# Record of Decision for Phase III Parcels

Letterkenny Army Depot
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Baltimore District

Baltimore, MD Prepared for



# Weston Solutions, Inc.

1400 Weston Way

West Chester, PA 19380-1499

Prepared by 

## Contract Number: DACA31-94D-0063



# August 2003

03P-0752 L E T T E R K E N N Y

P

E N N S Y L V A N I A C H A M B E R S B U R G

, A R M Y D E P O T B A L T I M O R E D I S T R I C T Proud Past

Dynamic Future



# Final

SM

## Final



# Record of Decision

for Phase III Parcels

Letterkenny Army Depot Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

Delivery Order 0008

Contract Number DACA31-94D-0063

Prepared for



# U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Baltimore District

Baltimore, Maryland

Prepared by

Weston Solutions, Inc. 1400 Weston Way West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380-1499

August 2003

W.O. No. 02281.016.008.1911/2911MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_FM.DOC FINAL 

### ii 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE



## LIST OF ACRONYMNS ............................................................................ x

DECLARATION FOR THE RE CORD OF DECISION......................... 1

Site Name and Location............................................................................................... 1

Statement of Basis and Purpose................................................................................... 1



## DECISION SUMMARY ............................................................................. 1



# SECTION 1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND

DESCRIPTIO N ....................................................1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

1.2 PHASE III PARCELS .............................................................................................2

1.3 SMSR GROUNDWATER.......................................................................................3

1.4 PARCEL 3-89..........................................................................................................3

1.5 PARCEL 3-90..........................................................................................................5

1.6 PARCEL 3-91..........................................................................................................5

1.7 PARCELS 2-53L, 2-54L, 2-70L, 2R -80L-3, 2R-84L-3, AND 2R-86L-3..............5

1.8 GROUNDWATER ASSOCIATED WITH PHASE I PARCELS 24, 27,

AND 28....................................................................................................................6



# SECTION 2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT

ACTIVITIES........................................................6

2.1 HISTORY OF SITE ACTIVITIES..........................................................................6

2.2 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS.......................................7

2.3 HISTORY OF CERCLA CO MPLIANCE ACTIVITIES .......................................7

2.4 BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)..............................................9



# SECTION 3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

HIGHLIGHTS .....................................................9

# TABLE OF CONTENTS **(Continued)**

SECTION PAGE

MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_FM.DOC FINAL 

### iii 

# SECTION 4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE

ACTION..............................................................10

SECTION 5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ............................10

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...........................................................................10

5.1.1 Topography and Surface Drainage .........................................................10 5.1.2 Geology...................................................................................................11 5.1.3 Hydrogeology .........................................................................................11

5.1.4 Soils.........................................................................................................12

5.1.5 Four BRAC Sites ....................................................................................12

5.2 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION............................................13

5.2.1 Site Conceptual Model............................................................................13

5.2.2 SMSR Groundwater................................................................................14

5.2.3 OVSA......................................................................................................14 5.2.4 Former Uncurbed AST North of Building 532 Site................................15 5.2.5 Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant Site...........15 5.2.6 Building 400 Series FTA Site.................................................................16



# SECTION 6 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE

LAND AND RESOURCE USES ......................16

6.1 LAND USE............................................................................................................16

6.2 GROUNDWATER USE........................................................................................16

6.3 SURFACE-WATER USE .....................................................................................17



# SECTION 7 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS ..........................17

7.1 SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH RISKS .......................................................17

7.1.1 Introduction and Overview .....................................................................17 7.1.2 Identification of Chemicals of Concern (COCs) ....................................19

7.1.3 Site COPCs .............................................................................................20 7.1.4 Exposure Assessment..............................................................................21 7.1.5 Toxicity Assessment ...............................................................................21

7.1.6 Risk Characterization..............................................................................22

7.2 SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL RISKS..............................................................27

7.2.1 OVSA Site ..............................................................................................27 7.2.2 Backwash Discharge Area ......................................................................28 7.2.3 Building 400 Series Fire Training Area..................................................28

7.3 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS ..............................................................................29

# TABLE OF CONTENTS **(Continued)**

SECTION PAGE

MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_FM.DOC FINAL 

### iv 7.4 CORRECTION OF MINOR ERROR IN PROPOSED PLAN RISK

SUMMARY...........................................................................................................29



# SECTION 8 SELECTED REMEDY .....................................30

SECTION 9 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT

CHANGE S ..........................................................31

TABLES.................................................................................................... T-1

FIGURES.................................................................................................. F-1

GLOSSARY OF TERMS........................................................................G-1

RESPONSIVENE SS SUMMARY ............................................................. 1

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 REFERENCESMK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_FM.DOC FINAL 

### v 

# LIST OF TABLES

TITLE PAGE



### Table 1 RAGS Part D, Table 1, Selecti on of Exposure Pathways, Open Vehicle Storage Area—DSERTS Site LEAD 114, SE OU 8 ........................................T-1

Table 2 Site Conceptual Model, Ecologi cal Exposure Pathways of Concern, Open Vehicle Storage Area........................................................................................T-2

Table 3 RAGS Part D, Table 1, Selecti on of Exposure Pathways, Uncurbed AST North of Building 532, DSERTS Site LEAD-126, PDO OU 6........................T-3

Table 4 RAGS Part D, Table 1, Select ion of Exposure Pathways, Backwash Discharge Area (DSERTS Site LEAD-011).....................................................T-4

Table 5 Site Conceptual Model, Ecologi cal Exposure Pathways of Concern ...............T-5

Table 6 RAGS Part D, Table 1, Select ion of Exposure Pathways, Building 400 Series Fire Training Area—DSER TS Site LEAD-118, SE OU 8 ....................T-6

Table 7 Site Conceptual Model, Ecol ogical Exposure Pathways of Concern, Building 400 Series Fire Traini ng Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-118C,

SE OU 8............................................................................................................T-7

Table 8 RAGS Part D, Table 2.1, Occurre nce, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern, Open Vehicle Storage Area, DSERTS Site
LEAD-114, SE OU 8........................................................................................T-8

Table 9 RAGS Part D, Table 3.1, Medium-S pecific Exposure Point Concentration Summary, Open Vehicle Storag e Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-114,

SE OU 8..........................................................................................................T-11

Table 10 RAGS Part D, Table 2.1, Occu rrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern, Uncurbed AST North of Building 532, DSERTS Site LEAD-126, PDO OU 6 ...........................................................T-13

Table 11 RAGS Part D, Table 3.1, Medium -Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary, Uncurbed AST North of Building 532, DSERTS Site LEAD-126,

PDO OU 6.......................................................................................................T-14

Table 12 RAGS Part D, Table 2.1, Occu rrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern, Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant—DSERTS Site LEAD-011, SE OU 8 .................................T-15

Table 13 RAGS Part D, Table 3.1, Medium -Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary, Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant— DSERTS Site LEAD-011, SE OU 8...............................................................T-16

# LIST OF TABLES **(Continued)**

SECTION PAGE

MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_FM.DOC FINAL 

### vi

Table 14 RAGS Part D, Table 2.1, Occu rrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern, Bu ilding 400 Series Fire Training Area— DSERTS Site LEAD-118, SE OU 8...............................................................T-17

Table 15 RAGS Part D, Table 3.1, Medium -Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary, Building 400 Series Fire Training Area—DSERTS Site LEAD118, SE OU 8..................................................................................................T-19

Table 16 Summary of Chem icals Detected in Groundwat er, Open Vehicle Storage

Area.................................................................................................................T-20

Table 17 RAGS Part D, Table 6.1, Cancer Toxicity Data—Oral/Dermal, Phase III

Sites.................................................................................................................T-21

Table 18 RAGS Part D, Table 6.2, Cancer To xicity Data—Inhalation, Phase III SitesT-23

Table 19 RAGS Part D, Table 5.1, Non-Ca ncer Toxicity Data—Oral/Dermal, Phase

III Sites............................................................................................................T-25

Table 20 RAGS Part D, Table 5.2, Non-Can cer Toxicity Data—Inhalation, Phase III

Sites.................................................................................................................T-27

Table 21 Models for Calculating Age-Adju sted Cancer Residential RBSCs for Soil Ingestion..........................................................................................................T-29

Table 22 Model for Calculating Age-Adjust ed Cancer Residential RBSCs for Dermal

Contact with Soil ............................................................................................T-30

Table 23 Model for Calculating Age-Ad justed Cancer Residential RBSCs for

Inhalation of VOCs/Particulates .....................................................................T-31

Table 24 Model for Calculating Noncancer Residential RBSCs for Soil Ingestion,

Child and Adult...............................................................................................T-32

Table 25 Integrated Risk-Based Scr eening Concentration Algorithm through All Relevant Exposure Pathways..........................................................................T-33

Table 26 Model for Calculating Groundwat er Ingestion Risk-Based Screening

Concentrations for Child and Adult Resident and Industrial Worker ............T-34

Table 27 Soil RBSCs Across All Direct C ontact Pathways for Future Resident—Child and Adult, Open Vehicle Storage Area (East), DSERTS Site LEAD114, SE OU 8..................................................................................................T-35

# LIST OF TABLES **(Continued)**

SECTION PAGE

MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_FM.DOC FINAL 

### vii

Table 28 Soil RBSCs Across All Direct C ontact Pathways for Future Resident— Child and Adult, Backwash Discharge Area from Water Treatment Plant....T-38

Table 29 Soil RBSCs Across All Direct Contact Pathways fo r Future Resident - Child and Adult, Building 400 Seri es Fire Training Area........................................T-39

Table 30 Groundwater Health Risks, Open Vehicle Storage Area................................T-40

Table 31 Comparison of Subsurface Leve ls of COPCs with SSLs for Groundwater Protection, Open Vehicle Storage Ar ea (East), DSERTS Site LEAD-114, SE

OU 8................................................................................................................T-41

Table 32 Comparison of Subsurface Leve ls of COPCs with SSLs for Groundwater Protection, Uncurbed AST North ofBuilding 532, DSERTS Site LEAD126, PDO OU 6...............................................................................................T-43

Table 33 Comparison of Subsurface Leve ls of COPCs with SSLs for Groundwater Protection, Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant - DSERTS Site LEAD-011, SE OU 8...............................................................T-44

Table 34 Building 400 Series Fire Tr aining Area - Evaluation of Potential Groundwater Impacts of Chemicals in S ubsurface Soils, Limestone Soils....T-45

Table 35 Building 400 Series Fire Tr aining Area - Evaluation of Potential Groundwater Impacts of Chemicals in Subsurface Soils, Shale Soils............T-46

Table 36 Species of Special Concern, Phase III Sites....................................................T-47

Table 37 Level 1 SLERA—Comparison of Ma ximum Detected Soil Concentrations (0-0.5 ft) with Ecological Benchmarks , Open Vehicle Storage Area.............T-48

Table 38 Level 2 SLERA—Comparison of Exposure Point Concentrations of

Chemicals of Concern in Soils with Ecological Benchmarks, Open Vehicle Storage Area ...................................................................................................T-50

Table 39 Statistical Comparison of Site and Background Chemical Concentrations in Shale Surface Soils, Open Vehicle Storage Area ...........................................T-52

Table 40 Level 1 SLERA—Comparison of Ma ximum Detected Soil Concentrations (0-0.5 ft) with Ecological Benchm arks, Backwash Discharge Area (DSERTS Site LEAD-011).............................................................................T-53

Table 41 Level 2 SLERA—Comparison of Exposure Point Concentrations of

Chemicals of Concern in Soils with Ecological Benchmarks, Backwash Discharge Area (DSERTS Site LEAD-011)...................................................T-54

# LIST OF TABLES **(Continued)**

SECTION PAGE

MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_FM.DOC FINAL 

### viii

Table 42 Statistical Comparison of Site a nd Reference Chemical Concentrations in Shale Surface Soil, Backwash Discha rge Area (DSERTS Site LEAD-011)..T-55

Table 43 Level 1 SLERA—Comparison of Ma ximum Detected Soil Concentrations (0-0.5 ft) with Ecological Benchmarks , Building 400 Series Fire Training Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-118C, SE OU 8 ..................................................T-56

Table 44 Level 2 SLERA—Comparison of Exposure Point Concentrations of

Chemicals of Concern in Soils with Ecological Benchmarks, Building 400 Series Fire Training Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-118C, SE OU 8 .................T-58

Table 45 Statistical Comparison of Site a nd Reference Chemical Concentrations in Shale Surface Soil, Building 400 Series Fire Training Area, DSERTS Site
LEAD-118C, SE OU 8 ...................................................................................T-60

Table 46 Statistical Comparison of Site a nd Reference Chemical Concentrations in Limestone Surface Soil, Building 400 Se ries Fire Training Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-118C, SE OU 8 ............................................................................T-61MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_FM.DOC FINAL 

### ix 

# LIST OF FIGURES

TITLE PAGE



### Figure 1 Property Location..............................................................................................F-1

Figure 2 Location of SE and PDO Areas , Enclave Areas, Drainageways, and Drainage Divides at LEAD...............................................................................F-2

Figure 3 Location of Phase III Par cels Within PDO and SE Areas ................................F-3

Figure 4 Former Layout of Groundwat er Operable Units (OUs)....................................F-4

Figure 5 Current Layout of Groundwat er Operable Units (OUs) ...................................F-5

Figure 6 Site Layout of the OVSA..................................................................................F-6

Figure 7 Soil Boring Sample Locations at Former Uncurbed AST Site North of Building 532 .....................................................................................................F-7

Figure 8 Soil Boring, Drainageway, and Sediment Sampling Locations at the Backwash Discharge Area (DSERTS Site LEAD-011) ...................................F-8

Figure 9 Test Trench Locations at the Building 400 Series Fire Training Area (DSERTS Site LEAD-118)...............................................................................F-9

Figure 10 Conceptual Model of Groundwater Flow in Southern Martinsburg Shale Region at Letterkenny Army Depot................................................................F-10

Figure 11 Monitoring Well Locations and Gr oundwater Contour Map of the Southern Martinsburg Shale Region—28 March 2000..................................................F-11

Figure 12 Footprint of Non-Time-Cr itical-Removal-Action Excavations—Open Vehicle Storage Area......................................................................................F-12

# Acronyms

03P-0752MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_FM.DOC FINAL 

### x 

# LIST OF ACRONYMS

AST aboveground storage tank

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

BTAG Biological Technical Assistance Group

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

COC contaminant (chemical) of concern

COPC contaminant (chemical) of potential concern

DA Disposal Area

DoD U.S. Department of Defense

DSERTS Defense Site Environmental Restoration Tracking System

EEQ ecological effects quotient

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESE Environmental Science and Engineering

FS feasibility study

FTA Fire Training Area

ft bgs feet below ground surface

HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables

HI hazard index

HQ hazard quotient

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

LEAD Letterkenny Army Depot

LIDA Letterkenny Industrial Development Authority

μg/L micrograms per liter

MCL maximum contaminant level

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram

MSC medium-specific concentration

msl mean sea level

NCP National Contingency Plan

NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level

NPL National Priorities List

NSIA Northern Southeast Industrial Area

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OU operable unitMK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_FM.DOC FINAL 

### xi 

# LIST OF ACRONYMS **(Continued)**

OVSA Open Vehicle Storage Area

PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PCDD/PCDF polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dixon/polychlorinated dibenzofuran

PDO Property Disposal Office

ppm parts per million

RBC risk-based concentration

RBSC risk-based health screening concentration

RME reasonable maximum exposure

ROD Record of Decision

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SE Southeastern

SIA Southeast Industrial Area

SMSR Southern Martinsburg Shale Region

SSIA Southern Southeast Industrial Area

SSL soil screening level

SVOC semivolatile organic compound

THQ target hazard quotient

UCL upper confidence limit

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Center

VOC volatile organic compound

# Declaration for the ROD

03P-0752MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_DECLARATION.DOC FINAL 1 

# LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT

PHASE III PARCELS

CHAMBERSBURG, FRANKLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

# DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

AUGUST 2003

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Phase III BRAC Parcels/Southern Martinsburg Shale Region Letterkenny Army Depot, Southeastern (SE) Area and Property Disposal Office (PDO) Area Chambersburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania

U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA) ID number s PA6213820503 (SE) and PA2210090054 (PDO)

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

The Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988 (Public Law 100- 526, 102 Statutes at Large 2623) (BRAC 88) and the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510, 104 Statutes at Large 1808) (BRAC 91, 93, 95) designated more than 100 Department of the Army facilities for mission closure an d/or realignment. In 1995, the United States Secretary of Defense (“1995 BRAC Commission”) submitted a recommendation to Congress and the President approved that Letterkenny Army Depot in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, be selected for re alignment. As a result of the recommendations of the 1995 BRAC Commission, the U.S. Department of the Army (Army) mu st realign (i.e., change) the mission at Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD or Site). As part of the re alignment, approximately 1,450 acres at LEAD have been designated for release (i.e., to-be-excessed or transfer of ownership).

The Army’s strategy has been to first identify parcels with li ttle or no environmental contam ination and prepare them for transfer to a local redevelopm ent authority known as the Lette rkenny Industrial Development Authority (LIDA). Before each property transfer, the Army, in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA) and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), investigates the property for hazardous substances that may have been stored, disposed of, or released there. If necessary, the Army and EPA, in consultation with PADEP, will select a remedy designed to protect human health and the environment. The first two sets of parcels that the Army identified for transfer were the “Phase I parcels” and the “Phase II parcels,” which were transfe rred to LIDA in 1998 and 2001, respectively.

This Record of Decision (also referred to as the “ROD”) presents the selected remedy for the third set of parcels, the “Phase I II parcels.” The Phase III parcels, consist of three parcels, which consist of approximat ely 201 acres designated by the U.S. Army and LIDA, located in both the part of LEAD referred to as the “Property Disposal Office” (PDO) Area and the part referred to as the “Southeastern” (SE) Area. The SE and PDO Areas at LEAD are two separate sites listed on the Federal facilities National Priorities List (NPL). The Phase III parcels also includ e 28 acres of subsurface property that is deeper than 8 feet below ground surface (ft bgs). This subsurface property is lo cated underneath three entire pa rcels and underneath part of three road parcels previously transferred as part of Phase II. This ROD document addresses soils and groundwater in the Phase III parcels located in both the PDO and SE Areas in an area referred to as the Southern Martinsburg Shale Region (SMSR). In addition, this ROD addresses a final action for grou ndwater beneath the Phase I and Phase II parcels located in the

SMSR. The RODs for the Phase I and Phas e II parcels that are located in the SM SR originally documented an interim groundwater remedy of institutional controls to prohibit gr oundwater use and restrict exca vation near or within the groundwater table.

The remedy presented in this ROD wa s selected in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CER CLA), as amended by the Superfund Am endments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent practicabl e, the National Oil and Hazardous Subs tances Contingency Plan (NCP). This

decision is based on the Administrative Record for this Site.

This document is issued by the Army, the owner of the property and the le ad agency under CERCLA, and EPA. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP ) (on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) concurs

with the selected decision.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT PHASE 

### III P ARCELs-DECLARA nON FOR THE ROD

Description of the Selected Remedy

The Army and EPA, in consultation with P ADEP, have determined that no further CERCLA remedial action is necessary to

protect public health or welfare or the environment from the soil or groundwater at the Phase III parcels.

The Army has divided the Site into different "operable units" (OUs) to make environmental work more manageable. Some
operable units cover a specific geographic area, such as the Open Vehicle Storage Area (OYSA). Other operable units

encompass a specific environmental medium, such as groundwater.

Portions of the Phase III parcels are a subset of soil SE 

### au 8, which is located in the part of LEAD referred to as the

"Southeastern Area," and portions are also a subset of soil POO OU 6, which is located in the "Property Disposal Office

Area." There are also two groundwater OUs located underneath the BRAC Phase III parcels, one in the POO Area and one in

the SE Area. The OUs that are the subject of this ROD are listed as follows:

SMSR groundwater (including groundwater below the Phase III parcels, as well as the Phase I and Phase II
parcels located in this area

- OUs POO OU 7 and SE 

### au 13").

Open Vehicle Storage Area (OYSA) site (part of BRAC waste sites OUs POO OU 6 and SE OU 8).

Former Uncurbed Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) North of Building 532 site (part of POO OU 6).

• Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant site (part of SE 

### au 8).

Western portion of the Building 400 Series Fire Training Area (FT A) site (part of SE OU 8).

The specific areas affected by this no further action decision are referred to as Parcels 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 2-53L, 2-54L, 2-70L, 2R80L-3, 2R-84L-3, and 2R-86L-3 (note that the "L" after the parcel number refers to the lower part of the Phase II parcel that

includes groundwater), as well as groundwater in the previously transferred Phase I parcels identified as Parcels 24, 27, and

28.

Statutory Determinations

The Army and EPA, in consultation with P ADEP, have determined that no further action is necessary to protect public health

or welfare, or the environment from the soil and groundwater at the Phase III parcels and associated sites. The previous

response completed at the OYSA site in 2000 eliminated the need to conduct further remedial action. The response action at

the OYSA site was a non-time-critical-removal action for contaminated soils. A CERCLA 5-year review for the OVSA site is

not required because the contaminated soils were permanently removed from the site and the residual levels of chemicals in

soil allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

Authorizing Signatures

1\MES R. DA VIDSON

Director, National Capital Region Field Office

U.s. Army Installation Support Management Activity

ABRAHAM FERDAS

Director, Hazardous Sites Cleanup Division

EPA, Region III

"Please note that PDa au 7 and Sf au 13 are new aus created in December 2002 from portions of the following aus: PDa au 2 (groundwater), Sf au 3 (groundwater), Sf au 10 (groundwater), and Sf au 11 (groundwater).

MK0110:\02281 016.00B\PHASE 11I\ROD\ROO_DECLARATION.DOC FINAL

# ROD Decision Summary

03P-0752MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 1 

# LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT

PHASE III PARCELS

C H AMBERSBUR G , FRA N K LIN C O U N T Y , PE NN S Y LVA N I A 

# DECISION SUMMARY

AUGUST 2003 FINAL



## SECTION 1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

EPA ID nu m b ers PA6213820503 (Sou t h eas t ern Area) and PA2210090054 (Pro p e r t y Dis p osal Office Area)



### 1.1 INTRODUCTION

Letterkenny Army Depot ( LEAD) i s l oc a ted i n south

- cen t ral Pennsylvania in Franklin Coun t y, 5 miles nor t h of

t h e Borough of C h a m b ers b urg (see Figure 1 ). The De p o t co v ers 19,243 acres, m o st of which is de v o t ed t o

a mm uni t i on s t orage (16,614 acres). There are t w o areas wi t h in LEAD t h at are lis t ed on t h e Na t i onal Priori t i es List (NPL). They are t h e Proper t y Disposal Office (PDO) A r ea and the Southeastern (SE) Area. These two areas are separated by a major groundwater/surfa c e-water drainage divide, as depicted in Figure 2 . The indus t rial and maintenance areas, which are primarily located in the southeastern corner of LEAD, encompass approximately 2,500 acres and include warehousing, vehicle storage, administration, industrial/maintenance, recreational activities, and housing. The infrastructure of this area includes roads; permanent, semipermanent, and temporary structures; and utilities. Approximately 1,450 acres at LEA D have been designated for “realignment” under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) initiative. “Realig nment” means that the mission at LEAD is to change and approximately 1,450 acres at LEAD have been designated for release (i.e., “to-be-excessed” or transfer of ownership). The BRAC area is concentrated in the southeastern portion of LEAD, but is located in both the PDO and SE Areas. The BRAC area is being transferred to the Letterkenny Industrial Development Authority (LIDA) in phases. The Phase I parcels were transferred in 1998. The Phase II parcels were transferred in 2002 and consisted of structures and property abov e the seasonal high groundwater table.

What is BRAC?

The Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-526, 102 Statutes at Large 2623) (BRAC 88) and the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510, 104 Statutes at Large 1808) (BRAC 91, 93, 95) designated more than 100 Department of the Army facilities for closure and/ or realignment. In 1995, the U.S. Secretary of Defense (“1995 BRAC Commission”) submitted a recommendation to Congress that Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, be selected for “realignment.” As a result of the recommendations of the 1995 BRAC Commission, the U.S. Department of the Army (Army) must realign (i.e., change) the mission at LEAD and transfer ownership of property referred to as the “BRAC parcels” or “BRAC area.”

As part of the realignment of the LEAD mission, an environment al baseline survey was completed for the BRAC area. The environmental baseline survey process incl udes visual inspections of the property as well as record reviews and personnel interviews, used to document current and hist orical conditions with regar d to use, storage, or rel ease of hazardous substances and petroleum products. The environmental base line survey process is used to identify areas within the BRAC parcels that need further investigation, normally referred to as site or remedial investigations. These are studies typically consisting of sampl ing and analysis (to see if chemicals are present) of soil, sediment, and/or groundwater and other techniques to identify releases to t he environment and to provide data for evaluating pot ential risks to future users of the land.

