing PAHs to the New York/New Jersey Harbor watershed have been identified [Ref. 55, p. 50]. Poss ible PAH sources include transportation

- related activities such as petroleum spills, vehicle exhaust, and tire wear; creosote

- treated marine pilings, utility poles, and railroad ties; and contaminated properties including MGPs [Ref. 55, pp. 21, 50, 85

- 86]. Likewise, cadmium could be attributed to the widespread use and disposal of nickel

cadmium (Ni

- Cd) batteries, application of fertilizers and biosolids with subsequent runoff, or contaminated properties [Ref. 56, pp. 12

- 15]. CSOs and storm water runoff ar e major contributors of PCBs to the Harbor, with a variety of contaminated properties or facilities as the likely contributors to those wastestreams [Ref. 57, p. 18]. Metals (including copper), PCBs, SVOCs, and VOCs have all been detected at concentration s exceeding surface water quality criteria in CSO and storm water discharges to Newtown Creek [Ref. 11, pp. 23

- 24]. EPA identified hundreds of potential contamination sources of hazardous substances in the Newtown Creek watershed [Ref. 58, pp. 3

- 4, 6

- 68, 72]. InNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

31 addition, the sediments in Newtown Creek are constantly being disturbed and transported by tidal influx, storm water and CSO flow surges, and dredging for navigational purposes [Ref. 8, p. 10; 9, p. 4; 11, pp. 11, 21

- 22; 12, p. 22].

Furthermore , pages 39 through 42 of the HRS documentation record at proposal highlight specific facilities identified as possible contributors of hazardous substances to the Newtown Creek sediments. These include the Phelps Dodge site ( aka the Laurel Hill site), the BCF Oil property, Quanta Resources property, National Grid (formerly KeySpan and Brooklyn Union Gas), and the Greenpoint Petroleum Remediation Project. The HRS documentation record at proposal states that, “[w] hile these facilities or properties are thou ght to be contributing to the contamination in the Creek , they are not thought to be the only sources of contamination .”

A large number of possible sour ces have contributed to the contamination of the Creek sediments. S ome have been positively identified as having contributed to the contamination in general ; many others have not been conclusively linked to the contamination due to the long

- term industrial use of the Creek. Portions of the hazardous substances in the Creek, such as PAHs, are known to have been associated with former MGPs; however, other sources such as historical petroleum spills could have contributed these substances. Likewise, PCBs are known to have been contributed by discharge events from CSOs, yet

other known contributors have been identified, such as the BCP Oil property. Explicitly attributing contamination in any portion of the Creek to a specific upland facility or operation is not feasible at this site, and no individual contributor can be singled out as having caused the signi ficant increase of contamination in the Creek. Thus, the contaminated sediment source identified at the Newtown Creek site is appropriately identified according to the HRS definition of “source,” as the Creek is composed of

contaminated surface water sedi ments with no identified source.

Regarding the upland source contributors to the contamination, t he identification of these areas would affect the extent of site, which EPA explained is not fully delineated at proposal. For more information

see section 3 .4, Extent of Site, of this support document and 74 FR 45811, September 23, 2009.

R e garding the commenter’s assertion that the level of detail described in the draft HRS Guidance Manual

, Interim Final, as associated with an ESI was not attained in determ ining the sources of contamination to the Creek, sufficient data from extensive investigations was already established at the time of listing which equaled or exceeded the level of effort associated with an ESI. The objective of such an ESI would

be to co llect samples to attribute hazardous substances to site operations and to fully characterize the site sources. As shown above, significant investigations have been completed, and multiple former and current operators along the Creek have been identified t o have contributed contamination to the site. Thus, further investigations beyond what had been completed at the time of proposal are not warranted because additional data gathered would not clearly identify the original sources of contamination, nor aid

in the identification of original sources of contamination to the Creek.

T his comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place this site on the NPL.



### 3. 14 Eligibility of Hazardous Waste

Comment: HydroQual allege d that the EPA HRS scor e calculations include a hazardous waste quantity factor which is based on the presumption that all Newtown Creek sediments meet the definition of

hazardous waste . W hile HydroQual conceded that the sediments do contain hazardous substances, it

asserted th at the sediments are not, in fact, hazardous waste. HydroQual asserted that the results of

NYCDEP Toxicity C haracteristic L eaching P rocedure ( TCLP ) testing on samples of Newtown Creek

sediments from 8 locations revealed that the levels were below the conc entrations for exhibiting the characteristic of toxicity, indicating that the sediments were not classified as hazardous on this basis.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

32 Because of these results, HydroQual maintains that EPA's use of the volume measure overstates the hazardous waste quant ity and ultimately the HRS score, because it is based upon theoretical calculations of hazardous waste, which are refuted by hazardous waste testing

GLA asserted that the mouth of the Creek did not demonstrate the presence of hazardous waste , which

woul d require disposal as such

.

Response : A material need not be a “ hazardous waste ” under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA ) to be addressed under CERCLA and a waste need only contain hazardous substances, or in some circumstances “pollutants o r contaminants”. Hazardous substances are defined for HRS purposes as

“ CERCLA hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants as defined in CERCLA Sections 101(14) and 101(33), except where otherwise specifically noted in the HRS ” (55 FR 51586, Decembe r 14, 1990). Additionally:

CERCLA Section 101(14) defines “ hazardous substance ” in the context of other Federal legislation, including substances listed pursuant to Sections 307(a) and 311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 300 1 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (known as RCRA), Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and substances that are the subject of an action under Section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Thus hazardous wastes as defined under RCRA are only a subset of the

broader list of CERCLA hazardous substances.

CERCLA Section 102(a) empowers the Administrator to promulgate regulations designating other substances as hazardous if when released into the environment they may present substantial danger to the public hea lth or welfare or the environment.

CERCLA Section 101(33) defines “ pollutant or contaminant ” as including but not limited to “ any element, substance, compound, or mixture, including disease

- causing agents, which after release into the environment and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genet ic mutation, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their offspring. ” Substances meeting that definition may also be addressed under CERCLA.

Section 3.15 .3, Hazardous Waste/Haza rdous Substances, of this support document addresses the comments regarding the use of “hazardous waste” in the hazardous waste quantity evaluation.

This comment has no effect on the HRS score or the decision to place this site on the NPL.



### 3. 15 Hazardou s Waste Quantity

Comment : HydroQual alleged that the evaluation of the hazardous waste quantity factor presented in the HRS documentation record at proposal is flawed for various reasons. The following subsections address specific assertions regarding th e evaluation of hazardous waste quantity:

**•** 3.1 5 .1 Unallocated Source

**•** 3.1 5 .2 Source Type

**•** 3.1 5

. 3 Hazardous Waste /Hazardous Substances

Response : A hazardous waste quantity factor value based on Tier C volume was correctly determined according to the HRS for the Newtown Creek site.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

33 HRS Section 2.4.2, Hazardous waste quantity , states:

Evaluate the hazardous waste quantity factor by first assigning each source (or area of observed contamination) a source hazardous waste quantity value as specified below.

Sum these values to obtain the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway being evaluated.

In evaluating the hazardous waste quantity factor for the three migration pathways, allocate hazardous substances and hazardous wastestreams to specific sou rces in the manner specified in section 2.2.2, except: consider hazardous substances and hazardous wastestreams that cannot be allocated to any specific source to constitute a separate “unallocated source” for purposes of evaluating only this factor for th e three migration pathways. Do not, however, include a hazardous substance or hazardous wastestream in the unallocated source for a migration pathway if there is definitive information indicating that the substance or wastestream could only have been plac ed in sources with a containment factor value of 0 for that migration pathway.

HRS Section 2.4.2.1, Source hazardous waste quantity , states:

For each of the three migration pathways, assign a source hazardous waste quantity value to each source (includin g the unallocated source) having a containment factor value greater than 0 for the pathway being evaluated. Consider the unallocated source to have a containment factor value greater than 0 for each migration pathway.

. . . .

For all pathways, evaluate source hazardous waste quantity using the following four measures in the following hierarchy:

**•** Hazardous constituent quantity [Tier A]

**•** Hazardous wastestream quantity [Tier B]

**•** Volume [Tier C]

**•** Area [Tier D]

For the hazardous constituent quantity, the total mass of CERCLA hazardous substances allocated to the source has not been documented, thus the use of Tier A was not applicable in determining hazardous waste quantity. Refer to section 3.1 5 .3, Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Substances, of this support

document for further discussion on how hazardous waste is considered under the HRS in determining hazardous waste quantity.

Considering the history of industry along the Creek and the multiple contributors to the contamination

discussed in section 3. 1 3

, Contamina ted Sediment Source

, of this support document, the mass of

hazardous wastestreams that ever entered the Creek could not be documented, thus the use of Tier B was not applicable in assigning a source hazardous waste quantity.

HRS Section 2.4.2.1.3, Volum e , states:

Evaluate the volume measure using the volume of the source (or the volume of the area of observed contamination). . . .Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

34 Based on the volume, designated as V, assign a value to the volume measure as follows:

**•** For the migration pathways, assign the source a value for volume using the appropriate Tier C equation of Table 2

- 5.

Hazardous substances were documented as associated with the contaminated sediment source, as

described in section 3. 13

, Contaminated Sediment Source , of this support documen t. Page 35 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describes the method used in estimating the volume of the source hazardous waste quantity:

Analytical results for the February

- April 2009 sampling event, as well as previous sampling events, show tha t contaminated sediments are located throughout Newtown Creek [see Sections 2.2.1 and 2.4.1]. The creek and its branches have a total surface area of approximately 165 to 170 acres [Ref. 12, p. 53; 13, p. 2]. For the purpose of this calculation, EPA uses the more conservative value of 165 acres (i.e., approximately 7,187,400 square feet). The top depth of contaminated subsurface samples ranged from 2 to 4 feet, with a majority of the samples having a top depth of 4 feet [see Table 2]. Based on the top

- d epth values, the column of contaminated sediments averages approximately

3.7 feet. The volume of contaminated sediments in Newtown Creek is calculated as

follows:

Volume (yd 3 ) = (7,187,400 ft 2 × 3.7 ft) ÷ (27 ft 3 / yd 3 ) = 984,940 yd 3

This is considered t o be a conservative (i.e., low) estimate since EPA did not delineate the full vertical extent of contamination. The source type is ‘Other’, so the volume value is divided by 2.5 to obtain the assigned value, as shown below [Ref. 1, p. 51591, Section

2.4.2 .1.3, Table 2

- 5].

Therefore, the calculated volume of contaminated sediments established above, was divided by 2.5 to obtain a volume assigned value of 393,976. The divisor of 2.5 was selected as per Table 2

- 5 of the HRS, considering the source type as ‘ Other’.

As directed by the HRS, if the volume measure can be determined, the area measure is not completed. Thus, the area measure, or Tier D, was not calculated in the evaluation of source hazardous waste quantity.

3.1 5 .1 Unallocated Source

Comment : H ydroQual stated that EPA improperly characterized the Newtown Creek sediments as an

unallocated source. HydroQual describes that u nallocated sources are defined by USEPA in the HRS Final Rule on page 51590. It cites:

In evaluating the hazardous waste qu antity factor...consider hazardous substances and hazardous waste streams that cannot be allocated to any specific source to constitute a separate “unallocated source” for the purposes of evaluating only this factor for the three migration pathways.

Respo nse : The contaminated sediments in Newtown Creek were correctly characterize d as a

contaminated sediment source , and not as an unallocated source . As explained in s ection 3.1 5,Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

35 Contaminated Sediment Source , of this support document, the source was establ ished according to the

HRS definition of “source.”

HRS Section 2.4.2, Hazardous waste quantity

, uses the phrase “unallocated source.” It states in relevant

part:

In evaluating the hazardous waste quantity factor for the three migration pathways,

alloc ate hazardous substances and hazardous wastestreams to specific sources in the manner specified in section 2.2.2, except: consider hazardous substances and hazardous wastestreams that cannot be allocated to any specific source to constitute a separate

“una llocated source” for purposes of evaluating only this factor for the three migration pathways. Do not, however, include a hazardous substance or hazardous wastestream in the unallocated source for a migration pathway if there is definitive

information ind icating that the substance or wastestream could only have been placed in sources with a containment factor value of 0 for that migration pathway

. [emphasis added]

HRS Section 2.2.2, Identify hazardous substances associated with a source , identified in the City’s quote from HRS Section 2.4.2 (above) does not use the phrase “unallocated source

. ” This section states:

In some instances, a hazardous substance can be documented as being present at a site (for example, by labels, manifests, oral or written stat ements), but the specific source(s) containing that hazardous substance cannot be documented. For the three migration pathways, in those instances when the specific source(s) cannot be documented for a hazardous substance, consider the hazardous substance to be present in each source

at the site , except sources for which definitive information indicates that the hazardous substance was not or could not be present. [emphasis added]

Thus, a n unallocated source is identified when specific hazardous substance s and wastestreams cannot be

alloca ted to an existing source at a site . In the case of the Newtown Creek site, however, as discussed in

section 3.1 3

, Contaminated S ediment Plume Source, of this support document

, the hazardous substances

in the Creek can be allocated to the contaminated sediments source, an existing source, and it would be

incorrect to allocate them to an unallocated source at this site.

This comment has no effect on the HRS score or the decision to place this site on the NPL.

3.1 5 .2 Sou rce Type

Comment : HydroQual asserted that the source type “other” assigned for Source 1 is not accurate, and that this error has inflated the hazardous waste quantity. HydroQual claimed that:

[t]he EPA calculation for hazardous waste quantity factor inv olves the use of a divisor of 2.5. EPA’s use of the 2.5 divisor suggests Newtown Creek sediments are a source of category “Other”. Alternatively, the divisor for the “Soil” source category is 2500. EPA’s choice of

“Other” for Newtown Creek sediments rat her than “Soil” increases the estimated amount of hazardous substances one thousand times. In reality, Newtown Creek sediments probably fall

somewhere between the “Other” and “Soil” so urce categories.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

36 HydroQual point ed out that the HRS provides a hiera rchy of four measures to evaluate source hazardous waste quantity (hazardous constituent quantity, hazardous wastestream quantity, volume, and area, in that order), and requires that only the first two measures be used fo r unallocated sources.

Response : The source was correctly evaluated according to the HRS as a contaminated sediment source, and the source type ‘other’ was correctly applied to the contaminated sediment source. Therefore the correct hazardous waste quantity equation and divisor of 2.5 w as used to generate a waste quantity

estimate for the source.

HRS Section 1.1, Definitions , defines a source as:

[a] ny area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus

those soils that have become contaminated from m igration of a hazardous substance. Sources do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water, or surface water sediments that have become contaminated by migration, except: in the case of either a ground water plume with

no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified source , the plume or contaminated sediments may be considered a source. [emphasis added]

This HRS definition clearly distinguishes between soil and sediment by separately mentioning soils (in

the phrase “soils that have become contaminated . . .”) and “surface water sediment” (in “surface water

sediments that have become contaminated . . .” )

T he contaminated samples used to characterize Source 1 were clearly from sediments below the Newtown

Creek water, and per the HRS definition of source, are surface water sediments, not soil

. Thus

, sediments cannot reasonably be interpreted as contaminated soil when choosing a hazardous waste quantity evaluation equation from HRS Table 2

- 5. The only type of s ource listed in Table 2

- 5 that is applicable to

th is source is source type ‘Other’. As the other types of sources listed in Table 2

- 5 do not apply to the source (such as ‘Landfill,’ ‘Surface impoundment,’ ‘Drums,’ ‘Tanks and containers other than drums,’ ‘Contaminated soil,’ or ‘Pile’), only the source type ‘Other’ is applicable in the evaluation of the source hazardous waste quantity at this site.

This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or on the decision to place the site on the NPL.

3.1 5 .3 Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Substances

Comment: W hile HydroQual conceded that the sediments do contain hazardous substances, it asserted

that the sediments are not a hazardous waste , and therefore EPA's use of the volume measure in the hazardous waste quant ity evaluation overstates the hazardous waste quantity and ultimately the HRS

scor e

.

Response : The consideration of the sediments as a RCRA hazardous waste was not incorporated into the hazardous waste quantity factor value calculated for the source, a s hazardous constituent quantity was not

determined. The HRS accounts for RCRA hazardous waste only in determining the Tier A quantity

estimate.

HRS Section 2.4.2.1.1, Hazardous constituent quantity

, Tier A, addresses the consideration of RCRA

hazardous waste in an HRS waste quantity calculation. It states:

Evaluate hazardous constituent quantity for the source (or area of observed contamination) based solely on the mass of CERCLA hazardous substances (as defined inNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

37 CERCLA section 101(14), as amended) a llocated to the source (or area of observed contamination), except:

**•** For a hazardous waste listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1076 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., det ermine its mass for the evaluation of

this measure as follows:

o If the hazardous waste is listed solely for Hazard Code T (toxic waste), include only the mass of constituents in the hazardous waste that are

CERCLA hazardous substances and not the mass of t he entire hazardous

waste.

o If the hazardous waste is listed for any other Hazard Code (including T plus any other Hazard Code), include the mass of the entire hazardous

waste.

**•** For a RCRA hazardous waste that exhibits the characteristics identified under section 3001 of RCRA, as amended, determine its mass for the evaluation of this

measure as follows:

o If the hazardous waste exhibits only the characteristic of toxicity (or only the characteristic of EP toxicity), include only the mass of constituents in

t he hazardous waste that are CERCLA hazardous substances and not the

mass of the entire hazardous waste.

o If the hazardous waste exhibits any other characteristic identified under section 3002 (including any other characteristic plus the characteristic of

t oxicity [or the characteristic of EP toxicity]), include the mass of the

entire hazardous waste.

Also, HRS Section 2.4.2.1.2, Hazardous wastestream quantity , states:

Evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity for the source (or area of observed

contaminatio n) based on the mass of hazardous wastestreams plus the mass of any additional CERCLA pollutants and contaminants (as defined in CERCLA section 101(33), as amended) that are allocated to the source (or area of observed contamination).

For a wastestream th at consists solely of a hazardous waste listed pursuant to section 3001 of RCRA, as amended or that consists solely of a RCRA hazardous waste that exhibits the characteristics identified under section 3001 of RCRA, as amended, include

the mass of that enti re hazardous waste in the evaluation of this measure.

As data for evaluating hazardous constituent quantity (Tier A) was not adequately determined, these

measures were not calculated ; the Tier C volume measure was calculated

. Thus, the use of RCRA

hazard ous waste designation in the hazardous waste quantity estimate was not incorporated into the waste quantity calculation.

This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

38 

### 3. 16 Likelihood of Release

Comment : S everal commenters, including HydroQual, GLA, ENVIRON, and ELM , challenged the identification of observed releases of contaminants to Newtown Creek. Although the City stated that it agreed that there was an observed release and that a likelihood of release factor category value of 550 was appropriately assigned, it did have several objections to the evidence supporting this value.

Specific comments regarding the likelihood of release component of the HRS score are addressed in the following subsections.

**•** 3 .1 6 .1 Sediment Bed Eligibility

**•** 3.1 6 .2 Use of Background Samples in Establishing an Observed Release

**•** 3.1 6 .3 Use of Qualified Data

**•** 3.1 6 .4 Results Below CRQLs

**•** 3.1 6 .5 Sample Similarity

**•** 3.1 6 .6 Clarity of HRS Observed Release Tables

**•** 3.1 6 .7 Attribution

**•** 3.1 6 .8 Con tamination in Mouth of Creek

Response : The likelihood of release value for the Newtown Creek site was appropriately assigned according to the HRS, as multiple observed release s by chemical analysis were documented. While the specific comments raised are addressed in subsections below, to provide background information before responding specifically to these comments the following discussion establishes the HRS requirements for doing so and what information was presented in the HRS documentation record at proposal to document

the likelihood of release evaluation.

HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release , states:

Likelihood of release is a measure of the likelihood that a waste has been or will be

released to the environment. The likelihood of release fa ctor category is assigned the maximum value of 550 for a migration pathway whenever the criteria for an observed release are met for that pathway. . . . Establish an observed release either by direct

observation of the release of a hazardous substance into the media being evaluated (for example, surface water) or by chemical analysis of samples appropriate to the pathway being evaluated (see sections 3, 4, and 6). The minimum standard to establish an observed release by chemical analysis is analytical evid ence of a hazardous substance in the media significantly above the background level. Further, some portion of the release

must be attributable to the site. Use the criteria in Table 2

- 3 as the standard for determining analytical significance.

Hence, Tabl e 2

- 3 states that an observed release is established under the following circumstances:

**•** If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit.

**•** If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, an observed release is established when the sample measurement is 3 times or more above the background concentration.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

39 Further, HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, O bserved release , contains the directions used to establish an observed release to the surface water migration pathway. It states in part:

Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the

site has released a hazardo us substance to the surface water in the watershed. . . .

**•** Chemical analysis:

o Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3).

- Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background

concentrations

– for example, compare surface water samples to surface water background concentrations.

- For benthic samples, limit com parisons to essentially sessile organisms.

o Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to establish the observed release, except: when the site itself consists of contaminated sediments with no identified source, no separate attribution is required. [emphasis added]

If an observed release can be established for a watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 550 to that watershed, enter this value in Table 4

- 1, and proceed to section

4.1.2.1.3.

Page 38 of the HRS do cumentation record at proposal, under the heading “Chemical Analysis,” states that “[a]n observed release by chemical analysis is documented in Newtown Creek between sample location

NC

- SD71A in English Kills and sample location NC

- SD01B, approximately 3 mi les downstream.” Tables 3 and 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal display the background and observed release

concentrations of hazardous substances found in the Newtown Creek sediments. These tables show that samples throughout the Creek sedim ents meet the criteria of an observed release, as hazardous substances have been detected significantly above background concentrations.

As cited in section 3.1 3

, Contaminated Sediment Source , of this support document, the HRS documentation record at prop osal discusses that the source consists of contaminated sediments with no identified source. Thus, the site itself consists of contaminated sediments, and attributing some portion of the significant increase of hazardous substances to the site is not requi red by the HRS.

A n observed release by chemical analysis has been documented according to the HRS, and the likelihood of release factor category value of 550 was assigned for the site.

3.1 6 .1 Sediment Bed Eligibility

Comment : HydroQual asserted that co nsidering the sediment bed as a release is in contradiction with the stagnant nature of the Creek, and that contaminants have a lo w probability of movement.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

40 Response : The Newtown Creek sediment bed was correctly considered a release according to the HRS

. A “release,” under CERCLA section 101(22) is defined as “[a] ny spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the

environment

... ”

The HRS defines “site” as:

Area(s) wh ere a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or

has otherwise come to be located. . .”

As explained in section 3.1 3

, Contaminated Sediment Source , of this support document, hazardous

substances were associated with the contam inated sediments through sampling and the release could not be attributed to a known source. The documentation of an observed release by chemical analysis, as

established in section 3.1 6 , Likelihood of Release, of this support document, establishes that ha zardous substances have come to be located in the sediments and therefore constituted a release. In addition, the

sediment bed is a site because it is the area of a release.

That Newtown Creek might be stagnant does not contradict the finding that a rele ase has occurred to the environment. Whether or not the Creek is stagnant is not a consideration in the definition of a release or the evaluation of a site in accordance with the HRS. Furthermore, if the commenter is claiming that the “stagnant” nature o f the Creek means contaminants in the sediments cannot further migrate, this is not

correct. For example, the Creek is not stagnant, as illustrated by its tidal nature.

Also, for HRS purposes, the hazardous substances within the sediment bed are not cons idered to be contained. As directed by HRS Section 4.1.2.1.2.1.1, Containment , and as documented on page 19 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the contaminated sediments are not contained, as hazardous

substances have been documented in the Cree k, and neither a maintained engineering cover, nor a functioning maintained runoff control system was documented.

This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.

3.1 6 .2 Use of Background Samples in Establis hing an Observed Release

Comment : HydroQual , GLA, E NVIRON , and other commenters expressed doubt that downstream background samples can serve as adequate evidence that a release occurred and that the release is

attributable to the Newtown Creek site.

Hy droQual and GLA questioned the criteria used to evaluate an observed release at the site. HydroQual stated that “[t]he concept of three times background concentration makes more sense for comparing an immediately upstream location to a contiguous site in that it implies a constituent was necessarily introduced in the immediate vicinity to produce a factor of three concentration increase.” HydroQual alleged that because the Atlantic Basin is disconnected from Newtown Creek, a factor of three or more

differ ence in concentration does not prove a release directly to Newtown Creek, “just a release somewhere that didn’t reach the Atlantic Basin or was different than that reaching the Atlantic Basin .”

HydroQual also stated that “[t]he attribution isn’t as appa rent when the background site and sco red site

are disconnected.”Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

41 Response : Background samples were appropriately compared to contaminated samples in establishing an

observed release from the Newtown Creek site. In addition, attribution is not required w hen scoring a

contaminated sediment source.

The HRS does not identify requirements or define conditions for establishing background levels of contaminants. The HRS addresses background only in the context of identifying an observed release of a

hazardo us substance to the environment by chemical analysis. HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1

, Observed release

, states in relevant part :

Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the

site has release a hazardous substance to th e surface water in the watershed. Base this

demonstration on either:

**•** Direct observation:

. . .

**•** Chemical analysis:

o Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased signific antly above the background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3)

- Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background

concentrations

— for example compare surface water samples to surface water background concentration s.

Pages 20 and 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal explain the reasoning behind the selection of the background sample s from which to determine a background level :

Since the contamination begins at the head of the creek, it was not possible t o obtain upstream samples [from the C reek] . Therefore, samples collected from a nearby similar water body, Atlantic Basin, were used to establish background concentrations. Figure 3 provides the map of the background sample locations in the Atlantic Basin.

Background levels are used in the identification of a significant increase in contaminant concentrations

due to the release from the site and therefore should reflect the concentrations of the released substances in the absence of the release. Although background locations are ideally chosen upgradient of the observed release samples, this was not possible at the Newtown Creek site because the entire Creek is contaminated. The background samples selected downstream from the source in the Atlantic Basin provide adequate evidence that the contaminated sediments of the site exhibit a significant increase in hazardous substances in that they reflect as much as possible, given the unique situation at this site, what

contamination levels would be at the site i f it were not for the site

- related release.

As explained above, the background sample locations are only used as a reference point in the HRS evaluation to establish that a significant increase in contaminant levels in the release samples has

occurred. B ackground samples downstream of the Creek were used to establish background levels , but from areas with as similar as possible physical conditions and that would be impacted by sources not considered part of the site. The background samples were not used t o establish attribution.

This comment has no effect on the HRS site score, or on the decision to place this site on the NPL.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

42 3.1 6 .3 Use of Qualified Data

Comment: HydroQual questioned the use of analytical results flagged with the “J” analytical data

qu alifier in the evaluation of an observed release in Newtown Creek. HydroQual stated that:

much of the data, especially for cadmium and other metals, used to determine releases were laboratory estimates, i.e., ‘J

- flagged’, rather than true laboratory meas urements. While EPA followed accepted protocols for using ‘J

- flagged’ data and attempted to compensate for uncertainty, the release determination is compromised because of the ‘J

flagged’ estimates. Given the importance associated with the HRS score and potential NPL listing, alternative calculations, omitting ‘J

- flagged’ estimates, should also be considered by EPA before reaching a final listing conclusion.

Response : That some of the analytical data used in the determination of observed releases by che mical analysis at the Newtown Creek site were “J” qualif i ed 4

**•** If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit. was appropriately accounted for in the identification of the observed releases. This consideration involved identifying the reasons for the assignment of the “J” qualifier and determining if the accuracy of the analyses was sufficient to meet the requirements for identifying an observed release. To ensure this was the case, the data in question has

been re

- examined and the rationale for using this data in the HRS evaluation is presented below.

HRS Requirements for Establishing an Observed Release As applicable to this site, according to HRS Table 2

- 3, when the release sample concentration is above the sample quantitation limit (SQL), to establish an observed release by chemical analysis, the f ollowing

criteria must be met:

**•** If the background concen tration equals or exceeds the detection limit, an observed release is established when the sample measurement is 3 times or more above the background

concentration.

The terms “sample quantitation limit” and “detection limit” are defined in HRS Section 1.1 . The HRS defines the SQL as the

[q]uantity of a substance that can be reasonably quantified given the limits of detection for the methods of analysis and sample characteristics that may affect quantitation (for example, dilution, concentration).

The HR S defines the detection limit (DL) as the [l]owest amount [of a substance] that can be distinguished from the normal random “noise” of an analytical instrument or method. For HRS purposes the detection limit used is the method detection limit (MDL) or for real time field instruments, the detection

limit of the instrument as used in the field.

4 A “J” qualifier applied to a sample result indicates that t he analyte was positively identified and the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample (due either to the quality of the data generated because certain qual ity control criteria were not met, or the concentration of the analyte was below the quantitation limit ).Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

43 The data quality objective for establishing an observed release therefore is that the concentration of a contaminant must be sufficiently accurate to ensure that one of the two above criteria is met depending on whether the background sample concentration is less than or greater than/equal to the detection limit.

Court Decisions Regarding Use of Qualified Data The Courts have specifically ruled on the use of qualif ied data in the scoring of a site using the HRS. In

the case of Board of Regents of the University of Washington v. EPA , U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, June 25, 1996, the C ourt, in response to the petitioner ' s challenge regarding the quality of the data being fed into the complex HRS model

— specifically, the usability of “J” qualified data (and data with other documentation issues)

— stated that “EPA does not face a standard of absolute perfection. . . . Rather, it is statutorily required to ‘as sure to the maximum extent feasible ,’ that it ‘accurately assesses the relative degree of risk,’” [emphasis in original] and that “[i]t would hardly make sense for the courts to respond to the resulting evidence by treating a lab’s findings as fatally defe ctive whenever it comes up short in any way.” The Court also said that “[i]f there are ‘minor contractual deficiencies,’ the appropriate response is to review the deficiencies on a ‘case

– by

- case’ basis to determine their impact on the ‘usability of the da ta.’”

Also in this decision, the Court repeated a statement in an earlier NPL HRS case (Eagle

– Picher Indus., Inc. v. EPA, 759 F.2d. 905, 921, D.C. Cir. 1985) in explanation of when EPA has met its obligations as: “The EPA has thus ‘examined [the] relev ant data and . . . articulated a rational explanation for its action.’” [clarification in original]

EPA is therefore not required to limit its use of data to absolutely perfect results; there is no reason to consider an alternative site score excluding qu alified data as was suggested by HydroQual . As further detailed below, EPA has made reasonable efforts to address potential shortcomings in the accuracy for individual qualified results, ensuring that each observed release is established with confidence.

CLP Use of “J” Qualifier The samples for the Newtown Creek site were analyzed under the EPA Superfund Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). This program was “developed for CERCLA waste site samples to fill the need for legally defensible analytical results supported by a high level of quality assurance and documentation” (HRS Section 1.1). A key part of the CLP program is to document the quality of the analytical results through the analysis of quality control samples commensurate with the analysis for fiel d samples and by tracking the capabilities of the analytical procedures to provide accurate results when analyzing samples with variable physical properties. When a possible limitation is found in the analysis but the analysis is considered “in control,” a “J” qualifier is assigned to the analytical result. (If the limitation is sufficient to indicate the analysis was out of control and the results are unusable, an “R” qualifier is assigned.) The “J” qualifier reflects that the result is considered to be qualitatively accurate

— the substance is present, but there is a possibility that the result may be an estimated quantity.

Consideration of Possible Bias in Establishing an Observed Release As identified by the commenter, EPA has an established protocol f or demonstrating that in some cases “J” qualified data is of sufficient quality to use in establishing an observed release by chemical analysis in an HRS evaluation. This procedure considers why the “J” was assigned in terms of the direction of the possib le bias. For example, if the result is possibly higher than the true value, the qualified result is considered “biased high”. Four directions of bias are evaluated: biased high, biased low, unknown bias, and no bias. Unknown bias is assigned when the qu ality control problem indicates a possible problem in the analysis but is not specific enough to indicate a direction. No bias is assigned when the qualifier is assigned to identify that some issue was noted but the quantitation of the concentration was n ot impacted by the issue.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

44 By knowing whether there is a possible bias, the direction and estimated upper or lower bound of the possible bias, and whether a sample is being used to establish a background or release concentration, it

can be shown whether t he results meet the observed release criteria as identified in HRS Table 2.3 (and cited above). “J” qualified results can be used as is in the following situations:

**•** For a “J” qualified background sample:

o If the background sample concentration is above t he MDL and the result is biased high but the release sample is 3 times higher, the background sample result as is can be used because even if the true value were lower than the measured value, the “three times background concentration” criteria for an obse rved release would still be met.

o If the background sample concentration is not detected and the result is biased high but the release is higher than the SQL, the background sample result as is can be used

because even if the true value were lower than the measured value, the “greater than the SQL” criteria for an observed release would still be met.

**•** For a “J” qualified release sample:

o If the release sample result is biased low but still meets the observed release criteria, the result may be used as is bec ause even if the true value were higher than the measured value, the observed release criteria would still be met.

In other situations, it is necessary to consider what the upper or lower bound of the true value could be if the measured value is possibl y biased. This estimated bound is referred to as the “adjusted value.” The observed release criteria are met based on the adjusted value in the following situations:

**•** If a “J” qualified background sample result is equal to or above the MDL and the result is possibly biased low or the bias direction is unknown, an adjusted background sample concentration is generated by multiplying the background result by an adjustment factor designed to estimate the upper bound. If the release sample concentration remai ns at least three times higher than this estimated upper bound, then the observed release criteria are considered met.

**•** If a “J” qualified release sample result is possibly biased high or the bias is unknown, an adjusted release concentration is generated by dividing the release result by an adjustment factor designed to estimate the lower bound. If the estimated lower bound is greater than the SQL and still at least three times the background concentration (or greater than the SQL if the background

concen tration was not detected), then the observed release criteria are considered met.

**•** If the background is possibly biased low and the release is possibly biased high or the direction of bias for both is unknown, an estimated upper bound background concentra tion and lower bound release concentration are generated; these adjusted values are compared to verify that the

observed release criteria are met.

Effectively, a background concentration will only be adjusted upward and/or a release concentration adjusted downward to compensate for potential bias. Also, these estimated bounds are temporary estimates generated only for the purpose of ensuring that observed release criteria are still met when potential bias may affect results within the HRS documentation re cord; this adjustment is not a permanent alteration of the original results produced by the laboratory.

Consideration of “J” Qualified Data in Newtown Creek Results at Time of ProposalNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

45 Tables 3 and 4 were presented in the HRS documentation record at propo sal to document more than 100 samples that met the observed release criteria. As identified in these tables, certain of the observed releases were established using “J” qualified data. Of the background results for metals that were “J” qualified, most we re qualified because the percent moisture in the sample was above 50%. Other reasons included issues with the matrix spike, repeatability in lab duplicates, and repeatability in the ICP serial dilution. For organic analyte results, some release sample re sults were “J” qualified because the sample moisture content was greater than 70% and less than 90%. Other reasons included for PCBs were failure to meet absolute percent difference criteria and failure to meet continuing calibration verification (CCV)

pe rcent difference criteria. Some results were qualified for more than one of the above reasons.

As shown in Tables 3 and 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, all “J” qualified data was considered to be biased unknown. This assumption, as explai ned above, meant that the estimated upper and lower bounds were determined for all the “J” qualified sample results. This resulted in adjustment of concentration in situations where it is unnecessary, e.g., as when there was no bias, high

- biased backgroun d data, or low

- biased release data.

In Tables 3 and 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the column labeled “Adjusted Background” lists the greatest background concentration, or the greatest adjusted background concentration if the background was “J” qualified, or the greatest background SQL if the analyte was not detected in any background samples. Then, this value was multiplied by 3 (if detected) to set the release sample concentration necessary to establish an observed release when the rel ease sample result was not qualified [listed in the column labeled “Adjusted Background x3 (non

- J must exceed)”]. To facilitate the display of the large amount of data, instead of calculating an adjusted release concentration for “J” qualified release sam ple results, a second column [labeled “Adj. BG x3 x Adj. Factor (J must exceed)”] displays the value from the previous column multiplied again by the adjustment factor; this is the value a “J” qualified release result must exceed to establish an observed r elease. Only those release sample results that were above the appropriate concentration necessary to establish an observed release were identified as meeting observed release criteria. These samples results were bolded in Tables 3 and 4 of

the HRS docume ntation record at proposal.

EPA Alternate Observed Release Evaluation Omitting Potentially Biased Background and Release

Results Additionally, EPA has reviewed the analytical results used to establish observed releases at the site, and

even if EPA were t o omit “’J flagged’ estimates” as the commenter suggested, the HRS site score would not change.

In the process of this review, the impact of the actual bias associated with each “J” qualified analytical result has been determined, and results were omitt ed only when the reason for the “J” qualifier indicated a possible bias (meaning that the result may be an estimated quantity). Based on this review, alternate observed release tables have been revised and added as an attachment to this support document. (See tables within Attachment 1 of this support document). This set of revised tables only represents an assessment of an alternate scenario in which potentially biased data are excluded. Qualified data are still appropriately included in the site evalu ation in the HRS documentation record at promulgation.

For “J” qualified background sample results for which the “J” is applied only to indicate that a result was between the detection and quantitation limits, there is no implied bias. These results were not omitted

from the alternate observed release evaluation.

For the metals results that were qualified only for moisture content above 50%, there is no associated bias; these results can be used with no further consideration and were not omitted from the alternate observed release evaluation. Standard laboratory techniques employed for the detection of metals inNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

46 various media are not affected by moisture content. In brief, metals are extracted from samples by employing an acid extraction technique, whic h dissolves the analytes prior to instrumental analysis. Whether or not there is a high level of moisture within the initial sample, the moisture does not interfere with the acid extraction process. Thus, no bias is associated with samples qualified base d on this issue. For the other “J” qualified metal samples, the bias is considered unknown; unknown

- biased results were

omitted from this alternate evaluation.