Also as part of the BRAC process, the Army prepares a “Finding of Suitability to Transfer” document that provides information t o the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Pennsylvani a Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), the public, and LIDA concerning the environm ental condition of the buildi ngs and land being transferred.

There are nine parcels included in the Phase III BRAC prop erty transfer. The Phase III parcels consist of 3 parcels

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 2 t o t a ling a pp roxi m a t ely 201 acres designa t ed b y t h e U.S. A r m y and LIDA loca t ed in b o t h t h e PDO and SE Areas. The Phase III parcels also include 28 acres of subsurface pro p erty that is deeper than 8 feet below ground surface (ft bgs), located underneath 3 parcels and part of 3 road parcels previously transferred as part of Phase II.

This Record of Decision document, also referred to as a “ROD,” addresses soils and groundwater in the Phase III parcels located in both the PDO and SE Areas in an area referred to as the Southern Martinsburg Shale Region (SMSR). In addition, this ROD addresses a final action for groundwa t er b enea t h t h e Phase I and Phase II p a rcels

loca t ed in t h e SMSR. The RODs for t h e Phase I and II p a rcels (WESTON, 1998a, 2001) loca t e d in t h e SMSR originally documen t ed an in t erim groundwa t er remedy of ins t i t u t ional con t rols t o prohibit groundwa t er use and

restr i ct exc a v a t i on ne a r or w i th i n the groundw a ter t a b l e.

This ROD: (1) addresses and provides the rationale for the selected remedy for groundwater beneath the Phase III parcels and the SMSR; (2) addresses and provides the ratio n ale for the selected remedy for soils at the following four sites: the Open Vehicle Storage Area (OVSA), the Former Uncurbed Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Site

Nor t h of Building 532, t h e Building 400 Series Fire Training Area (FTA), and t h e Backwash Discharge Area; and (3) addresses public comments concerning the selected remedy.

The future use of the Phase III parcels and Phase I a n d II parcels in the SMSR is currently planned as commercial/industrial use; however, the parcels were eva l uated for residential (i.e., u n restricted) use so that the

property cou l d be tr a ns f erred w i thout l a nd use restr i ct i ons.

The U.S. Army is the owner of the property and t h e lead agency under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa t i on, and Liabili t y Act (CERCLA). EPA is t h e lead regula t o ry agency, and PADEP has a concurrence role as a support regulatory agency. The Army and EPA are issuing t h is ROD. PADEP, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, c o ncurs w i th the se l ected remedy.



### 1.2 PHASE III PARCELS

LIDA developed a list of priori t y buildings and parcels b a sed on their potential for reuse and redevelopment. The Phase III parcels represent those buildings and prope r ties identified by LIDA that the Army deems

environmen t a lly sui t able for t ransfer at t h is t i me. This decision is documen t ed in t h e Finding of Sui t abili t y t o Transfer for the Phase III parcels (WESTON, 2003d). The r a tionale for putting all of these different sites and

p a rce l s together i nto one R O D i s th a t most of the s i t e s and p a rcels are con t iguous and all are si t ua t ed a b o v e a type of geological (subsurface rock) formation referred to a s the Southern M a rt i ns b urg Shale for m a t ion, which does not contain contamination in the groundwater. These sites and parcels also require no action for soils and

th i s w a s a nother re a s on f or group i ng them together. Th i s group i ng prov i des a l a rge property th a t d i d not need

land use res t ric t ions, which will make it a tt ra c t i ve for t ransfer and fu t u re developmen t

. There are nine parcels included in the Phase III property transfer Proposed Plan identified by parcel numbers
3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 2-53L, 2-54L, 2-70L, 2R-80L-3, 2R-84L-3, a n d 2R-86L-3. All of t h e p a rcels are in a large area referred to as the Southern Martinsburg Shale Region (SMSR), near the golf co urse in the southeastern corner of
LEAD where the industrial, maintenance, and recrea t i onal areas are loca t ed, as shown in Figure 3 . Of t h ese parcels, six are located in the SE Area and three parcels are located partially in the SE Area and partially in the PDO Area. The property included in the Phase III parcel s consists of industrial land, developed land, small stands of trees, open grassy areas, commercial recr eational areas (golf course and community center), administration buildings, and former m ilitary housing. No wetlands are located within the Phase III parcels, and no Federal or state threatened or endangered species are known or suspected to exist within the Phase III parcels.

Land located within an approximately 0.5-mile radius of the Phase III parcels includes industrial land to the north (including land to be retained by the Army), an indu strial area to the east (other BRAC sites as well as land to be retained by the Army), agricultural land to the south, and industrial land to the west (other BRAC property). The Phase III parcels are accessible to the gene ral public via Coffey Avenue, which was transferred to LIDA and is maintained by the local townships.

In addition, the groundwater in several Phase I parcels (that were previously transferred to the local community), which are located within the boundaries of the SMSR (Parce ls 24, 27, and 28 located in the SE Area), are included in this remedy.

Four BRAC sites within the Phase III parcels, plus th e SMSR groundwater, were investigated under CERCLA. The history of the sites indicated that industrial ac tivities have occurred and that uncontrolled hazardous

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 3 substance releases, if they occurred, could present pot e ntial threats to human health and the environment. The Phase III parcels consist of the following sites (note that the operable unit [OU] numbers and the U.S. Army’s tracking number, which is referred to as the Defense S i te Env i ronment a l R e stor a t i on Tracking System [DSERTS], assigned to these sites are also shown):

 OVSA ( p art of PDO Area OU 6 and SE Area OU 8, DSERTS si t es LEAD-110 and LEAD-114).

 For m er Uncur b ed AST si t e Nor t h of Building 532 ( p art of PDO OU 6, DSERTS si t e LEAD-126).

 Building 400 Series FTA si t e (SE OU 8, DSERTS si t e LEAD-118).

 Backwash Discharge Area si t e (SE OU 8, DSERTS si t e LEAD-118).

 SMSR groundwa t er (PDO OU 7 and SE OU 13).

Please note that PDO OU 7 and SE OU 13 are new OUs created in December 2002 from portions of the following OUs: PDO OU 2 (gr o undw a ter), SE OU 3 (gr o undw a ter), SE OU 10 (gr o undw a ter), and SE OU 11 (groundwater). PDO OU 7 and SE OU 13 represent the S M SR, which is a n a rea th a t is upgr a dient o f

, a n d n o t a ffected by, the s o urces o f v o l a tile o r g a nic c o mp o und (VOC)

gr o undw a ter c o nt a min a t i o n in the o t her OUs a n d a l so h a s a dif f

erent ge o l o gy th a n the o t her gr o undw a ter OUs. In a dditi o n
, there is sufficient information from additi onal investigations to show that there are no contaminant sources w i thin the SMSR. Therefore, it

w a s decided to m a n a ge the S M SR a rea sep a r a t ely fr o m the pre v i o usly defined gr o undw a ter OUs. Figures 4 a n d 5 sh o w b o th the former and new configuration of the groundwater OUs, respectively.

Brief abstracts of the sites and the Phase III parc els are presented in the following subsections.



### 1.3 SMSR GROUNDWATER

The SMSR is a region at LEAD that contains an area of shale bedrock surrounded by limestone bedrock. This shale bedrock is generally more resistant to weathering than the surrounding limestone formations and therefore, forms the “highland” or elevated ridg e areas in the area of the Phase III parcels. Several groundwater/surface water divides along this ridge in the SMSR cause groundwater to flow radially away from the SMSR. The boundary of the SMSR is shown in Figure 3.

The SMSR was originally considered to be part of se veral other volatile organic compound (VOC)-contaminated groundwater OUs at LEAD. Based on the knowledge presented above, it was thought that the SMSR could be unaffected by the known and potential VOC sources lo cated downgradient of the SMSR because groundwater flows from the SMSR into the lower lying valley areas un derlain by limestone. In addition, there is no known groundwater contamination in the SMSR as documented in the remedial investigations performed for the BRAC
sites. Therefore, the SMSR area was redefined as cont aining two groundwater OUs (one for the PDO Area and one for the SE Area). In addition, studies verified these theories. The four BRAC sites described in Subsections 1.4 and 1.6 (Parcels 3-89 and 3-91) are industrial sites that were investigated to evaluate soil contamination; these

four sites also lie within the SMSR.

The Army has completed its investigation, data evalua tions, and risk assessment at the SMSR (WESTON, 2003a, 2003b) and there are no environmental concerns at the site.



### 1.4 PARCEL 3-89

Parcel 3-89 comprises the majority of the Phase III parcel s/SMSR area; the parcel consists of approximately 191 acres. This parcel is located on the northern side of Carbaugh Avenue and the western side of Coffey Avenue. The structures within Parcel 3-89 include the following 20 buildings, and a water tower:

 Building 522 - Administration Office

 Building 523 - Office

 Building 527 - Emergency Generator Building

 Building 528 - Swimming Pool  Building 536 - Locker Room

 Building 539 - Guest/Temporary Housing

 Buildings 540 – 545 Kenny Hill Housing Units

 Building 546 - Storage Building

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 4 Building

 Building 529 - C o mm uni t y C lub

 Building 530 - Infor m a t ion Processing

Center

 Building 532 - G o lf C a rt S t orage
Main t enance Building  Building 554 - Wa t e r Trea t m ent Plant

 Building 558, 559 - E m ergency Pu m p and C h lorina t o r
Bu il d i ngs f or W a ter Tre a tment P l a nt

 Building 572 - S t orage Building (Fire De p t .)

The sites located in this parcel where industrial a c tivities have occurred are described in the following

p a r a gr a p hs.

**OVSA site (part of soil OUs PDO OU 6 and SE OU 8):** The OVSA comprises the majority of Parcel 3-89. From approxi m a t ely 1947 and con t inuing un t il t h e spring of 1998, t h e OVSA si t e was used for t h e s t orage of m ili t ary vehicles. While the most recent past practice of storage r e quires that the vehicles be drained of fluids (such as diesel fuel, oil, and other engine fluids) before they a r e stored, interviews with former employees have indicated

t h at t h e vehicles were formerly s t ored “we t ,” meaning t h at t h ey were s t ored wi t h t h e fluids s t ill in t h e vehicle, and that the vehicles may have had the i r fluids drained onto the ground before they were refurbished. The layout

of the site is shown in Figure 6

.

There were no vehicles stored or structures located at t h e O V SA s i te a t the t i me of the remed i a l i nvest i g a t i ons (1998, 1999, and 2000), and at t h e t i m e of t h e re m o v a l ac t ion t h at is descri b ed b elow (2000), wi t h t h e exce p t ion of a small structure by the heliport used to store emergency e q uipment (such as fire extinguishers). Several piles of

brush were found in the northwestern area of the site.

The Army has comple t ed i t s inves t iga t i o ns, risk assess m en t s, e v alua t i on for a re m o v a l ac t i on, and co m p le t i on of

t h e removal ac t i on (excava t ion and off-si t e disposal of s o ils) at t h e OVSA si t e. Prior t o t h e removal ac t i on, t h e investigations showed possible risks associa t ed wi t h eleva t ed levels of a group of semivola t ile organic compounds (SVOCs) referred t o as polycyclic aroma t ic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil. Al t erna t ives were developed and evaluated in the engineering evaluation/co s t analysis documen t , which is a t echnical report t h at

e v alua t es t h e need for a re m o v a l ac t i on (WESTON, 2000a). In addi t i on, al t erna t i v es were de v elo p ed and evaluated that, if implemented, would reduce or e limina t e risks t o people and t h e environmen t

. Soils

con t amina t ed wi t h PAHs were excava t ed and disposed of at approved off-si t e was t e disposal facili t ies.

The cleanup levels used for the removal action were d e veloped based on a fu t u re commercial/indus t rial pos t

re m o v a l reuse of t h e si t e, as discussed in t h e E n gineering E v alua t i on/ C ost Analysis (WESTON, 2000a).

Con f i rm a tory s a mp li ng conducted a f ter the remov a l a ct i on showed th a t the rem a i n i ng concentr a t i ons of PAHs

were at or below risk-based standards. In some are a s t h e limi t s of mechanical excava t i on were reached, preventing further removal of contaminants. A post-re m oval risk assessment was performed assuming a future commercial/indus t rial use as well as a po t en t ial fu t ure residential (unrestricted) use. The risk assessment

comp l eted a f ter the remov a l a ct i on showed th a t there a re no longer environmental concerns at the site, meaning that there are no longer unacceptable risks to people or the environment, assuming commercial/indus t rial or residential reuse of the property.

**For m**  **e r Uncurbed AST**  **North of B**  **uilding 532 site (part of PDO OU 6):** This is a small si t e t h at consis t s of a

for m er a b o v eground s t orage t a nk (AST) area. Ini t ially, t h ere was an uncur b ed single-walled AST (275 gallons)

loca t ed nor t h of Building 532 t h at s t ored gasoline used t o fuel golf car t s. This AST was re p l aced b y a dou b lewalled AST; it is unknown how long t h e single-walled AST was in service. The soils near the uncurbed AST were

not inves t iga t ed prior t o t h e change in ASTs. T h e layout of t h e si t e is shown in Figure 7

.

The double-walled AST was s t ill in-place at t h e t i m e of t h e re m edial inves t iga t ion (1999). The only s t ruc t ure in the area at the time was Building 532 (located near the site ), which was used to store and maintain the golf carts (this building still exists). Since the field investigation was conducted, the double-walled AST has been removed because the golf course has converted to using electric golf carts.

The Army has completed its investigation and risk asse ssment at the Former Uncurbed AST North of Building

532 site and there are no environmental concerns at the site.

**Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant site (part of SE OU 8):** This site is located in the eastern part of the parcel along Coffey Avenue, near th e water treatment plant for the potable water supply. In

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 5 the p a st, sed i ments th a t a ccumu l a ted i n the r a w w a ter li ne were f l ushed out i n the western a rea of the s i te. The

sediment discharge area is s t ill used occasionally t o f l ush out t h e sedimen t s t h at have accumula t ed in t h e raw

w a ter supp l y li ne. In the p a st, f l u ff y m a ter i a l ( re f erred to as “flocculan t ”), which primarily consis t s of suspended

so li ds removed f rom the w a ter dur i ng the tre a tment process, was discharged to the eastern area of the site for

sett li ng. The s a tur a ted f l occu l a nt w a s pumped i nto the a rea where a d a m w a s set up, wh i ch a ll owed the

f l occu l a nt to sett l e out. The f l occu l a nt w a s then d i sch a rged d i rect l y i nto the dr a i n a ge a re a , wh i ch f l ows to the storm sewer system. The sediments and flocculant may contain suspended sediments, which may concentrate

na t urally occurring me t a ls. The layout of t h e si t e is shown in Figure 8

.

There were no s t ruc t ures or m a t erial/was t e s t orage on t h e si t e at t h e t i m e of t h e re m edial in v es t iga t ion (1998).

The on l y structures i n the v i c i n i ty of the s i te were the bu il d i ngs a ssoc i a t ed w i th the w a ter tre a tment p l a nt, wh i ch

s t ill exis t s.

The Army has completed its investigation and risk ass e ssment at the Backwash Discharge Area from the water

tre a tment p l a nt s i te a nd there a r e no environmental concerns at the site.



### 1.5 PARCEL 3-90

Parcel 3-90 is a pp r oxi m a t ely 8 acres in size and is loca ted south of Carbaugh Avenue and west of Coffey Avenue. There are no structures on this parcel. This parcel is c u rrently open land and has been an open area in the past

wi t h no a pp a rent s t orage or indus t rial ac t i v i t i es.



### 1.6 PARCEL 3-91

Parcel 3-91 is a pp r oxi m a t ely 1.5 acres in size and is loc a ted east of Coffey Avenue and north of Texas/Innovation

Avenue in the southeastern corner of the SMSR. There a r e no structures on Parcel 3-91. This parcel consists

en t i rely of t h e wes t ern p o r t ion of t h e Building 400 Series Fire Training Area (FTA) si t e where indus t rial ac t i v i t i es occurred as described in the following paragraphs.

**B u**  **ilding 400 Series F T**  **A site (part of SE OU 8):** The discussions presented here concerning site history,

in v es t iga t ion, and findings are for t h e en t i re si t e. The Building 400 Series FTA area had b een re p o r t edly used in

t h e p a st for a short p eriod of t i m e as a fire-figh t i ng t raining area where a large m e t a l p a n was p l aced on t h e ground and filled wi t h various flammab l e liquids, which were igni t ed. There was no record of t h e exact loca t i on of the pan, years of use, or when/if the pan was removed f r om the area when training activities ended. Historical

aerial p h o t ogra p h s from 1949 and 1957 show se v e ral dis t ur b e d p l aces in t h is area. Based on knowledge of t y p i cal fire-training activities at LEAD, materials burned at the s i te may have included waste oils. The layout of the site

is shown in Figure 9

.
There were no structures or material/waste storage on the site at the time of the remedial investigation (1998). The only structures in the vicinity of the site were several old barracks/office buildings, which are still located

near the site.

The Army has completed its investigation and risk asse ssment at the Building 400 Series FTA and there are no

environmental concerns at the site.



### 1.7 PARCELS 2-53L, 2-54L, 2-70L, 2R-80L-3, 2R-84L-3, AND 2R-86L-3

These parcels actually consist of land underneath th e same parcels and roadways that were previouslytransferred as part of the Phase II BRAC property transfer at LEAD, as shown in Figure 3 (specifically, starting from 8 ft bgs to the center of the earth), located in the southern part of the SMSR/Phase III area. The entire land area was not originally transferred because it was thought the groundwater located underneath the land was potentially contaminated with VOCs. These parcels we re investigated as part of the SMSR groundwater investigation described previously. The Army has comple ted its investigation and ri sk assessment for the SMSR groundwater and found no environmental concerns at the si te. The top portions of these parcels were transferred with an interim remedy for groundwater (WESTON, 2001) consisting of soil excavation and groundwater use restrictions because at that time it was thought that the groundwater underneath the parcels was contaminated. The soil excavation and groundwater restrictions will now be removed as part of the no further action alternative.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 6 

### 1.8 GROUNDWATER ASSOCIATED WITH PHASE I PARCELS 24, 27, AND 28

Parcels 24, 27, and 28 (Figure 3) are land (all of the land including groundwater) that was previously transferred as part of the Phase I BRAC property transfer at LEAD. These parcels were transferred with soil excavation and groundwater use restrictions because all of the Phase I parcels were categorized as having contaminated groundwater or potentially contaminated groundwater based on the data collected to that point in time. The groundwater underneath these parcels was evaluated as part of the SMSR groundwater investigations described previously, which showed that the groundwater was no t contaminated. Therefore, these Phase I parcels are included in this ROD for no action for groundwater to remove the soil excavation and groundwater restrictions at
Parcels 24, 27, and 28.



# SECTION 2

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

2.1 HISTORY OF SITE ACTIVITIES

Prior to the establishment of LEAD in 1942, the area consisted of agricultural and forest lands. The area was predominantly single-family farms used for both subsistence and commercial purposes.

The Letterkenny Ordnance Depot was established in January 1942 as an ammunition storage facility. In subsequent years, the following missions were added:

 Reserve storage and export advance storage of parts, tools, supplies, and equipment for combat vehicles, artillery, small munitions, and vehicle fire control equipment (1943).

 Receipt and storage of hardware, heavy-duty trucks, and parts (1944).

 Establishment of transport and combat vehicle shops and expansion of the maintenance program (1947).

 Establishment of a rebuild system for guided mi ssile ground control, launching, and handling equipment; missile propellant systems; and internal guidance systems (1954).

 Assignment of the special weapons mission (1958).

 Designation of the Depot as the Eastern Equipment Assembly Area (1959). This mission gave the Depot responsibility for the handling and shipment of equi pment for guided missile and special weapons units

to overseas locations.

 Acceptance and destruction of contaminated U.S. Air Force missile fuel (1961).

 Letterkenny Ordnance Depot renamed as Letterkenny Army Depot (1962).

 Disposal of explosive ordnance generated from the Army as well as state and local police (1964).

 Maintenance and storage of U.S. Air Force missiles (1966).

 Receipt, storage, and dispersal of batteries and tires to Army units (1972).

 Operation of a washout facility to reclaim explosives from munitions (1973).

These operations consisted of cleaning , stripping, painting, lubrication, and plating activities, which involved the use of solvents, blast media (such as sand from sandblas ting operations), paints, chemicals, petroleum products, and metals. Storage, spills, releases, and disposal of thes e materials led to the current environmental concerns at

LEAD. The histories of the four BRAC sites located in the Phase III area are as follows:

**OVSA site/SMSR:** From approximately 1947 and continuing until the spring of 1998, the OVSA site was used for the storage of military vehicles. While the most recent past practice of storage requires that the vehicles be drained of fluids (such as diesel fuel, oil, and other engi ne fluids) before they are stored, interviews with former employees have indicated that the vehicles were formerly stored “wet,” meaning that they were stored with the fluids still in the vehicle, and that the vehicles may have had their fluids drained onto the ground before they were refurbished. In addition, in the past as part of gr ounds-keeping practices at LEAD, the soil in the OVSA site was scraped to the edges of the storage area to allow for re moval of shale rock that lies beneath the site soil in the

area to be used as fill in other areas at LEAD. The OVSA comprises the majority of the land in the SMSR area and therefore, represented the primary potential sour ce of contamination for the SMSR groundwater.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 7 **Former Uncurbed AST North of Building 532 site:** There was an uncurbed single-walled AST (275 gallons) located north of Building 532 that stored gasoline used to fuel golf carts. This AST was replaced by a doublewalled AST; it is unknown how long the single-walled AST was in service.

**Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant site:** In the past, sediments that accumulated in the raw water line were flushed out in the western area of the site. In the past, fluffy material (referred to as “flocculant”), which primarily consists of suspended solids removed from the water during the treatment process, was discharged to the eastern area of the site for settling. The saturated flocculant was pumped into the area where a dam was set up, which allowed the flocculant to settle out. The flocculant was then discharged directly into the drainage area, which flows to the storm sewer system. At a later time the dam was dismantled

and the area was backfilled with shale. The area was al so used as a discharge area for backwashed water.

**Building 400 Series FTA site:** The Building 400 Series FTA had been reportedly used in the past for a short period of time as a fire-fighting training area where a large metal pan was placed on the ground and filled with various flammable liquids (possibly incl uding waste oils), which were ignited. There was no record of the exact location of the pan, years of use, or when/if the pan was removed from the ar ea when training activities ended. Historical aerial photographs from 1949 and 1957 sh ow several disturbed places in this area.



### 2.2 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS

Studies initiated since 1979 have concluded that toxic materials associated with operations at LEAD, along with uncertain past disposal practices and the nature of th e complicated hydrogeological regime (e.g., “karst” as described in Subsection 5.1.3), offered significant pote ntial for contamination by ch lorinated hydrocarbons and subsequent contaminant migration. Between 1980 and th e present, numerous environmental investigation programs were conducted at LEAD to evaluate potential contamination in the soil and groundwater at the Depot. In 1986, EPA ranked the LEAD SE Area (including the Di sposal Area [DA] and the Southeast Industrial Area [SIA]) and the PDO Area under the Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site Ranking System, and proposed these two areas for inclusion on the NPL. The SE Area was pl aced on the NPL in July 1987. The PDO Area was added to the NPL in March 1989. As reported in two documents (ESE, 1992, 1993), remedial investigations were conducted by Environmental Science and Engineering (ESE) at LEAD in the late 1980s/early 1990s in the PDO and SE Areas, which focused on the depot-wide sources of VOC contam ination in groundwater outside the Phase III areas. Investigations and remedial actions are currently underway at both NPL sites.

As part of the realignment of the LEAD mission, an envi ronmental baseline survey was completed for all of the to-be-excessed (BRAC) property, including the Phase III parc els, discussed in more detail in Subsection 2.4. The environmental baseline survey is a comp rehensive initial survey of site info rmation. Based on the environmental baseline survey, the four BRAC sites and groundwater in th e SMSR area underwent limited investigations to rule out the potential for contamination due to past operat ions. Remedial investigations/risk assessments were conducted for these four sites and additionally, for the groundwater in the entire Phase III/SMSR area. Previous investigations specific to the Phase III parcels are discu ssed in more detail in Section 5 and in Subsection 2.4.



### 2.3 HISTORY OF CERCLA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Since the listing of the two sites at LEAD on the NPL, all of the remedial activities at the site have been Army-led, in coordination with EPA Region III and the South-Centra l Region of PADEP. No other potentially responsible parties have been identified.