Organic results qualified only for the moisture content being between 70% and 90% were cons idered biased low. This is because the methodology used to extract organic compounds is affected by high sample moisture content in that all organics might not be extracted and thus not included in the results. PCB results associated with the absolute pe rcent difference issue are considered biased high. PCB results associated with the CCV percent difference issue are considered to be affected by unknown bias. Organic results associated with high, low, or unknown bias were omitted from this alternate eva luation.

In situations where a result is “J” qualified for more than one reason, the bias is considered unknown and

the result omitted from the alternate evaluation.

The results of this review are presented in Attachment 1 of this support document. In e ach background table, the second

- to

- last column presents the selected background level for each substance (the greatest concentration detected in a background sample, or the greatest SQL if the analyte was not detected in the background samples). The rele ase samples results presented all meet observed release criteria.

The results of EPA’s alternate evaluation are that observed releases by chemical analysis can be identified throughout the length of the creek based on the concentrations of multiple substa nces in analytical results for multiple samples even when potentially biased “J” qualified results are omitted. Even based on this alternate evaluation, the site score of 50.00 would not be affected.

In summary, EPA appropriately considered the possibl e bias of qualified data in establishing observed releases by chemical analys i s at this site . Since EPA has properly used the “J” qualified data, there is no need to delete that data from the scoring in the HRS documentation record at proposal as suggeste d by the

commenter.

3.1 6 .4 Results Below CRQLs

Comment : ENVIRON questioned the quality of the data used to establish an observed release by chemical analysis and asserted that the background sample results were compromised by the failure to

achieve the c ontract required quantitation limits (CRQL). ENVIRON stated that the “[s]election of Atlantic Basin as the reference site for Newtown Creek is, therefore, highly conservative and may not be a reasonable basis for assessing the significance of concentratio ns ob served in Newtown Creek."

Response : The HRS does not require background samples to achieve quantitation limits , or have concentrations below the CRQL for use in establishing an observed release. In fact, the HRS specifies

what to do when the back ground levels are below the CRQL [SQL]. The analytical data used to establish an observed release by chemical analysis at the Newtown Creek site were sufficient in demonstrating a significant increase of hazardous substances at this site.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

47 The HRS defin es a CRQL as the

[s] ubstance

- specific level that a CLP laboratory must be able to routinely and reliably detect in specific sample matrices. It is not the lowest detectable level achievable, but rather the level that a CLP laboratory should reasonably qu antify. The CRQL may or may not be equal to the quantitation limit of a given substance in a given sample.

Additionally, a sample quantitation limit (SQL) or a CRQL is considered by the HRS when evaluating the

level of hazardous substances in the release samples, not in the background samples. Table 2

- 3 of the HRS directs that when the sample measurement is greater than or equal to the sample quantitation limit:

- If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit),

an ob served release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit.

- If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, an observed release is established when the sample measurement is 3 times or more above the background concentration.

If the sample quantitation limit (SQL) cannot be established, determine if there is an

observed release as follows.

- If the sample analysis was performed under the EPA Contract Laboratory Program,

use the EPA con tract

- required quantitation limit (CRQL) in place of the SQL.

- If the sample analysis is not performed under the EPA Contract Laboratory Program, use the detection limit (DL) in place of the SQL.

The background sample results need not exceed the quantitation limit in order for an observed release by chemical analysis to be established in accordance with the HRS. In fact, as cited above, even when the background concentrations are not detected (thus being less than the quantitation limit), an observed

rel ease is established when the release sample results equal or exceed the sample quantitation limit.

Thus, that the background sample results (Atlantic Basin data) used in establishing an observed release

were below the CRQL or sample quantitation limits, d oes not identify an analytical data quality issue

a ffecting t he validity of the measurement or the establishment of the observed release. Regarding the statement that the results were compromised by concentrations being below the CRQL, this is not a data

q uality issue. It simply means that the contaminant levels are below the CRQL

– not that there was any problem in the analysis.

This comment has no effect on the HRS score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.

3.1 6 .5 Sample Similarity

Comment: S everal commenters argued that the background samples used to establish an observed release were not appropriate because of differences between the physical properties of the background and

release sediments.

HydroQual stated that the HRS evaluation to pla ce the Newtown Creek site on the NPL was driven by the consideration of sediments in Newtown Creek compared to the differences measured in contaminants in

sediments in the Atlantic Basin. HydroQual added that these comparisons were done on a bulk sedimentNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

48 basis and did not account for physical differences between the sediments from these two locations, such

as the differences in o rganic content. It continued:

The question of whether the Atlantic Basin sediments appear cleaner than Newtown

Creek sediment s because they received less source releases of contaminants or because they don’t have the capacity to strongly bind and retain contaminants remains unanswered by the analysis underlying the HRS review. The definition being used for an

observed release i s significance above background. Significance above background will be different on a bulk sediment basis and on an organi c carbon normalized basis.

Environ, also commenting on the background samples, stated that:

since the background reference locat ion used for the HRS evaluation does not reflect similar physical conditions as Newtown Creek, and data quality from the background location are inadequate for comparison with Newtown Creek data, the background data should be disregarded for the purpose of identifying whether or not Newtown Creek

should b e considered for the NPL.

HydroQual criticized the implied link in the HRS documentation record between CSO activity, TOC concentrations, and hazardous substance concentrations. HydroQual stated that:

T he EPA HRS Documentation implies that high TOC levels are indicative of anthropogenic sources such as CSOs and the absence of high TOC indicates absence of hazardous sources. This logic is somewhat flawed in that while a CSO might very well

be a source of TOC it is not necessarily a source of hazardous material. Similarly, a source of hazardous material (e.g., a transformer manufacturer) might not be a source of TOC. Further, TOC concentrations in the vicinity of a CSO outfall could be elevated for

reaso ns other than the CSO ( e.g., soil leaching, etc.)

HydroQual alleged that the comparison between background and release samples should have taken into account the differences in TOC concentrations, and that these differences should have been corrected for in order to yield a n accurate evaluation. HydroQual stated that “[h]igher total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations in the sediment bed are reported for Newtown Creek than for the Atlantic Basin,” and that “[w]hen normalized for organic carbon, concentra tions of a contaminant in different sediment s amples are comparable. ”

GLA stated that the use of Atlantic Basin as background skewed the results of the sampling in Newtown Creek, and resulted in “artificially elevated ‘observed releases’ upon which the p roposed listing is predicated.” ELM stated:

[t]he sediments in the Atlantic Basin are characterized by a high sand content and low organic content, conditions that typically result in minimal binding of contaminants to those sediments. Consequently, the se sediments will yield concentrations of contaminants that are skewed low due to the high sand and low organic content.

GLA commented that the Atlantic Basin differs materially from Newtown Creek, and thus, stated that

Atlantic Basin sediments are “over ly conservative” and are a “non

- representative benchmark” to use for determining the presence or absence of ‘observed release’ co ntaminants.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

49 HydroQual also criticized the implied link in the HRS documentation record between CSO activity, TOC

concentratio ns, and hazardous substance concentrations. HydroQual stated that:

Another point is that the EPA HRS Documentation implies that high TOC levels are indicative of anthropogenic sources such as CSOs and the absence of high TOC indicates

absence of hazardou s sources. This logic is somewhat flawed in that while a CSO might very well be a source of TOC it is not necessarily a source of hazardous material. Similarly, a source of hazardous material (e.g., a transformer manufacturer) might not be

a source of TO C. Further, TOC concentrations in the vicinity of a CSO outfall could be elevated for reasons other than the CSO ( e.g., soil leaching, etc.)

Response : The background samples used in establishing an observed release from the Newtown Creek

site are suff iciently similar to the release samples for the purposes of identifying observed releases within

Newtown Creek. The HRS considers sample comparability in Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release

. It states in part:

Establish an observed release to surface wa ter for a watershed by demonstrating that the

site has released a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. . . .

**•** Chemical analysis:

o Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the

concentration of hazardous su bstance(s) has increased significantly above the background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3).

- Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background concentrations

– for example, compare surface water samples to surface water background concentrations [emphasis added].

The HRS addresses background only in the context of identifying an observed release of substances to the environment by chemical analysis. HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release , states:

The mini mum standard to establish an observed release by chemical analysis is analytical evidence of a hazardous substance in the media significantly above the background level.

The similarity in the physical properties of background and release samples is consid ered in establishing an observed release by chemical analysis to ensure that the increase in contaminant concentrations is due to a release, and not just due to a difference in the physical makeup of the samples.

Why the samples are considered sufficien tly similar to establish observed releases is discussed on pages 20 and 21 of HRS documentation record at proposal. Tables 1 and 2 on pages 22 and 23 of the HRS documentation record at proposal identify the sediment samples used in establishing an observe d release from the site, including the 6 background samples used to establish the background levels of hazardous substances. Included in these tables are the various physical attributes of each sample, including the date and time of sample collection, dep th of sample below top of sediment, and total organic content (TOC). Page 20 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describes why these samples were considered sufficiently similar to the Newtown Creek sediment samples to establish releases had occur red . It states:Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

50 Since the contamination begins at the head of the creek, it was not possible to obtain upstream samples. Therefore, samples collected from a nearby similar water body, Atlantic Basin, were used to establish background concentrations. Fi gure 3 provides the map of the background sample locations in the Atlantic Basin. The background samples from Atlantic Basin and contaminated samples from Newtown Creek were handled the same procedurally and were similar physically, as described on pages 20 and 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal :

**•** Sampling Methods: The background and release sediment samples were all collected by EPA, using Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), during the sampling event from February

- April 2009. Surface samples were collected with a Young

- modified Van Veen dredge, and subsurface samples were collected with a vibracore [Ref. 23, pp. 7

- 70; 25, pp. 4, 6

- 16, 22

- 23].

**•** Analytical Procedures: The background and release samples were all analyzed for TAL metals by ChemTe ch Consulting Group of Mountainside, New Jersey and for TCL VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs by DataChem Laboratories of Salt Lake City, Utah [Ref. 25, pp. 25

- 132]. The chemical analyses were coordinated through the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), and EPA validat ed the analytical results according to Region 2 Data Validation guidelines [Ref. 26 through 46]. The samples were also analyzed for grain

- size distribution according to EPA SOP Bio 8.2 (Bucket Method) and for TOC according to EPA

SOP C

- 88 (Combustion/IR M ethod) at the EPA laboratory in Edison, New Jersey [Ref. 25, pp. 1

- 3; 47, pp. 1

- 55; 48, pp. 1

- 42; 74, pp. 1

- 9; 75, pp. 1

- 14].

**•** Physical Setting: The Newtown Creek and Atlantic Basin are both part of the same estuary (i.e., the New York

- New Jersey Harbor Es tuary) and are classified under the HRS as “Coastal tidal waters”, in which flow and depth characteristics are not considered to be applicable for the evaluation [Ref. 1, pp. 51605, 51613; 10, pp. 67].

**•** Sampling Depth: Background and release surface sample s were all collected

from the 0

- to 2

- foot interval below top of sediment, while background and release subsurface samples were collected at depths ranging from 2 to 6 feet below top of sediment (EPA evaluated surface and subsurface samples separately) [Re f. 25, pp. 616]. The height of the water column ranged from 14 to 24 feet for background locations and 7 to 23 feet for release locations [Ref. 24, pp. 1

- 137].

**•** Percent Moisture (based on Inorganic sample fraction): The percent moisture in the background samples ranged from approximately 61% to 71%, while percent moisture in the release samples ranged from approximately 30% to 82% [Ref. 26, pp. 6

- 14; 27, pp. 3, 19

- 38; 28, pp. 3

- 22, 36

- 44; 29, pp. 3

- 23, 31

- 50; 30, pp. 5

- 12; 37, pp. 5

- 13; 38, pp. 5

- 17; 41, p p. 5

- 18; 42, pp. 2

- 15; 43, pp. 5

- 22].

**•** Sample Description: Visual descriptions from core logs show that the sediments within Atlantic Basin and Newtown Creek consist predominantly of “soft muck” [Ref. 24, pp. 1

- 137]. Grain

- size analyses show that most of the samples contain high percentages of fine

- grained material (i.e., clay and silt), with the background samples showing the highest percentages of fines and lowest percentages of sand.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

51 Since many contaminants have a greater affinity for clay and silt than for sand, the reported background concentrations might be skewed high with respect to release concentrations [Ref. 47, pp. 2

- 54; 49, p. 6]. E PA considers this type of comparison to be a conservative one (i.e., higher scrutiny for data to meet

observed r elease criteria).

**•** Total Organic Carbon: The analytical results indicate that TOC levels are higher in the Newtown Creek sediments than in the Atlantic Basin sediments [Ref. 48, pp. 1

- 42]. EPA considers this to be further indication that anthropogenic

con tributions (e.g., CSOs) have affected Newtown Creek more than Atlantic Basin, and that hazardous substance concentrations in Atlantic Basin are indicative of background conditions.

As cited above, background samples taken from the Atlantic Basin were comp ared to sediment samples in Newtown Creek using multiple criteria (i.e., same time frame, same sampling and analytical methods, same laboratories, similar physical setting and sampling depths, overlapping ranges of percent moisture values, and similar sedi ment descriptions), and were identified as sufficiently similar to show the increased concentrations were due to the release, not to the differences in the physical characteristics of the samples. The only characteristic that could be considered significa ntly different in the release and the background samples and possibly could cause a significant difference in contaminant levels between the

two is the TOC levels.

Because of this difference in TOC levels, consideration was given to the issue of whethe r the difference could have been the cause of the significant increase separate from a release. As pointed out by the commenters, many organics preferentially adsorb to organic matter (measured in this case as TOC). Thus, if the level of organic matter i n the background samples is lower than in the release samples, a higher concentration of organic hazardous substances in the release samples may be due simply to the difference in organic matter, not to a release.

However, while there is more organic m atter in the release samples at this particular site, this does not document that there has not been a release of contaminants to the sediments in Newtown Creek. In fact, as explained in the HRS documentation record at proposal, the organic matter in the Creek at this site is part of the material released into the Creek and the difference in the organic levels in the background and release samples is a result of this release, and not an artifact of differences in the physical properties of the samples. As ide from CSOs, which have high levels of organic waste from humans and have contributed to the high levels of TOC measured in the Newtown Creek sediments, other contributors of both organic

substances and contaminants have released to the Creek. As detail ed on page 38 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, a wide variety of contributors of various organic substances have been identified, such as transportation

- related activities, petroleum spills, creosote

- treated marine pilings, utility poles, railr oad ties, and contaminated properties including MGPs, all of which are known sources of organic wastes. Thus, for this site, the difference in organic content in the background and release samples is further evidence of a release in the Creek , not evidenc e to the contrary.

In addition, m any of the organic hazardous substances found in the Creek sediment are themselves anthropomorphic in origin, e.g., PCBs and chlorinated solvents. The presence of these substances clearly

is a result of a release.

Rega rding HydroQual’s assertions that it is flawed to assert that high TOC levels are indicative of anthropogenic releases such as from CSOs, and the absence of high TOC indicates the absence of a source, given the setting at this site these assertions are jus tified and not flawed . They are supported both by the characteristics of the known sources of organic discharges to the Creek and by analytical data thatNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

52 show not only are organic contaminants in higher concentrations in the Creek , but so are several inor ganic contaminants ( e.g., metals), which the commenters acknowledge do not preferentially concentrate in organic matter. The presence of higher organic content in the Creek, according to the commenters’ assertions should depress the inorganic contaminant concentrations as much, if not more so than it could have elevated the organic contaminant concentrations; yet there are multiple observed releases of inorganic substances also identified in the Creek

.

Furthermore , if the background and observed release results were normalized for TOC, as described in Attachment E of the City’s comments 5

Sample ID , observed releases of organic substances would still be established throughout the Creek as well as observed releases of metals . Table 1 below highlights that observed

r eleases of organic substances occur at various points throughout the extent of Newtown Creek after normalizing for TOC as presented by the commenter. To illustrate this, the samples in Table 1 below were selected from the mouth, middle portion, and head o f the Creek (graphically presented on Figure 1 of this support document ) to highlight that samples of commonly detected organic analytes (including those used in the waste characteristics evaluation) throughout the Creek would meet observed release

criteri a, even after normalizing for TOC. ( Note that there are many other sample results that, if normalized for TOC, would still have resulted in organic hazardous substances exceeding observed

release criteria , and would still result in establishing the extent of the contaminated sediment source and

the HRS site score of 50.00 would remain

. )

Table 1 : TOC Normalized Concentrations of Organic Hazardous Substances

% Organic

Matter Pyrene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene

Result (μg/kg)
[Table 3 of the

HRS

documentation

record at proposal] After TOC

Normalization

(Result / %

TOC) 1 Result (μg/kg)
[Table 3 of the

HRS

documentation

record at proposal] After TOC

Normalization

(Result / %

TOC) 1 Result (μg/kg)
[Table 3 of the

HRS

documentation

record at proposal] After TOC

Normalization

(Result / %

TOC) 1

NC

- SD107A

(Highest

Background

detects) 3.8% 75 J 1,973.7 45 J 1,184 49 J 1,289.5

NC

- SD01A 11.0% 690 6,272 730 6,636

NC

- SD03A 5.0% 630 12,600 630 12,600

NC

- SD22A 5.0% 1,400 28,000 820 16,400 820.0 16,400

NC

- SD35A 7.0% 2,900 41,428 1,000 14,285 1,800.0 25,714

NC

- SD62A 14.0% 12,000 85,714 2,800 20,000 3,900.0 27,857

Note : Bolded items in this table indicate that the organic carbon normalized results are at least 3 times greater than the highest TO C

- normalized background results, thus still meeting HRS observed release criteria according

to HRS Table 2

- 3. Items in italics indicate the highest detected background level of each analyte. J

- qualified data presented in background samples above were below the sample quantitation limit and are not biased.

5 In Attachment E of the City’s comments, HydroQual presents the method for obtaining the carbon normalized values from sample “dry weight” results. Using this method to obtain the carbon normalized result, the sample result (dry weight), is divided by the percent total organic carbon within the sample. For example, the sample result of pyrene within sample NC

- SD35A was 2,900 μg/kg, which when divided by the percent TOC within that sample (7%, or 0.07), results in an organic carbon normalized value of 41,4 28 μg/kg.

# - - --- Sample locations listed above are labeled SDXXA

August 2010 1,200 600 0 1,200 • Surface Sediment Sample Location Surface and Subsurface Sediment Sample Location Map • Subsurface Sediment Sample Locations SOURCE: Graphic Scale In Feet 1. New York State Interactive Mapping Gateway. BrooklynNE_tileO.sid, BrooklynNE_tile1.sid, February

- April 2009

• Reported Fishing I Crabbing Locations BrooklynNE_tile2.si d, BrooklynN E_tile3.sid, BrooklynNW_tileO.sid, BrooklynNW_tile1 .sid, Newtown Creek, Brooklyn / Queens, New York BrooklynNW_tile2.sid, BrooklynNW_tile3.sid, accessed at http://www1.nysgis.state.ny.us. ffi O -ECT Documented Zone of Contamination September 2008. Newtown Creek

NOTE: 2. Weston, Site Logbook, Newtown Creek Site, Document Control

1. ,AJI Sample IDs preceded by"Ne-" No. 524-4E-ADGW, February-April 2009. 