As a result of the proposed NPL ranking, the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, later renamed the U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC), took the initiative in conducting the response actions at LEAD in

accordance with Executive Order 12316 and a Memorandum of Understanding of 12 August 1983. The Executive Order was signed on 14 August 1981 by President Reagan. It delegates to the Secretary of Defense the authority

to take the lead on CERCLA activities at Federal fac ilities. The Memorandum of Understanding is between EPA and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). It defines the relationship for Federal facilities to take the lead on such activities with EPA input. Executive Order 12580 wa s signed in January 1987, which superseded Executive Order 12316. This Executive Order transferred authority for site investigations and remedial actions at Federal facilities to the secretaries of the applicable Federal agencies.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 8 On 3 February 1989, a Federal Facilities Agreement wa s reached under CERCLA Section 120 among the DoD, EPA, and PADEP (EPA, Army, and PADEP, 1989). The 1989 Federal Facilities Agreement established the framework for the CERCLA response actions at LEAD and required the review of all documents concerning the investigation of environmental contamination at LEAD produced prior to the Federal Facilities Agreement.

The PDO Area encompasses approximately 1,490 acres in the southern portion of the Depot. It extends approximately south from the southern end of the combat vehicle test track southwest to Rocky Spring Lake. The groundwater in the PDO Area becomes surface water di scharge at Rocky Spring, which flows into the Rocky Spring Branch of Conococheague Creek, and eventually in to the Potomac River. Seven OUs exist within the PDO Area. The following is a description of each OU in the PDO Area:

 PDO OU 1: Source Area Soils (soil from the drum storage revetments).

 PDO OU 2: PDO Area Groundwater and Surface Water.

 PDO OU 3: Mercury Detections in Rocky Spring Lake.

 PDO OU 4: Groundwater Associated with the Oil Burn Pit.

 PDO OU 5: Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Investigation of the Rocky Spring System.

 PDO OU 6: BRAC Waste Sites.

 PDO OU 7: Southern Martin sburg Shale Region (SMSR).

The response action in this ROD concerns areas in PD O OU 7 (groundwater in the PDO portion of the SMSR, below the Phase III parcels) and PDO OU 6 (Phase III BRAC waste sites). PDO OU 7 was originally part of PDO OU 2 but was separated into its own OU to investigate the theory that the groundwater in the SMSR area is not

contaminated with VOCs because there are no known so urces of VOCs in the SMSR area and the SMSR was thought to be unaffected by the known and potential VOC sources surrounding the area.

The SE Area consists of the Southeast Industrial Area and the Disposal Area, and encompasses approximately
1,136 acres. A total of 13 OUs exist within the SE Area. The following is a description of each OU in the SE Area:

 SE OU 1: K Area Contaminated Soils.

 SE OU 2: Industrial Wastewater Sewers and Contaminated Soils.

 SE OU 3A: Disposal Area VOC-Contaminated Groundwater.

 SE OU 3B: Area Upgradient of VOC Contamination Source in SE OU 3A.

 SE OU 4: Stormwater Sewers and Contaminated Sediments.

 SE OU 5: Areas A and B Contaminated Soils.

 SE OU 6: VOC-Contaminated Groundwater North of Gate 6 and East of East Patrol Road (Rowe Run Drainage System).

 SE OU 7: Truck Open Storage Area/Waste Oil Sump.

 SE OU 8: BRAC Waste Sites.

 SE OU 9: Landfill J; near Building 320.

 SE OU 10: Southern Southeast Industrial Area (SSI A) VOC-Contaminated Groundwater South of Gate 6 (Conococheague Drainage System).

 SE OU 11: Northern Southeast Industrial Area (NSI A) VOC-Contaminated Groundwater North of Gate 6.

 SE OU 12: Landfill G.

 SE OU 13: Southern Martin sburg Shale Region (SMSR).

The response action in this ROD concerns areas in SE OU 13 (groundwater in the SE portion of the SMSR, below the Phase III parcels) and SE OU 8 (Phase III BRAC waste si tes). SE OU 13 was originally part of SE OU 3A/3B, SE OU 10, and SE OU 11 but was separated into its own OU to investigate the theory that the groundwater in the

SMSR area is not contaminated with VOCs because ther e are no known sources of VOCs in the SMSR area and the SMSR was thought to be unaffected by the known and potential VOC sources surrounding the area.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 9 

### 2.4 BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

The majority of the administrative, industrial, and housing facilities at LEAD have been designated for “release” (“tobe-excessed” or transfer of ownership of property) from the U.S. Army based on the decision of the 1995 BRAC Commission to realign the LEAD mission. The land designated for release will be transferred to LIDA in a manner that follows BRAC program guidance.

The Ammunition Area (Ammo Area), and selected portions of the industrial/administrative area, will be retained to support LEAD’s continuing mission. The retained area is also known as the “Enclave Area.”

The LEAD BRAC Cleanup Team was established in 1995 to fa cilitate the environmental issues involved with the realignment at LEAD. The BRAC Cleanup Team is compos ed of the LEAD BRAC Environmental Coordinator and the Remedial Project Managers from EPA Region III and PADE P. The BRAC Cleanup Team meets on a monthly basis to discuss environmental issues related to the transfer of prop erty at LEAD. The goal of the BRAC Cleanup Team is to streamline decisions, and to work together toward innovative and timely techniques to facilitate the timely transfer of

property.

As part of the realignment of the LEAD mission, an en vironmental baseline survey was completed for the BRAC parcels. This process includes visual inspections of the property as well as record reviews and personnel
interviews, which are used to document current and historic al conditions with regard to use, storage, or release of hazardous substances and petroleum products. The LEAD environmental baseline survey was finalized in August 1996 (WESTON, 1996). The final Community Enviro nmental Response Facilitation Act letter report, which contains a map showing the environmental cond itions at LEAD, was finalized in March 1997. An addendum, which updated environmental conditions, wa s finalized in April 1999 (WESTON, 1999). A follow-up document, Supplement 1 to the environmental baselin e survey, was finalized in November 2000 (WESTON, 2000b); this document included several buildings not covered in the environmental baseline survey or the addendum. The environmental baseline survey process iden tified certain BRAC sites that require further study prior to being transferred. Site investigations, remedial investigations, and screening level risk assessments have been completed or are currently underway for these BRAC sites. Of the Phase III parcels, only four sites (the OVSA, the Former Uncurbed AST near Building 532, the Building 400 Series FTA, and the Backwash Discharge Area) were identified as needing further study.

Site investigations, remedial investigations, and screen ing level risk assessments have been completed for the four sites in the Phase III parcels and the SMSR groundwate r. CERCLA site investigations and risk screenings were performed on the four sites in the Phase III pa rcels and the SMSR groundwater between 1998 and 2002 to determine if the existing site conditions are protective of human health and the environment, and if the sites could be cleared for transfer and reuse pursuant to the BRAC program. None of the parcels and buildings covered under this ROD were identified as having any environmental concerns, except for the OVSA. A removal action for contaminated soils was performed at the OV SA in 2000, thus, there are no longer environmental

concerns with this site.

The future use of the Phase III parcels is currently planned as commercial/indu strial use. LIDA’s final reuse plan (as referenced by the Memorandum of Agreement between the Army and LIDA) specifies the intended future use of the parcels. In addition, Greene Township zoning re strictions preclude residential use of the BRAC parcels in that part of the township. However, risk assessments were also performe d for potential future residential use

to evaluate site conditions based on unrestricted use.



# SECTION 3

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION HIGHLIGHTS

Pursuant to CERCLA Section 113(k)(2 )(B)(i-v) and Section 117, the Proposed Plan for the Phase III parcels at LEAD was released to the public for comment on 14 April 2003. This document was made available to the public, in the Administrative Record, located in Building 14 at LEAD, and in the Coyle Free Library in Chambersburg.

A public comment period was held from 14 April to 13 May 2003. On 23 April 2003, a pu blic availability session was held at the Building 10 Letterkenny Great Room to present the Proposed Plan (in the form of a poster presentation) and to entertain questions and comments from the public. The notification for the Proposed Plan public meeting was published in the Shippensburg News Chronicle on April 15, the Waynesboro Record Herald on

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 10 April 10 and 11, and the Chambersburg Public Opinion on April 11 and 12, 2003. A summary of the community participation process is provided in the Responsiveness Su mmary, which is included as part of this ROD. There were no comments received during the public comment pe riod, and there were no comments or questions during the public availability session.



# SECTION 4

SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

The LEAD Site is complex as are many CERCLA sites and therefore, is split into many different OUs. The OUs that are the subject of this ROD are listed below. The response action selected in this ROD is a final action with regard to soils and groundwater at the Phase III parcels (n o further action), including groundwater in the Phase I parcels within the SMSR area, which together address any environmental concerns at the Phase III parcels and SMSR. This ROD also provides the justification for deci ding to take no further action under CERCLA. The no further action decision in this ROD applies to:

 SMSR groundwater (including groundwater below the Phase III parcels as well as the Phase I and Phase II parcels located in this area – PDO OU 7 and SE OU 13).

 OVSA site (part of BRAC waste sites in OUs PDO OU 6 and SE OU 8).

 Former Uncurbed AST North of Building 532 site (part of PDO OU 6).

 Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant site (part of SE OU 8).

 Western portion of the Building 400 Series FTA site (part of SE OU 8).

The specific areas affected by the selected remedy are referred to as Parcels 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 2-53L, 2-54L, 2-70L, 2R-80L-3, 2R-84L-3, and 2R-86L-3, as well as groundwater in the previously transferred Phase I parcels identified as Parcels 24, 27, and 28. This selected response action does not address other OUs at LEAD. The role of the response action selected for the Phase III parcels is to be protective of human health and the environment at the properties while making the parcels availabl e for beneficial reuse in a timely manner.

The description of the other past and current actions is too long to list here, but can be found in the Installation Action Plan for Letterkenny Army Depot, FY 2004 (LEAD, 2003).



# SECTION 5

SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The following information is presented to document the si te characteristics of the Phase III BRAC parcels. Some of the environmental setting information is general to all of LEAD, with specific references to the Phase III parcels as appropriate. The Phase III parcels co nsist of approximately 201 acres, with an additional 28 acres of subsurface property that is deeper than 8 ft bgs, located underneath parcels previously transferred as part of Phase II. There are no wetlands or other ecologically sensitive areas lo cated in the Phase III parcels. In addition, there are no areas of significant historical or arch aeological importance in the Phase III pa rcels. The information pertaining to the site conceptual model and the nature and extent of contamination is presented in Subsection 5.2.



### 5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

5.1.1 Topography and Surface Drainage

LEAD is located in the Great Valley section of the Valley an d Ridge Province of the east ern United States, and is referred to locally as the Cumberland Valley. The Cumb erland Valley trends northeast to southwest through central Pennsylvania and is bordered to the west by the Appalachian Mountain Province. The South Mountain section of the Blue Ridge Province is situated east of Chambersburg and marks the eastern edge of the Cumberland Valley.

The Cumberland Valley is characterized by southwest-tr ending limestone ridges and valleys. The valley floors are filled with rocks of the Martinsburg Formation. Weath ering of the folded and faulted underlying geological formations imparts a gently rolling aspect to the local topography. The majority of LEAD is located within the

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 11 Martinsburg Shale terrain, except for bands of carbonate rocks along the eastern and western edges of LEAD. The

PDO Area and the Southeast Industrial Area of LEAD ar e underlain by limestone. Figure 2 shows the general

locations of the PDO and SE Areas. Surface elevations throughout LEAD range from approximately 600 to 750 ft above mean sea level (msl), except fo r the northwestern portion of LEAD, wh ere the elevation increases abruptly to more than 2,300 ft msl in the vicinity of Broad Mountain (EA, 1991).

Streams cutting through the limestone terrain flow through broad, open valleys and are usually intermittent. In contrast to this, streams cutting through the upper shal e units of the Martinsburg Formation usually meander in small, steep-walled valleys and are perennial. Surface dr ainage at LEAD is divided into two watersheds—the Susquehanna River to the northeast and the Potomac River to the southwest. Both the Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers eventually drain into the Chesapeake Bay.

Surface water from the Phase III parcels located in the PDO Area flows to drainage ditches, and then ultimately flows to the Potomac River watershed via the Rocky Spring Branch system.

Two major stormwater drainage system s serve the southeastern portion of LEAD and contribute to local surface drainage for the Phase III parcels in the SE Area. One system serves the area north of Coffey Avenue and discharges near the industrial wastewat er treatment plant into the discharge ditch (located north of the industrial wastewater treatment plant), which discharges to Rowe Run; the northern part of the Phase III parcels/SMSR that are in the SE Area drains to this system. The ot her stormwater system serves the southeastern warehouse area; the southern part of the Phase III parcels/SMSR ar ea located in the SE Area drains to this system. Stormwater in this area is discharged at the stormw ater outfall into the southeastern drainageway, which discharges to the Conococheague Creek. Figure 2 illustrates the major drainage divides at LEAD.



### 5.1.2 Geology

LEAD straddles two major structural features—these are referred to as the “South Mountain anticlinorium” to the east and the “Massanutten synclinorium” to the west. An anticline refers to a configuration of folded, stratified rocks in which rocks dip in two directions aw ay from a crest, as principal rafters of a common gable roof dip away from ridgepole. A syncline refers to a conf iguration of folded, stratified rocks in which rocks dip downward from opposite directions to come together in a trough. The eastern portion of the Depot (underlain by carbonate rocks) is part of the anticlinorium, whereas th e western portion of the Depot (underlain by shale) is part of the synclinorium. These structures resulted from folding that occurred during the close of the Paleozoic era. High-angle reverse faulting accompanied the folding of rocks in the eastern portion of LEAD. Several major faults, which strike north to northeast and dip to the southeast at fairly steep angles, cross the PDO Area.

In the vicinity of LEAD, the Great Valley is floored by Ordovician age carbonate rock, as well as Ordovician age shale and greywacke of the Martinsburg Formation. The five formations occurring at LEAD are the shales of the Martinsburg Formation (Phase III/SMSR area), the limestones of the Chambe rsburg Formation and the St. Paul Group, the limestones and dolomites of the Rockdale Run Formation, and the dolomites of the Pinesburg Station Formation. These geological formations are fractured an d deformed to varying degrees from past geological activity (ESE, 1993a).

Two major faults, the Pinola fault and the Letterkenny fault, and several other unnamed faults, extend through the LEAD site boundary. Although an east-to-west cross fault was identified between these two faults, both the position and surface trace are open to question (Becher and Taylor, 1982).

The Letterkenny fault is one of the few faults in the region that parallels the tectonic grain, yet is an early formed, eastward-dipping, thrust that moved material from within the syncline up onto the anticline to the west (EA, 1991).

The Pinola fault, located west of the Letterkenny fault, is considered to be an east-dipping, high-angle, thrust fault (because older beds are located east of the fault). Because it is almost impossible to trace faults through theMartinsburg terrain, the fault trace is projected through the Martinsburg Formation on the basis of a ridgeforming unit that extends through it (Becher and Taylor, 1982).



### 5.1.3 Hydrogeology

The regional surface water flow system of Franklin County controls the general groundwater flow patterns within LEAD. The surface water drainage divide, disc ussed previously, also divides the groundwater flow

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 12 system i nto two b a s i ns. Groundw a ter e l ev a t i on contours w i th i n LEAD gener a ll y re f l ect sur f a ce topogr a p hy. The

w a ter t a b l e i s l oc a ted a t moder a te depth i n a re a s of t o p o gra p hic highs, and is shallow near s t ream v a lleys and

o t her t o p o gra p hic lows (ERM, 1995). This occurrence is de m o ns t ra t ed in t h e SMSR area as de p i c t ed in Figure 10 ; the SMSR is located in a high area along a ridge, where several groundwater/surface water divides cause groundwater to flow radially away from the SMSR.

The shale and carbonate rock that underlie LEAD have b een disturbed and faulted during deformational events that ultimately formed the Great Valley. The two major faults located within the confines of LEAD (the Pinola fault and the Letterkenny fault) influence groundwater fl ow. Where faulting is present and dissimilar rocks have been brought into contact, the fault tends to act as a barrier to groundwater movement, occasionally in low-lying areas forcing water within the formation to discharge as a fault spring. Where similar rocks are in contact along a fault (i.e., two limestone units), the groundwater movement may be only minimally affected (ERM, 1995).

Fracture systems within the Martinsb urg Formation (Phase III/SMSR area) ar e generally small but are numerous and well connected, thus allowing groundwater to gene rally follow a regional flow path. Groundwater flow within the limestone of the Chambersburg Formation an d St. Paul Group is more complex because it occurs predominantly through more isolated fractures and solution cavities typical of what is referred to as a “karst” terrain. Fractures in the limestones are mostly aligned with the regional northeast tectonic grain and are much more irregular and widely spaced than those in the adja cent shales. Where solution cavities are present in the limestone, groundwater flow more closely resembles open channel flow rather than the fracture flow described previously. The quantity and density of fractures and solu tion cavities within the limestone units are generally greatest in the upper 150 ft and generally decrease with depth. During three-quarters of the year (high and base flow conditions) groundwater levels are above the soil- bedrock interface. Leaching or resuspension of any materials or potential contaminants buried in the over burden soils may be enhanced during high water table conditions (ERM, 1995).

Groundwater “recharge” occurs primarily through precipitat ion. “Recharge” refers to replenishing of supplies of groundwater. Recharge areas occur throughout the ce ntral part of LEAD, wherever fractured and jointed
sandstone, siltstone, and shale bedrock are close to the surface. Actual points of recharge for the limestone aquifers have not been determined; however, the most likely routes are the many faults, joints, and sinkholes present at LEAD (ERM, 1995).

Groundwater underlying LEAD generally occurs under un confined conditions, with local areas of artesian conditions, which refers to when water flows upward unde r natural pressure, rather than having to be pumped to the surface. These artesian conditions occur along a mo derately steep slope located near the northwestern edge

of LEAD in the Ammunition Area.



### 5.1.4 Soils

Surface soils present at LEAD, including those in the Phase III/SMSR area, are predominantly shaley to very shaley silt loams that developed through weathering of the Martinsburg Shale and the interbedded siltstones and sandstones. According to the Soils Survey Bulletin of Franklin County , these soils have been classified as part of the Weikert-Berks-Bedington Association. So ils on the eastern edge of LEAD asso ciated with the limestone (outside the Phase III/SMSR area) have been identified as part of the Hagerstown-Duffield Association. These soils are deep, level or sloping, somewhat poorly drained, and most ly rocky, silty, clay loams. Along the western side of
LEAD, outside the BRAC area, are soils of both the La idig-Very stony land-Buchana n Association (formed from sandstone) and the Morrill-Laidig Association (formed on the foot of mountain slopes).



### 5.1.5 Four BRAC Sites

The characteristics of the four sites investigat ed are discussed in the following paragraphs:

**OVSA site (part of soil OUs PDO OU 6 and SE OU 8):** This site is situated in an open area with grass and
weeds, with wooded areas to the north and east. The OVSA site is surrounded by Army-retained industrial land, commercial/industrial use land (other BRAC property, some of which is open land), parts of the golf course, the Backwash Discharge site, and Phase I Parcel 27 (parking lot).

No known wetlands or sensitive species are present within or in the vicinity of the OVSA. Surface water drainage in the OVSA occurs as sheet flow to drainage ditches. There are several drainage ditches that run through and

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 13 around the OVSA. These drainage ditches, the same as described for the other three sites, are generally dry throughout most of the year and only have water flow d u ring precipi t a t ion even t s. The OVSA is split by surface

w a ter a nd groundw a ter dr a i n a ge d i v i des. Sur f a ce w a ter runo f f i n the western p a rt of the s i te f l ows f rom the drainage ditches to upper Rocky Spring Branch (near e st downs t ream aqua t i c area /permanent flowing creek), which is approxima t ely 2 miles downs t ream of t h e O V SA. Rocky Spring Branch flows through Rocky Spring
Lake, and flows t o Back C reek a pp roxi m a t ely 2.5 m iles d o wnstre a m of the l a ke, a nd u l t i m a te l y d i sch a rges i nto the Potomac River via Conococheague Creek. Surface water in a sm a l l port i on i n the southe a s tern p a rt of the s i te

a l so eventu a ll y f l ows to the Potom a c R i ver v i a the f l ow p a ttern descr i bed f or the B a ckw a sh D i sch a rge Are a

. Surface water runoff in the northeastern part of the site flows to storm sewers, which flow to Rowe Run approxima t ely 1⁄2 mile from t h e OVSA si t e, which eventually flows to the Susquehanna River.

**For m**  **e r Uncurbed AST**  **North of B**  **uilding 532 site (part of PDO OU 6):** This si t e is loca t ed at t h e nor t hern end of

a gra v el p a rking area; t h e t a nk was surrounded on t w o sid e s by the parking area. Maintained grassy areas of the golf course surround the gravel parking area and slope down steeply to the north a n d wes t . Surface runoff from

the s i te f l ows to dr a i n a ge d i tches to the north a nd west, wh i ch f l ow i nto R ocky Spr i ng L a ke, pr i m a r il y v i a R ocky Spring Branch, which flows to Back Creek approximately 2.5 m iles downs t rea m , and ul t i m a t e ly discharges in t o the Potomac River via Conococheague Creek.

**B a**  **ckwash Discharge Area from the Water**  **T r**  **eat m**  **e nt Plant site (part of SE OU 8):**  The site consists of grassy open fields, and portions of the site are periodically m a in t a ined by mowing. The si t e is surrounded by a parking

l ot ( P h a se I P a rcel 27 ) , p a rts of the go l f course, the w a ter tre a tment p l a nt, a nd p a rt of the O V SA s i te. Sur f a ce

runo f f f rom the s i te f l ows to dr a i n a ge d i tches a l ong the s i te a nd a l ong Co ff ey Avenue, wh i ch f l ow to the storm sewer system that eventually empties i nto the southe a s t dr a i n a gew a y i n the f a r southe a s tern corner of LEAD. The southeast drainageway flows to Conococheague Creek, which eventually discharges into the Potomac River.

**B u**  **ilding 400 Series F T**  **A site (part of SE OU 8):** This si t e is curren t ly lying fallow and is covered wi t h grass. The

si t e is surrounded by commercial/indus t rial use land (o t h er BRAC proper t y), agricul t ural land (off-si t e orchard),

a nd p a rt of the go l f course. Dr a i n a ge f or a l a rger port i on of the s i te f l ows to the west/southwest, wh il e the remaining por t ion flows via somewhat s t eep slopes to the east/southeast. S u rface runoff from t h e si t e flows t o roadside drainage ditches, which flow to the storm s e wer system that eventually empt i es i nto the southe a s t drainageway in the far southeastern corner of LEAD.



### 5.2 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

Based on the environmental baseline survey, four s i tes within the Phase III parcel areas and the SMSR groundwa t er underwent limi t ed inves t iga t ions of t h e s o ils t o rule out t h e po t en t ial for soil and groundwa t er contamination due to past o p erations. The remainder of the Phase III par c els were determined to be unaffected by activities at LEAD, and therefore, inv e s t iga t ions and sampling were not warran t ed.

To facilitate the transfer of the Phase III BRAC parcels where limited sampling was performed, a screening level risk assessment for human health effects was performed. The screening level risk assessment is a screening protocol (including comparison of the results to avail a ble risk-based criteria) that was developed by the Army,
EPA, and PADEP, as discussed in more de t a il in Sec t ion 7 of t h is ROD.

Remedial inves t iga t ions/risk assessmen t s were perform e d a t the s i tes to prov i de i n f orm a t i on to support a

dec i s i on to i nvest i g a t e f u rther, i m p l ement a remov a l a ct i on, or conduct no f u rther a ct i on a t the s i te. The objec t ives of t h e remedial inves t iga t ion for each si t e were to: ( 1 ) i dent i f y the type, l oc a t i on, a nd l eve l s of contamination (and extent of contamination where necessary ) a t the study s i te; ( 2 ) i dent i f y the phys i c a l s i tespecific charac t eris t ics t h at may inf l uence cont a m i n a nt d i str i but i ons; ( 3 ) determ i ne the potent i a l f or cont a m i n a nt migra t ion; and (4) de t ermine if t h ere are po t en t ially unacce p t able levels of risk t o people or t h e environment at the sites. The remedial investigation/risk assessment documents are available in the LEAD Administrative

Record.



### 5.2.1 Site Conceptual Model

The si t e conce p t u al m o dels for t h e OVSA/SMSR, U n cur b ed AST Nor t h of Building 532 si t e, t h e Backwash Discharge Area, and t h e Building 400 Series FTA are descri b e d in Ta b l es 1 t h ough 7. These conce p t ual m o dels list possible exposure pathways for people, animals, and plants that could possibly be exposed to soil and groundwater at the sites. Investigations at these sites ar e discussed in more detail in the following subsections.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 14 

### 5.2.2 SMSR Ground w ater

An inves t iga t ion was comple t ed t o de t ermine if past indus t r i a l a ct i v i t i es i n the SMSR a rea or the known sources of groundwater contamination surrounding this area ha d impacted the groundwater quality in the area. Field

ac t i v i t i es were p erfor m ed b e t w een Oc t o b er 1999 and No v e m b er 2000, and t h en addi t i onally in No v e m b er 2002.