### EPA 3. Riverkeeper, Inc. Web Site (www.riverkeeper.org) and written communication. April 2009.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

54 Aside from the observed releases of organic hazardous substances documented within Newtown Creek, observed releases of metals are still present even after n ormalizing for inorganic content in each sample. Based on the concept that background samples with higher total inorganic content can potentially have higher metals results, observed releases of metals would still be documented throughout the length of th e Creek.

In summary, an observed release of both metals and organics has been documented at the Newtown Creek site, even after normalization of analytical data due to organic content (which, as explained above

, is not

an evaluation required by the HRS). Thus, the relatively higher level of TOC within the observed release samples compared to the background samples, does not compromise the integrity of the analysis of sample similarity between observed release and background samples or negate the identifica tion of

observed releases or the site score.

This comment has no effect on the site score or the decision to list the site on the NPL.

3.1 6 .6 Clarity of HRS Observed Release Tables

Comment : HydroQual alleged that several tables within the HRS rule lac k clarity, and that some of the language within these tables is misleading, parti cularly Tables 1 through 4. HydroQual stated that “[t]ables 1 through 4 in the HRS Documentation identify the samples as ‘Observed Release Concentrations,’” and that this nam ing convention “introduces the presumption that the sediment bed is a release independent of completing a comparison to b ackground concentrations.”

Response : The tables within the HRS documentation record at proposal show all necessary analytical

data and considerations of data quality issues needed in an HRS evaluation to establish an observed release by chemical analysis and document that observed release samples are contaminated significantly above background.

As presented on pages 24 and 25 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, Tables 1 and 2, titled in part “Background and Observed Release Sample Information” present the specific sample identifier information and physical characteristics of each sample, such as sample identification numbers , date and time of sample collection, composition information (sand, silt, clay), depths of sample collection, and total organic content. Tables 3 and 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, titled in part “Background and Observed Release Concentra tions” present the results of samples taken from the background location (Atlantic Basin) and the observed release location (Newtown Creek). Section

3.1 6 .3, Use of Qualified Data, of this support document describes in detail how the tables were used to

do cument an observed release at this site.

Regarding the commenter’s assertion that the naming convention applied in Tables 1 through 4 presumes that the sediment bed is a release independent of the completion of comparison of background, a comparison of b ackground and release samples was completed to establish the significant increase of hazardous substances within the release samples to meet the HRS criteria to establish an observed release by chemical analysis (as discussed in section 3 .1 6 .3, Use of Qual ified Data, of this support document). Specifically, the column titled “ Background Concentrations ” within Tables 3 and 4 presents the background levels, and the column titled “ Observed Release Concentrations ” shows the concentration

that meets or exceeds observed release criteria. Also, as stated on page 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, those concentrations in Tables 2 and 4 that are presented in bold meet the criteria for an observed release. Thus, the tables themselves present comparison of background and release analytical data used in establishing an observed release.

This comment has no effect on the site score or on the decision to list the site on the NPL.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

55 3.1 6 .7 Attribution

Comment: HydroQual argued that CSO inputs of hazardous substances into the surface water are small

relative to other current sources.

Response : An observed release of hazardous substances to Newtown Creek was assigned to the site. This observed release was not individually attributed to CSO’s or any other documented contributors to

the contamination

.

HRS section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed Releas e, states in relevant part:

Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating

that the site has release a hazardous substance to the s urface water in the

watershed. Base this demonstration on either:

**•** Direct observation:

. . .

**•** Chemical analysis:

o Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significant ly above the background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3)

- Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background

concentrations

— for example compare surface water samples to surface water background concentrations.

-

. . . .

o Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to establish the observed release, except: when the site itself consists of contaminated sediments with no identified source, no separate attribution is required [emphasis a dded]

.

Page 38 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, under the heading Attribution, states:

Sediments in Newtown Creek are contaminated with metals, VOCs, SVOCs including PAHs, and PCBs for a length of more than 3 miles [see Section 2.2]. The ori gin of these

hazardous substances in the contaminated sediments has not been identified due to the presence of multiple possible sources for each substance. There are numerous routes that contamination can be taking to reach the water body and underlying sediments, including spillage during product shipping and handling, direct disposal and discharge, storm water runoff, and air deposition. As a result, the source(s) of all the contamination in any particular location in the creek cannot be determined.

T hus, sediments at the Newtown Creek site have been documented as having hazardous substances above observed release criteria, and the site itself consists of contaminated sediments with no identified source. As such, attributing the significant increase o f hazardous substances at the site to a specific origin is not required.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

56 Regarding HydroQual’s statement that inputs of hazardous substances as a result of CSO discharges are small relative to other sources, a lthough the HRS documentation record at prop osal does identify that CSOs are known contributors of various hazardous substances to the surface water migration pathway, no attribution has specifically been assigned to CSOs or other storm water discharges. In the sense that t his

comment is related to liability, see section 3. 5 , Liability, of this support document.

This comment has no effect on the site score or the decision to list the site on the NPL.

3.1 6 .8 Contamination in Mouth of Creek

Comment : The City, GLA, ELM, and E NVIRON questioned the in clusion of the mouth of the Creek in

the site , c iting the difference in physical characteristics and contaminant levels between the mouth and body of Newtown Creek. The commenters alleg ed that the extent of contamination is not adequately characterized, a nd claim ed the mouth presents no significant risk to humans or aquatic life

.

ENVIRON, GLA, and ELM commented that the lower portions of the Creek (or mouth of Newtown Creek) contain sediments that have significantly less contamination and do not pose an unacceptable risk. According to GLA, inclusion of the mouth of the Creek as part of the site inappropriately taints the mouth as being more contaminated than it is and detracts the focus of the cleanup away from the contaminate d sediments upstream.

GLA stated that EPA’s sediment data indicate s:

a downstream concentration gradient from the headwaters of Newtown Creek to the confluence with the East River. Concentrations of SVOCs in sediments are substantially higher (3 to 4 times) and more frequently de tected in sediments throughout the Creek

than in the first 0.5 miles of the Creek

. . . concentrations of PCBs are 5 to 10 times higher throughout the Creek than at the mouth. Frequency of COPC [contaminants of potential concern] detection also decreases from upstream to downstream, with only 2 surface samples downstream of Dutch Kills meeting the crit eria for an ‘observed release.’

GLA added that :

NYCDEP’s sediment sampling in Newtown Creek and Whale Creek Canal

. . . indicate a similar finding

– conce ntrations of COPCs [contaminants of potential concern] in the mouth of Newtown Creek are markedly lower than the concentrations further up the

Creek.

ELM stated that “ of the 71 sample locations in Newtown Creek, 8 samples were fairly evenly distributed

in the mouth of the Creek. ” It added that of those 8 samples from the mouth of the Creek, observed release of SVOCs was met in 2 surface samples and 3 subsurface samples, and one sample met observed

release of PCBs.

GLA claimed that the mouth of the Cre ek comprises a different environmental setting than the rest of the Creek, stating that the mouth of the Creek differs materially in its characteristics from the remainder of the Creek, inc luding levels of contamination. ENVIRON echoed a similar contentio n. It stated that the lower portion of Newtown Creek does not warrant inclusion as part of the site because:Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

57 the data show that the observed conditions within the lower portion of Newtown Creek west of Manhattan Avenue/Vernon Boulevard are measurably diff erent than the upper reaches of the Creek, the conditions in the lower portion of the Creek do not present a

substantial risk to human health or the environment

.

The City stated that the presented data :

indicat es that contaminants are not uniformly distr ibuted throughout the sediment in the

Creek

. . . further EPA investigation is necessary to identify the nature and extent of contamination throughout the length of the 3.8

- mile waterway; to prevent a misrepresentation of the whole Creek as containing unif orm amounts of hazardous materials; and to assist in identifying contributing upland sources.

ENVIRON asserted that the area near the mouth of Newtown Creek is not associated with the historic petroleum releases, and current data provided in the HRS docum entation record at proposal shows petroleum contamination at the mouth of the Creek below that associated with risk to aquatic organisms.

Response : Sediments in the mouth of Newtown Creek are documented to contain many of the same

hazardous substances at observed release levels as the rest of the Creek and are considered part of the site. At the Newtown Creek site, one contaminated sediment source running the entire length of the Creek has

been correctly delineated , includ ing the mouth of the Creek.

The HRS defines “site” as “[a]ny area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a hazardous substance.”

Also, the HRS defines a “source” as an:

[a]rea(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has otherwise come to be located. Sources do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water, or surface water sediments that have become contaminated by migrati on, except: in the case of either a ground water plume with no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified source, the plume or contaminated sediments may be consider ed a source.

Also, in establishing the target distance l imit of the surface water pathway overland/flood migration component, HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target Distance Limit , states in relevant part:

For sites consisting solely of contaminated sediments with no identified source, determine the target distance limi t as follows:

If there is no clearly defined direction of flow, begin measuring the target distance limit at the center of the area of observed sediment contamination. Extend the target distance limit as an arc either for 15 miles along the surface water or to the most distant sample point that meets the criteria for an observed release to that watershed, whichever is

greater. Determine the area of observed sediment contamination based on available samples that meet the criteria for an observed release

. [emphasis added]

Page 18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states that “[t] he analytical results indicate that metals, VOCs, SVOCs including PAHs, and PCBs are present in the Newtown Creek sediments at

concentrations that meet the criteria for o bserved release .” Page 19 of the HRS documentation record

states:Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

58 The EPA sampling results using observed release criteria show that contaminated sediments are located throughout Newtown Creek, from the navigable portion of English Kills (samples NC

- SD7 1A and NC

- SD71B) to the East River (samples NC

- SD01A and

NC

- SD01B). The sample locations are shown in Figure 2.

Page 38 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:

An observed release by chemical analysis is documented in Newtown Creek between

sa mple location NC

- SD71A in English Kills and sample location NC

- SD01B, approximately 3 miles downstream [see Section 2.2].

Hazardous substances that meet the criteria for an observed release to surface water were documented throughout the Creek ( r efer to S ection 3.16 , Likelihood of Release, of this support document). Thus,

hazardous substances were identified as associated with the contaminated sediment source through sampling , and the distribution of the observed release samples determined the area of obs erved sediment contamination, which includes the mouth of the Creek

Table 1 below documents that hazardous substances were detected in surficial and subsurface sediments above observed release criteria in mouth sample locations; these locations are within the area delineated

as the mouth of the Creek in Figure 1 of the comments submitted by GLA. Figure 1 in section 3.16.5

, Sample Similarity, of this support document presents the geographic location of these samples.

Table 2 : Hazardous Substances Detected in Mouth of Newtown Creek

SAMPLE ID NC

- SD01A NC

- SD03A NC

- SD01B NC

- SD07B

Hazardous Substance Result

(μg/kg) SQL Result

(μg/kg) SQL Result

(μg/kg) SQL Result

(μg/kg) SQL

Phenanthrene 600 440 1,200 420

Anthracene 780 440

Fluoranthene 1,100 440 1,300 420 640 480

Benzo(a)pyrene 690 440 630 420 610 480

Benzo(a)anthracene 730 440 630 420 600 480

Chrysene 680 440 650 420 600 480

Bis(2

-
ethylhexyl)phthalate 640 440 1,400 480

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 710 440 760 420 530 480

Aroclor

- 1242 120 92

That the levels of contamination of select hazardous substances are less in the mouth of the Creek than in other parts of the Creek does not preclude the findings that hazardous substances have been detected

within the mouth sediments at lev els meeting observed release criteria or the delineation of a single

contaminated sediment source . Although EPA agrees that certain portions of the Creek sediment bed are more contaminated with certain hazardous substances than other portions of the Creek sediments,Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

59 hazardous substances are documented at greater than observed release concentrations within the mouth of the Creek and these locations are shown to be contiguous to the rest of the Creek . In fact, the same substances presented in Table 2 above are documented at various locations throughout the rest of the

Creek (see 3.13, Contaminated Sediment Source, of this support document)

.

Furthermore, as samples within the mouth of the Creek contained hazardous substances meeting observed

release criteria

, the sediment in the mouth would qualif y as a sediment source. However, samples upstream from the mouth are continuously contaminated with these and various hazardous substances, and as such, the contaminated sediment source constitutes the entire length of the Creek.

This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.



### 3.1 7 Waste Characteristics

Comment : HydroQual, ELM, ENVIRON, and GLA commented on the adequacy of various portions of

the waste characteristic s component of the HRS score . Specific comments challenging this component are addressed in the following subsections :

**•** 3. 1 7 .1 Toxicity /Bioaccumulation

**•** 3.1 7 .2 Bioavailability

3.1 7 .1 Toxicity /Bioaccumulation

Comment : HydroQual questioned the methodology used to assign toxicity values to the hazardous substances in the HRS documentation record. HydroQual asserted that the brackish nature of Newtown Creek and the wide range of salinity observed in the Creek are not ideal for HRS evaluation because

factors used in the HRS scoring methods are specific to bioaccumulation and toxicity in either fresh water or salt water. It also stated that Newtown Creek is scored higher than if it were scored as entirely fresh water or as entirely salt water. The contaminan ts for which there are HRS scoring differences between fresh water and salt water include pyrene, silver, benzo(a) pyrene, and cadmium.

Response : The toxicity and bioaccumulation factor values have been assigned consistent with the HRS.

The human toxici ty factor value is used in the evaluation of the surface water human food chain threat; the ecosystem toxicity factor value is used in the evaluation of the surface water environmental threat. Bioaccumulation potential factor values are used in both the h uman food chain and environmental threats. The toxicity for the human food chain threat is assigned independent of salinity. However for this threat, the salinity of the water body is considered when assigning the bioaccumulation potential factor value. The ecosystem toxicity and bioaccumulation potential factor values are assigned based on salinity of the

Creek

.

To xi city and the Surface Water Pathway Human Food Chain Threat Salinity is not considered when assigning the human toxicity factor value us ed in scoring the surface water human food chain threat. HRS Section 4.1.3.2.1.1, Toxicity , contains the directions for assigning the human toxicity factor value for the surface water pathway human food chain threat. It instructs the

scorer to “ [a]ssign a toxicity factor value to each hazardous substance as specified in section 2.4.1.1, ” which states the following:

Evaluate toxicity for those hazardous substances at the site that are available to the pathway being scored. For all pathways and threats, e xcept the surface waterNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

60 environmental threat, evaluate human toxicity as specified below. For the surface water environmental threat, evaluate ecosystem toxicity as specified in section 4.1.3.2.1.1. Establish human toxicity factor values based on quantita tive dose

- response parameters for the following three types of toxicity:

**•** Cancer

-- Use slope factors (also referred to as cancer potency factors) combined with weight

- of

- evidence ratings for carcinogenicity. If a slope factor is not available

for a subst ance, use its ED 10 value to estimate a slope factor as follows:

Slope factor = 1 / 6 (ED 10 )

**•** Noncancer toxicological responses of chronic exposure

-- use reference dose (RfD) values.

**•** Noncancer toxicological responses of acute exposure

-- use acute tox icity parameters, such as the LD 50

.

Assign human toxicity factor values to a hazardous substance using Table 2

- 4, as follows:

**•** If RfD and slope factor values are both available for the hazardous substance, assign the substance a value from Table 2

- 4 for ea ch. Select the higher of the two values assigned and use it as the overall toxicity factor value for the hazardous

substance.

**•** If either an RfD or slope factor value is available, but not both, assign the hazardous substance an overall toxicity factor valu e from Table 2

- 4 based solely on the available value (RfD or slope factor).

**•** If neither an RfD nor slope factor value is available, assign the hazardous substance an overall toxicity factor value from Table 2

- 4 based solely on acute toxicity. That is, cons ider acute toxicity in Table 2

- 4 only when both RfD and slope

factor values are not available.

**•** If neither an RfD, nor slope factor, nor acute toxicity value is available, assign the hazardous substance an overall toxicity factor value of 0 and use other hazardous substances for which information is available in evaluating the pathway.

Thus, the HRS does not instruct the scorer to consider salinity in the assignment of the toxicity

value for the human food chain threat.

Page 44 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, section 4.1.3.2.1 (human food chain threat), presents the toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation factor values for each of the hazardous substances found in the observed release in the Creek sediments. The human toxicity

values use d for the human food chain threat, as specified by HRS Section 2.4.1.1, excerpted above, are based on carcinogenicity and non

- cancer risk and do not vary based on fresh, brackish or salt water regime.

Therefore, this comment has no impact on the assignme nt of the toxicity factor value for the

human food chain threat.

Bioaccumulation and the Surface Water Pathway Human Food Chain ThreatNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

61 For the surface water pathway human food chain threat, salinity of the water is considered in assigning

the bioaccumulat ion potential factor value. HRS Section 4.1.3.2.1.3

, Bioaccumulation potential , for the surface water pathway human food chain threat, instructs the scorer to:

Use the following data hierarchy to assign a bioaccumulation potential factor value to

each h azardous substance:

**•** Bioconcentration factor (BCF) data.

**•** Logarithm of the n

- octanol

- water partition coefficient (log K ow ) data.

**•** Water solubility data.

Assign a bioaccumulation potential factor value to each hazardous substance from Table

4

- 15.

If BCF data are available for any aquatic human food chain organism for the substance being evaluated, assign the bioaccumulation potential factor value to the hazardous

substance as follows:

**•** If BCF data are available for both fresh water and salt water for the hazardous substance, use the BCF data that correspond to the type of water body (that is, fresh water or salt water) in which the fisheries are located to assign the bioaccumulation potential

factor value to the hazardous substance.

**•** If, however, some of the fisheries being evaluated are in fresh water and some are in salt water, or if any are in brackish water, use the BCF data that yield the higher factor value to assign the bioaccumulation potential factor value to the hazardous substance.

**•** If BCF data are available for either fresh water or salt water, but not for both, use the available BCF data to assign the bioaccumulation potential factor value to the

hazardous substance. [emphasis added]

If BCF data are not available for the hazardous substance, u se log K ow data to assign a bioaccumulation potential factor value to organic substances, but not to inorganic substances. If BCF data are not available, and if either log K ow data are not available, the log K ow is available but exceeds 6.0, or the substan ce is an inorganic substance, use water solubility data to assign a bioaccumulation potential factor value.

Do not distinguish between fresh water and salt water in assigning the bioaccumulation potential factor value based on log K ow or water solubility data. If none of these data are available, assign the hazardous substance a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 0.5. [emphasis added]

Page 44 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, section 4.1.3.2.1 (human food chain threat), presents the to xicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation factor values for each of the hazardous substances found in the observed release in the Creek sediments and provides the citation to the source of the assigned values. The bioaccumulation potential factor values us ed for the human food chain threat, as specified by HRS Section 4.1.3.2.1.3, excerpted above, are assigned based on the hierarchy of data specified in the HRS, and the factor values used in the calculation of the threat score (the highest combined value, s ee HRS Section 4.1.3.2.1.4) are based on BCF data. Thus the values are assigned based on Newtown Creek being a brackish water body, documented in the footnote to the table on page 45 of the HRS documentation record at proposal (and not contested by HydroQ ual). It states:Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

62 NYCDEP has reported salinity measurements ranging from 18.5 to 22.8 parts per thousand (ppt) for Newtown Creek in the vicinity of Kosciuszko Bridge, which carries the Brooklyn

- Queens Expressway, making it brackish water [Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 52, p. 112]. The HRS (Section 4.1.3.2.1.3) states that if any fisheries being evaluated are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and salt water bioaccumulation potential factor values to each hazardous sub stance [Ref. 1, p. 51617]. Therefore, the higher Food Chain Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Values are used for the Newtown Creek fishery.