Moni t o r wells were ins t alled and surveyed; groundwa t er at numerous locations across the site was sampled and analyzed, and da t a v a lida t ion was p erfor m ed on four rou n ds of sampling; groundwa t er levels were t a ken; and

risk assessments were conducted for the OVSA and the o t her areas of the SMSR (all Phase III parcels and Phase I Parcels 24, 27, and 28). The in v e s t iga t ions and e v alua t i o n s were done to ver i f y th a t there w a s no groundw a ter contamination in the SMSR/Phase III area, and that known sources of VOC groundwater contamination downgr a d i ent of the SMSR h a d not m i gr a t ed i nto the S M SR. The findings are reported in the OVSA remedial

in v e s t iga t ion/risk assess m ent (WESTON, 2003a) and t h e SMSR Su mm a ry Re p o rt (WESTON, 2003 b ).

The l oc a t i ons of the mon i tor we ll s a nd the groundw a ter elevations are shown in Figure 11 . The groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, polychlorinate d biphenyls (PCBs), and metals, primarily based on the past activities at the OVSA site and the surrounding VOC contamination in the limestone aquifer. The SMSR is “upgradient” from known sources of groundwater cont amination in the “downgradient” limestone aquifer. (“Upgradient” describes an area where groundwater is at a higher elevation than in other areas. Groundwater tends to flow away from upgradient locations toward downgradient locations, where groundwater is at a lower elevation.) The investigation results did not indicate any contaminants of concern (COCs). The sampling data collected indicate that there is no current VOC gr oundwater contamination present in the SMSR and the groundwater gradients show that the SMSR is upgradient of the contaminated limestone aquifer that surrounds the area. Four rounds of groundwater samples were ta ken from wells drilled into the shale. From these four rounds, only one chemical in one sa mple was found at a concentration greater than PADEP medium-specific concentrations (MSCs) and the EPA Federal maximum co ntaminant levels (MCLs). (Note that the MSCs for drinking water and the MCLs are the same values.) One well had a concentration of arsenic from one round of sampling that slightly exceeded the regulatory value, but was attributed to naturally occurring background levels, not contamination from industrial use or waste disposal.

The screening level risk assessment showed that risks to people based on current and future commercial/industrial use are within acceptable limits. Risks to people based on a possible, but unlikely, residential use (including human consumption of site gr oundwater) are within acceptable limits or are due to widespread naturally occurring levels of background co ntamination, which CERCLA generally does not attempt to remedy. Note that the area is served by a piped pub lic drinking water system, reducing the need to rely on groundwater for drinking water. This area has never b een used by the Army as a drinking water supply. In addition, the land will be part of the Cumberland Va lley Business Park, and in accordance with the business park’s Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions, one of the prohibited uses of the property is drilling for water.



### 5.2.3 OVSA

An investigation was completed to determine if the form er vehicle storage operation had caused a release of
contaminants to site soil, sediments, surface water, and groundwater. Field activities were performed at various periods between October 1998 and November 2000, and th en additionally in November 2002 (groundwater sampling). Geophysical surveys, soil borings, test tren ching, soil sampling and analysis, drainage ditch soil sampling and analysis, surface water sampling and analysis, monitor well installation, water level measurements, groundwater sampling and analysis, data validation, and surveying were performed. Soil samples were collected based on the information obtained from the geophysical survey that identified disturbed areas and areas that could potentially be contaminated . Some of the test trenching and soil borings were completed as an additional round of investigation to further delineate the lateral extent of buried material (including roofing material) and/or contaminants detected in the first set of test trenches. The results of the groundwater sampling are the same as described for the SM SR. The results of the remedial investigation for soil indicated that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were initially COCs in soil (see the following inset box). Concentrations of 17 types of PAHs were detected at hi gh concentrations across the majority of the horizontal extent of the western part of the site; 5 of these compou nds, including benzo(a)pyrene, were identified as COCs. Maximum concentrations of the various PAHs ranged from 53 milligrams per k ilogram (mg/kg, which is equivalent to “parts per million” [ppm]) of acenaphthale ne to 6,600 mg/kg of phenanthrene on the western side of the site. The maximum benzo(a)pyrene concentration detected was 2,300 mg/kg. PAH contamination was

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 15 found at de p t hs from 1 ft t o a pp roxi m a t ely 12 ft b gs. T h e OVSA site layout showing sa mple loca t i ons is shown in

F i gure 12

. The text box presents i n f orm a t i on a b out the COCs present pr i or to the remov a l a ct i on a t the O V SA.

Therefore, in 2000, alternatives were developed and ev aluated in an engineering evaluation/cost analysis document (similar to a feasibility study [FS]), which is a technical report that evaluates the need for a removal action (WESTON, 2000a). A non-time-critical-removal acti on was then implemented from July to November 2000 to reduce or eliminate potential risks to people and the environment at the site (IT, 2001). The area where the removal action was completed is shown in Figure 12. This removal action consisted of excavating contaminated soils and disposing of them in regulated off-site disposal facilities. The total amount of contaminated soil and waste removed from the site was approximately 46,470 tons.

Previous Contaminants of Concern at the OVSA Site (Present in Soils Prior to the 2000 Removal Action)

PAHs: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a group of over 100 different chemicals (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene) that are formed during incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other or ganic substances such as toba cco or charbroiled meat. PAHs are found mostly in coal tar, crude oil, creosote, and roofing ta r. Present in low concentrations virtually everywhere, PAHs occasionally reach elevated concentrations as the result of prolonged industrial activiti es involving burning, or by releases o f materials such as creosote-based wood preservatives, that c ontain PAHs in high concentrations. PAHs are slow to degrade in

the environment and can also accumulate in the tissues of ma rine animals. PAHs are a concern because some of them cause

cancers in humans and are harmful to fi sh when concentrations are elevated.

The analytical data from the remedial investigation and from the confirmation samples collected after the removal action were then evaluated and reported in the remedial investigation/risk assessment report (WESTON, 2003a). The investigation results for both the ea stern and western sides based on post-removal-action conditions did not indicate any COCs in groundwater, so il, sediments, or surface water. Various VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals were identified as chemical s of potential concern (COPCs) based on a comparison of maximum chemical concentrations to the lowest regulatory residential risk-based screening levels (also referred to as benchmarks). However, the remedial investig ation/risk assessment showed that concentrations of
chemicals found in site soils, sediment s, surface water, and groundwater pose no unacceptable risks to people, plants, or animals based on current and future commerc ial/industrial reuse. Risks to people based on a theoretical future residential use are within accept able limits or are due to widespread background contamination, which CERCLA generally does not attempt to remedy.



### 5.2.4 Former Uncurbed AST North of Building 532 Site

An investigation was completed to determine if the operatio n of the former AST at the site had caused a release of contaminants to site soil. Field activities were perfor med in April 1999. Soil borings, soil sampling and analysis, data validation, and surveying were performed. The site layout showing sample locati ons is shown in Figure 7. The investigation results did not indicate any COCs in soil and there were no potential sources of groundwater contamination found. Only two chemical s (acetone and lead) were identified as COPCs based on a comparison of maximum chemical concentrations to the lowest regula tory residential benchmarks. However, the remedial investigation/risk assessment (WESTON, 2002a) showed that co ncentrations of chemicals found in site soils pose no unacceptable risks to people based on current and likel y future commercial/industrial use. Risks to people are also within acceptable limits based on a theoretical futu re residential use. There is minimal habitat available capable of sustaining plants and animals at this site; therefore, ecological risks were not evaluated.



### 5.2.5 Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant Site

An investigation was completed to determine if the former water treatment plant flocculant and backwash sediment disposal practices had caused a release of contaminants to site soil and sediments. Field activities were performed in October 1998. Soil borings, soil and drainage ditc h soil sampling and analysis, sediment sampling and analysis, data validation, and surveying were performed. The site layout showing sample locations is shown in Figure 8. The investigation results did not indicate an y COCs in soil and there were no potential sources of groundwater contamination found. Various metals were identified as COPCs based on a comparison of maximum chemical concentrations to the lowest regula tory residential benchmarks. However, the remedial investigation/risk assessment (WESTON, 2002c) showed that co ncentrations of chemicals found in site soils pose no unacceptable risks to people, plants, or animals ba sed on current and likely future commercial/industrial uses. Risks to people are also within acceptable lim its based on a theoretical future residential use.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 16 

### 5.2.6 Building 400 Series FTA Site

An investigation was completed to determine if the former fire training activities had caused a release of contaminants to site soil. Field activities were performed in September 1998. A geophysical survey, test trenching, soil sampling and analysis, data validat ion, and surveying were performed. The site layout showing sample locations is shown in Figure 9. The investigation result s did not indicate any COCs in soil and there were no potential sources of groundwater contamination found. One VOC (acetone), two SVOCs (PAHs), various metals, and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin s/polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDDs/PCDFs) were identified as COPCs based on a comparison of maximum chemical co ncentrations to the lowest regulatory residential benchmarks. However, the remedial investigat ion/risk assessment (WESTON, 2002b) showed that

concentrations of chemicals found in si te soils pose no unacceptable risks to people, plants, or animals based on current and likely future commercial/industrial use. Risks to people are also within acceptable limits based on a

theoretical future residential use.



# SECTION 6

CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND AND RESOURCE USES

6.1 LAND USE

The majority of the land in the Phase III parcels in the SE Area and PDO Area is used for industrial operations (water treatment plant), supply storage, administration (office space and communic ations center), commercial recreational activities (golf course and community buildin g), and former military housing. There are also areas of open land (including the OVSA and the golf course) inte rspersed in the Phase III parcels in the SE Area, which are characterized as maintained grassy areas, sparsely vegetated/grassy fields, pockets of wooded areas, vegetated natural and manmade drainageways, and small gr oves of trees. In accordance with the LIDA reuse plan as documented in the LEAD reuse strategy report (FCRC, 1997) and discussions between the Army and LIDA, the future use of the Phase III parcels being transf erred to LIDA is planned for commercial/industrial use as part of the Cumberland Valley Business Park. The majo rity of the Phase III parcels in the SE and PDO Areas will continue to be used for commercial (office sp ace and commercial recreational activities – golf course/industrial. LIDA currently has specified plans in -place for industrial development at several Phase III parcels. In addition, the Phase III pa rcels and associated sites are locate d in Greene Township, which prohibits
residential use of the land in this area. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the business park would close and that

the land would convert to residential use in the future.



### 6.2 GROUNDWATER USE

When LEAD was first constructed, Rocky Spring served as the Depot’s water supply. In the 1950s a groundwater study prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U SACE) concluded that there was not a viable source of groundwater available within LEAD boundaries to suppl y the Depot’s new industrial mission (Acker, 1995) due to insufficient well capacity to meet the Depot’s needs. LEAD subsequently built a 300-million-gallon reservoir in Roxbury that continues to serve as the Depot’s water supply. LIDA has extended the existing piped potable water supply system to the OVSA to service future developm ent. The land will be part of the Cumberland Valley
Business Park, and in accordance with Section 8.9,“Prohi bited Uses,” of the business park’s Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions, one of the prohibited uses of the prop erty is drilling for water. Also, under Section 85-52 of the Greene Township code entitled “Standards for Sewe r and Water Systems,” Paragraph F, any new land development within 500 ft of an existing public water syst em is required to hook into the public water system. Currently, there are restrictions on the on-post ground water at LEAD for the areas that are outside the Phase III/SMSR area (i.e., the groundwater is not used for drinki ng, irrigation, cooling, or any other purpose because of VOC contamination).

The only use of groundwater in the area is off-post of LEAD, where some homes use individual water wells to supply their needs. Groundwater is also used off-post of LEAD as a water supply for livestock. Any homes on well water that exceeded the EPA regulatory value for VOCs, which is referred to as the maximum contaminant level (MCL), were initially supplied with bottled water, and later connected to public water.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 17 No VOC contamination (that is, no conc entrations higher than levels acceptable to EPA and PADEP) has been found in the groundwater at the Phase III properties.



### 6.3 SURFACE-WATER USE

There are no surface water bodies in the Phase III BRAC parc els; surface water is only present in drainage ditches during and after precipitation events.



# SECTION 7

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

The Army, EPA, and PADEP concluded that risks to people , plants, and animals from potential contact with soil and groundwater were acceptable for contaminants foun d in the SMSR groundwater (groundwater associated with the Phase III and Phase I parcels listed in this ROD) and in soils/sediments at the OVSA, Former Uncurbed AST North of Building 532, Backwash Discharge Area, or th e Building 400 Series FTA sites and that no action is necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment. For the OVSA site, this conclusion is based on the conditions of the site following the removal action that was performed in 2000 when PAH-contaminated soil was removed from the site. Remedial investigation/risk assessment reports for the sites (WESTON, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2003a), available in the Administrative Record, contai n detailed descriptions of the risk assessments. Both ecological and human health risk assessments were incl uded to address potential current and future risks to

human health and the environment associated with envi ronmental media (soil and groundwater) at the Phase III parcels. The text boxes in Subsection 7.1 explain the hu man health and ecological risk assessment process used

for these sites.

A screening level risk assessment process was used to eval uate risks to people, plants, and animals for the Phase III BRAC sites, including the SMSR groundwater. The sc reening level risk assessmen t process is a streamlined approach for identifying potential COCs and estimating potential risks at sites not known to or not expected to have widespread contamination. A human health screenin g level risk assessment compares the concentrations of

hazardous substances in soil to chemic al concentrations corresponding to fixed levels of risk, e.g., a lifetime cancer risk of one-in-one-million (1-in-1,000,000 or 1 x 10 -6 ). Not as comprehensive as a baseline risk assessment, it nevertheless incorporates the principal technical elem ents of a baseline assessment. The Army, EPA Region III staff, and PADEP reviewed and agreed upon the screen ing level risk assessment methodology. The screening level approach is consistent with EPA policy, Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response [OSWER] Directive No. 9355.7-04, 25 May 1995) (EPA, 1995a). The CERCLA and screening level human health risk assessment approaches and summaries of the media-specific human health

evaluations are described in the boxes in Subsection 7.1.

The Phase III parcels and associated sites are all pa rt of BRAC property with an intended future commercial/industrial reuse, as specified by the land reuse plan published by LIDA, the local development authority scheduled to receive the property. The BRAC property at LEAD is to be part of an already-established business park. In addition, the Phase III parcels and a ssociated sites are located in Greene Township, which prohibits residential use of the land in this area. Therefor e, it is highly unlikely that the business park would close
and that the land would convert to residential use in the future. However, future residential land use was

evaluated in the human health risk assessment. The follo wing human health risk a ssessment summary focuses on the results of the residential scenario evaluation because this represented the highest risk for all sites relative to the other exposure scenarios evaluated.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 18 

### 7.1 SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH RISKS

7.1.1 Introduction and Overview

A multi-step process was used in the screening level risk assessments that were performed for the SMSR groundwater (as reported in the OVSA remedial investigat ion/risk assessment) and soils for the four BRAC sites. The steps and the technical elements of each of those st eps used in the baseline risk assessment and the screening level risk assessments are provided in the insets on the following pages.

The human health risk assessment identified all chemicals found in concentrations that could cause cancer in 1 out of 1,000,000 people (this means on e additional chance in one million that a person will develop cancer if exposed to contaminated soil or groundwater). In additi on, the risk assessment identifies whether or not these

concentrations would result in harmful effects other than cancer by calculating hazard indices (HIs) for chemicals that do not cause cancer. A hazard index compares an exis ting amount of a chemical to an amount that might cause harmful noncancer health effects in people, again considering uncertainty in the risk assessment process and current and potential future land use. If the hazard index is greater than one, then there may be concern that harmful health effects (sickness) will occur in people. The assessment also considers uncertainty in the risk assessment process, which includes comparison to site ba ckground levels where available (e.g., for metals, which can be naturally occurring) as well as current and potential future land use.

Human health risks were evaluated for exposures to co ntaminants (also referred to as chemicals of concern [COCs]). COCs are chemicals that are found in site media, su ch as soil, groundwater, or air, that are identified for

further risk evaluation based on a number of factors. These factors include the chemical’s degree of toxicity, concentration, frequency of detection, and chemical properties important to the release, transport, and potential to come in contact with people. COCs are specific to each site and medium of concern (e.g., soil, air, groundwater).

What Is a Human Health Risk Assessment and How is it Calculated ?

A CERCLA human health risk assessment estimates the “baseline risk. ” This is an estimate of t he likelihood of health problems occurring if no cleanup action were taken at a site. To estimate the baseline risk at a CERCLA site, the Army, EPA, and PADEP undertake a four-step process:

Step 1: Analyze contamination Step 2: Estimate exposure Step 3: Assess potential health dangers Step 4: Characterize site risk

In Step 1, the concentrations of contami nants found at a site, as well as past scientif ic studies on the effects these contamin ants have had on people (or animals, when human studi es are unavailable), are considered. Comparisons between site-specific

concentrations and concentra tions reported in past studies hel p determine which contaminants are most likely to pose the greate st

threat to human health.

In Step 2, the different ways that people might be exposed to t he contaminants identified in Step 1, the concentrations that pe ople might be exposed to, and the potential frequency and duration of expos ure are considered. Using th is information, a “reasonable maximum exposure” (RME) scenario is calc ulated, which portrays the highest level of human exposure that could reasonably be expected to occur.

In Step 3, the information from Step 2 is used in combination wi th information on the toxicity of each chemical to assess poten tial health risks. There are two types of risk: cancer risk and noncancer risk. The likelihood of any kind of cancer resulting from a CERCLA site is generally expressed as an upperbound probability; e. g., a “1-in-1,000,000 chance.” In other words, for every 1,000,000 people that could be exposed, one extra c ancer may occur as a result of exposure to site contaminants. An extra cance r case means that one more person could get cancer than would normally be expected to from all other causes. For noncancer health effects, a hazard index is calculated. The key concept here is that a "threshold level” (meas ured usually as a hazard index of less than 1) exists below which noncancer health effects are no longer predicted.

In Step 4, a determination is made on whether site risks are great enough to cause health problems for people at or near the CERCLA site. The results of the three previous steps are co mbined, evaluated, and summarized. The potential risks from the individual exposure pathways are added to provide the total risk.

The completion of the multi-step screening level risk a ssessment process and subsequent site-specific background (i.e., reference) data comparison is intended to provide the necessary information to facilitate a decision by the BRAC Cleanup Team to recommend site clearance or a more detailed investigation such as additional sampling or a baseline risk assessment. Acceptable levels of risk or exposure are explained in the inset on the following

page.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 19 What is a Screening Level Risk Assessment?

The screening level risk assessment process is a streamlined approach for identifying pot ential contaminants of concern (COCs) and estimating health risks at sites not known or not expected to have widespread contami nation. The first step (i.e., Level 1) det ermines the potential COCs by comparing maximum levels of chemical s found at the site to published (or calculated) risk-based screening levels, also referred to as benchmarks or screening levels, dev eloped for sites to be used for residential purposes. This metho d measures risks to human health by compari ng concentrations of hazardous substances found at the site with theoretical concentrations developed by EPA and PADEP, wh ich are considered to pose no unacceptabl e risk to human health. Chemicals that have maximum concentrations greater than t he lowest benchmark are carried into the second step of the evaluation. Residentially based benchmarks are more stringent and thus, more protective than those based on industrial use and, at the request of EPA Region III, are used to ensure that no potential COCs are overlooked.

For sites that have chemicals exceeding t he Level 1 screen, the assessment of potential health effects is refined in the second step (i.e., Level 2) by calculating estimates of the cancer and noncancer risks for those potentially exposed to contamination at th e site. This is done by first determining the “expos ure point concentration” for each chemical by statistica lly evaluating the site dat a. The exposure point concentration repres ents a concentration of chemicals(s) that a per son at the site may be exposed to, in a worst case. Then site-specific, risk-based health benchmarks are calc ulated based on specified risk level goals for each exposure scenario. This means that if a site user or worker were expos ed to the chemical at levels gr eater than this calculated benchmar k concentration, their health may be at risk at an unacceptable level. Exposure scenario re fers to an evaluation of what types of people use the site, how people use the site now, and how they will use t he site in the future, and ways in which they can be exposed to chemicals, such as ingestion of soil dur ing lawn maintenance by a maintenance work er. The cancer and noncancer risks are then estimated with a calculation procedure t hat uses the exposure point concentration and the site-spec ific benchmarks. If the esti mated risk is acceptable, then the parcel is deemed suitable for property transfer.

If any chemicals exceed Level 2 benchmarks, t he levels of those potential COCs at the site are compared statistically to levels of the chemicals found in areas not affected by past activities at the site (also referred to as site-specific “background”). If the v alues at the site are not statistically different from “background” concentrations, then it can be determined that detected levels of chemic als are not site-related. If the screening level risk assessment results determine that a parcel does not pose a threat to human health based on the present and intended future use or potential future use (i.e., commercial/industrial or residential), the parcel is deem ed suitable for property transfer.

What are Acceptable Levels of Exposure ?

Current Federal guidelines fo r acceptable exposures are:

(1) an individual lifetime excess carcinogenic risk in the range of a one-in-ten-t housand (1-in-10,000 or 1 x 10 -4 ) to onein-one-million (1-in-1,000,000 or 1 x 10 -6 ); and (2) a maximum hazard index equal to 1.0 for noncancer (also referred to as noncarcinogenic) effects. A hazar d index greater than 1.0 indicate s a potential for noncancer effects.



### 7.1.2 Identification of Chemicals of Concern (COCs)

Soil and drainageway samples collected at the OVSA, the Former Uncurbed AST North of Building 532, the Backwash Discharge Area, the Building 400 Series FTA sites, and groundwater samples from the SMSR (as reported in the OVSA remedial investigation/risk asse ssment) were included in the dataset used for the screening level risk assessment for each site. Sampling data were “validated,” which means subjected to a quality review, according to EPA Region III guidelines, which in cludes comparing to qualit y control samples such as blanks. Data that were rejected in the data validation we re not used in the risk assessment. There were no COCs for any of the sites, based on current conditions. Ther e were, however, chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) identified by comparing maximum soil/drainageway chemic al concentrations to risk-based screening levels. These COPCs were then used for calculating estimated risk at the sites. Published screening values used for the screening level risk assessment follow; the assumptions for calculating these values are available in the citations

listed.

**Adjusted EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentra tions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,**  Risk-Based
Concentration Tables, **EPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA, April 2002):** EPA Region III maintains a list of riskbased concentrations (RBCs) for chemicals in various medi a (e.g., soil, water, air) that correspond to a target

cancer risk of 1 x 10 -6 (1-in-1,000,000) or a target noncancer hazard qu otient (HQ) (referred to as a hazard index when calculated for a site) of 1. For the purposes of identifying the COPCs, the residential soil ingestion riskbased concentrations were adjusted to reflect a risk-b ased screening concentratio n (i.e., RBSC). Risk-based screening concentrations for carcinogens we re developed at a target risk of 1 x 10 -6 . For chemicals associated with noncancer health effects, the target hazard quotient was ad justed to 0.1, thus, lowering the noncancer risk-based concentration values presented in the risk-based table by an order of magnitude to address the additivity of noncancer effects when there is exposure to multiple chemicals. As noted in the EPA Region III risk-based
concentration table, a concentration based on a 0.1 hazar d quotient may be lower, and more protective, than a

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 20 concen t ra t ion b a sed on a t a rget cancer risk of 1 x 1 0 -6 . In these cases, the lower and more protective concentration

was used.

EPA Site Screening Levels for VOCs and Particulate Inhalation (U.S. E nv i ronmental Protect i o n Agency, 1996, S o il Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document, E P A / 540 / R-956 / 128, P B 96-963502, Off i ce of So li d Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. May 1996; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, S o il Screening Gui da nce: Technical Background Document and Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guid e , 9355-4.23, E P A / 540 / R-96 / 018, P B 96- 963505, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, April 1996; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Soil Screening Ca lculations, www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superf und/programs/risk/calc_sta.htm).: Soil screening levels (SSLs) for inhala t i on exposure t o organic compounds (VOCs) and met a l s ( p a rt i cu l a tes) f rom soil were calcula t ed for all de t ec t ed chemicals for each si t e using t h e EPA soil screening guidance calcula t ions.

The t a rget risk and t a rget hazard quo t ient are iden t i c a l t o t h ose used in calcula t ing risk- b ased screening concentrations. For the purposes of COPC screening, oral reference doses were extrapolated to the inhalation

rou t e when no inhala t i on t o xici t y cri t eria were available.

Conven t i onally, inhala t i on soil screening l e vels were evalua t ed using t h

e accep t able daily in t a

ke approach, which uses t h

e unit risk factor or reference concentration values for an adult exposur e . The inhala t i on soil screening level calcula t ion me t h

od and inpu t assumptions for cancer effects, as described in the EPA guidanc e , were modified at the request of EPA Region III to estimate v a

lues for the age-adjusted child and adult. EPA Region III requested th at the Army estimate noncancer inhalation soil screening leve l s based on childhood exposure. Because the i nhala t i on equa t i ons defined in t h

e soil sc r eening level guidance use unit risk fac t or or reference concentration values, the calculation method was adjus t ed to re f l ect the ch il d’s body we i g

ht a nd i nh a

l a

t i on r a

te.

The vola t iliza t ion fac t ors were es t i ma t ed on a chemical-spe cific basis. The Harrisburg region was selected as the

i nput v a l u e to the c a l cu l a t i on f or w i nd d i spers i on bec a use th i s l oc a t i on i s the one c l osest to Ch a m bersburg, PA.

**EPA Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Ground w**  **ater (see EPA soil screening level citations listed previously):**  Soil screening levels for groundwa t er pro t ec t i on were calculated for all detected site chemicals. The

convention a l method of using the EPA m a ximum cont a m in a nt level (MCL), ac t i on level, or heal t h -based limit in

the EPA Soil Screening Guidance was modified by substituting these crite r ia with the EPA Region III tapwater riskb a sed concen t ra t ions at a t a rget cancer risk of 1 x 1 0 -6 or at an adjus t ed t a rget hazard quo t ient of 0.1. A dilu t i onattenuation factor of 1 was used to achieve the most c o nserva t i ve soil screening level; t h is means t h at it is

a ssumed th a t there i s li tt l e d il u t i on i f a cont a m i n a nt wou l d m i gr a t e to groundw a ter. De f a u l t ( or st a nd a rd) i nputs provided in t h e EPA guidance were used for all o t her values. Any chemical exceedi n g soil screening levels for groundwa t er pro t ec t i on were quali t a t ively evalua t ed in the screening level risk assessment for its potential impact on groundwater.

**PADEP Medium-Specific Concentrations (MSCs) (C o**  **mmonwealth of Pennsylvania, Rules and Regulations,**

**Title 25 – Environ m**  **e ntal Protection, Environ**  **m e**  **ntal Q u**  **ality Board [25 PA Code Chapter 250], Ad m**  **inistration of the Land Recycling Program [Act 2],**  Pennsylvania Bulletin **, Vol. 31, No. 47. 24 Nove m**  **b er 2001):**  If EPA Region III risk-based concentrations or soil screening levels were not available for a chemical, and a toxicity value

f or the chem i c a l i n q u est i on cou l d not be obt a i ned through the N a t i on a l Center f or Env i ronment a l Assessment or other source provided by the EPA Region III toxicolog i st, then Pennsylvania Act 2 guidance was consulted for medium-specific concen t ra t ions for soil inges t ion and i nhalation of VOCs or par t iculates. Medium-specific concentrations are chemical-specific risk-based concent r ations developed in a way similar to the EPA Region III risk-based concentrations. The medium-specific concent r a t ion t a b l es are b a sed on a t a rget risk of 1 x 10 -5 and a

t a rget hazard quo t ient of 1. For t h e p ur p oses of t h e screening e v alua t i on, t h e t a rget risk was adjus t ed t o 1 x 1 0 -6

, and t h e t a rget hazard quo t ient adjus t ed t o 0.1. The PADEP Act 2 guidance con t ains t h e calcula t ion m e t h ods.

Because EPA Region III does not recommend the use of PADEP benchmarks for COPC screening, any COPCs

selec t ed only as a result of medium- s pec i f i c concentr a t i on comp a r i s ons a re f ootnoted i n the respect i ve t a b l es a nd

discussed in t h e uncer t ain t y analysis rela t i ve t o t h eir impac t s on COPC selec t ion.



### 7.1.3 Site COPCs

No COCs were identified for the OVSA site, based on pos t -removal-ac t ion confirma t o ry sampling da t a

. Table 8 presents the COPCs (indicated by a “yes” in the CO PC column), the minimum/maximum concentrations, and

the f re q uency of detect i on f or the COPCs f or the O V SA b a sed on the post-removal-acti o n site conditions. Table 9 provides the exposure point concentrations for the OVSA COPCs. Exposure point concentrations are explained

in more detail in Subsection 7.1.4.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 21 Previously, before t h e soil removal ac t i on at t h e si t e , t h e OVSA inves t iga t ions and screening level risk assessment showed possible risks (industrial exposure) a ssociated with elevated levels of a group of SVOCs

referred to as PAHs in soil. The COCs at that time were benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anth r acene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. The screening level risk assessment

conducted b a sed on s i te cond i t i ons pr i or to the remov a l a ct i on a re presented i n the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Open Vehicle Storage Area Soils (WESTON, 2000a), which is a v aila b l e in t h e Ad m i nis t ra t i v e Record

for LEAD.

No C O C s were iden t i fied for t h e For m er Uncur b ed AST Nor t h of Building 532, t h e Backwash Discharge Area,

and t h e Building 400 Series FTA si t es. Lis t s of t h e C O P C s, t h e m i ni m u m / m a xi m um concen t ra t ions, t h e frequency
of detection for the COPCs, and EPCs for the C O P C s are p ro v ided in Ta b l es 10 t h rough 15.

For t h e SMSR, da t a from all of t h e wells drilled in t h e shale were used in t h e risk assessmen t . Therefore, all of t h e detected chemicals were considered COPCs for the purpo s es of calcula t ion of risk and heal t h effec t s. The summary of chemicals detected in the SMSR, frequency of de t ec t ion, and EP C s are p ro v ided in Ta b l e 16

.



### 7.1.4 Exposure Assessment

For the sites associated with the Phase III parcels, conc eptual models of human exposure were developed that identified potential pathways by which exposure co uld occur and characterized the potentially exposed populations (e.g., workers and residents). These conceptual models are provided in Table 1 (OVSA/SMSR), Table 3 (Uncurbed AST North of Building 532), Table 4 (Backwas h Discharge Area), and Table 6 (Building 400 Series FTA). Under current conditions (prese nt use scenario), potential exposure at the OVSA, Former Uncurbed AST North of Building 532, Backwash Discharge Area, or the Building 400 Series FTA sites is limited to workers engaged in property maintenance. Risks to current site workers were evaluated under the future commercial/industrial use scenario.

The screening level risk assessments for the OVSA, the Former Uncurbed AST North of Building 532, the Backwash Discharge Area, the Building 400 Series FTA site s, and the SMSR study area (groundwater) included evaluating health effects for adult commercial/in dustrial workers and construction workers in a commercial/industrial setting, under the likely future use scenarios. In addition, other possible, but much less likely, scenarios were evaluated includ ing an on-site resident. Under potential future site conditions, risks to workers and residents (children and adults) were quan titatively evaluated for exposures to surface soils, subsurface soils, and groundwater. The exposure routes ev aluated were those that could result from current and future direct contact (incidental ingestion and dermal co ntact) with: (1) soil and sediment (e.g., children ingesting or having direct skin contact with soil or inhaling cont aminated soil particles while playing in the area), and (2) groundwater (e.g., through ingestion and inhalation). In addition, the agricultural worker and off-site resident consuming beef and dairy products were evaluated for th e Building 400 Series FTA site, and a recreational user (golfer) was evaluated for the OVSA site.

For this assessment, it was assumed that commercial, industrial, and agricultur al workers’ exposure to site soils would occur over a conservative period of 25 years, th e assumed duration of employ ment at any one location. Construction workers’ exposures to soils were assumed to occur in a short-term (ranging from 3 months to 2 years, depending on the size of the site) period of constr uction requiring excavation of soils. Exposure duration for residents was assumed to be 30 years (24 years adult, 6 years child). Exposure models and assumptions used to estimate exposure are provided in Subsection 5. 2.4 of the remedial investigations/risk assessments.

The exposure assessment uses exposure point concentratio ns, which are concentrations of a chemical in a given medium that a receptor may be exposed to at a specif ic location. The reasonable maximum exposure is the highest exposure that could reasonably be expected for a given pathway at a site and is intended to account for both uncertainty in the contaminant concentration and va riability in the exposure parameters. To account for the uncertainty in the contaminant concentration, the 95% u pper confidence limit (UCL) was calculated and used as the exposure point concentration. When the 95 % UCL exceeded the maximum valu e, the maximum chemical

concentration was used.



### 7.1.5 Toxicity Assessment

In evaluating potential health risks, all exposure pathways were quantified for potential exposure and consequent risk by comparison to site-specific, risk-bas ed health screening concentrations (RBSCs), also referred to as benchmarks, that were calculated based on specifie d risk level goals for each exposure scenario. The risk-

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 22 b a sed benchm a rks were c a l cu l a t ed us i ng methods a nd tox i c i ty d a ta f rom EPA re f erences s i m il a r to those used f or a baseline risk assessment. Both cancer-causing and n o ncancer-causing effects from exposure to soil were

considered in the risk assessment.

The po t en t ial for producing cancer-causing effec t s is limi t ed to those subst a nces th a t h a ve been shown to produce cancer in animals and/or humans. Excessive exposure to all substances, carcinogenic or not, can produce adverse noncancer health effects. Therefore, cancer slope fac t ors were identified for those chemicals classified as carcinogens and reference doses, when available, were i d entified for every chemical selected regardless of its

classification. Reference doses are used to evaluate the po t en t ial for adverse heal t h effec t s from exposure t o COPCs exhibiting noncancer effects.

7.1.5.1 Carcinogens
EPA has developed cancer slope factors for estimating e x cess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to

po t en t ially carcinogenic COPCs. Cancer slope fac t ors are derived from t h e resul t s of human epidemiological

s t udies or animal bioassays t o which animal- t o-human e x t ra p ola t ion and uncer t ain t y fac t ors ha v e b een a pp lied. Cancer slope factors used in the screening level risk assessment were obtained from EPA’s Integrated Risk

Informa t ion Sys t em (IRIS) d a tabase. Slope factors not av a ilable on IRIS were obtained from EPA’s second most current source of toxicity information, the H e alth Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). At th i s t i me, slope factors are not available for the dermal route of e x posure. Dermal slope factors used in the assessment have been extrapolated from oral slope val u es used in this assessment. Cancer tox i c i ty d a ta used f or the screen i ng level risk assessments are provided in Tab l e 17 (oral/der m al) and Ta b l e 18 (inhala t i on).

7.1.5.2 Noncarcinogens

EPA has developed media-specific reference doses for indi cating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to COPCs exhibiting noncancer effects. Re ference doses are derived from human epidemiological

studies or animal studies to which un certainty factors have been applied. Reference doses used in the screening

level risk assessments were obtained from EPA’s IRIS database. Reference doses not available on IRIS were

obtained from EPA’s second most current source of toxi city information, HEAST. Noncancer toxicity data used for the screening level risk assessments are provided in Ta b l e 19 (oral/der m al) and Ta b l e 20 (inhala t i on).



### 7.1.6 Risk Characterization

The risk characterization presents the nature and the de gree of the potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic (noncancer) risks posed to the current and future human health receptors presented previously in the exposure assessment. The cancer and noncancer toxicity data were used to calculate the risk-based screening concentrations. The algorithms and exposure inputs for th e calculation of the risk-bas ed screening concentrations for soil for residential use are presented in Tables 21 tho u gh 25 , and for groundwa t er inges t ion in Ta b l e 26 . The

cancer and noncancer risks are then estimated with a calculation procedure that uses the exposure point concentration and the site-specific benchmarks.

Incremental lifetime cancer risks for soils and for ground water were determined for each COPC by the following algorithm. Cancer risk for groundwater ingestion by the resident was determined individually for the child and

the adult.

Cancer risk = (EPC * 1 x 10 -6 ) / (RBSC)

Where:

EPC = Exposure point concentration in soil (m g/kg) or groundwater (micrograms per liter [μg/L]).

RBSC = Pathway-specific risk-based soil sc reening or groundwater benchmark (mg/kg or μg/L, respectively), target cancer risk of 1 x 10 -6

. The hazard quotients (HQs) for soils and for groundwate r were determined for each COPC by the following algorithm. Systemic toxicity from groundwater ingestion by the resident was determined individually for the

child and the adult.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 23 HQ = (EPC * 0.1) / (RBS C )

Where:

EPC = Exposure point concen t ra t ion in soil (mg/kg) or groundwa t er (μg/L).

RBSC = Pathway-specific risk-based soil s c reening or groundwater benchmark (mg/kg or μg/L, res p ec t i v ely), t a rget hazard quo t ient (THQ) of 0.1. The t erm “THQ of 0.1”

used here m e ans t h at t h e RBSC is 1/1 0 th of the number that would be considered a “safe dose” ( b elow which no ad v erse heal t h effects are likely to occur for a specific chemical). The lower “safe dose” value is used as a t a rget “ t hreshold v a lue” t o allow

for t h e effec t s of m ul t i p le che m icals. Also no t e t h at t h e t er m s “hazard quo t ien t ” and

“hazard index” are si m ilar t e r m s; t h e hazard index for a si t e is t h e sum of all hazard

quo t ien t s.

7.1.6.1 Estimated Risks and Health Effects
The human health screening level risk assessment for the sites concluded that the lifetime excess cancer risks for

the f u ture a du l t/ch il d res i dent f rom exposure to s i te-related chemicals evaluated in the risk assessment represented the h i ghest r i sk f or a l l s i tes re l a t i ve to the other exposure scenarios evaluated (such as commercial/industrial worker, etc.). Therefore, the val u es for the resident are summarized in this ROD. The “residential” risks are age-adjusted to represent both t h e child and adul t . The a pp rox imate lifetime excess cancer risks (rounded numbers) calculated for the resident for the study areas were as foll o ws (media evaluated shown

in p a ren t heses): 3.37 x 1 0 -5 for t h e OVSA si t e (soil/sedimen t ); 2.4 x 1 0 -5 for the Backwash Discharge Area (soil/sedi m e n t ); 3.4 x 1 0 -5 for t h e Building 400 Series FTA (soil); and 9.8 x 10 -5 for the SMSR/OVSA (groundwa t er).

Overall, t h ese risks were primarily due t o inges t ion of s o il or groundwater containing arsenic. Arsenic in soil and groundw a ter a ccounted f or most of the tot a l c a ncer r i sk f or the f u ture res i dent ( a s we l l a s f or the other potent i a l

users of t h e si t es at all of t h ese s t udy areas).The cancer risks and hazard index v a lues for noncancer effec t s for t h e scenarios evaluated for each site are summarized in t h e inset tables provided on the following pages. The following discussion about “risk drivers” is based on t h e residential use scenario for each site. “Risk drivers” refers to chemicals that exceed the cancer point of departure (1 x 1 0 -6 ) or t h e noncancer p o int of de p a r t ure (hazard index of 1).

For the OVSA site, the cancer risk drivers for soil/sed i ment were benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and

a rsen i c, w i th a rsen i c contr i but i ng the m a jor i ty ( 68 %) of t h e cancer risk. Arsenic was the only cancer risk driver for SMSA/OVSA groundwater. For the Backwash Discharge A r ea soil/sediment, the only cancer risk driver was

arsenic. For t h e Building 400 Series FTA si t e, t h e cancer dri v ers for soil/sedi m ent were b enzo(a) p yrene and

a rsen i c, w i th a rsen i c contr i but i ng the m a jor i ty ( 94 %) of the c a ncer r i sk.

T a b l es w i th the summ a ry of c a l cu l a t ed cancer risks for these sites are provided as follows: Table 27 for soil/sedi m ent for t h e OVSA si t e; Ta b l e 28 for t h e Backw a sh Discharge Area; Ta b l e 29 for t h e Building 400 Series
FTA site; and Table 30 for SMSR/OVSA groundwater. Cancer risks were not calculated for the Former Uncurbed AST North of Building 532 because neither acetone nor lead has a verified cancer slope factor (meaning proven information does not currently exist to evaluate them as cancer-causing chemicals). In addition, acetone and lead were the only COPCs based on a comparison to health risk levels published by EPA and PADEP. A more detailed explanation of the evaluation of risk for the Fo rmer Uncurbed AST North of Building 532 site is available

in Subsection 6.3.3.5 of the remedial inve stigation/risk assessment report (WESTON, 2002a).

All of the calculated residential cancer risks are with in EPA’s acceptable risk range for CERCLA, which is 10 -6 to

10 -4 , with one exception: the increased cancer risk for a future resident being exposed to both soils and groundwater at the SMSR/OVSA is approximately 1.31 x 10 -4 . This number is only slightly higher than the upper end of the CERCLA risk range. Arsenic is responsible fo r a significant portion of this increased cancer risk.
However, the concentrations of arsenic in site soils were found to be statistically similar to concentrations of arsenic in background soil samples collected at LEAD. Ther efore, the arsenic-related site risks for soil/sediment are reflective of a person being exposed to background levels that normally exist at LEAD. The CERCLA program generally does not attempt to clean up to levels below such background concentrations. Excluding

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 24 background arsenic concentrations, the sites/study areas do not pose unacceptable risks to people who are using

the s i te or potent i a ll y m a y use the s i te i n the f u ture. T h erefore, no further action is warranted under CERCLA.

The calcula t ed hazard index v a lues for noncancer heal t h e ffec t s for t h e fu t u re adult resident due t o ex p o sure t o chemicals in soil and groundwa t er at all of t h e s t udy areas w e re ei t h er negligible (below t h e accep t able level of 1)

or not at levels of concern. This indica t es t h at adverse noncancer heal t h effec t s are unlikely t o de v elop as a result

of ex p o sure t h rough any of t h e p a t h ways such as soil i n ges t ion. The hazard index for t h e fu t u re child resident

were less t h an 1 (For m er AST Uncur b ed AST Nor t h of Buil d ing 532) or were a pp r oxi m a t ely 3.8 t o 5.9 (soil), 9.8 (groundwa t er), or 13.98 (co m b i ned soil and groundwa t er value for OVSA/SMSR) for the various study areas.

The following discussion about noncancer risk drivers is based on the residential use scenario. For the OVSA site,

t h e noncancer risk dri v er for soil was iron (con t ri b u t ed a hazard quo t ient of 2 t o t h e t o t a l hazard index nu m b er [HI]). For OVSA/SMSR groundwater, iron and manganese w e re the noncancer risk drivers (each have an HQ of 4). Manganese and iron were also t h e noncancer risk d r ivers for the Backwash Discharge Area soil/sediment (HQ
of 3 and 1.7, res p ec t i v e ly) and t h e Building 400 Series FTA si t e (HQ of 1.02 and 1.7, res p ec t i v e ly).

Ta b l es wi t h t h e su mm a ry of calcula t ed hazard indices for t h e residen t ial scenario for t h ese si t es are p ro v ided as follows: Table 27 for soil/sediment for the OVSA site; Ta ble 28 for the Backwash Discharge Area; Table 29 for the Building 400 Series FTA si t e ; and Ta b l e 30 for SMSR/ O VSA groundwa t er. Because t h e hazard index for t h e
For m er Uncur b ed AST Nor t h of Building 532 si t e was so low for t h e cons t ruc t i on worker and

co mm ercial/indus t rial worker (0

. 00000034 and 0.000000088, res p ec t i v e ly), t h e hazard index for t h e resident was

not calcula t ed b ut ra t h er was es t i m a t e d at 0.0000023 b a sed on a co m p arison of t h e ex p o sure p o int concen t ra t ion to the EPA Region III risk-based concentration (WESTON, 2002a). Although some of these values are greater than

1, it was concluded in t h e screening level risk assessmen t

, b y way of t h e uncer t ain t y analysis docu m en t ed in t h e remedial investigation/risk assessments, that there are no significant health concerns at the Phase III sites.

Exa m p l es of conclusions from t h e uncer t ain t y analysis are th a t the concentr a t i ons of chem i c a l s a t the s i te were

not st a t i s t i c a ll y d i ff erent f rom or were w i th i n the r a nge of concen t ra t ions in background soil samples collec t ed at

LEAD. The CE R C LA progr a m gener a ll y does not a ttempt to c l e a n up to l eve l s be l ow such b a ckground

concen t ra t ions. Also, in se v eral cases, it was found t h at when segrega t ing t h e hazard indices in t o t h e different

p o ssi b l e heal t h effec t s and different p a r t s of t h e b o dy (referred t o as a t a rget end p oint analysis) t h at could b e affected, there are no significant health concerns. The o v erall conclusion of the evaluation of noncancer risks showed that there are no significant health concerns e x pected a t the s i tes f or the potent i a l f u ture uses of commercial/indus t rial or residen t ial.

Risks due t o lead concen t ra t ions in soil were evalua t ed for the OVSA site where the maximum detected level in

soil exceeded t h e C ER C LA/Resource C o nser v a t i on and Rec o v ery Act correc t i v e ac t i on le v el of 400 m g/kg, which

was used to screen lead to determine if it was a COPC. The adult lead model, recommended by EPA, was used to

calcula t e “ p reli m inary re m e dia t ion goals” t o de t ermine if concen t ra t ions of lead were at levels of concern. The soil lead preliminary remedia t ion goals for t h e commerci a l/indus t rial and cons t ruc t i on worker scenarios were
1,338 and 343 m g/kg, res p ec t i v e ly. Bo t h t h e si t e soil a v e r age lead concen t ra t ion (112 m g/kg) and t h e ex p o sure

p o int concen t ra t ion (232 m g/kg) were b elow t h e calcula t ed p reli m inary re m edia t ion goal. In addi t i on, t h e si t e

m a xi m u m lead concen t ra t ion was less t h an t h e goal for t h e commercial/industrial worker. Therefore, from this

evalua t i on it was concluded t h at lead in soil does not p o se a s i gn i f i c a nt he a l th r i sk to the unborn ch il d of a commercial/indus t rial worker (woman of ch il d

- b e a r i ng a ge) through d i rect so i l cont a ct a t the O V SA s i te. A l e a din-soil evalua t i on model was not run for t h e fu t u re child resident because the average soil level and the site exposure point concen t ra t ion were well below t h e CER C LA/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act corrective

ac t i on le v e l of 400 m g/kg.

In a dd i t i on to ev a l u a t i ng ex i s t i ng cond i t i ons, potent i a l f u ture cont a

m

i n

a

t i on of groundw a ter due to the chem i c a l s i n the

subsur f a

ce so i l poss i b

l y l e a ch

i ng out i nto the groundw a ter were evaluated. Various metals (i.e., iron, arsenic, manganese,

chro m i u m ) and a few organic che m icals (i.e., car b azole, p en t achlo r ophenol, and trichloroethylene, only at the OVSA) were the

chemicals t h

at had soil concen t ra

t ions e x ceeding EPA groundwater protection “screening levels.” These screening levels are

concentr a t i ons of chem i c a l s i n so il

, a

b ove wh i ch there i s the potent i a l f or a thre a t to groundw a ter a t the s i tes. Not a l l of t h

ese chemicals exceeded the screening values at every site. The screening levels were de t er

m

ined using EPA’s calcula t ion procedure that incorporates possible cancer risks and noncancer h e alth effects based on ingestion of drinking water. The resul t s of t h

e evalua t i on of soil screening levels (SSLs) for groundw a ter protection are provided as follows: Table 31 (OVSA); Table 32 (For m

er Uncur b ed AST Nor t h of Building 532); Ta b

l e 33 (Backwash Discharge Area); Ta b

l e 34 (Building 400

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 25 **Summary of Risks and Hazards from Screening Level Risk Assessment Open Vehicle Storage Area and SMSR Groundwater** 

**Receptor Population/Exposure**

**Medium Cancer Risk**  **Noncancer Health Effects Risk**

**Resident** :

Soil/sediment 3.37 x 10 -5 (age adjusted) 4.2 a /0.59 (child/adult)

Groundwater b 9.76 x 10 -5 (age adjusted) 9.8 a (child)

Cumulative risk (soil and groundwater b ) 1.31 x 10 -4 (age adjusted) 13.98 a (child)

**Commercial/Industrial Worker:**

Soil/sediment 3.5 x 10 -6 0.21

Groundwater 2.7 x 10 -5 1.4 a

Cumulative risk (soil and groundwater b ) 3.05 x 10 -5 1.61 a

**Construction Worker** – Soil/sediment 1.1 x 10 -6 0.89

**Golfer** – Soil/sediment 1.4 x 10 -7 0.0088

a Note that the uncertainty analysis and the comparison of site da ta to LEAD reference (background soil) data reported were used to

formulate the conclusion that risks unde r this scenario are within acceptable levels.

b Represents groundwater risk for entire SMSR/Phase III properties.