Toxicity /Bioaccumulation and the Surface Water Pathway Environmental Threat For the surface water pathway environme ntal threat, both the toxicity and the bioaccumulation potential factor values are assigned values for each substance reflecting the salinity of the water body. HRS Section 4.1.4.2.1.1, Ecosystem toxicity , specifies the following:

Assign an ecosystem tox icity factor value from Table 4

- 19 to each hazardous substance on the basis of the following data hierarchy:

**•** EPA chronic Ambient Water Quality Criterion (AWQC) for the substance.

**•** EPA chronic Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory Concentrations (AALAC) for the

subs tance.

**•** EPA acute AWQC for the substance.

**•** EPA acute AALAC for the substance.

**•** Lowest LC 50 value for the substance.

In assigning the ecosystem toxicity factor value to the hazardous substance:

**•** If either an EPA chronic AWQC or AALAC is available for the hazar dous substance, use it to assign the ecosystem toxicity factor value. Use the chronic AWQC in preference to the chronic AALAC when both are available.

**•** If neither is available, use the EPA acute AWQC or AALAC to assign the ecosystem toxicity factor value. Use the acute AWQC in preference to the acute

AALAC.

**•** If none of the chronic and acute AWQCs and AALACs is available, use the

lowest LC 50 value to assign the ecosystem toxicity factor value.

**•** If an LC 50 value is also not available, assign an ecosystem toxi city factor value of

0 to the hazardous substance and use other hazardous substances for which data are available in evaluating the pathway.

If an ecosystem toxicity factor value of 0 is assigned to all hazardous substances eligible

to be evaluated for the watershed (that is, insufficient data are available for evaluating all the substances), use a default value of 100 as the ecosystem toxicity factor value for all

these hazardous substances.

With regard to the AWQC, AALAC, or LC 50 selected for assigning t he ecosystem toxicity factor value to the hazardous substance:Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

63 **•** If values for the selected AWQC, AALAC, or LC 50 are available for both fresh water and marine water for the hazardous substance, use the value that corresponds to the type of water body (that is, fresh water or salt water) in which the sensitive environments are located to assign the ecosystem toxicity factor value to the hazardous substance.

**•** If, however, some of the sensitive environments being evaluated are in fresh

water and some are in sal t water, or if any are in brackish water, use the value (fresh water or marine) that yields the higher factor value to the

hazardous substance.

**•** If a value for the selected AWQC, AALAC, or LC 50 is available for either fresh water or marine water, but not fo r both, use the available one to assign an ecosystem toxicity factor value to the hazardous substance. [emphasis added]

For assigning an ecosystem bioaccumulation potential factor value, HRS Section 4.1.4.2.1.3, Ecosystem b ioaccumulation potential , for th e surface water environmental threat, instructs the

scorer to:

Assign an ecosystem bioaccumulation potential factor value to each hazardous substance in the same manner specified for the bioaccumulation potential factor in section 4.1.3.2.1.3, except:

**•** Us e BCF data for all aquatic organisms, not just for aquatic human food chain organisms.

**•** Use the BCF data that corresponds to the type of water body (that is, fresh water or salt water) in which the sensitive environments (not fisheries) are

located [emphasi s added]

.

As quoted earlier in this section of this support document, HRS Section 4.1.3.2.1.3 states that when using BCF data to assign this value, for brackish water to use the higher of the freshwater

and saltwater values.

Page 50 of the HRS documentat ion record at proposal, section 4.1.4.2.1 (environmental threat), presents the ecosystem toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation potential factor values for each of the hazardous

substances found in the observed release in the Creek sediments. As instr ucted in HRS Section s 4.1.4.2.1.1 and 4.1.4.2.1.3, excerpted above, the ecosystem toxicity and bioaccumulation potential values are also assigned according to the HRS, and the assigned values in the table are based on whether the water body contains fresh, brackish or salt water. The following footnote from the table explains why the selected ecosystem toxicity and bioaccumulation potential factor values are used:

NYCDEP has reported salinity measurements ranging from 18.5 to 22.8 parts per thousand (ppt) for Newtown Creek in the vicinity of Kosciuszko Bridge, which carries the Brooklyn

- Queens Expressway, making it brackish water [Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 52, p. 112]. The HRS (Section 4.1.4.2.1.1) states that if any

sensitive enviro nments being evaluated are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and marine water toxicity factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1, p. 51621]. Therefore, the higher Ecosystem Toxicity Factor Value for each hazardous

substance i s used for Newtown Creek. Similarly, the HRS (Section 4.1.4.2.1.3) statesNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

64 that if any sensitive environments being evaluated are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and salt water bioaccumulation potential factor values to each

hazardo us substance [Ref. 1, pp. 51617, 51622]. Therefore, the higher Ecosystem

Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value for each hazardous substance is used for

Newtown Creek.

Thus, since Newtown Creek is a brackish water body, the ecosystem toxicity and bioaccu mulation potential factor values for each substance were assigned the highest of the freshwater and saltwater values in accordance with the provisions of HRS Sections 2.4.1.1, 4.1.4.2.1.3, and 4.1.4.2.1.1. The bioaccumulation potential factor values used in determin ing the threat score (the highest of all the combined values, s ee HRS Section 4.1.4.2.1.4) were all selected using BC F data.

This comment has no effect on the HRS score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.

3.1 7

. 2 Bioavailability

Comme nt : ENVIRON questioned whether the hazardous substances in the sediments are bioava ilable to cause toxicity. Similarly, ELM commented that the chemical processes in the Creek should be considered to assess bioavailability.

ENVIRON asserted that bioavai lability could not be adequately assessed based solely on sedimen t
contaminant data. ELM commented that the chemical processes in the Creek are essential in determining the bioavailability and thus the potential risk or lack thereof to a potentially affec ted target, and should be considered by EPA as part of the NPL listing process. GLA stated that the older sediments are buried by new material sequestering the highest contaminant concentrations below the biologically active zone

. GLA added that the high organic content and very low oxygen conditions in the sediment significantly decrease bioavailability of contaminants to aquatic organisms, thereby lowering risk to this population.

ENVIRON also made the following comments:

USEPA (2003) derived a more complex target lipid model (TLM) to evaluate risks of PAHs to aquatic organisms. Because this method is based on the concentration of a chemical within an organism, it inherently accounts for sediment ingestion and all other possible exposure pathways

. . . . In the TLM, the organic carbon

- normalized PAH concentration in site sediments is divided by the USEPA (2003) calculated organic

carbon

- normalized NOECs for PAHs, and the individual values (i.e., hazard quotients, HQs) added together. When the sum of the individual HQs is less than 1, it can be

concluded that there is no risk to aquatic organisms. Based on the data reported in the HRS documentation, the highest sum of TLM NOECs in surface sediments is 0.3 at location 35A (see Table 1). Although a val ue of 13 is found in subsurface sediment at location 13B, these samples were collected at 3.5 to 6 feet below the sediment

- water
interface , while organisms are normally considered to be present in the top 6 inches

below the sediment

- water interface

. Becau se the subsurface sediments were collected well below the bioactive zone there is no exposure pathway to aquatic organisms and, therefore, the concentrations reported for location 13B do not represent a significant risk.

Response : The HRS does not consi der the bioavailability of hazardous substances in an HRS evaluation.

These comments have no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place this site on the NPL.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

65 

### 3. 18 Targets

HydroQual, ENVIRON, ELM , and a public commenter commented on the human food chain threat

targets and sensitive environments targets evaluated in the HRS documentation record at proposal. The following subsections address specific comments relating to targets scoring in the HRS evaluation:

**•** 3. 18 .1 Human Food Chain Fishery

**•** 3. 18 .2 Fishery in Mouth of Newtown Creek

**•** 3. 18 .3 Scoring of Migratory Fish

**•** 3. 18 .4 Resources

**•** 3. 18 .5 Sensitive Environment

**•** 3. 18 .6 Potential Environmental Targets

3. 18 .1 Human Food Chain Fishery

Comment : HydroQual asserted that although it considered the fina l HRS target value appropriate, the protectiveness of the New York State health advisory is not a part of the ev aluation of the fishery

.

Response : The human food chain threat of the Newtown Creek fishery was properly established according to the HRS. S pecifically, HRS Section 4.1.3.3 states:

Evaluate two target factors for each watershed: food chain individual and population. For both factors, determine whether the target fisheries are subject to actual or potential

human food chain contamination.

Consider a fishery (or portion of a fishery) within the target distance limit of the watershed to be subject to actual human food chain contamination if any of the following apply:

**•** A hazardous substance having a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 5 00 or greater is present either in an observed release by direct observation to the watershed or in a surface water or sediment sample from the watershed at a level that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed from the site, and at leas t a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the observed release (that is, it is located either at the point of direct observation or at or between the probable point of entry and the most distant sampling point establishing the observed release ).

Page 46 of the HRS documentation record at proposal under the title, Human Food Chain Threat

– Targets, document s that this requirement was met, stating:

Blue

- claw crabs, bluefish, weakfish, striped bass, and other species inhabit the creek, and

fish ing and crabbing for human consumption occurs [Ref. 7, pp. 2, 5; 8, p. 11; 21, p. 13; 22, pp. 1

- 2; 24, p. 143; 52, p. 93; 68, p. 3; 69, p. 1]. Subsistence fishing has been observed in Newtown Creek at Dutch Kills, and crabbing for consumption has been

obs erved at the end of Manhattan Avenue in Brooklyn [Ref. 7, p. 5; 21, p. 13; 22, pp. 1

- 2; 68, p. 3; 69, p. 1]. These locations are both within the zone of contamination for the Newtown Creek site [Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record]. Therefore, Actu al Contamination is documented, and the target fishery is evaluated for Actual Human Food

Chain Contamination. There are no media

- specific benchmarks for sediment, so theNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

66 target fishery is subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592

- 51593, 51620

- 51621].

This page of the HRS documentation record at proposal go es on to list 31 hazardous substances that meet the observed release criteria and have a bioaccumulation potent ial factor value of 500 or greater , any of

which would have been sufficient to establish actual contamination within the fishery

. In addition, the act of fishing for human consumption was documented within the area encompassed by the samples containing these substances, thereby establishing the threat to the fishery in accordance wi th HRS Section 4.1.3.3. Thus, t he site

- specific information used in obtaining the HRS score for the human food chain threat of the surface water migration pathway, and for the overall site score, is consistent with the requirements of the HRS.

Regardin g HydroQual’s assertion that the “protectiveness” of the New York state health advisory is not included in the fishery evaluation, t here is no provision in the HRS to consider the possible reduction in risk that might be caused by a fish advisory in an HRS evaluation.

Within the HRS sections directing the scoring of the human food chain threat (Sections 4.1.3.1, 4.1.3.2, and 4.1.3.3), there is only one provision for considering any kind of fish advisory, and it is for a closure of a fishery (i.e., ban on a ny consumption), not simply an advisory to limit consumption. This is in HRS Section 4.1.3.3, which states, in part:

Consider a fishery (or portion of a fishery) within the target distance limit of the watershed to be subject to actual human food chain c ontamination if any of the following apply:

. . .

The fishery is closed, and a hazardous substance for which the fishery has been closed has been documented in an observed release to the watershed from the site, and at least a portion of the fishery is w ithin the boundaries of the observed release.

Under this provision, if a fish closure advisory has been issued which states that a specified area is closed to fishing ( i.e., that no fishing for consumption is to take place there ) and the other conditions stated above apply, the fishery is scored as if it were an active fishery that was contaminated due to the site ( i.e., subject to actual contamination). Thus, the fish closure advisory acts to include the fishery in the HRS score, not to exclude it.

Addi tionally, section 3. 11

, Challenge to HRS , of this support document, details that the site

- specific risk

assessment will be performed as part of the Superfund process that occurs in a separate stage of the Superfund process . At that time, the information r egarding site

- specific risk will be considered

.

This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.

3. 18 .2 Fishery in Mouth of Newtown Creek

Comment : ENVIRON assert ed that potential access points for subsiste nce fishing are located upstream

from the lower portions of the Creek and that “[s]ince PCBs were not detected in surface sediments, there is no Human Food Chain Threat associated with surficial sediments sampled near the mouth of Newtown

Creek.”Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

67 Respons e : The HRS evaluation of the human food chain threat, including the presence of at least a part of a human food chain fishery as actually contaminated, does not depend on the presence of a fishery

associated with sediments in the mouth of Newtown Creek.

A s detailed in section 3. 18 .1, Human Food Chain Fishery

, of this support document, consistent with HRS Section 4.1.3.3, site

- specific inform ation was used in establishing that there is at least part of a human food chain fishery that is considered to be act uall y contaminated in Newtown Creek. HRS Section 4.1.3.3 in part states to score a fishery as present at a site as follows:

Consider a fishery (or portion of a fishery) within the target distance limit of the watershed to be subject to actual human food chain contamination if any of the following apply:

**•** A hazardous substance having a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater is present either in an observed release by direct observation to the watershed

or in a surface water or sediment sa mple from the watershed at a level that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed from the site, and at least a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the observed release (that is, it is located either at the point of direct observation or at or between the probable point of entry and the most distant sampling point establishing the observed release).

. . .

The HRS does not require that the fishery be documented coextensive with the zone of contamination at

the site.

Sectio n 4.1.3.3, Human Food Chain Threat

– Targets, of the HRS documentation record at proposal

states:

Subsistence fishing has been observed in Newtown Creek at Dutch Kills, and crabbing for consumption has been observed at the end of Manhattan Avenue in Brook lyn [Ref. 7, p. 5; 21, p. 13; 22, pp. 1

- 2; 68, p. 3; 69, p. 1]. These locations are both within the zone of contamination for the Newtown Creek site [Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record]. Therefore, Actual Contamination is documented, and the target fishery is evaluated for

Actual Human Food Chain Contamination. There are no media

- specific benchmarks for sediment, so the target fishery is subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592

- 51593, 51620

- 51621].

As discussed in section 3.1 6 .8, Contam ination in Mouth of Creek, of this support document, contamination from the mouth to the rest of the Creek is contiguous, meaning that the boundar y of the observed release is documented as extending from the mouth to the upper reaches of the Creek.

Subsis tence fishing at a particular portion of the Creek within the boundar y of the observed release (i.e., the zone of contamination) was documented as cited above. As stated in HRS Section 4.1.3.3

, the

boundar y of the observed release extends from the probabl e point of entry to the most distant sampling point establishing an observed release. As discussed in section 3.1 3 and 3.16 of this support document

, the entire contaminated sediment source was defined by those samples that meet the observed release

crite ria, including se ve r al samples in the mouth of the Creek

.

Regarding the statement that PCB s were not found in surface sediments in the mouth of the Creek , as stated above, the presence of an actually contaminated fishery for this site is based on HRS Se ction 4.1.3.3, which directs the scorer to establish an actually contaminated fishery if:Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

68 A hazardous substance having a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater is present either in an observed release by direct observation to the watersh ed or in a surface water or sediment sample from the watershed at a level that meets the criteria for

an observed release to the watershed from the site

. . .

Thus, in evaluating whether a fishery is subject to actual contamination, there is no restrictio n that the

observed release be established in surface sediments

. In addition, the presence of an actually contaminated fishery at this site is established not only by the presence of PCB contamination. Observed

releases of several other hazardous substan ces with bioaccumulation potential factor values of 500 or greater, were used for this purpose; including b enzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, pyrene, and other substances used to assign the human food chain threat score (see pages 50 and 51 of the HRS

docu mentation record at proposal), all of which were also found in observed release samples from the mouth of the Creek ( see section 3.1 6.8

, Contamination in Mouth of Creek, of this support document ). Therefore, the absence of PCB contamination in surface sa mples in the mouth of the Creek did not limit the identification of an actually contaminated fishery.

This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.

3. 18 .3 Scoring of Migratory Fish

Comment : ELM asserted t hat EPA disregarded the findings of fish population studies in the Upper New York Bay that “ conclude that the fish population is composed primarily of migratory fish, which likely do not spend a significant portion of their lives in the Creek.”

Response : In accordance with the provisions of the HRS, the migration characteristics of various fish within the scored fishery were not considered in the HRS evaluation of the fishery as a Level II fishery.

HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat

- targets , is the only section within the HRS that refers to the length of time an organism spends within a Level I or Level II fishery. This section discusses the methodology for determining the level of actual contamination from samples, including tissue samples

fro m essentially sessile, benthic organisms, as well as other specified aquatic organisms that meet the criteria for actual food chain contamination. When using tissue samples to determine if a fishery is Level I or Level II, this HRS section states in relev ant part:

Use only those additional tissue samples and only those hazardous substances in the tissue samples that meet all the following criteria:

....

The tissue sample is from a species of aquatic human food chain organism that spends extended periods o f time within the boundaries of the actual food chain contamination for the site and that is not an essentially sessile, benthic organism.

On page 46, the HRS documentation record at proposal identifies the fishery in the Creek as a Level II fishery, stat ing:

Blue

- claw crabs, bluefish, weakfish, striped bass, and other species inhabit the creek, and fishing and crabbing for human consumption occurs [Ref. 7, pp. 2, 5; 8, p. 11; 21, p. 13; 22, pp. 1

- 2; 24, p. 143; 52, p. 93; 68, p. 3; 69, p. 1]. Subsistenc e fishing has been observed in Newtown Creek at Dutch Kills, and crabbing for consumption has beenNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

69 observed at the end of Manhattan Avenue in Brooklyn [Ref. 7, p. 5; 21, p. 13; 22, pp. 1

- 2; 68, p. 3; 69, p. 1]. These locations are both within the zone of contamination for the Newtown Creek site [Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record]. Therefore, Actual Contamination is documented, and the target fishery is evaluated for Actual Human Food

Chain Contamination. There are no media

- specific benchmarks for sediment, so the target fishery is subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592

- 51593, 51620

- 51621].

As discussed in section 3.18.1 , Human Food Chain Fishery, of this support document, the above section of the HRS documentation record at propo sal goes on to present documentation of the Level II contamination in the fishery, using sediment samples containing hazardous substances with a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or more throughout the contaminated sediment source and

the Creek

.

Thus, as sediment samples were used in the determination of the level of actual contamination for the scored Level II fishery, and not tissue samples, the migratory nature of the fish within the fishery was not a point of consideration in the scoring of the human food chain fishery.

This comment has no effect on the site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.

3. 18 .4 Resources

Comment : Tom Brooklyn, in support of the listing

, commented on how the contamination in the Creek

“is also adv ersely affecting the recreational quality of waters not only in the immediate area, but all over

NYC waters

. . . ”

Response : The HRS considers recreational use in a site evaluation when scoring the resources factor,

however this factor was not included in the HRS evaluation (See HRS Section 4.1.2.3.3, Resources).

This comment has no effect on the site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.