**Summary of Risks and Hazards from Screening Level Risk Assessment Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant Site** 

**Receptor Population/Exposure**

**Medium Cancer Risk**  **Noncancer Health Effects Risk**

**Resident** - Soil/sediment 2.4 x 10 -5 (age adjusted) 5.9*/0.9 (child/adult)

**Commercial/Industrial Worker**

— Soil/sediment 2.6 x 10 -6 0.24

**Construction Worker** – Soil/sediment 2.1 x 10 -7 1

*Note that the uncertainty analysis and the comparison of site data to LEAD reference (background soil) data reported were used

to formulate the conclusion that risks unde r this scenario are within acceptable levels.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 26 **Summary of Risks and Hazards from Screening Level Risk Assessment Building 400 Series Fire Training Area** 

**Receptor Population/Exposure**

**Medium Cancer Risk**  **Noncancer Health Effects Risk**

**Resident** – Soil/sediment 3.4 x 10 -5 (age adjusted) 3.8*/0.5 (child/adult)

**Commercial/Industrial Worker**

- Soil/sediment 3.7 x 10 -6 0.15

**Construction Worker** – Soil/sediment 3.0 x 10 -7 0.62

**Agricultural Worker** – Soil/sediment 1.2 x 10 -5 1.7*

**Off-Site Beef/Milk Consumer** - Soil 6.1 x 10 -6 1.4*

*Note that the uncertainty analysis and the comparison of site data to LEAD reference (background soil) data reported were used to

formulate the conclusion that risks under this scenario are within acceptable levels.

**Summary of Risks and Hazards from Screening Level Risk Assessment Former Underground Storage Tank North of Building 532** 

**Receptor Population/Exposure**

**Medium Cancer Risk**  **Noncancer Health Effects Risk**

**Resident** - Soil Not calculated a 0.0000023 b

**Commercial/Industrial Worker** - Soil Not calculated a 0.000000088

**Construction Worker** - Soil Not calculated a 0.00000034

a Cancer risks could were not calc ulated because proven information does not curre ntly exist to evaluate acetone and lead (the on ly COPCs) as cancer-causing chemicals.

b Noncancer health effects for the residential scenario were esti mated based on a comparison of the site exposure point concent ration to the EPA Region III risk -based concentration.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\ O :\02281016.008\PHASE III\R O D \R O D

_ T E X T .D O C FINAL 27 Series FTA, co m p arison t o LEAD li m es t o ne b a ckgro u nd soils); and Ta b l e 35 (Building 400 Series FTA,

comp a r i s on to LEAD sh a l e b a ckground so il s bec a use the s i te cont a i ns so i l types present both w i th sh a l e a nd

limes t o ne bedrock condi t ions). The conclusion of t h is e v alua t i on was t h at concen t ra t ions of che m icals in

subsur f a ce so i l a t the s i tes do not i nd i c a te a potent i a l for significant impac t s on groundwa t er. This conclusion

was b a sed on t h e uncer t ain t y analysis docu m en t ed in t h e remedial inves t iga t ion/risk assessmen t s. The

uncer t ain t y analysis concluded t h at m a ny of t h e m e t a ls c o ncen t ra t ions in si t e soil were not significan t l y different

from concen t ra t ions in background subsurface soil s a m p les collec t ed at LEAD, and t h at ac t ual groundwa t er cond i t i ons i nd i c a ted th a t these met a l s were not li k e l y to m i gr a t e to the groundw a ter a t l eve l s of he a l th concern.



### 7.2 SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL RISKS

For t h e si t es wi t h sui t a b le wildlife ha b i t a t ( t he O V SA, Backwash Discharge Area, and t h e Building 400 Series FTA), an ecological risk assessment was performed to identify risks, if any, t o p lan t s and ani m als. Si m ilar t o t h e screening approach for the human health risk assessme n t, a screening level ecological risk assessment was completed, as described in the box on this page. Surfa c e soil, surface drainageway soil, and sediment data were used in the ecological risk assessment. The data were reviewed for quality and used as described for the human

he a l th screen i ng l evel r i sk a ssessment. The potent i a l f or p l a nts a nd a n i m a l s to be exposed to groundw a ter i n the Phase III parcels is minimal. Groundwater does not come to the surface or discharge to surface streams, ponds, or wetlands in the Phase III parcels, and therefore, no pathwa y of exposure to plants and wildlife exists. Therefore, there is no ecological risk posed by contaminated g r oundwater to wildlife receptors that inhabit the Phase III parcels.

The conceptual models showing the exposure pathways f o r the ecological exposure assessment are provided in

Ta b l e 2 (OVSA), Ta b l e 5 (Backwash Discharge Area), a n d Ta b l e 7 (Building 400 Series FTA). The s p ecies of

concern t h at were po t en t ially applicable t o all si t es a r e listed in Table 36 . The COPCs for the ecological risk
assessment were identified, evaluated, and screened-out by comp a rison of the m a ximum detected concentr a t ions

a nd the exposure po i nt concentr a t i ons to the pub li s h e d screening levels, and t h en by comparison t o LEAD

b a ckground sa m p les, as shown for t h e OVSA, Backwash Discharge Area, and Building 400 Series FTA si t es in

Ta b l es 37 t h rough 46 . Addi t i onal infor m a t ion p er t aining to minimum concentrations, frequency of detection, mean, 95% UCL, and further evaluation of COPCs compared to expected levels of natural variation (defined as three times higher than background) are provided in the remedial investigation/risk a ssessment reports. Also, additional detailed evaluations pertaining to point-by-point evaluations of sediment samples and surface water samples are provided in the remedi al investigations/risk assessments.

The ecological risk assessments for the sites within the Phase III parcels determined that the potential risks to plants and animals at the sites that are within the Phase III parcels were within acceptable levels based on the intended future commercial/industrial use.



### 7.2.1 OVSA Site

The overall conclusion of the screening level ecological risk assessment is that the majority of chemicals in OVSA surface soils, sediments, and surface water do not pose a significant risk to terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors at the site. However, the screening level ecological risk assessment indica ted that PAHs in surface soils pose a low level risk to

mammals at the site. Given the historical use of the site as a vehicle storage area, levels of PAHs are likely to be

attributable to historical use. The ev aluation of PAHs was based on a single Region III BTAG benchmark (0.1 mg/kg) developed for mice for a single compound (benzo[a]pyrene) and this benchmark was applied to all PAHs. In addition, the screening level ecological risk assessment indicated that five metals (antimony, cadmium, lead, mercury, and silver) were present in concentrations in surface soils and two meta ls in sediments (aluminum and zinc) that were higher than expected levels of natural variation in the reference soils an d sediments, respectively. An evaluation of the ecological significance of these metal concentrations was conducted that considered affected classifi cations of plants/animals and frequency of exceedances. This ecological significance evaluation concluded that only levels of cadmium and zinc pose a potentially ecologically significant level of risk at the site . Concentrations of antimony, le ad, mercury, and silver above natural levels were spatially limited. Concentrations of cadmium above natural levels of variation were present throughout the site and are expected to pose a low-level risk to plants, birds, and mammals. Localized levels of zinc in the vicinity of sample 57SD04 located in the western OVSA may pose a risk to benthic organisms. Note that the site will be part of the Cumberland Valley Business Park, and future de velopment of this site for commercial/industrial use will

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 28 What is a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment?

The screening level ecological risk assessment is based on the fi rst steps of a full ecological risk assessment normally done f or CERCLA sites. Ecological risk assessments provide an understanding of a site in terms of environmental setting, pathways of contaminant movement, and potential risks to plants and animals. This understanding can be used to help decide what actions, or lack of action, may be appropriate for managi ng ecological resources at a site.

The screening level ecological risk assessment evaluates the contami nants to determine if they are at levels that may cause pot ential harmful effects on the plants and animals at a site. In additi on, the screening level ecological risk assessment is used to det ermine if additional ecological evaluation is needed to support a risk management decision or possibly a baseline ecological risk assessm ent. The first step is to describe the site, including plants and animals that live there, and how they may be exposed to contaminan ts from

the site. Detected concentrations are com pared to EPA’s Biological Technical Assistanc e Group (BTAG) screening levels as well a s other published screening levels as agreed to between the Army and EPA from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (“Level 1”), to determine COPCs. Then, the exposure point concentration for contaminants carried from Level 1 is compared to the screening leve ls. If there are still COPCs at this point, then statistical and qua litative reference soil comparis ons are performed. The screenin g level ecological risk assessment includes an uncertainty analysis discussi on that describes any uncertain ties pertaining to natural s ystem variability, media sampling, data evaluati on and reduction, target receptor selecti on, and exposure assumptions. After discussi ng general uncertainties associated with the risk assessment proce ss, uncertainties specific to the individual benchmarks and thei r derivation and applicability are presented.

result in the removal of some or the entire limited habitat that currently supports the ecological resources that were evaluated in the screening level ecological risk asse ssment process. To the extent that the habitat changes, the effect of any chemical contaminat ion in soils on plants and wildlife w ill also be altered due to changes in exposure potential.



### 7.2.2 Backwash Discharge Area

Surface soils and drainageway sediments were evaluated as part of the screening level ecological risk assessment process for the Backwash Discharge Area site. The screen ing level ecological risk assessment for the Backwash Discharge Area site is limited to an evaluation of meta ls because metals are the only chemicals associated with the Backwash Discharge Area and originated from the po table water treatment plant. The weight of evidence,

which includes a review of the soil and sediment data and ecological benchmarks, indicated that the potential impacts associated with exposure to elevated concentrations of the majori ty of metals in Backwash Discharge Area site drainageways are expected to be minor. Potent ial exposure to manganese and silver at some locations in the drainageways may pose a risk to benthic inverteb rates inhabiting these areas. Lastly, the development of this site for commercial/industrial use will result in th e removal of some or all of the habitat that currently supports the ecological resources that were evaluated in the screening level ecological risk assessment process. The intended future use plan for the Backwash Discharge Area site is development as part of the Cumberland Valley Business Park. To the extent that the habitat changes, the effect of any chemical contamination in soils on plants and wildlife will also be altered due to changes in exposure potential. The overall conclusion of the screening level ecological risk assessment is that Backwash Discharge Area site soils and sediment do not pose a significant risk to ecological receptors.



### 7.2.3 Building 400 Series Fire Training Area

The overall conclusion of the screening level ecological risk assessment is that the Building 400 Series FTA soils do not pose a significant risk to ecological receptors. Four organic compounds had exposure point concentrations

that exceeded the lowest available ec ological screening level value: bis( 2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, fluoranthene, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin total equivale nt concentration (2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ — note: this number is used to represent a group of various chemical co mpounds known as polychlori nated dibenzo-p-dioxins/ polychlorinated dibenzofurans [PCDDs/PCDFs] also refe rred to as “dioxin/furan congeners”) for mammals, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ for birds. Concentrations of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate may pose low level risk to birds and mammals at the site. However, the absence of other ph thalate chemical compounds at the site suggests that concentrations of bis(2-ethylhexyl)pht halate may not be site-related and ma y be due to common contamination at the laboratory where the samples were analyzed. Exposure to fluoranthene, a PAH, is not expected to pose a risk to organisms at the site because the exposure point conc entration only slightly exceeded the benchmarks (at 1.2 times higher) and concentrations of all other detected PAHs were less than benchmarks.

Based on a comparison to no-observed-adverse-effect le vel (NOAEL)-based screening criteria, concentrations of dioxin/furan congeners are expected to pose a low leve l of risk to ground-foraging mammals and birds at the site. The ecological significance of the exposure to dioxins/ furans is uncertain, although it is expected to be low. The isolation of this habitat from similar adjacent habi tats may limit the amount of small mammals migrating to the local area required to replenish the mammals if th e mammals already in the local area reproduce less.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 29 Consequently, the structure and function of the small mammal community may exist below its biotic potential. However, the limited quality of this habitat suggests th at the ecological significance of these results to a population of ground-foraging small mammals is low.

Of the 22 inorganic chemicals evaluated, 16 metals had expo sure point concentrations that exceeded their lowest respective ecological benchmarks. However, statistica l and qualitative comparisons between Building 400 Series

FTA surface soil concentrations and refe rence surface soil concentrations indicated that the site concentrations of all metals except copper were similar to reference soil levels. While the maximum soil concentration of copper at several locations was greater than 3x the limestone re ference soil maximum (expected natural variation), all Building 400 Series FTA samples had copper concentrations less than 3 times the shale reference soil maximum value. Consequently, the risk associated with exposure to the majority of metals at the site may not be attributable to previous site activities.

Based on a comparison of ecological benchmarks and st atistical and qualitative comp arisons to reference soils, copper may pose a low-level risk to ecological receptors at the site. The exposure point concentration of copper (33.9 mg/kg) exceeded a single benchmark, a Region III BTAG screening value of 15 mg/kg. The exposure point concentration of copper did not exceed Oak Ridge Nation al Laboratory (ORNL)-derived benchmark values for plants, soil invertebrates, soil microbes, mammals, or bi rds. Given that the exposure point concentration of copper only had an ecological effects quotient (EEQ) of 2.05 (EPC is 2 times the lowest benchmark), and that copper concentrations only exceeded a single benchmark, the ecological risk associated with exposure copper is expected to be low.

Lastly, note that the development of this site for commerc ial/industrial use will result in the removal of some or all of the habitat that currently supports the ecological resources that were evaluated in the screening level risk assessment process. The intended future use plan for th e Building 400 Series FTA is development as part of the Cumberland Valley Business Park. To the extent that the habitat changes, the effect of any chemical contamination in soils on plants an d wildlife will also be altered due to changes in exposure potential.



### 7.3 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

Virtually every step in the risk assessment process requires a number of assumptions, all of which contribute to uncertainty in the assessment of risk. In the absence of site-specific information, assumptions are developed based on “best estimates” of data quality (e.g., are ther e enough samples?), exposure parameters (e.g., how often would a worker contact the soil outside the building in whic h he works?), and toxicity information (how valid is the extrapolation of toxicity data taken from rat studies to humans?). To assist in the development of these estimates, EPA has developed and recommends the use of “standard” factors that are designed to promote consistency in risk assessments and provide a plausible estimate of the risk. In the absence of site-specific information (please note that much of this assessment was performed for workers who may use these sites in the future), the risk assessments conducted here used EPA’s “standard” (also known as “default”) assumptions. The extent to which these factors accurately predict risk depends on how close they are to site-specific conditions.

In the presence of such uncertainty, EPA and the ri sk assessor have the obligation to make conservative assumptions such that the chance is very small for the actual health risk to be greater than that determined through the risk process. On the other hand, the process is not to yield absurdly conservative risk values that have no basis in reality. That balance was kept in mind in the development of exposure assumptions and pathways, and in the interpretation of data and guidance for the risk assessment for the Phase III parcels.



### 7.4 CORRECTION OF MINOR ERROR IN PROPOSED PLAN RISK SUMMARY

There was a minor change in the calculated soil risk nu mbers for the residential scenario for the OVSA when comparing the numbers published in the Proposed Plan to those listed in this ROD. The risk assessment conclusions for the OVSA did not change and the selected remedy did not change (i.e., no further action is necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment). These number differences are described in more detail in the following paragraph/table.

The soil risk numbers for the residential scenario for the OVSA were calculated for only the eastern part of the

OVSA site and did not include the western area where the removal action was completed. Therefore, the soil risk

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 30 numbers for the residential scenario were published in error in the final remedial investigation/risk assessment and the Proposed Plan for the Phase III parcels. The correct entire dataset was used for the residential scenario evaluation in the draft remedial investigation/risk asse ssment, thus, EPA and PADEP did review the calculations and results based on the entire site dataset. The following table shows that the risk numbers with and without the western half of the site are very close and that the same conclusion would be reached for either set of numbers.

This issue affected the cumulative ri sk numbers reported for the residentia l scenario. When the residential risk assessment for the OVSA was updated at the draft-final/fi nal stage to incorporate the latest EPA Region III RBCupdate (as is normally done at that stage if a new version of the RBCs are published between the draft and draftfinal date) the calculation tables were mistakenly linked to the dataset for only the eastern side of the site instead of the entire site dataset (eastern and western side confirmation samples from the removal action).

**Summary of Minor Risk Error and Correction**

**Item Final OVSA Remedial**  **Investigation/Risk Assessment and Proposed**  **Plan (April 2003) Revised Final Numbers** 

Dataset Eastern side only. Eastern and western sides of site including confirmation samples.

What was done Revised per October 2002 RBC update but linked

calculation tables to eastern data only by

mistake. Added back data from western side, updated per October 2002 RBC update.

Age-adjusted cancer risk* **3.13E-05 3.37E-05**

Noncancer risk, child* **5.26 4.2**

Noncancer risk, adult **0.76 0.59**

**1.29E-04** (age adjusted cancer) **1.31E-04** (age adjusted cancer) Cumulative risk (soil and groundwater)*

**15.04** (child noncancer) **13.98** (child noncancer)

* Note that the uncertainty analysis and the comparis on of site data to LEAD reference (background soil)

data reported in the remedial investigation/risk a ssessment were used to formulate the conclusion that risks under the residential scenario are within acceptable levels.



# SECTION 8

SELECTED REMEDY

The Army and EPA, in consultation with PADEP, have determined that no further action is necessary under CERCLA for soils and groundwater at these sites in the Phase III parcels. No further action under CERCLA is necessary to protect human health or the environment at the Phase III parcels and associated sites under the current and reasonably anticipated future use of the pr operty. The Phase III parcels and associated sites will be

left as is and no costs will be associat ed with implementing a remedy there.

This no further action decision applies to:

 SMSR groundwater (PDO OU 7 and SE OU 13).

 OVSA site (part of BRAC waste site OUs PDO OU 6 and SE OU 8).

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD** 

### O **F** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TEXT.DOC FINAL 31  Former Uncurbed AST North of Building 532 site (part of PDO OU 6).

 Backwash Discharge Area from the water treatment plant site (part of SE OU 8).

 Western portion of the Building 400 Series FTA site (part of SE OU 8).

The specific areas affected by the se lected alternative are referred to as Parcels 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 2-53L, 2-54L, 2- 70L, 2R-80L-3, 2R-84L-3, and 2R-86L-3 (note that the “L” after the parcel number refers to the lower part of the Phase II parcel that includes groundwater), as well as gr oundwater associated with previously transferred Phase I parcels identified as Parcels 24, 27, and 28.



# SECTION 9

DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

There were no significant changes made in this ROD for the selected remedy identified in the Proposed Plan.

# Tables

03P-0752

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD OF** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TABLES_FIGURES.DOC FINAL 

## TABLESTable 1RAGS Part D, Table 1,Selection of Exposure Pathways,Open Vehicle Storage Area- DSERTS Site LEAD 114, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure On-Site/ Type of Rationale for Selection or ExclusionTimeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Off-Site Analysis of Exposure PathwayFuture Soil Soil Contaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated Commercial/Industrial Worker Adult Ingestion On-Site Quantitative Worker incidentally ingests soilsDermal Contact On-Site Quantitative Worker contacts soilInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales dustInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales VOCsConstruction Worker Adult Ingestion On-Site Quantitative Worker incidentally ingests soilsDermal Contact On-Site Quantitative Worker contacts soilInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales dustInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales VOCsGolferaAdultIngestion On-SiteQualitativeGolfer incidentally ingests soilsDermal Contact On-SiteQualitativeGolfer contacts soilInhalation On-SiteQualitativeGolfer inhales dustInhalation On-SiteQualitativeGolfer inhales VOCsResident ChildIngestion On-SiteQuantitativeChild Resident incidentally ingests soilsDermal Contact On-SiteQuantitativeChild Resident contacts soilInhalation On-SiteQuantitativeChild Resident inhales dustInhalation On-SiteQuantitativeChild Resident inhales VOCsAdultIngestion On-SiteQuantitativeAdult Resident incidentally ingests soilsDermal Contact On-SiteQuantitativeAdult Resident contacts soilInhalation On-SiteQuantitativeAdult Resident inhales dustInhalation On-SiteQuantitativeAdult Resident inhales VOCsGroundwater Groundwater Tap water Resident Child IngestionOn-SiteQuantitative Child Resident ingests groundwaterInhalationOn-SiteQuantitative Child Resident Inhales VOCs from groundwaterAdult IngestionOn-SiteQuantitative Adult Resident ingests groundwaterInhalationOn-SiteQuantitative Adult Resident Inhales VOCs from groundwateraAssumed to be the commercial / industrial worker (see Subsection 6.3.5 of RI/RA)MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 1-7 concep models\Tab 1T-18/26/2003Table 2Site Conceptual Model,Ecological Exposure Pathways of Concern,Open Vehicle Storage Area,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PASource and Transport ofChemical ReleaseHabitat Type/NameExposureMediumSensitiveEnvironmentFlag(Y or N)Exposure Scenario DescriptionAssessmentEndpointsEndangeredThreatenedSpecies Flag(Y or N)ExposureRoutesMeasurementEndpointsSoil Wooded Area Soil NDirect exposure to plantsSurvival, growth, and reproductionofplant community.NDirect contact with soils, uptakefrom soils.Screening benchmarks for soil floraandMeadowsDirect exposure to soil Survival, reproduction, andNIngestion and direct contact Screening benchmark for soil faunainvertebratesgrowth of soil invertebratewith soils.(earthworms, microorganisms/microbialcommunity.processes).Direct exposure to small mammalsSurvival, reproduction, andNIngestion and direct contact Screening benchmark for dietary exposuregrowth of small mammalwith soils.community.Direct exposure to birdsSurvival, reproduction, andNIngestion and direct contact Screening benchmark for dietary exposuregrowth of avian community with soils.Indirect exposure to herbivorous Survival, reproduction, andNIngestion of plants and grasses.Screening benchmark for dietary exposuresmall mammals through plant uptakegrowth of small mammaland consumptioncommunity.Indirect exposure toSurvival, reproduction, andNIngestion of worms, insects, and Screening benchmark for dietary exposureinsectivorous and carnivorousgrowth of insectivoroussmall mammals.mammals through trophic transferand carnivorous mammals.Indirect exposure toSurvival, reproduction, andNIngestion of worms, insects, and Screening benchmark for dietary exposureinsectivorous and carnivorous growth of insectivoroussmall mammals.birds through trophic transferand carnivorous birds.Sediments Drainageway Sediment NDirect exposure to plants.Survival, growth, and reproductionof aquatic plant community.NDirect contact with sediments,uptake from sediments.Sediment toxicity screening benchmarks andguidelines.Direct exposure to Survival, reproduction, andNDirect contact with sediments,Sediment toxicityscreeningbenchmarks andbenthic invertebrates.growth of aquatic invertebrateuptake from sediments.guidelines.community.Surface Water Drainageway Surface water NDirect exposure to plants.Survival and growth of aquatic plantcommunity.NDirect contact with surface water,uptake from surface water.Federal and state ambient water quality criteriafor theprotection of aquatic life.NDirect exposure to aquaticinvertebrates and benthic invertebrates.Survival, reproduction, andgrowth of benthic invertebrates.Ingestion and direct contactwith soils.Federal and state ambient water quality criteriafor the protection of aquatic life.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 1-7 concep models\Tab 2T-28/26/2003Table 3RAGS Part D, Table 1,Selection of Exposure Pathways,Uncurbed AST North of Building 532, DSERTS Site LEAD-126, PDO OU 6,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAScenario Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure On-Site/ Type of Rationale for Selection or ExclusionTimeframe Medium Medium Point Population Age Route Off-Site Analysis of Exposure PathwayFuture Soil Soil Contaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated Commercial/Industrial Worker Adult Ingestion On-site Quantitative Worker incidentally ingests soils.Dermal contact On-site Quantitative Worker contacts soil.Inhalation On-site Quantitative Worker inhales dust.Inhalation On-site Quantitative Worker inhales VOCs.Construction Worker Adult Ingestion On-site Quantitative Worker incidentally ingests soils.Dermal contact On-site Quantitative Worker contacts soil.Inhalation On-site Quantitative Worker inhales dust.Inhalation On-site Quantitative Worker inhales VOCs.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 1-7 concep models\Tab 3T-38/26/2003Table 4RAGS Part D, Table 1,Selection of Exposure Pathways,Backwash Discharge Area (DSERTS Site LEAD-011) - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure On-Site/ Type of Rationale for Selection or ExclusionTimeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Off-Site Analysis of Exposure PathwayFuture Soil Soil Contaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated Commercial/Industrial Worker Adult Ingestion On-Site Quantitative Worker incidentally ingests soilsDermal Contact On-Site Quantitative Worker contacts soilInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales dustInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales VOCsConstruction Worker Adult Ingestion On-Site Quantitative Worker incidentally ingests soilsDermal Contact On-Site Quantitative Worker contacts soilInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales dustInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales VOCsResident Adult Ingestion On-Site Quantitative Resident adult incidentally ingests soilDermal Contact On-Site Quantitative Resident adult contacts soilInhalation On-Site Quantitative Resident adult inhales dustInhalation On-Site Quantitative Resident adult inhales VOCsChild Ingestion On-Site Quantitative Resident child incidentally ingests soil(1-6 years) Dermal Contact On-Site Quantitative Resident child contacts soilInhalation On-Site Quantitative Resident child inhales dustInhalation On-Site Quantitative Resident child inhales VOCsMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 1-7 concep models\Tab 4T-48/26/2003Table 5Site Conceptual Model,Ecological Exposure Pathways of Concern,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PASource and Transport ofChemical ReleaseHabitat Type/NameExposureMediumSensitiveEnvironmentFlag(Y or N)Exposure Scenario DescriptionAssessmentEndpointsEndangeredThreatenedSpecies Flag(Y or N)ExposureRoutesMeasurementEndpointsSoil Field Soil NDirect exposure to Survival, growth, and reproductionNDirect contact with soils, uptakeScreening benchmarks for soil flora.plants of plant community. from soils.Direct exposure to Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion and direct contact Screening benchmark for soil faunasoil invertebrates growth of soil invertebrate with soils. (earthworms, microorganisms/microbialcommunity.processes).Direct exposure to Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion and direct contact Screening benchmark for dietary exposure.small mammals growth of small mammal with soils.community.Direct exposure to Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion and direct contact Screening benchmark for dietary exposure.birds growth of avian community. with soils.Indirect exposure to herbivorous Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion of plants and grasses. Screening benchmark for dietary exposure.small mammals through plant uptake growth of small mammaland consumption community.Indirect exposure to Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion of worms, insects, and Screening benchmark for dietary exposure.insectivorous and carnivorous growth of insectivorous small mammals.mammals through trophic transfer and carnivorous mammals.Indirect exposure to Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion of worms, insects, and Screening benchmark for dietary exposure.insectivorous and carnivorous growth of insectivorous small mammals.birds through trophic transfer and carnivorous birds.Sediments Drainageway Sediment NDirect exposure to plants. Survival, growth, and reproductionNDirect contact with sediments, Sediment toxicity screening benchmarksof aquatic plant community. and guidelines.Direct exposure to Survival, reproduction, and N Direct contact with sediments,Sediment toxicity screening benchmarks andbenthic invertebrates. growth of aquatic invertebrate uptake from sediments.guidelines.community.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 1-7 concep models\Tab 5T-58/26/2003Table 6RAGS Part D, Table 1,Selection of Exposure Pathways,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area - DSERTS Site LEAD-118, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure On-Site/ Type of Rationale for Selection or ExclusionTimeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Off-Site Analysis of Exposure PathwayFuture Soil Soil Contaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated Commercial/Industrial Groundskeeper Adult Ingestion On-Site Quantitative Worker incidentally ingests soilsDermal Contact On-Site Quantitative Worker contacts soilInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales dustInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales VOCsConstruction Worker Adult Ingestion On-Site Quantitative Worker incidentally ingests soilsDermal Contact On-Site Quantitative Worker contacts soilInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales dustInhalation On-Site Quantitative Worker inhales VOCsAgricultural Worker (1) Adult Ingestion On-SiteQuantitativeFarmer incidentally ingests soilsDermal Contact On-SiteQuantitativeFarmer contacts soilInhalation On-SiteQuantitativeFarmer inhales dustInhalation On-SiteQuantitativeFarmer inhales VOCsFuture SoilBeef and DairyMilkContaminants are in soil and ingestion of beef and dairyBeef/Milk Consumer (2) Child Ingestion Off-Site Quantitative Beef and dairy cattle are raised off-site solely on feedmilk is evaluatedgrown in site soils. Child ingests beef and milk.Adult Ingestion Off-Site Quantitative Beef and dairy cattle are raised off-site solely on feedgrown in site soils. Adult ingests beef and milk.(1) Agricultural RBSCs for direct contact (As-RBSCs) will be compared to the maximum chemical concentrations in soil.(2) Agricultural RBSCs for organic chemicals with bioaccumulation potential (ABM) will be compared to the maximum chemical concentration in soil.If these chemicals have bioaccumulation potential, they will be evaluated quantitatively based on future agricultural use.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 1-7 concep models\Tab 6T-68/26/2003Table 7Site Conceptual Model,Ecological Exposure Pathways of Concern,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-118C, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PASource and Transport ofChemical ReleaseHabitat Type/NameExposureMediumSensitiveEnvironmentFlag(Y or N)Exposure Scenario DescriptionAssessmentEndpointsEndangeredThreatenedSpecies Flag(Y or N)ExposureRoutesMeasurementEndpointsSoil Fallow field Soil NDirect exposure to Survival, growth, and reproductionNDirect contact with soils, uptakeScreening benchmarks for soil flora.plants of plant community. from soils.Direct exposure to Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion and direct contact Screening benchmark for soil faunasoil invertebrates growth of soil invertebrate with soils. (earthworms, microorganisms/microbialcommunity.processes).Direct exposure to Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion and direct contact Screening benchmark for dietary exposure.small mammals growth of small mammal with soils.community.Direct exposure to Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion and direct contact Screening benchmark for dietary exposure.birds growth of avian community. with soils.Indirect exposure to herbivorous Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion of plants and grasses. Screening benchmark for dietary exposure.small mammals through plant uptake growth of small mammaland consumption community.Indirect exposure to Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion of worms and insects. Screening benchmark for dietary exposure.insectivorous and carnivorous growth of insectivorousmammals through trophic transfer and carnivorous mammals.Indirect exposure to Survival, reproduction, and N Ingestion of worms and insects. Screening benchmark for dietary exposure.insectivorous and carnivorous growth of insectivorousbirds through trophic transfer and carnivorous birds.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 1-7 concep models\Tab 7T-78/26/2003Table 8RAGS Part D, Table 2.1,Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern,Open Vehicle Storage Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-114, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Timeframe:Medium: Soil (All Depths)Exposure Medium: SoilExposure Point: Contaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated.CAS Chemical Minimum(1)Minimum Maximum(1)Maximum Units Location Detection (2) Range of Concentration BackgroundScreening(3)Potential PotentialCOPC Rationale for(4)Number Concentration Qualifier Concentration Qualifier of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Toxicity ValueARAR/TBC ARAR/TBCFlag ContaminantConcentration Limits Screening ValueSourceDeletionor Selection540590 1,2-Dichloroethene, Total 0.003 J 0.003 J mg/kg 57TP58B002 1/99 0.01-0.027 0.003 N/A 5.70 N N/A N/A No BSL78933 2-Butanone 0.007 J 0.010 J mg/kg 57TP59B002 2/99 0.01-0.027 0.01 N/A 0.039 N N/A N/A No BSL67641 Acetone 0.006 J 0.092 mg/kg 57TP59B002 10/99 0.01-0.027 0.092 N/A 0.012 N N/A N/A Yes ASL100414 Ethylbenzene 0.002 J 0.002 J mg/kg 57TP61B003 1/99 0.01-0.027 0.002 N/A 0.0021 C N/A N/A No BSL79016 Trichloroethene 0.003 J 0.003 J mg/kg 57TP61B102 1/99 0.01-0.027 0.003 N/A 0.000011 C N/A N/A Yes ASL1330207 Xylenes, Total 0.005 J 0.006 J mg/kg 57TP62B002 2/99 0.01-0.027 0.006 N/A 1.03 N N/A N/A No BSL120821 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.087 J 0.087 J mg/kg 57TP58B002 1/144 0.049-0.47 0.087 N/A 0.003 N N/A N/A Yes ASL121142 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.082 J 0.19 J mg/kg 57TP58B001 2/144 0.19-1.1 0.19 N/A 0.00003 C N/A N/A Yes ASL95578 2-Chlorophenol 0.12 J 0.12 J mg/kg 57TP58B002 1/144 0.047-0.47 0.12 N/A 0.003 N N/A N/A Yes ASL91576 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.013 J 5.6 mg/kg CD29A 24/249 0.029-1.8 5.6 N/A 156 N N/A N/A No BSL59507 4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol 0.051 J 0.051 J mg/kg 57TP58B002 1/144 0.19-1.1 0.051 N/A 1,100 G N/A N/A No BSL100027 4-Nitrophenol 0.33 J 0.33 J mg/kg 57TP60B002 1/144 0.032-1.2 0.33 N/A 0.0084 N N/A N/A Yes ASL83329 Acenaphthene 0.034 27 mg/kg CD29A 39/249 0.029-1.8 27 N/A 0.37 N N/A N/A Yes ASL208968 Acenaphthylene 0.045 J 1.4 mg/kg CD29A 14/249 0.015-1.8 1.4 N/A 1,300 N N/A N/A No BSL120127 Anthracene 0.025 70 mg/kg CD29A 67/249 0.026-1.1 70 N/A 8.61 N N/A N/A Yes ASL56553 Benz[a]anthracene 0.036 J 1.9 mg/kg 57TP67B001 49/144 0.036-0.47 1.9 N/A 0.048 C N/A N/A Yes ASL50328 Benzo[a]pyrene 0.029 1.9 mg/kg 57TP67B001 45/144 0.024-0.47 1.9 N/A 0.018 C N/A N/A Yes ASL205992 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.029 J 2.8 mg/kg 57TP67B001 57/144 0.038-0.47 2.8 N/A 0.15 C N/A N/A Yes ASL191242 Benzo[ghi]perylene 0.021 J 1.2 mg/kg 57TP67B001 42/144 0.049-0.47 1.2 N/A 235 N N/A N/A No BSL207089 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.018 J 0.91 mg/kg 57TP03B005 38/144 0.034-0.47 0.91 N/A 1.53 C N/A N/A No BSL117817 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 0.022 J 0.7 mg/kg 57TP14B001 69/144 0.035-0.9 0.7 N/A 1.06 C N/A N/A No BSL86748 Carbazole 0.034 J 41 mg/kg CD29A 55/249 0.17-1.8 41 N/A 0.0082 C N/A N/A Yes ASL218019 Chrysene 0.024 J 99 mg/kg CD29A 127/249 0.037-1.1 99 N/A 5.45 C N/A N/A Yes ASL53703 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.029 J 0.36 J mg/kg 57TP67B001 15/144 0.04-0.47 0.36 N/A 0.033 C N/A N/A Yes ASL132649 Dibenzofuran 0.043 J 0.63 mg/kg 57TP03B005 8/144 0.19-1.1 0.63 N/A 31.3 N N/A N/A No BSL84742 di-n-Butyl Phthalate 0.026 J 0.12 J mg/kg 57TP35B002 6/144 0.19-1.1 0.12 N/A 1.22 N N/A N/A No BSL206440 Fluoranthene 0.027 J 260 mg/kg CD29A 158/249 0.032-1.1 260 N/A 14.4 N N/A N/A Yes ASL86737 Fluorene 0.030 J 41 mg/kg CD29A 39/249 0.033-1.8 41 N/A 0.38 N N/A N/A Yes ASL193395 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.022 J 1.4 mg/kg 57TP67B001 43/144 0.046-0.47 1.4 N/A 0.75 C N/A N/A Yes ASL91203 Naphthalene 0.042 J 26 mg/kg CD29A 28/249 0.048-1.8 26 N/A 0.0017 N N/A N/A Yes ASL621647 n-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine 0.042 J 0.042 J mg/kg 57TP58B001 1/144 0.19-1.1 0.042 N/A 0.0000022 C N/A N/A Yes ASL87865 Pentachlorophenol 0.31 J 0.5 J mg/kg 57TP59B002 2/144 0.04-1.2 0.5 N/A 0.00068 C N/A N/A Yes ASL85018 Phenanthrene 0.043 J 260 mg/kg CD29A 129/249 0.036-1.1 260 N/A 6,600 N N/A N/A No BSL108952 Phenol 0.082 J 0.14 J mg/kg 57TP58B002 2/144 0.035-0.47 0.14 N/A 0.27 N N/A N/A No BSL129000 Pyrene 0.036 J 220 mg/kg CD29A 151/249 0.041-1.1 220 N/A 2.49 N N/A N/A Yes ASL319846 alpha-BHC 0.0011 J 0.0011 J mg/kg 57DS04D001 1/3 0.00056-0.00063 0.0011 N/A 0.00004 C N/A N/A Yes ASL57749 alpha-Chlordane 0.0085 J 0.0085 J mg/kg 57DS04D001 1/3 0.00056-0.00063 0.0085 N/A 0.02 C N/A N/A No BSLFuture Resident ScreenMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 8T-85/20/2003Table 8RAGS Part D, Table 2.1,Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern,Open Vehicle Storage Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-114, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Timeframe:Medium: Soil (All Depths)Exposure Medium: SoilExposure Point: Contaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated.CAS Chemical Minimum(1)Minimum Maximum(1)Maximum Units Location Detection (2) Range of Concentration BackgroundScreening(3)Potential PotentialCOPC Rationale for(4)Number Concentration Qualifier Concentration Qualifier of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Toxicity ValueARAR/TBC ARAR/TBCFlag ContaminantConcentration Limits Screening ValueSourceDeletionor SelectionFuture Resident Screen60571 Dieldrin 0.0018 J 0.0018 J mg/kg 57DS04D001 1/3 0.0011-0.0013 0.0018 N/A 0.00021 C N/A N/A Yes ASL72208 Endrin Ketone 0.0034 0.0034 mg/kg 57DS04D001 1/3 0.0011-0.0013 0.0034 N/A 2.35 N N/A N/A No BSL57749 gamma-Chlordane 0.006 0.006 mg/kg 57DS04D001 1/3 0.00056-0.00063 0.006 N/A 0.02 C N/A N/A No BSL1024573 Heptachlor Epoxide 0.0024 J 0.0024 J mg/kg 57DS04D001 1/3 0.00056-0.00063 0.0024 N/A 0.00011 C N/A N/A Yes ASL53469219 Aroclor 1242 0.1 K 0.1 K mg/kg 57TP52B001 1/99 0.0071-0.044 0.1 N/A 0.0051 C N/A N/A Yes ASL11097691 Aroclor 1254 0.013 J 0.095 J mg/kg 57TP03B002 3/99 0.0071-0.044 0.095 N/A 0.007 C N/A N/A Yes ASL11096825 Aroclor 1260 0.0093 J 0.13 K mg/kg 57TP08B102 33/99 0.0071-0.044 0.13 N/A 0.16 N N/A N/A No BSL7429905 Aluminum 1720 32500 mg/kg 57SD04D001 100/100 - 32500 N/A 5,476 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440360 Antimony 0.4 L 9.8 L mg/kg 57TP03B002 39/93 0.28-4.8 9.8 N/A 0.066 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440382 Arsenic 0.99 J 32 J mg/kg 57TP48B002 99/100 1.1-1.1 32 N/A 0.0013 C N/A N/A Yes ASL7440393 Barium 40.6 1300 mg/kg 57TP32B002 100/100 - 1300 N/A 10.5 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440417 Beryllium 0.13 3.8 mg/kg 57TP29B002 99/100 0.49-0.49 3.8 N/A 3.16 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440439 Cadmium 0.11 L 14.7 L mg/kg 57TP24B001 35/84 0.02-0.13 14.7 N/A 0.14 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440702 Calcium 121 198000 mg/kg 57TP17B001 100/100 - 198000 N/A NUT N/A N/A NUT BSL18540299 Chromium 5.5 285 mg/kg 57TP03B002 100/100 - 285 N/A 0.21 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440484 Cobalt 2 61.4 mg/kg 57TP15B002 99/100 1.6-6.7 61.4 N/A 3.3 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440508 Copper 9.5 109 mg/kg 57TP03B002 100/100 - 109 N/A 52.6 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7439896 Iron 1000 55800 J mg/kg 57TP58B002 100/100 - 55800 N/A 27.6 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7439921 Lead 11.3 1170 mg/kg 57TP03B002 100/100 - 1170 N/A 13.5 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7439954 Magnesium 414 15600 mg/kg 57TP52B002 100/100 - 15600 N/A NUT N/A N/A NUT BSL7439965 Manganese 8.3 J 4840 mg/kg 57TP02B001 100/100 - 4840 N/A 4.76 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7487947 Mercury 0.06 1.1 mg/kg 57DS04D001 13/100 0.01-0.31 1.1 N/A 1.1 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440020 Nickel 4.1 75.7 mg/kg 57TP03B002 100/100 - 75.7 N/A 4.76 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440097 Potassium 129 2420 mg/kg 57TP23B001 100/100 - 2420 N/A NUT N/A N/A NUT BSL7782492 Selenium 0.32 L 2.7 J mg/kg 57SD01D001 42/100 0.23-2.5 2.7 N/A 0.095 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440224 Silver 0.08 0.66 mg/kg 57TP58B002 16/100 0.07-1.4 0.66 N/A 0.16 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440235 Sodium 14 L 800 mg/kg 57TP59B002 92/100 9-239 800 N/A NUT N/A N/A NUT BSL7440280 Thallium 0.14 0.53 mg/kg 57TP48B002 18/100 0.11-0.68 0.53 N/A 0.018 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440622 Vanadium 5.8 43 mg/kg 57TP18B002 99/100 6.6-6.6 43 N/A 25.6 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440666 Zinc 6.9 J 2010 mg/kg 57SD04D001 100/100 - 2,010 N/A 68.1 N N/A N/A Yes ASL1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD 0.0000442 0.0000442 mg/kg 57SD04D001 1/1 - 0.0000442 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF 0.0000173 0.0000173 mg/kg 57SD04D001 1/1 - 0.0000173 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD 0.00000178 0.0000018 57SD04D001 1/1 - 0.00000178 --- N/A N/A No BSL2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF 0.00000053 J 0.00000053 J 57SD04D001 1/1 - 0.000000525 --- N/A N/A No BSL2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.00000084 0.00000084 57SD04D001 1/1 - 0.000000838 --- N/A N/A No BSLMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 8T-95/20/2003Table 8RAGS Part D, Table 2.1,Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern,Open Vehicle Storage Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-114, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Timeframe:Medium: Soil (All Depths)Exposure Medium: SoilExposure Point: Contaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated.CAS Chemical Minimum(1)Minimum Maximum(1)Maximum Units Location Detection (2) Range of Concentration BackgroundScreening(3)Potential PotentialCOPC Rationale for(4)Number Concentration Qualifier Concentration Qualifier of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Toxicity ValueARAR/TBC ARAR/TBCFlag ContaminantConcentration Limits Screening ValueSourceDeletionor SelectionFuture Resident ScreenOCDD 0.000405 0.000405 57SD04D001 1/1 - 0.000405 --- N/A N/A No BSLOCDF 0.000157 0.000157 57SD04D001 1/1 - 0.00016 --- N/A N/A No BSL1746016 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 0.00000099 0.0000010 57SD04D001 1/1 - 0.0000010 0.0000024 C N/A N/A No BSL(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration.Definitions: ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered(2) Duplicates were averaged and considered one sample.C = Carcinogenic(3) Lower value of residential soil risk-based screening concentration (RBC), SSL for inhalation of volatiles/particulate,COPC = Chemical of Potential Concernand SSL for migration to groundwater (1 DAF) (see Table 4-1).J = Estimated Value(4) If an RBSC or SSL could not be calculated, PADEP residential soil MSCs were used as the screening toxicity value (see Table4-1). K = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to be lower.(5) Rationale Codes Selection Reason:L = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to be higher.Above Screening Levels (ASL)mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogramDeletion Reason:MSC = Medium-Specific ConcentrationEssential Nutrient (NUT)N = Non-CarcinogenicBelow Screening Level (BSL)N/A = Not ApplicablePADEP = Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtectionMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 8T-105/20/2003Table 9RAGS Part D, Table 3.1,Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary,Open Vehicle Storage Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-114, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Timeframe:Future Resident ScreenMedium:Soil (All Depths)Exposure Medium:SoilExposure Point:(1) (1)Chemical Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum Maximum EPC Reasonable Maximum Exposure Central Tendencyof Mean Normal Detected Qualifier UnitsPotential Data Concentration Medium (1), (2) Medium Medium Medium Medium MediumConcernEPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPCValue Statistic Rationale Value Statistic RationaleAcetone mg/kg 0.0099 0.012 0.092 mg/kg 0.00967 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ATrichloroethene mg/kg 0.0061 0.0064 0.0030 J mg/kg 0.00300 Maximim W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/A1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg 0.15 0.16 0.087 J mg/kg 0.0870 Maximim W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/A2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg 0.20 0.21 0.19 J mg/kg 0.190 Maximim W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/A2-Chlorophenol mg/kg 0.15 0.16 0.12 J mg/kg 0.120 Maximim W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/A4-Nitrophenol mg/kg 0.35 0.38 0.33 J mg/kg 0.330 Maximim W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/AAcenaphthene mg/kg 0.36 0.56 27.0 mg/kg 0.238 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AAnthracene mg/kg 0.78 1.32 70.0 mg/kg 0.338 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ABenz[a]anthracene mg/kg 1.17 2.26 1.90 mg/kg 0.505 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ABenzo[a]pyrene mg/kg 0.94 1.73 1.90 mg/kg 0.478 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ABenzo[b]fluoranthene mg/kg 1.07 2.01 2.80 mg/kg 0.520 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ACarbazole mg/kg 0.51 0.81 41.0 mg/kg 0.300 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AChrysene mg/kg 1.10 1.83 99.0 mg/kg 0.512 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ADibenz[a,h]anthracene mg/kg 0.17 0.20 0.36 J mg/kg 0.183 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AFluoranthene mg/kg 2.32 4.11 260 mg/kg 1.041 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AFluorene mg/kg 0.49 0.81 41.0 mg/kg 0.263 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AIndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene mg/kg 0.60 1.07 1.40 mg/kg 0.337 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ANaphthalene mg/kg 0.42 0.66 26.0 mg/kg 0.225 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/An-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine mg/kg 0.20 0.21 0.042 J mg/kg 0.0420 Maximim W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/APentachlorophenol mg/kg 0.35 0.38 0.50 J mg/kg 0.500 Maximim W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/APyrene mg/kg 1.94 3.44 220 mg/kg 0.877 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/Aalpha-BHC mg/kg NC NC 0.0011 J mg/kg 0.00110 Maximim W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/ADieldrin mg/kg NC NC 0.0018 J mg/kg 0.00180 Maximim W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/AHeptachlor Epoxide mg/kg NC NC 0.0024 J mg/kg 0.00240 Maximim W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/AAroclor 1242 mg/kg 0.014 0.016 0.10 K mg/kg 0.0172 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AAroclor 1254 mg/kg 0.014 0.016 0.095 J mg/kg 0.0174 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AAluminum mg/kg 13,873 14,518 32,500 mg/kg 14,979 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AAntimony mg/kg 0.98 1.2 9.8 L mg/kg 1.05 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AArsenic mg/kg 8.42 9.12 32.0 J mg/kg 9.43 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ABarium mg/kg 192 223 1,300 mg/kg 203 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ABeryllium mg/kg 1.04 1.11 3.80 mg/kg 1.14 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ACadmium mg/kg 1.06 1.50 14.7 L mg/kg 2.67 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AContaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 9T-115/20/2003Table 9RAGS Part D, Table 3.1,Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary,Open Vehicle Storage Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-114, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Timeframe:Future Resident ScreenMedium:Soil (All Depths)Exposure Medium:SoilExposure Point:(1) (1)Chemical Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum Maximum EPC Reasonable Maximum Exposure Central Tendencyof Mean Normal Detected Qualifier UnitsPotential Data Concentration Medium (1), (2) Medium Medium Medium Medium MediumConcernEPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPCValue Statistic Rationale Value Statistic RationaleContaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated.Chromium mg/kg 33.9 40.2 285 mg/kg 35.1 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ACobalt mg/kg 21.0 22.6 61.4 mg/kg 25.0 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ACopper mg/kg 41.8 44.6 109 mg/kg 45.2 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AIron mg/kg 36,286 38,294 55,800 J mg/kg 47,045 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ALead mg/kg 87 117 1,170 mg/kg 81.6 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AManganese mg/kg 920 1,027 4,840 mg/kg 1,329 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AMercury mg/kg 0.068 0.087 1.10 mg/kg 0.0693 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ANickel mg/kg 31.8 33.8 75.7 mg/kg 34.6 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ASelenium mg/kg 0.69 0.80 2.70 J mg/kg 0.861 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/ASilver mg/kg 0.17 0.20 0.66 mg/kg 0.195 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AThallium mg/kg 0.13 0.15 0.53 mg/kg 0.143 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AVanadium mg/kg 26.4 27.5 43.0 mg/kg 28.63 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AZinc mg/kg 131 166 2,010 mg/kg 134 95% UCL-T W-Test (3) N/A N/A N/AStatistics: Maximum Detected Value (Maximum); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T).Definitions: J = Estimated Value(1) Nondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit. Values are representative of all depths combined. K = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to be lower.