3. 18 .5 Sensitive Environment

Comment : HydroQual expressed that “[g]iven that the Newtown Creek i s designated by the State of New York as a Class SD water body suitable for fish survival, a Sensitive Environments Rated Factor of 5 for ‘state designated areas for protection or maintenance of aquatic life’ is more appropriate for Newtown Creek, than the 100 E PA assigned.” HydroQual suggested that a site

- specific, rather than a Harbor

- wide, sensitive environments factor is more app ropriate for Newtown Creek. According to HydroQual , the Newtown Creek 2007 Waterbody/Watershed Facility Plan concludes the f ollowing:

**•** There are no outstanding national resource waters, national marine sanctuaries, public drinking water intakes or their designated protection areas, or shellfish beds within the Newtown Creek waterbody or the East River.

**•** The Newtown Creek, its tr ibutaries and branches, are not designated by the State of New York for recreational uses. There are no primary contact recreation waters such as bathin g beaches in the waterbody.

GLA commented that it is unrealistic to evaluate Newtown Creek as a sensiti ve environment that has a potential to be restored to pre

- development conditions. It added that the conditions of the Creek , a stagnant system within which freshwater tributaries have been eliminated, will undoubtedly remain for

the f oreseeable future.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

70 Response : The sensitive environment value of a Level II sensitive environment for sensitive areas identified under the National Estuary Program has been appropriately assigned in accordance with the HRS. HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1, Sensitive environments , ins tructs the scorer to:

Evaluate sensitive environments along the hazardous substance migration path for the watershed based on three factors: Level I concentrations, Level II concentrations, and potential contamination.

HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target distan ce limit , directs that f or sites consisting solely of contaminated sediments with no identified source, the target distance limit is defined as follows:

If there is no clearly defined direction of flow, begin measuring the target distance limit

at the cen ter of the area of observed sediment contamination. Extend the target distance limit as an arc either for 15 miles along the surface water or to the most distant sample point that meets the criteria for an observed release to that watershed, whichever is

g reater . Determine the area of observed sediment contamination based on available samples that meet the criteria for an observed release

. [emphasis added]

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations , states “[a]ssign value(s) from T able 4

– 23 to each

s ensitive environment subject to Level II concentrations. Do not include sensitive environments already

counted for T able 4

– 23 under the Level I concentrations factor for this watershed.”

HRS Table 4

- 23, Sensitive Environments Rating Values, contains the f ollowing listed sensitive environment and notes that it receives an assigned value of 100: “ Sensitive areas identified under National Estuary Program or Near Coastal Waters Program. ”

Page 37 of the HRS documentation record at proposal documents that:

Ne wtown Creek is a tidal arm of the New York

- New Jersey Harbor Estuary that forms

the northwestern

- most border between the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens [Figures 1 and 2 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 4, p. 1; 6, p. 1; 7, p. 3; 8, pp. 9

- 10; 9, p. 3; 10, pp. 6

- 7]. It is tributary to the East River and includes five branches along its 3.5

- to 4.3

- mile reach: (from east to west) English Kills, East Branch, Maspeth Creek, Whale Creek, and Dutch Kills [Ref. 4, p. 1; 6, p. 1; 7, p. 5; 8, p. 10; 9, p. 3; 11, p. 11; 12, pp. 52

- 53].

Page 53 of t he HRS documentation record at proposal states :

Newtown Creek is part of the New York

- New Jersey Harbor Estuary, which is a sensitive area identified under the National Estuary Program [Ref. 10, pp. 1

- 10]. Therefore, Actual Contamination is documented, and the target sensitive environment is evaluated for

Actual Contamination. There are no media

- specific benchmarks for sediment, so the target sensitive environment is subject to Level II concentrations [ Ref. 1, pp. 51592

- 51593, 51624

- 51625].

Reference 10 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the official EPA Web site for the National Estuary Program, clearly identifies the New York

- New Jersey Harbor Estuary as part of the National Estuary Program. The Web site also describes the East River as part of the core area of the New York

New Jersey Harbor Estuary, and in its description of that Estuary specifically states that it includes “ theNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

71 tidally influenced portions of all rivers and streams that emp ty into the [New York] Harbor. ” Thus, because Newtown Creek empties into the East River, it is clearly part of the designated area.

Regarding HydroQual’s comment that, since the Creek is designated by the State as a Class SD water body suitable for fish survival, it would qualify as a 'state designated area for protection or maintenance of aquatic life,' while this would warrant a n additional sensitive environment assigned value of 5 as directed by Table 4

- 23 of the HRS , this does not negate or preclude t he National Estuary Program designation or the corresponding assigned value of 100.

In reference to GLA's comment regarding the potential to restore Newtown Creek to pre

- development conditions, this is a consideration that is typically addressed during the remediation stages and as such, is not part of the HRS scoring or NPL listing process.

This comment has no effect on the HRS score or the decision to place the site on the NPL.

3. 18 .6 Potential Environmental Targets

Comment : HydroQual stated that EP A’s HRS training materials indicate that potential contamination is established if no portion of the sensitive environment falls within an area that meets the cri teria for an

observed release. It added that the waters of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary cannot be established as subject

to potential contamination for a sensitive environment because the Estuary already meets the criteria for an observed release since “there are a number of Superfund sites within the NY/ NJ Harbor Estuary .”

Response : EPA did not sc ore a sensitive environment subject to potential contamination within the environmental threat for the surface water migration pathway at this site. The New York

- New Jersey Harbor Estuary was evaluated as a sensitive environment subject to actual Level II contamination.

However, despite the existence of contaminants originating at other nearby Superfund sites, a sensitive environment subject to potential contamination could have been scored at this site if the sensitive environment was not subject to actu al Level I or Level II contamination.

HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target distance limit , directs the user to create a target distance limit (TDL):

The target distance limit defines the maximum distance over which targets are considered in evaluating the site. Determine a separate target distance limit for each watershed as

follows:

**•** If there is no observed release to surface water in the watershed or if there is an observed release only by direct observation (see section 4.1.2.1.1), begin measuring the target distance limit for the watershed at the probable point of entry to surface water and extend it for 15 miles along the surface water from that point.

**•** If there is an observed release from the site to the surface water in the watershed that is based on sampl ing, begin measuring the target distance limit for the watershed at the probable point of entry; extend the target distance limit either for 15 miles along the surface water or to the most distant sample point that

meets the criteria for an observed releas e to that watershed, whichever is greater.

. . .Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

72 For sites consisting solely of contaminated sediments with no identified source, determine the target distance limit as follows:

. . .

If there is no clearly defined direction of flow, begin measuring the target distance limit at the center of the area of observed sediment contamination. Extend the target distance limit as an arc either for 15 miles along the surface water or to the most distant sample point that meets the criteria for an observed relea se to that watershed, whichever is greater. Determine the area of observed sediment contamination based on available samples that meet the criteria for an observed release.

This same section then describes the evaluation of targets:

For these contaminate d sediment sites, include only those targets (for example, intakes, fisheries, sensitive environments) that are within or contiguous to the hazardous substance migration path and located, wholly or partially, within the target distance limit

for the site. Determine whether these targets are subject to actual or potential

contamination as follows:

**•** If a target is located, partially or wholly, within the area of observed sediment contamination, evaluate it as subject to actual contamination, except as otherwi se specified for fisheries in section 4.1.3.3 and wetlands in section 4.1.4.3.1.1.

- If a drinking water target is subject to actual contamination, evaluate it using Level II concentrations. If a human food chain target or environmental target is subject to actual contamination, evaluate it using Level I or Level II concentrations, as appropriate (see sections 4.1.3.3 and 4.1.4.3.1).

**•** If a target is located, partially or wholly, within the target distance limit for the watershed, but not within the area of o bserved sediment contamination, evaluate it as subject to potential contamination.

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1, Sensitive environments , directs the scorer to :

[e]valuate sensitive environments along the hazardous substance migration path for the

watershed base d on three factors: Level I concentrations, Level II concentrations, and potential contamination.

Determine which factor applies to each sensitive environment as specified in section 4.1.2.3, except: use ecological

- based benchmarks (Table 4

– 22) rather tha n health

- based benchmarks (Table 3

– 10) in determining the level of contamination from samples. In determining the level of actual contamination, use a point of direct observation anywhere within the sensitive environment or samples (that is, surface water, benthic, or sediment samples) taken anywhere within or beyond the sensitive environment (or anywhere adjacent to or beyond the sensitive environment if it is contiguous to the migration path).

HRS Section 4.1.2.3, Drinking water threat targets

, states :

. . . If the actual contamination is based on an observed release by direct observation, use Level II concentrations for that intake. However, if the actual contamination is based onNewtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

73 an observed release from samples, determine which level applies for the i ntake by comparing the exposure concentrations from samples (or comparable samples) to health

based benchmarks as specified in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. Use the health

- based

benchmarks from table 3

– 10 (section 3.3.1) in determining the level of contaminati on from samples. For contaminated sediments with no identified source, evaluate the actual contamination using Level II concentrations.

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.1, Level I concentrations , then instructs the scorer to “[a]ssign value(s) from T able

4

– 23 to eac h sensitive environment subject to Level I concentrations.” HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II

concentrations

, instruct s the scorer to “[a]ssign value(s) from T able 4

– 23 to each sensitive environment subject to Level II concentrations. Do not include sensi tive environments already counted for T able 4

– 23

under the Level I concentrations factor for this watershed.” HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.3, Potential

contamination

, directs the scorer to “[a] ssign value(s) from T able 4

– 23 to each sensitive environment subject to potential contamination. Do not include sensitive environments already counted for T able 4

– 23

under the Level I or Level II concentrations factors. ”

The HRS has no requirement to consider whether a sensitive environment is subject to contamination

from a Superfund site other than the site being evaluated. The HRS scores a sensitive environment based on the highest level of contamination to which the sensitive environment is subject. Had the New York

New Jersey Harbor Estuary not already been subject t o Level II contamination attributed to the Newtown Creek site, the Estuary’s partial presence within the TDL would have made it eligible for evaluation as a sensitive environment subject to potential contamination from th e site.

If EPA were to exclude a t arget from evaluation for one site based on the fact that it was also subject to contamination migrating from a second site, this would amount to neglect of the actual or potential contaminant exposure the target may receive from the first site.

This comm ent has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL

.



### 3. 19 HRS Site Rescoring

Comment : HydroQual argued that a site score of less than 28.50 could be established on the basis of sensitive environment and hazardous waste qu antity factor considerations only.

Regarding assertions related to the rescoring presented in Table 1 of HydroQual’s comments, it argued that using all of the other factors assigned by EPA with the exception of the site

- specific sensitive area

factor and hazardous waste quantity factor, the HRS could be as low as 16.7, as compared with the site score of 50 as presented in the HRS docu mentation record at proposal.

Response : As established in section s 3.1 5 , 3.1 6 , and 3. 17 of this support document, the HR S score and supporting factors of the likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets factors were properly considered according to the HRS. Therefore, rescoring them with the commenter’s suggested values is not appropriate.

This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the site on the NPL

.Newtown Creek NPL Listing Support Document September 2010

74 

## 4. Conclusion

The original HRS score of this site was 50.00. Based on the above response to comments, the score remains unchanged. The final scores for the Newtown Creek site a re:

Ground Water Not Scored

Surface Water 100.00 Soil Exposure Not Scored

Air Not Scored

HRS Site Score 50.00

## Attachment 1

Alternate Evaluation TablesTable AAlternate Evaluation Background ConcentrationsSurface Samples (0'-2') - February 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYBackground ConcentrationsSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD107ANC-SD108ANC-SD109ANC-SD110ANC-SD111ANC-SD112AMaximumBackgroundDirectionof BiasEPA Sample No.(M)B5E77(M)B5E79(M)B5E81(M)B5E83(M)B5E85(M)B5E87Date:2/27/20092/27/20092/27/20092/27/20092/27/20092/27/2009Depth (ft)0-20-20-20-20-20-2CommentsReference(s)23, p. 26; 24, p.76; 25, pp. 67, 7223, p. 26; 24, p.75; 25, pp. 67,24, p. 78; 25, pp.67, 7223, p. 26; 24, p.77; 25, pp. 67,23, p. 27; 24, p.80; 25, pp. 67,23, p. 27; 24, p.79; 25, pp. 67,Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLArsenic12.3 J3.212.3JNo BiasCadmium1.6 UJ1.61.5 UJ1.51.5 UJ1.51.6 UJ1.61.6 UJ1.61.6 UJ1.61.6UJNo BiasChromium71.9 J3.168.4 J3.067 J3.175 J3.267.6 J3.367.8 J3.275JNo BiasCopper98.4 J8.098.4JNo BiasLead112 J3.1103 J3.0104 J3.1110 J3.2102 J3.3112JNo BiasNickel27.9 J12.428.8 J12.126 J12.329.8 J12.628.4 J13.128.8 J12.829.8JNo BiasSilver2.4 J3.22.4JNo BiasZinc217 J18.6216 J18.1205 J18.5231 J18.9210 J19.7217 J19.2231JNo BiasReference(s)29, pp. 46, 60-63,92-9329, pp. 47, 60-63, 9329, pp. 48, 60-63, 93-9429, pp. 49, 60-63, 9429, pp. 50, 60-63, 94-9529, pp. 23, 60-62, 79VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLChlorobenzene25 UJ2524 U2422 U2224 U2425 U2524 U2425UIsopropylbenzene25 UJ2524 U2422 U2224 U2425 U2524 U2425UReference(s)35, pp. 17, 22, 95,208-20935, pp. 17, 96,210-21135, pp. 17, 97,211-21235, pp. 17, 98,213-21435, pp. 17, 99,214-21535, pp. 17, 100,216-217SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcenaphthene520 U520550 U550550 U550560 U560540 U540560UNo BiasFluorene520 U520550 U550550 U550560 U560540 U540560UNo BiasPhenanthrene25 J52024 J55019 J55020 J56023 J540560UNo BiasAnthracene520 U520550 U550550 U550560 U560540 U540560UNo BiasFluoranthene42 J52041 J55035 J55043 J56046 J540560UNo BiasPyrene49 J52045 J55034 J55044 J56048 J540560UNo BiasButylbenzylphthalate520 U520550 U550550 U550560 U560540 U540560UNo BiasBenzo(a)anthracene33 J52030 J55027 J55030 J56035 J540560UNo BiasChrysene36 J52032 J55027 J55028 J56031 J540560UNo BiasBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate520 U520550 U550550 U550560 U560540 U540560UNo BiasBenzo(b)fluoranthene36 J52035 J55032 J55035 J56042 J540560UNo BiasBenzo(a)pyrene36 J52031 J55029 J55029 J56034 J540560UNo BiasIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene29 J52028 J55027 J55027 J56027 J540560UNo BiasBenzo(g,h,i)perylene31 J52027 J55024 J55024 J56028 J540560UNo BiasReference(s)35, pp. 23-25,116-117, 234-35, pp. 23-25,118-119, 236-35, pp. 23-25,120-121, 238-35, pp. 23-25,122-123, 240-35, pp. 23-25,124-125, 242-PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAroclor-1242110 UJ110100 U100110 U110110 U110110 U110110 U110110UAroclor-1254110 UJ110100 U100110 U110110 U110110 U110110 U110110UReference(s)35, pp. 29-32,140, 24835, pp. 29, 141,24835, pp. 29, 142,24835, pp. 29, 143,24935, pp. 29, 144,24935, pp. 29, 145,249CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitU - not detectedSQL - Sample quantitation limitJ - qualified datamg/kg - milligrams per kilogramug/kg - micrograms per kilogramTable BAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYObserved Release ConcentrationsSAT2 Sample No.Background LevelNC-SD01ANC-SD03ANC-SD21ANC-SD22ANC-SD23ANC-SD24AEPA Sample No.(M)B5DJ5(M)B5DJ9(M)B5DN5(M)B5DN7(M)B5DN9(M)B5DP1Date:2/11/20092/11/20092/25/20092/25/20092/25/20092/25/2009Depth (ft)0-20-20-20-20-20-2CommentsMS/MSDMS/MSDReference(s)23, pp. 8-9; 24, p. 2; 25,pp. 25-2623, p. 9; 24, p. 3; 25,pp. 25-2623, p. 19; 24, p. 23; 25,pp. 40, 4723, p. 18; 24, p. 22; 25,pp. 40, 4923, p. 19; 24, p. 26; 25,pp. 40, 4723, p. 19; 24, p. 27; 25,pp. 40, 47Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLArsenic12.3Cadmium1.6U3.51.36.11.43.51.54.41.4Chromium75Copper129.3JLead149.8JNickel29.8Silver4.5JZinc231Reference(s)28, pp. 10, 55-57, 6328, pp. 11, 55-57, 6628, pp. 12, 55-57, 6628, pp. 13, 55-57, 67VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)Chlorobenzene25UIsopropylbenzene25UReference(s)SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcenaphthene560UFluorene560UPhenanthrene560U6004401,200420Anthracene560U780440Fluoranthene560U1,1004401,3004201,300480Pyrene560U1,400480Butylbenzylphthalate560U670480Benzo(a)anthracene560U730440630420820480Chrysene560U680440650420740480Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate560U6404404,200480Benzo(b)fluoranthene560U7104407604201,100480Benzo(a)pyrene560U690440630420820480Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene560U670480Benzo(g,h,i)perylene560U710480Reference(s)30, pp. 25-26, 6130, pp. 33-34, 68-6933, pp. 90-91, 265PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)Aroclor-1242110UAroclor-1254110UReference(s)CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable BAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD25ANC-SD26ANC-SD27ANC-SD28ANC-SD29ANC-SD30ANC-SD31AEPA Sample No.(M)B5DP3(M)B5DP5(M)B5DP7(M)B5DP9(M)B5DQ1(M)B5DQ3(M)B5DQ5Date:2/25/20092/25/20092/25/20092/25/20092/25/20092/25/20092/25/2009Depth (ft)0-20-20-20-20-20-20-2CommentsReference(s)23, p. 19; 24, p. 28; 25,pp. 41, 4723, p. 19; 24, p. 29; 25,pp. 41, 4723, p. 19; 24, p. 30; 25,pp. 41, 4723, p. 19; 24, p. 31; 25,pp. 41, 4823, p. 19; 24, p. 33; 25,pp. 41, 4823, p. 19; 24, p. 32; 25,pp. 41, 4823, p. 19; 24, p. 34; 25,pp. 41, 48Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLArsenicCadmium36.81.32.00.94161964.21.45.01.44.11.56.21.44.81.6Chromium3952.6Copper1,2806.6LeadNickel34810.5SilverZinc2,17015.8Reference(s)28, pp. 14, 55-57, 6828, pp. 15, 55-57, 6828, pp. 16, 55-57, 6928, pp. 17, 55-57, 69-7028, pp. 18, 55-57, 7028, pp. 19, 55-57, 7128, pp. 20, 55-57, 71VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzeneReference(s)SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLAcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthene640460Pyrene720460ButylbenzylphthalateBenzo(a)anthraceneChryseneBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate3,4004601,100460Benzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyreneIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneReference(s)33, pp. 96, 27133, pp. 19, 193PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1254Reference(s)CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable BAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD32ANC-SD33ANC-SD34ANC-SD35ANC-SD36ANC-SD37ANC-SD38AEPA Sample No.(M)B5DQ7(M)B5DQ9(M)B5DR1(M)B5DR3(M)B5DR5(M)B5DR7(M)B5DR9Date:2/25/20092/25/20092/25/20092/25/20092/25/20092/25/20092/25/2009Depth (ft)0-20-20-20-20-20-20-2CommentsReference(s)23, p. 19; 24, p. 35; 25,pp. 41, 4823, p. 19; 24, p. 36; 25,pp. 41, 4823, p. 19; 24, p. 37; 25,pp. 41, 4823, p. 19; 24, p. 39; 25,pp. 41, 5023, p. 19; 24, p. 38; 25,pp. 43, 4823, p. 19; 24, p. 40; 25,pp. 43, 5023, p. 20; 24, p. 41; 25,pp. 43, 50Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLArsenicCadmium5.81.65.41.65.21.617.01.68.21.89.01.7ChromiumCopper5203.51,0108.06679.17098.4LeadNickel1405.617312.9SilverZincReference(s)28, pp. 21, 55-57, 7228, pp. 22, 55-57, 7328, pp. 36, 55-57, 7428, pp. 37, 55-57, 74-7528, pp. 38, 55-57, 7528, pp. 39, 55-57, 7628, pp. 40, 55-57, 76VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzeneReference(s)SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthrene980300Anthracene820300Fluoranthene3,200300Pyrene2,900300ButylbenzylphthalateBenzo(a)anthracene1,800300Chrysene1,600300Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate950550600560Benzo(b)fluoranthene1,100300Benzo(a)pyrene1,000300Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneReference(s)33, pp. 102-103, 276-27733, pp. 33, 20633, pp. 106, 280PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1254Reference(s)CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable BAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD39ANC-SD40ANC-SD41ANC-SD42ANC-SD43ANC-SD44ANC-SD45AEPA Sample No.(M)B5DS1(M)B5DS3(M)B5DS5(M)B5DS7(M)B5DS9(M)B5DT1(M)B5DT3Date:2/26/20092/26/20092/26/20092/26/20092/26/20092/26/20092/26/2009Depth (ft)0-20-20-20-20-20-20-2CommentsMS/MSDReference(s)23, p. 21; 24, p. 42; 25,pp. 55, 6423, p. 21; 24, p. 43; 25,pp. 55, 6423, p. 21; 24, p. 44; 25,pp. 55, 6423, p. 21; 24, p. 45; 25,pp. 55, 6423, p. 21; 24, p. 46; 25,pp. 55, 6423, p. 21; 24, p. 47; 25,pp. 55, 6423, p. 21; 24, p. 48; 25,pp. 56, 64Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLArsenicCadmium8.31.632.31.77.51.65.41.96.51.67.01.79.01.5Chromium3753.4Copper7538.12,1608.47697.86439.48027.91,0608.51,0707.7LeadNickel29013.5SilverZinc2,14020.2Reference(s)29, pp. 3, 60-62, 6429, pp. 4, 60-62, 64-6529, pp. 5, 60-62, 6529, pp. 6, 60-62, 6829, pp. 7, 60-62, 6829, pp. 8, 60-62, 6929, pp. 9, 60-62, 70VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzeneReference(s)SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLAcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthrene660550AnthraceneFluoranthene1,000550Pyrene1,000550ButylbenzylphthalateBenzo(a)anthraceneChryseneBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyreneIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneReference(s)34, pp. 83, 247PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1254Reference(s)CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable BAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD46ANC-SD47ANC-SD48ANC-SD49ANC-SD50ANC-SD51ANC-SD52AEPA Sample No.(M)B5DT5(M)B5DT7(M)B5DT9(M)B5DW1(M)B5DW3(M)B5DW5(M)B5DW7Date:2/26/20092/26/20092/26/20092/26/20092/26/20092/26/20092/26/2009Depth (ft)0-20-20-20-20-20-20-2CommentsReference(s)23, p. 21; 24, p. 49; 25,pp. 56, 6423, p. 21; 24, p. 50; 25,pp. 56, 6423, p. 21; 24, p. 51; 25,pp. 56, 6423, p. 22; 24, p. 53; 25,pp. 57, 6423, p. 22; 24, p. 52; 25,pp. 56, 6523, p. 22; 24, p. 55; 25,pp. 57, 6523, p. 22; 24, p. 54; 25,pp. 58, 65Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLArsenic1973.9Cadmium11.81.613.51.413.21.514.91.68.21.294.61.924.52.0Chromium8483.9Copper1,6708.11,7307.21,8507.61,8407.91,3605.811,0009.72,70010.0LeadNickel18411.619712.218112.61,42015.528715.9SilverZinc6,53023.32,02023.9Reference(s)29, pp. 10, 60-62, 7029, pp. 11, 60-62, 7129, pp. 12, 60-62, 7229, pp. 13, 60-62, 7229, pp. 14, 60-62, 7329, pp. 15, 60-62, 73-7429, pp. 16, 60-62, 74-75VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLChlorobenzene69 J31IsopropylbenzeneReference(s)34, pp. 40-41, 150, 204-205SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLAcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthene760500Pyrene680500ButylbenzylphthalateBenzo(a)anthraceneChryseneBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyreneIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneReference(s)34, pp. 95, 254PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1254Reference(s)CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable BAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD53ANC-SD54ANC-SD55ANC-SD56ANC-SD57ANC-SD93ANC-SD58AEPA Sample No.(M)B5DW9(M)B5DX1(M)B5DX3(M)B5DX5(M)B5DX7(M)B5E49(M)B5DX9Date:2/26/20092/26/20092/26/20092/26/20092/27/20092/27/20092/26/2009Depth (ft)0-20-20-20-20-20-20-2CommentsDup. (SD57A)Reference(s)23, p. 22; 24, p. 57; 25,pp. 58, 6523, p. 22; 24, p. 56; 25,pp. 59, 6523, p. 23; 24, p. 59; 25,pp. 59, 6523, p. 22; 24, p. 58; 25,pp. 60, 6523, p. 25; 24, p. 61; 25,pp. 65, 7323, p. 25; 24, p. 61; 25,pp. 65, 6723, p. 23; 24, p. 60; 25,pp. 60, 65Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLArsenic1893.6Cadmium1241.826.52.062.22.244.12.136.12.738.52.829.52.5Chromium1,0003.66164.34484.33935.6Copper12,1008.92,6609.85,31010.84,17010.62,53013.72,68014.12,48012.3LeadNickel1,42014.232815.769517.251417.036122.037822.632819.6SilverZinc7,34021.42,53023.54,44025.93,37025.52,85033.02,99033.92,43029.4Reference(s)29, pp. 17, 60-62, 7529, pp. 18, 60-62, 75-7629, pp. 19, 60-62, 76-7729, pp. 20, 60-62, 7729, pp. 21, 60-62, 77-7829, pp. 44, 60-63, 9129, pp. 22, 60-62, 78-79VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzeneReference(s)SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)AcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthenePyreneButylbenzylphthalateBenzo(a)anthraceneChryseneBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyreneIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneReference(s)PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1254Reference(s)CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable BAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD59ANC-SD60ANC-SD61ANC-SD62ANC-SD63ANC-SD64ANC-SD65AEPA Sample No.(M)B5DY1(M)B5DY3(M)B5DY5(M)B5DY7(M)B5DY9(M)B5DZ1(M)B5DZ3Date:2/27/20092/27/20092/27/20092/27/20092/27/20092/27/20092/27/2009Depth (ft)0-20-20-20-20-20-20-2CommentsMS/MSDReference(s)23, p. 25; 24, p. 63; 25,pp. 65, 7423, p. 25; 24, p. 62; 25,pp. 65, 7423, p. 25; 24, p. 65; 25,pp. 66, 7123, p. 25; 24, p. 64; 25,pp. 66, 7523, p. 25; 24, p. 67; 25,pp. 66, 7123, p. 25; 24, p. 66; 25,pp. 66, 7123, p. 26; 24, p. 69; 25,pp. 66, 71Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLArsenicCadmium36.52.540.02.317.02.54.30.711.42.221.81.043.42.4Chromium3815.04114.65094.8CopperLead7374.68385.08704.8Nickel34120.136018.428120.01386.01828.039819.2SilverZinc2,91030.23,19027.62,22030.03,5609.01,65026.71,88012.04,11028.8Reference(s)29, pp. 31, 60-63, 8129, pp. 32, 60-63, 81-8229, pp. 33, 60-63, 82-8329, pp. 34, 60-63, 8529, pp. 35, 60-63, 85-8629, pp. 36, 60-63, 8629, pp. 37, 60-63, 86-87VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzene7812Reference(s)35, pp. 38, 154SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLAcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthene7,9002,400Pyrene12,0002,4002,1002,100ButylbenzylphthalateBenzo(a)anthracene3,9002,400Chrysene3,6002,400Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate16,0002,40011,0002,100Benzo(b)fluoranthene2,7002,400Benzo(a)pyrene2,8002,400Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneReference(s)35, pp. 56-57, 176-17735, pp. 108, 228PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1254Reference(s)CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable BAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD66ANC-SD67ANC-SD68ANC-SD69ANC-SD94ANC-SD70ANC-SD71AEPA Sample No.(M)B5DZ5(M)B5DZ7(M)B5DZ9(M)B5E01(M)B5E51(M)B5E03(M)B5E05Date:2/27/20092/27/20092/27/20092/27/20092/27/20092/27/20092/27/2009Depth (ft)0-20-20-20-20-20-20-2CommentsDup. (SD69A)Reference(s)23, p. 25; 24, p. 68; 25,pp. 66, 7123, p. 26; 24, p. 70; 25,pp. 66, 7623, p. 26; 24, p. 71; 25,pp. 66, 7623, p. 26; 24, p. 72; 25,pp. 66, 7723, p. 26; 24, p. 72; 25,pp. 66, 7723, p. 26; 24, p. 73; 25,pp. 66, 7823, p. 26; 24, p. 74; 25,pp. 66, 78Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLArsenicCadmium6.2 J1.942.91.560.01.541.71.956.01.91401.64571.6Chromium4613.15263.04063.95003.89823.22,1403.3CopperLead7593.09103.99733.81,4403.22,0803.3Nickel36112.342812.135715.642915.370912.81,79013.1SilverZinc1,70022.63,45018.43,94018.22,93023.33,49022.95,90019.29,21019.6Reference(s)29, pp. 38, 60-63, 87-8829, pp. 39, 60-63, 8829, pp. 40, 60-63, 88-8929, pp. 41, 60-63, 8929, pp. 45, 60-63, 91-9229, pp. 42, 60-63, 9029, pp. 43, 60-63, 90-91VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzeneReference(s)SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcenaphthene1,7001,400FluorenePhenanthrene4,9001,400800550Anthracene1,9001,400Fluoranthene8808603,3001,4001,000550Pyrene1,2008605,0001,4001,400550ButylbenzylphthalateBenzo(a)anthracene2,0001,400Chrysene1,8001,400Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate6,0008609,0001,40054,0007,9008,200550Benzo(b)fluoranthene1,5001,400Benzo(a)pyrene1,5001,400Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneReference(s)35, pp. 58, 17835, pp. 60-61, 18035, pp. 8, 11, 62, 181-18235, pp. 64, 18435, pp.66, 186PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLAroclor-12422,300110Aroclor-1254Reference(s)35, pp. 15, 87, 196CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable BAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD74ANC-SD75ANC-SD76AEPA Sample No.(M)B5E11(M)B5E13(M)B5E15Date:2/25/20092/25/20092/25/2009Depth (ft)0-20-20-2CommentsReference(s)23, p. 18; 24, p. 21; 25,pp. 43, 4923, p. 19; 24, p. 24; 25,pp. 43, 4723, p. 19; 24, p. 25; 25,pp. 43, 47Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLArsenicCadmium5.81.53.31.513.32.2ChromiumCopper59511.1LeadNickelSilverZincReference(s)28, pp. 41, 55-57, 7728, pp. 42, 55-57, 7728, pp. 43, 55-57, 78VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzeneReference(s)SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)AcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthenePyreneButylbenzylphthalateBenzo(a)anthraceneChryseneBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyreneIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneReference(s)PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1254Reference(s)CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable CAlternate Evaluation Background ConcentrationsSubsurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYBackground ConcentrationsSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD107BNC-SD108BNC-SD109BNC-SD110BNC-SD111BNC-SD112BMaximumBackgroundDirectionof BiasEPA Sample No.(M)B5E78(M)B5E80(M)B5E82(M)B5E84(M)B5E86(M)B5E88Date:3/10/20093/10/20093/10/20093/10/20093/10/20093/10/2009Depth (feet)4.0-6.04.0-5.04.0-6.04.0-6.04.0-6.04.0-5.5CommentsReference(s)23, p. 33; 24, p.81; 25, pp. 82-8323, p. 33; 24, p.82; 25, pp. 82-8323, p. 33; 24, p.83; 25, pp. 82-8323, p. 33; 24, p.84; 25, pp. 82-8323, p. 33; 24, p.85; 25, pp. 82-8323, p. 33; 24, p.86; 25, pp. 82-83Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAntimony16.5 UJ16.516.7 UJ16.716.2 UJ16.217.2 UJ17.216 UJ16.018.2 UJ18.218.2UJNo BiasArsenic14.4 J2.814.1 J2.814.2 J2.713.1 J2.915.3 J2.713.6 J3.015.3JNo BiasCadmium1.4 UJ1.41.4 UJ1.41.4 UJ1.41.4 UJ1.42.1 J1.31.5 UJ1.52.1JNo BiasChromium94.6 J2.874.9 J2.892.1 J2.785 J2.9134 J2.795.4 J3.0134JNo BiasCobalt12.8 J13.813.3 J13.912.7 J13.511.9 J14.312 J13.311.9 J15.213.3JNo BiasNickel37.2 J11.034.9 J11.141.4 J10.834 J11.538.6 J10.741.5 J12.141.5JNo BiasSelenium9.6 UJ9.69.7 UJ9.79.5 UJ9.510 UJ10.09.3 UJ9.310.6 UJ10.610.6UJNo BiasReference(s)36, pp. 2-5, 14-15 36, pp. 2-4, 8, 16-1736, pp. 2-4, 9, 17 36, pp. 2-4, 10, 17-1836, pp. 2-4, 11, 18-1936, pp. 2-4, 12, 19VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetone503315045753685451304311042150Chloroform16 U1623 U2318 U1822 U2221 U2121 U2123UChlorobenzene16 U1623 U2318 U1822 U2221 U2121 U2123UIsopropylbenzene16 U1623 U2318 U1822 U2221 U2121 U2123UReference(s)46, pp. 108, 281-28246, pp. 109, 283-28446, pp. 110, 284-28546, pp. 111, 285-28646, pp. 112, 287-28846, pp. 113, 288-289SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetophenone41 J44041 J51042 J45038 J45055 J45090 J490510UNo BiasNaphthalene43 J44037 J51035 J45029 J45025 J45049 J490510UNo Bias2-Methylnaphthalene440 U440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U45023 J490510UNo Bias1,1'-Biphenyl440 U440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U450490 U490510UNo BiasAcenaphthylene440 U440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U45033 J490510UNo BiasAcenaphthene440 U440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U45017 J490510UNo BiasDibenzofuran440 U440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U450490 U490510UNo BiasFluorene440 U440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U45015 J490510UNo BiasPhenanthrene16 J440510 U51014 J450450 U450450 U45080 J490510UNo BiasAnthracene440 U440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U45045 J490510UNo BiasCarbazole440 U440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U450490 U490510UNo BiasFluoranthene38 J44016 J51031 J450450 U45014 J450490 U490510UNo BiasPyrene440 U44021 J51038 J450450 U45014 J450210 J490210JNo BiasBenzo(a)anthracene30 J44017 J51028 J450450 U45014 J450130 J490510UNo BiasChrysene30 J440510 U51027 J450450 U450450 U450140 J490510UNo BiasBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate440 U440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U4501,200 U4901,200UNo BiasBenzo(b)fluoranthene32 J440510 U51032 J450450 U450450 U450170 J490170JNo BiasBenzo(k)fluoranthene16 J440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U45051 J490510UNo BiasBenzo(a)pyrene32 J440510 U51023 J450450 U450450 U450150 J490510UNo BiasIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene440 U440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U45081 J490510UNo BiasDibenzo(a,h)anthracene440 U440510 U510450 U450450 U450450 U45026 J490510UNo BiasBenzo(g,h,i)perylene22 J440510 U51017 J450450 U450450 U45098 J490510UNo BiasReference(s)46, pp. 119-120,296-29846, pp. 121-122,298-30046, pp. 123-124,300-30246, pp. 125-126,302-30346, pp. 127-128,304-30546, pp. 129-130,305-307PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAroclor-124285 U8598 U9888 U8888 U8887 U8794 U9498UAroclor-125485 U8598 U9888 U8888 U8887 U8794 U9498UReference(s)46, pp. 139, 31046, pp. 140, 31146, pp. 141, 31146, pp. 142, 31146, pp. 143, 31146, pp.144, 312CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitU - not detectedSQL - Sample quantitation limitJ - qualified datamg/kg - milligrams per kilogramug/kg - micrograms per kilogramTable DAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSubsurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYObserved Release ConcentrationsSAT2 Sample No.Background LevelNC-SD01BNC-SD07BNC-SD08BNC-SD09BNC-SD10BNC-SD13BNC-SD14BNC-SD15BEPA Sample No.B5DJ6B5DK8B5DL0(M)B5DL2(M)B5DL4B5DM0(M)B5DM2(M)B5DM4Date:2/11/20092/17/20092/17/20092/17/20092/17/20092/18/20093/13/20093/19/2009Depth (feet)3.5-4.04.0-6.04.0-6.04.0-6.04.0-4.84.0-6.04.0-4.54.0-5.5CommentsReference(s)23, p. 9; 24, p. 2; 25,23, p. 12; 24, p. 7; 25,23, p. 12; 24, p. 8; 25,23, p. 12; 24, p. 9; 25,23, p. 13; 24, p. 10; 25,23, p. 15; 24, p. 13; 25,23, p. 37; 24, p. 88; 25,23, p. 50; 24, p. 105; 25,Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAntimony18.2UArsenic15.3Cadmium2.120.31.227.41.328.91.428.61.1Chromium134Cobalt13.3Nickel41.55109.1Selenium10.6UReference(s)27, pp. 30, 52, 6027, pp. 32, 52, 6137, pp. 3, 9, 1638, pp. 3, 5, 18VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)Acetone150Chloroform23UChlorobenzene23UIsopropylbenzene23UReference(s)SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetophenone510UNaphthalene510U3,0001,5001,6003902-Methylnaphthalene510U9103902,3001,5001,1'-Biphenyl510UAcenaphthylene510UAcenaphthene510U15,0001,5001,500390Dibenzofuran510U10,0001,500890390Fluorene510U58039024,0001,5001,800390Phenanthrene510U1,80039084,0001,5004,700390Anthracene510U87,0001,5002,400390Carbazole510U10,0001,500560390Fluoranthene510U6404801,10039056,0001,500Pyrene210J1,20039041,0001,500Benzo(a)anthracene510U60048052039018,0001,500Chrysene510U60048024,0001,500Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate1,200U1,4004805,1004403,7003901,9004204,0001,5004,300390Benzo(b)fluoranthene170J53048012,0001,500720390Benzo(k)fluoranthene510U4,5001,500Benzo(a)pyrene510U6104809,5001,500630390Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene510U4,9001,500Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene510UBenzo(g,h,i)perylene510U3,6001,500Reference(s)30, pp. 27-28, 6331, pp. 89, 20731, pp. 95, 21131, pp.100-101, 214-21531, pp.107, 21932, pp. 32-33, 101-10239, pp.37-38, 91-92PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLAroclor-124298U12092Aroclor-125498U22082Reference(s)31, pp. 125, 22831, pp. 131, 230CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable DAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSubsurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD17BNC-SD18BNC-SD19BNC-SD21BNC-SD22BNC-SD23BNC-SD24BNC-SD25BNC-SD26BEPA Sample No.(M)B5DM8(M)B5DN0(M)B5DN2(M)B5DN6(M)B5DN8(M)B5DP0(M)B5DP2(M)B5DP4(M)B5DP6Date:3/13/20093/13/20093/13/20093/16/20093/16/20093/17/20093/17/20093/17/20093/17/2009Depth (feet)4.0-5.04.0-6.04.0-6.04.0-5.04.0-5.03.0-3.52.5-34.0-6.03.5-4.0CommentsReference(s)23, p. 38; 24, p. 91; 25,23, p. 38; 24, p. 90; 25,23, p. 38; 24, p. 92; 25, pp.23, p. 41; 24, p. 96; 25,23, p. 41; 24, p. 98; 25,23, p. 44; 24, p. 100; 25, pp.23, p. 44; 24, p. 99; 25,23, p. 46; 24, p. 102; 25,23, p. 45; 24, p. 101; 25,Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAntimonyArsenicCadmium17.51.427.11.419.71.0ChromiumCobaltNickel54010.03109.954510.53787.73968.13488.5Selenium44.28.7Reference(s)37, pp. 3, 11, 1737, pp. 3, 12, 1837, pp. 3, 13, 1942, pp. 6, 18-19, 2342, pp. 7, 18-19, 23-2442, pp. 8, 18-19, 24-2542, pp. 9, 2542, pp. 10, 18-19, 25-2642, pp. 11, 18-19, 26VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)AcetoneChloroformChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzeneReference(s)SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetophenone530430Naphthalene13,00010,0008,0004305604102,8004301,1003302,5004502-Methylnaphthalene6,0004305204102,5004301,2003302,2004501,1'-Biphenyl1,200430Acenaphthylene610430Acenaphthene17,00010,0006,1004305604101,8004301,1003301,300450Dibenzofuran11,00010,0004,7004301,100430650330920450Fluorene21,00010,0009,6004306904103,1004301,5003302,400450Phenanthrene78,00010,00047,0004302,90041054044010,0004305,9003308,400450Anthracene32,00010,0006,1004309304103,5004301,4003302,500450Carbazole680430Fluoranthene59045053,00010,00031,0004308,2004303,7003305,600450Pyrene37,00010,00021,0004305,5004303,2003304,600450Benzo(a)anthracene17,00010,0009,2004302,8004301,5003302,500450Chrysene14,00010,0008,6004302,7004301,5003302,300450Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateBenzo(b)fluoranthene11,00010,0004,8004301,8004309503301,400450Benzo(k)fluoranthene1,800430670430Benzo(a)pyrene4,3004301,5004308403301,000450Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene1,700430710430520450Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene640430Benzo(g,h,i)perylene1,300430640430Reference(s)46, pp. 34, 21346, pp. 38-39, 216-21746, pp. 42-43, 219-22146, pp. 46, 223-22446, pp. 48, 22646, pp. 50-51, 227-22946, pp. 54-55, 231-23246, pp. 58-59, 235-236PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1254Reference(s)CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable DAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSubsurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD27BNC-SD28BNC-SD29BNC-SD30BNC-SD31BNC-SD32BNC-SD33BNC-SD34BNC-SD36BEPA Sample No.(M)B5DP8(M)B5DQ0(M)B5DQ2(M)B5DQ4(M)B5DQ6(M)B5DQ8(M)B5DR0(M)B5DR2(M)B5DR6Date:3/18/20093/18/20093/19/20093/19/20093/19/20093/19/20093/20/20093/20/20093/20/2009Depth (feet)2.75-3.252.0-3.04.0-5.54.0-6.03.5-4.03.5-4.03.5-4.53.5-4.04.0-4.5CommentsMS/MSDReference(s)23, p. 48; 24, p. 104; 25,23, p. 48; 24, p. 103; 25,23, p. 50; 24, p. 108; 25,23, p. 50; 24, p. 106; 25,23, p. 50; 24, p. 107; 25,23, p. 50; 24, p. 109; 25,23, p. 53; 24, p. 111; 25,23, p. 53; 24, p. 110; 25,23, p. 53; 24, p. 112; 25,Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAntimonyArsenicCadmiumChromium7212.56822.4CobaltNickel1786.58089.93639.01,1509.61,83010.56349.96379.032311.87559.5SeleniumReference(s)38, pp. 6, 1938, pp. 3, 7, 1938, pp. 3, 8, 2038, pp. 3, 9, 20-2138, pp. 3, 10, 2138, pp. 3, 14, 23-2438, pp. 3, 15, 2438, pp. 3, 16, 2538, pp. 3, 17, 25-26VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetoneChloroform1,6001,400ChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzene1,3001,2001,6001,300Reference(s)39, pp. 30, 8139, pp. 32, 84-8539, pp. 33, 85-86SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetophenoneNaphthalene7002806204102,3004101,1004202-Methylnaphthalene5902802,10041010,0004105,7004207903901,1'-Biphenyl830410AcenaphthyleneAcenaphthene5502808904102,500410570420Dibenzofuran1,100410Fluorene8102801,1004101,800410970420Phenanthrene3,7002807904203,80041012,0004109,1004201,1004402,200390830400Anthracene1,200280960410CarbazoleFluoranthene2,5002801,6004102,3004108304401,400390Pyrene1,8002802,2004104,3004101,1004401,600390Benzo(a)anthracene1,1002801,1004101,800410550440860390Chrysene1,1002808004102,300410480440700390Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate22,0004109,4004106,9004206,6004406,9003902,800400Benzo(b)fluoranthene5802806804101,100410660390Benzo(k)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyrene5702805804101,100410Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneDibenzo(a,h)anthraceneBenzo(g,h,i)perylene560410Reference(s)39, pp. 39-40, 93-9439, pp. 41, 9639, pp. 43-44, 97-9839, pp. 47-48, 100-10239, pp. 51, 104-10539, pp. 55, 108-10940, pp. 7-8, 46-4740, pp. 13, 52-53PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAroclor-1242920811,10081650853707580078Aroclor-1254Reference(s)39, pp. 67, 11739, pp. 71, 11839, pp. 77, 11940, pp. 18, 5640, pp. 20, 56CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable DAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSubsurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD38BNC-SD39BNC-SD93BNC-SD42BNC-SD45BNC-SD46BNC-SD47BNC-SD48BNC-SD49BEPA Sample No.(M)B5DS0(M)B5DS2(M)B5E50(M)B5DS8(M)B5DT4(M)B5DT6(M)B5DT8(M)B5DW0(M)B5DW2Date:3/25/20093/25/20093/25/20093/25/20093/25/20093/25/20093/25/20093/25/20093/31/2009Depth (feet)2.0-3.04.0-5.54.0-5.54.0-6.04.0-6.04.0-6.04.0-5.54.0-604.0-6.0CommentsDup. (SD39B)Reference(s)23, p. 58; 24, p. 113; 25,23, p. 58; 24, p. 114; 25, pp.23, p. 58; 24, p. 114; 25,23, p. 58; 24, p. 115; 25,23, p. 59; 24, p. 116; 25,23, p. 59; 24, p. 117; 25,23, p. 59; 24, p. 118; 25,23, p. 59; 24, p. 119; 25,23, p. 64; 24, 9. 123; 25,Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAntimony54.813.8Arsenic1091.61522.71572.46212.11912.7Cadmium70.71.465.11.486.41.395.31.482.41.267.11.199.71.3Chromium7032.78282.51,0602.78752.48242.7CobaltNickel55811.381510.81,20010.24216.61,49010.81,6409.65,0108.51,76010.6Selenium12.65.71898.0Reference(s)41, pp. 3-5, 20-2141, pp. 3-4, 6, 2141, pp. 3-4, 18, 2941, pp. 3-4, 7, 21-2241, pp. 3-4, 8, 22-2341, pp. 3-4, 12, 2541, pp. 3-4, 13, 25-2641, pp. 3-4, 14, 2643, pp. 4-5, 24-25VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)AcetoneChloroformChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzeneReference(s)SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetophenoneNaphthalene2,6001,1006,9007702-Methylnaphthalene2,7001,1005,7007701,1'-BiphenylAcenaphthyleneAcenaphthene4,5002,0002,400770DibenzofuranFluorene5,8002,0002,200770Phenanthrene3,2001,9003,0008307,0002,0001,6004201,4003604,7001,1009003609,400770Anthracene6,5002,0005304202,300770CarbazoleFluoranthene6604502,5001,9002,00083016,0002,0001,3004209103602,0001,1005603604,100770Pyrene3,1001,9005,300770Benzo(a)anthracene1,70083011,0002,0008304205703602,200770Chrysene1,20083011,0002,0007504205203601,3001,1002,200770Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate6,70045024,0001,90027,0008305,7004207,2003603,9001,1007,100360Benzo(b)fluoranthene9308306,5002,0005504201,800770Benzo(k)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyrene8408307,4002,0005804201,900770Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene3,0002,000890770Dibenzo(a,h)anthraceneBenzo(g,h,i)perylene3,0002,000920770Reference(s)44, pp. 19, 12744, pp. 21, 128-12944, pp. 43-44, 14944, pp. 23-24, 130-13144, pp. 25-26, 132-13344, pp. 27, 13444, pp. 31, 137-13844, pp. 33, 14045, pp. 24-25, 140-141PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAroclor-124230087660827307159070Aroclor-1254Reference(s)44, pp. 61, 15944, pp. 65, 16044, pp. 66, 16044, pp. 69, 161CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable DAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSubsurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD50BNC-SD51BNC-SD52BNC-SD53BNC-SD54BNC-SD55BNC-SD56BNC-SD57BNC-SD58BEPA Sample No.(M)B5DW4(M)B5DW6(M)B5DW8(M)B5DX0(M)B5DX2(M)B5DX4(M)B5DX6(M)B5DX8(M)B5DY0Date:3/26/20093/31/20093/26/20093/31/20093/26/20093/31/20093/31/20093/31/20093/31/2009Depth (feet)3.0-3.54.0-6.04.0-5.54.0-5.54.0-5.54.0-6.04.0-6.04.0-6.04.0-6.0CommentsMS/MSDReference(s)23, p. 61; 24, p. 120; 25,23, p. 65; 24, p. 124; 25,23, p. 62; 24, p. 121; 25,23, p. 65; 24, p. 125; 25,23, p. 62; 24, p. 122; 25,23, p. 65; 24, p. 126; 25,23, p. 65; 24, p. 128; 25,23, p. 65; 24, p. 127; 25,23, p. 65; 24, p. 129; 25,Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAntimony53.216.943.517.3Arsenic4422.44812.83942.7Cadmium53.91.21581.41051.4Chromium8402.41,0802.89042.7Cobalt77.213.9Nickel4,6909.74,57011.12,66010.9Selenium35.39.7Reference(s)41, pp. 4, 15, 2743, pp. 4, 6, 2541, pp. 4, 16, 27-2841, pp. 4, 17, 2843, pp. 4, 11, 28-29VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetoneChloroformChlorobenzene28,0001,500Isopropylbenzene3,6001,5009,6001,4001,8001,500Reference(s)45, pp. 3, 11045, pp. 4, 11245, pp. 5, 11345, pp. 9, 119SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetophenoneNaphthalene5,7001,2001,6004709204404,7009009,4001,90086,0007,1005,2009602,3005305,5009202-Methylnaphthalene4,2001,2002,6004701,5004402,0009007,5001,90029,0007,1004,8009601,0005308,1009201,1'-BiphenylAcenaphthyleneAcenaphthene1,7001,2007204707304401,1009004,2001,9009,9007,1001,5009607505304,000920DibenzofuranFluorene1,7001,2007204709904403,8001,9001,4009605605302,700920Phenanthrene7,7001,2004,2004703,8004403,60090016,0001,90015,0007,1007,0009602,40053011,000920Anthracene1,9001,2005604404,1001,9001,4009606205303,300920CarbazoleFluoranthene4,0001,2001,3004701,5004401,5009009,4001,9003,1009609105304,900920Pyrene5,3001,2002,0004702,4004402,40090013,0001,9008,2007,1004,5009601,8005307,300920Benzo(a)anthracene2,3001,2007504701,0004403,8001,9001,9009607705302,700920Chrysene2,5001,2008104708404409209004,2001,9001,8009606005302,500920Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate4,0004706,6004406,30090019,0001,9006,3005305,000920Benzo(b)fluoranthene1,5001,2005704707304403,2001,9001,5009606005302,800920Benzo(k)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyrene1,6001,2006204706804403,2001,9001,7009606705303,300920Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene1,600920Dibenzo(a,h)anthraceneBenzo(g,h,i)perylene1,500920Reference(s)44, pp. 37-38, 142-14445, pp. 26-27, 141-14344, pp. 39-40, 144-14645, pp. 28, 143-14444, pp. 41-42, 146-14745, pp. 30, 145-14645, pp. 32-33, 147-14845, pp. 34-35, 149-15045, pp. 36-37, 150-152PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1254Reference(s)CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable DAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSubsurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD59BNC-SD60BNC-SD63BNC-SD94BNC-SD65BNC-SD67BNC-SD68BNC-SD69BNC-SD71BEPA Sample No.(M)B5DY2(M)B5DY4(M)B5DZ0(M)B5E52(M)B5DZ4(M)B5DZ8(M)B5E00(M)B5E02(M)B5E06Date:3/31/20093/31/20094/1/20094/1/20094/1/20093/31/20094/1/20094/1/20094/1/2009Depth (feet)4.0-5.54.0-5.54.0-6.04.0-6.04.0-6.04.0-6.03.5-4.54.0-5.53.5-4.0CommentsDup. (SD63B)MS/MSDReference(s)23, p. 66; 24, p. 131; 25,23, p. 65; 24, p. 130; 25,23, p. 67; 24, p. 133; 25,23, p. 67; 24, p. 133; 25,23, p. 67; 24, p. 134; 25,23, p. 66; 24, p. 132; 25,23, p. 68; 24, p. 135; 25, pp.23, p.69; 24, p. 137; 25,23, p. 68; 24, p. 136; 25,Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAntimony53.619.349.618.046.817.949.318.952.918.159.818.940.217.1ArsenicCadmiumChromiumCobaltNickelSelenium587.4Reference(s)43, pp. 4, 14, 3043, pp. 4, 15, 3143, pp. 4, 16, 31-3243, pp. 4, 22, 35-3643, pp. 4, 17, 3243, pp. 4, 19, 33-3443, pp. 4, 20, 3443, pp. 4, 21, 34-35VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetone3,3002,900ChloroformChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzene7,4001,3001,9001,900Reference(s)45, pp. 14, 12645, pp. 15, 12845, pp. 17, 130SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetophenoneNaphthalene1,60075061,0007,7001,6001,00078,0008,30085,00011,0001,8001,1002-Methylnaphthalene1,60075031,0007,7002,7001,5002,4001,0001,5001,00028,0008,30018,00011,0001,7001,1001,1'-BiphenylAcenaphthyleneAcenaphthene1,50075012,0007,7009,2008,300DibenzofuranFluorene1,500750Phenanthrene6,00075024,0007,7004,3001,5004,7001,0002,6001,00032,0008,30036,00011,0003,1001,1005,0001,900Anthracene1,5007508,3007,70011,0008,30014,00011,000CarbazoleFluoranthene2,8007508,1007,7001,9001,5001,7001,00015,0008,30030,00011,0001,2001,1005,3001,900Pyrene3,70075014,0007,7004,0001,5002,9001,0001,8001,00022,0008,30034,00011,0002,2001,1005,3001,900Benzo(a)anthracene1,7007501,0001,0009,7008,30020,00011,0002,3001,900Chrysene1,5007501,0001,0009,0008,30017,00011,000Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate11,0001,5006,8001,0007,7001,0006,4001,10012,0001,900Benzo(b)fluoranthene1,00075029,000 J11,000Benzo(k)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyrene1,20075021,00011,000Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene13,00011,000Dibenzo(a,h)anthraceneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneReference(s)45, pp. 38-39, 152-15345, pp. 40, 154-15545, pp. 42, 156-15745, pp. 54, 167-16845, pp. 45, 158-15945, pp. 46, 159-16145, pp. 48-49, 161-16345, pp. 50, 163-16445, pp. 52, 166PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1254Reference(s)CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentrationTable DAlternate Evaluation Observed Release ConcentrationsSubsurface Samples - February-April 2009Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, NYSAT2 Sample No.NC-SD74BNC-SD75BNC-SD76BNC-SD92BEPA Sample No.(M)B5E12(M)B5E14(M)B5E16(M)B5E48Date:3/16/20093/16/20093/16/20093/16/2009Depth (feet)4.0-4.53.5-4.04.0-6.04.0-6.0CommentsDup. (SD76B)Reference(s)23, p. 41; 24, p. 97; 25,23, p. 40; 24, p. 94; 25,23, p. 41; 24, p. 95; 25,23, p. 41; 24, p. 95; 25, pp.Metals (mg/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAntimonyArsenicCadmiumChromium7682.86992.6CobaltNickel80911.039210.366210.357910.2SeleniumReference(s)42, pp. 12, 18-19, 2742, pp. 13, 18-19, 27-2842, pp. 14, 18-19, 2842, pp. 15, 18-19, 28-29VOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)AcetoneChloroformChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzeneReference(s)SVOCs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAcetophenoneNaphthalene1,1004305204002-Methylnaphthalene1,2004301,1'-BiphenylAcenaphthyleneAcenaphthene1,100430650400Dibenzofuran820430Fluorene1,500430850400Phenanthrene7,5004302,900400510410Anthracene2,500430CarbazoleFluoranthene6,5004302,400400650410Pyrene4,2004303,100400680410Benzo(a)anthracene2,2004301,500400Chrysene2,0004301,300400Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate9,100400Benzo(b)fluoranthene1,2004301,200400Benzo(k)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyrene950430850400Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene570400Dibenzo(a,h)anthraceneBenzo(g,h,i)perylene520400Reference(s)46, pp. 64-65, 240-24146, pp. 68-69, 244-24546, pp. 72, 249PCBs (ug/kg, dry weight)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAroclor-1242240894707720079Aroclor-1254Reference(s)46, pp. 103, 26146, pp. 105, 26146, pp. 106, 261CRQL - Contract required quantitation limitSQL - Sample quantitation limitmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramU - not detectedug/kg - micrograms per kilogramJ - qualified dataBackground level chosen from the highest background concentration