(2) The EPC is based on the lower of the 95% UCL and the maximum detected concentration. L = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to be higher.(3) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are neither normally nor lognormally distributed. They were assumed to be lognormallydistributed. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram(4) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC. N/A = Not Applicable(5) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distributed.NC = Not calcualted due to insufficient sample size.(6) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are lognormally distributed.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 9T-125/20/2003Table 10RAGS Part D, Table 2.1,Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern,Uncurbed AST North of Building 532, DSERTS Site LEAD-126, PDO OU 6 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Timeframe: Future Resident ScreenMedium: Soil (All Depths)Exposure Medium: SoilExposurePoint:Contaminants arein soilandexposureto soilis evaluated.CAS Chemical Minimum(1)Minimum Maximum(1)Maximum Units Location Detection (2) Range of Concentration BackgroundScreening(3)(4)Potential PotentialCOPC Rationale for(5)Number Concentration Qualifier Concentration Qualifier of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Toxicity ValueARAR/TBC ARAR/TBCFlag ContaminantConcentration Limits Screening ValueSourceDeletionor Selection67641 Acetone 0.013 0.018 mg/kg 51SB01B001 4/6 0.01-0.011 0.018 N/A 0.012 N N/A N/A Yes ASL98828 Isopropylbenzene 0.011 0.089 mg/kg 51SB01B003 3/6 0.01-0.011 0.089 N/A 0.14 N N/A N/A No BSL1330207 Xylenes, Total 0.004 J 0.004 J mg/kg 51SB02B003 1/6 0.01-0.011 0.004 N/A 1.03 N N/A N/A No BSL117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.047 J 0.23 J mg/kg 51SB02B002 2/6 0.34-0.38 0.23 N/A 1.06 C N/A N/A No BSL7439921 Lead 13.4 J 26.4 J mg/kg 51SB02B101 6/6 - 26.4 N/A 13.5 N/A N/A Yes ASL(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration.Definitions: ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered(2) Duplicates were averaged and considered one sample.C = Carcinogenic(3) Lower value of residential soil risk-based screening concentration (RBC),COPC = Chemical of Potential ConcernSSL for inhalation of volatiles/particulate, and SSL for migration to groundwater (1 DAF) (see Table 4-1 of RI/RA). J = Estimated Value(4) If an RBSC could not be calculated, PADEP residential soil MSCs were used as the screening toxicity value (see Table 4-1). mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram(5) Rationale Codes Selection Reason:MSC = Medium-specific concentrationAbove Screening Levels (ASL)N = NoncancerDeletion Reason:N/A = Not ApplicableBelow Screening Level (BSL)PADEP = Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtectionMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 10T-135/20/2003Table 11RAGS Part D, Table 3.1,Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary,Uncurbed AST North of Building 532, DSERTS Site LEAD-126, PDO OU 6 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Timeframe:Future Resident ScreenMedium:Soil (All Depths)Exposure Medium:SoilExposure Point:(1) (1)Chemical Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum Maximum EPC Reasonable Maximum Exposure Central Tendencyof Mean Normal Detected Qualifier UnitsPotential Data Concentration Medium (1), (2), (3) Medium Medium Medium Medium MediumConcernEPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPCValue Statistic Rationale Value Statistic RationaleContaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated.Acetone mg/kg 0.012 0.017 0.018 mg/kg 0.018 Maximum W-Test (5) N/A N/A N/ALead mg/kg 18.1 22 26.4 J mg/kg 26.4 Maximum W-Test (5) N/A N/A N/AStatistics: Maximum detected value (Maximum); 95% UCL of normal data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of log-transformed data (95% UCL-T)(1) Nondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit. Values are representative of all depths combined. Definitions: J = Estimated Value(2) Within each soil depth evaluated, the EPC is based on the lower of the 95% UCL and the maximum detected concentration. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram(3) The EPC shown represents the EPC of aggregate soils.N/A = Not Applicable(4) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are neither normally nor lognormally distributed. They were assumed to be lognormallydistributed.(5) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC.(6) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distributed.(7) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are lognormally distributed.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 11T-145/20/2003Table 12RAGS Part D, Table 2.1,Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern,Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant - DSERTS Site LEAD-011, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg,PAScenario Timeframe: Future Resident ScreenMedium: SoilExposure Medium: Soil (All Depths)Exposure Point: Contaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated.CAS Chemical Minimum(1)Minimum Maximum(1)Maximum Units Location Detection (2) Range of Concentration BackgroundScreening(3)(4)Potential PotentialCOPC Rationale for(5)Number Concentration Qualifier Concentration Qualifier of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Toxicity ValueARAR/TBC ARAR/TBCFlag ContaminantConcentration Limits Screening ValueSourceDeletionor Selection7429905 Aluminum 8,200 61,000 mg/kg 34SD01D001 18/18 - 61,000 N/A 5,476 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440360 Antimony 0.37 L 1.3 L mg/kg 34DS06D001 11/18 0.48-1.8 1.3 N/A 0.066 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440382 Arsenic 4.1 J 14.1 K mg/kg 34SB10B001 18/18 - 14.1 N/A 0.0013 C N/A N/A Yes ASL7440393 Barium 66.3 L 1,110 mg/kg 34SB06B001 18/18 - 1,110 N/A 10.5 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440417 Beryllium 0.67 1.5 mg/kg 34SD01D001 18/18 - 1.5 N/A 3.16 N N/A N/A No BSL7440439 Cadmium 0.05 L 0.1 L mg/kg 34DS03D001 2/18 0.02-1.8 0.1 N/A 0.27 N N/A N/A No BSL7440702 Calcium 764 J 167,000 J mg/kg 34DS06D001 18/18 - 167,000 N/A NUT N/A N/A No NUT18540299 Chromium 14.9 L 34.3 mg/kg 34SB01B003 18/18 - 34.3 N/A 0.21 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440484 Cobalt 11.6 39.4 mg/kg 34SD02D101 18/18 - 39.4 N/A 3.3 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440508 Copper 29.2 J 50.8 mg/kg 34SD01D001 18/18 - 50.8 N/A 52.6 N N/A N/A No BSL7439896 Iron 21,100 59,300 mg/kg 34SD02D001 18/18 - 59,300 N/A 27.6 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7439921 Lead 13.4 J 123 mg/kg 34DS06D001 18/18 - 123 N/A 13.5 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7439954 Magnesium 3,110 8,690 mg/kg 34DS01D001 18/18 - 8,690 N/A NUT N/A N/A No NUT7439965 Manganese 246 7,880 mg/kg 34SD01D001 18/18 - 7,880 N/A 4.76 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7487947 Mercury 0.1 0.21 mg/kg 34DS04D001 4/18 0.05-0.16 0.21 N/A 1.1 N N/A N/A No BSL7440020 Nickel 22.7 46.7 mg/kg 34DS01D001 18/18 - 46.7 N/A 4.76 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440097 Potassium 717 1,600 mg/kg 34DS01D001 18/18 - 1,600 N/A NUT N/A N/A No NUT7782492 Selenium 1.9 J 2.7 J mg/kg 57SD01D001 2/18 0.44-4.1 2.7 N/A 0.095 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440224 Silver 0.26 2.1 mg/kg 34SD01D001 11/18 0.13-0.73 2.1 N/A 0.16 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440235 Sodium 71.6 L 486 mg/kg 34DS05D001 18/18 - 486 N/A NUT N/A N/A No NUT7440280 Thallium 0.16 0.16 mg/kg 34SB01B001 1/18 0.17-0.92 0.16 N/A 0.018 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440622 Vanadium 15.6 43.3 mg/kg 34DS05D001 18/18 - 43.3 N/A 25.6 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440666 Zinc 67.1 J 2,300 mg/kg 34DS03D001 18/18 - 2,300 N/A 68.1 N N/A N/A Yes ASLCarbon, Total Organic 18,000 J 183,000 J mg/kg 34DS05D001 8/8 - 183,000 N/A NA N/A N/A No BSL(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration.Definitions: ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered(2) Duplicates were averaged and considered one sample.C = Carcinogenic(3) Lower value of residential soil risk-based screening concentration (RBC), SSL for inhalation of volatiles/particulate, COPC= Chemical of Potential Concernand SSL for migration to groundwater (1 DAF) (see Table 4-1 of RI/RA). J = Estimated Value(4) If an RBSC or SSL could not be calculated, PADEP residential soil MSCs were used as the screening toxicity value (see Table4-1 of RI/RA). K = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to be lower.(5) Rationale Codes Selection Reason:L = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to be higher.Above Screening Levels (ASL)mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogramDeletion Reason:MSC = Medium-Specific ConcentrationEssential Nutrient (NUT)N = Non-CarcinogenicBelow Screening Level (BSL)N/A = Not ApplicablePADEP = Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtectionSSL = Soil Screening LevelMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 12T-155/20/2003Table 13RAGS Part D, Table 3.1,Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary,Backwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant - DSERTS Site LEAD-011, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg,PAScenario Timeframe:Future Resident ScreenMedium:SoilExposure Medium:Soil (All Depths)Exposure Point:Contaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated.(1) (1)Chemical Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum Maximum EPC Reasonable Maximum Exposure Central Tendencyof Mean Normal Detected Qualifier UnitsPotential Data Concentration Medium (1), (2), (3) Medium Medium Medium Medium MediumConcernEPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPCValue Statistic Rationale Value Statistic RationaleAluminum mg/kg 17,972 22,780 61,000 mg/kg 21,704 95% UCL-T W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/AAntimony mg/kg 0.68 0.83 1.3 L mg/kg 0.84 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/AArsenic mg/kg 8.32 9.57 14.1 K mg/kg 9.57 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/ABarium mg/kg 231 326 1,110 mg/kg 353 95% UCL-T W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/AChromium mg/kg 26.8 28.9 34.3 mg/kg 28.9 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/ACobalt mg/kg 21.9 24.3 39.4 mg/kg 24.3 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/AIron mg/kg 36,469 40,477 59,300 mg/kg 40,477 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/ALead mg/kg 40.4 51 123 mg/kg 62.5 95% UCL-T W-Test (7) N/A N/A N/AManganese mg/kg 1,996 2,958 7,880 mg/kg 4,017 95% UCL-T W-Test (7) N/A N/A N/ANickel mg/kg 34.6 37.4 46.7 mg/kg 37.7 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/ASelenium mg/kg 0.81 1.13 2.7 J mg/kg 1.28 95% UCL-T W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/ASilver mg/kg 0.4 0.58 2.1 mg/kg 0.6 95% UCL-T W-Test (7) N/A N/A N/AThallium mg/kg 0.18 0.22 0.16 mg/kg 0.16 Maximum W-Test (5) N/A N/A N/AVanadium mg/kg 27.1 30.3 43.3 mg/kg 30.3 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/AZinc mg/kg 235 447 2,300 mg/kg 550 95% UCL-T W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/AStatistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T)(1) Nondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit. Values are representative of all depths combined. Definitions: EPC = Exposure Point Concentration(2) Within each soil depth evaluated, the EPC is based on the lower of the 95% UCL and the maximum detected concentration. J =Estimated Value(3) The EPC shown represents the higher of the EPC of total soils or the surface soils. See Table 6-21 of RI/RA for surface soil statistics. K = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to be lower.(4) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are neither normally nor lognormally distributed. It was assumed to be lognormally distributed. L = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to be higher.(5) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram(6) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distributed.N/A = Not Applicable(7) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are lognormally distributed.UCL = Upper Confidence LimitMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 13T-165/20/2003Table 14RAGS Part D, Table 2.1,Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area - DSERTS Site LEAD-118, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Timeframe: Future Resident ScreenMedium: SoilExposure Medium: Soil (All Depths)ExposurePoint:CAS Chemical Minimum(1)Minimum Maximum(1)Maximum Units Location Detection (2) Range of Concentration BackgroundScreening(3)(4)Potential PotentialCOPC Rationale for(5)Number Concentration Qualifier Concentration Qualifier of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Toxicity ValueARAR/TBC ARAR/TBCFlag ContaminantConcentration Limits Screening ValueSourceDeletionor SelectionContaminants arein soilandexposure to soilis evaluated.67641 Acetone 0.039 J 0.054 J mg/kg 71TP07B102 2/12 0.01-0.014 0.054 N/A 0.012 N N/A N/A Yes ASL117817 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 0.042 J 0.24 J mg/kg 71TP02B001 6/12 0.055-0.42 0.24 N/A 1.1 C N/A N/A No BSL56553 Benz(a)anthracene 0.13 0.13 mg/kg 71TP02B001 1/12 0.068-0.42 0.13 N/A 0.048 C N/A N/A Yes ASL50328 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.093 0.093 mg/kg 71TP02B001 1/12 0.047-0.42 0.093 N/A 0.018 C N/A N/A Yes ASL205992 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.15 0.15 mg/kg 71TP02B001 1/12 0.073-0.42 0.15 N/A 0.15 C N/A N/A No BSL218019 Chrysene 0.14 0.14 mg/kg 71TP02B001 1/12 0.072-0.42 0.14 N/A 5.45 C N/A N/A No BSL206440 Fluoranthene 0.25 0.25 mg/kg 71TP02B001 1/12 0.062-0.42 0.25 N/A 14.4 N N/A N/A No BSL85018 Phenanthrene 0.13 0.13 mg/kg 71TP02B001 1/12 0.068-0.42 0.13 N/A 6,600 N N/A N/A No BSL129000 Pyrene 0.21 0.21 mg/kg 71TP02B001 1/12 0.078-0.42 0.21 N/A 2.49 N N/A N/A No BSL11096825 Aroclor 1260 0.011 0.032 mg/kg 71TP02B001 3/12 0.0071-0.042 0.032 N/A 0.32 C N/A N/A No BSL2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.000000077 0.00000077 mg/kg 71TP01B001 10/12 0.0000000782-0.000000474 0.00000077 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.00000061 0.0000011 mg/kg 71TP08B002 3/12 0.0000001254-0.0000005632 0.0000011 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.00000039 0.0000019 J mg/kg 71TP02B001 10/12 0.0000002149-0.00000032 0.0000019 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.00000054 J 0.0000024 mg/kg 71TP02B001 10/12 0.0000002249-0.0000002906 0.0000024 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.00000094 0.00001 mg/kg 71TP08B002 12/12 - 0.00001 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.000014 0.00015 mg/kg 71TP02B002 12/12 - 0.00015 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSLOCDD 0.0012 0.023 mg/kg 71TP01B002 12/12 - 0.023 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.00000054 0.00000074 mg/kg 71TP02B001 3/12 0.0000000347-0.0000003806 0.00000074 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.00000061 0.00000061 mg/kg 71TP02B001 1/12 0.0000000113-0.0000004314 0.00000061 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.00000051 0.00000079 mg/kg 71TP02B001 2/12 0.0000000192-0.0000004038 0.00000079 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.00000057 0.0000012 mg/kg 71TP01B001 7/12 0.0000000449-0.000000494 0.0000012 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.00000039 J 0.00000047 J mg/kg 71TP06B001 3/12 0.0000000286-0.0000003108 0.00000047 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.000000032 J 0.00000071 mg/kg 71TP02B001 10/12 0.0000000181-0.000000064 0.00000071 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.00000082 0.0000047 mg/kg 71TP01B001 10/12 0.0000000237-0.0000004273 0.0000047 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSLOCDF 0.00000026 0.0000071 mg/kg 71TP01B001 10/12 0.00000002-0.0000002207 0.0000071 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSLTotal TCDDs 0.000000077 J 0.0000024 J mg/kg 71TP01B001 11/12 0.0000000618-0.0000000618 0.0000024 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSLTotal PeCDDs 0.00000012 J 0.0000047 J mg/kg 71TP02B001 12/12 - 0.0000047 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSLTotal HxCDDs 0.0000052 J 0.000041 J mg/kg 71TP02B001 12/12 - 0.000041 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSLTotal HpCDDs 0.000031 J 0.00034 J mg/kg 71TP02B002 12/12 - 0.00034 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSLTotal TCDFs 0.00000006 J 0.0000085 J mg/kg 71TP01B001 12/12 - 0.0000085 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSLTotal PeCDFs 0.00000030 J 0.000016 J mg/kg 71TP02B001 11/12 0.0000000192-0.0000000192 0.000016 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSLTotal HxCDFs 0.00000002 J 0.000011 J mg/kg 71TP02B001 12/12 - 0.000011 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSLTotal HpCDFs 0.00000028 J 0.00001 J mg/kg 71TP01B001 11/12 0.0000000237-0.0000000237 0.00001 N/A --- N/A N/A No BSL1746016 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 0.0000011 0.000005 mg/kg 71TP02B001 12/12 - 0.000005 N/A 0.000002402 C N/A N/A Yes ASL7429905 Aluminum 7,220 17,900 mg/kg 71TP05B001 12/12 - 17,900 N/A 5,476 N N/A N/A Yes ASLMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 14T-175/20/2003Table 14RAGS Part D, Table 2.1,Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area - DSERTS Site LEAD-118, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Timeframe: Future Resident ScreenMedium: SoilExposure Medium: Soil (All Depths)ExposurePoint:CAS Chemical Minimum(1)Minimum Maximum(1)Maximum Units Location Detection (2) Range of Concentration BackgroundScreening(3)(4)Potential PotentialCOPC Rationale for(5)Number Concentration Qualifier Concentration Qualifier of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Toxicity ValueARAR/TBC ARAR/TBCFlag ContaminantConcentration Limits Screening ValueSourceDeletionor SelectionContaminants arein soilandexposure to soilis evaluated.7440360 Antimony 0.69 L 0.96 L mg/kg 71TP01B002 3/12 0.43-0.9 0.96 N/A 0.066 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440382 Arsenic 3.1 L 29.4 mg/kg 71TP01B002 12/12 - 29.4 N/A 0.0013 C N/A N/A Yes ASL7440393 Barium 132 692 L mg/kg 71TP01B002 12/12 - 692 N/A 10.5 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440417 Beryllium 0.7 2.3 mg/kg 71TP08B002 12/12 - 2.3 N/A 3.16 N N/A N/A No BSL7440702 Calcium 1,050 9,770 J mg/kg 71TP02B001 12/12 - 9,770 N/A NUT N/A N/A No NUT18540299 Chromium 7.4 L 26.9 mg/kg 71TP05B001 12/12 6.2-6.2 26.9 N/A 0.21 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440484 Cobalt 3.7 K 35.8 mg/kg 71TP08B002 12/12 - 35.8 N/A 3.3 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440508 Copper 8.1 L 45.7 mg/kg 71TP08B002 12/12 - 45.7 N/A 52.6 N N/A N/A No BSL7439896 Iron 24,300 44,400 J mg/kg 71TP05B001 12/12 - 44,400 N/A 27.6 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7439921 Lead 21.9 52.3 mg/kg 71TP02B001 12/12 - 52.3 N/A 13.5 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7439954 Magnesium 1,220 5,590 mg/kg 71TP02B002 12/12 - 5,590 N/A NUT N/A N/A No NUT7439965 Manganese 270 1,780 mg/kg 71TP08B002 12/12 - 1,780 N/A 4.76 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7487947 Mercury 0.06 0.12 mg/kg 71TP01B002 4/12 0.05-0.07 0.12 N/A 1.1 N N/A N/A No BSL7440020 Nickel 11.9 45.6 mg/kg 71TP08B002 12/12 - 45.6 N/A 4.76 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440097 Potassium 554 2,700 mg/kg 71TP07B102 12/12 - 2,700 N/A NUT N/A N/A No NUT7440224 Silver 0.14 0.14 mg/kg 71TP01B001 1/12 0.11-0.24 0.14 N/A 0.16 N N/A N/A No BSL7440235 Sodium 84.6 770 mg/kg 71TP02B002 3/12 79-124 770 N/A NUT N/A N/A No NUT7440280 Thallium 0.13 1.0 mg/kg 71TP01B002 2/12 0.12-0.31 1.0 N/A 0.018 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440622 Vanadium 12.2 38.6 mg/kg 71TP02B002 12/12 - 38.6 N/A 25.6 N N/A N/A Yes ASL7440666 Zinc 31.3 L 95.7 J mg/kg 71TP04B001 12/12 - 95.7 N/A 68.1 N N/A N/A Yes ASL57125 Cyanide, Total 0.24 0.24 mg/kg 71TP01B001 1/10 0.21-0.29 0.24 N/A 156.43 N N/A N/A No BSL(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration.Definitions: ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered(2) Duplicates were averaged and considered one sample.C = Carcinogenic(3) Lower value of residential soil risk-based screening concentration (RBC), SSL for inhalation of volatiles/particulate, COPC= Chemical of Potential Concernand SSL for migration to groundwater (1 DAF) (see Table 4-1 of RI/RA).J = Estimated Value(4) If an RBSC or SSL could not be calculated, PADEP residential soil MSCs were used as the screening toxicity value (see Table4-1). K = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to be lower.(5) Rationale CodesL = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to be higher.Selection Reason:mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogramAbove Screening Levels (ASL)MSC = Medium-specific concentrationDeletion Reason:N = NoncancerEssential Nutrient (NUT)N/A = Not ApplicableBelow Screening Level (BSL)PADEP = Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtectionMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 14T-185/20/2003Table 15RAGS Part D, Table 3.1,Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area - DSERTS Site LEAD-118, SE OU 8 - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAScenario Timeframe:Future Resident ScreenMedium:SoilExposure Medium:Soil (All Depths)Exposure Point:Contaminants are in soil and exposure to soil is evaluated.(1) (1)Chemical Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum Maximum EPC Reasonable Maximum Exposure Central Tendencyof Mean Normal Detected Qualifier UnitsPotential Data Concentration Medium (1), (2), (3) Medium Medium Medium Medium MediumConcernEPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPCValue Statistic Rationale Value Statistic RationaleAcetone mg/kg 0.013 0.022 0.054 J mg/kg 0.023 95% UCL-T W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/ABenz(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.098 0.14 0.13 mg/kg 0.13 Maximum W-Test (5) N/A N/A N/ABenzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.089 0.13 0.093 mg/kg 0.093 Maximum W-Test (5) N/A N/A N/A2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ mg/kg 0.0000027 0.0000034 0.000005 mg/kg 0.0000034 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/AAluminum mg/kg 11,728 13,462 17,900 mg/kg 13,756 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/AAntimony mg/kg 0.44 0.57 0.96 L mg/kg 0.61 95% UCL-T W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/AArsenic mg/kg 8.62 12.3 29.4 mg/kg 12.9 95% UCL-T W-Test (7) N/A N/A N/ABarium mg/kg 250 335 692 L mg/kg 344 95% UCL-T W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/AChromium mg/kg 17.5 20.4 26.9 mg/kg 21.4 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/ACobalt mg/kg 18.9 23.4 35.8 mg/kg 23.4 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/AIron mg/kg 35,904 38,965 44,400 J mg/kg 38,965 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/ALead mg/kg 35 39.4 52.3 mg/kg 43.3 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/AManganese mg/kg 1,082 1,324 1,780 mg/kg 1,372 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/ANickel mg/kg 24.2 29.1 45.6 mg/kg 29.1 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/AThallium mg/kg 0.17 0.31 1.0 mg/kg 0.27 95% UCL-T W-Test (4) N/A N/A N/AVanadium mg/kg 25.2 28.5 38.6 mg/kg 28.5 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/AZinc mg/kg 62.9 73.1 95.7 J mg/kg 78.9 95% UCL-N W-Test (6) N/A N/A N/AStatistics: Maximum detected value (Maximum); 95% UCL of normal data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of log-transformed data (95% UCL-T).Definitions:J = Estimated Value(1) Nondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit. Values are representative of all depths combined. L = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to be higher.(2) Within each soil depth evaluated, the EPC is based on the lower of the 95% UCL and the maximum detected concentration. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram(3) The EPC shown represents the higher of the EPC of total soils or the surface soils. See Table 6-28 of RI/RA for surface soil statistics. N/A = Not Applicable(4) Shapiro-WilkWTest indicates data are neither normally nor lognormally distributed. They were assumed to be lognormally distributed.(5) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC.(6) Shapiro-WilkWTest indicates data are normally distributed.(7) Shapiro-WilkWTest indicates data are lognormally distributed.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 15T-195/20/2003Table 16Summary of Chemicals Detected in Groundwater,Open Vehicle Storage Area,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAArithmetic Mean Standard 95% UCL Exposure PointConcentrationcDeviationcDataof the MeancConcentrationdChemical(μg/L) (μg/L) Distribution (μg/L) (μg/L)VolatilesCarbon disulfide 1 / 52 4.00E-01 - 4.00E-01 1.00E+00 - 5.00E+00 1.04E+00 8.97E-01 default (lognormal) 1.23E+00 4.00E-01Semivolatilesbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 / 52 1.60E+00 - 2.70E+00 8.20E-01 - 1.10E+01 4.28E+00 1.43E+00 default (lognormal) 5.41E+00 2.70E+00Phenol 1 / 52 9.00E-01 - 9.00E-01 9.40E+00 - 1.10E+01 4.88E+00 5.76E-01 default (lognormal) 5.22E+00 9.00E-01InorganicsAluminum 17 / 52 7.85E+01 - 3.88E+03 9.90E+00 - 6.47E+02 1.74E+02 5.27E+02 default (lognormal) 2.91E+02 2.91E+02Antimony 7 / 53 1.50E+00 - 5.00E+00 1.50E+00 - 1.00E+01 2.18E+00 1.90E+00 default (lognormal) 2.79E+00 2.79E+00Arsenic 12 / 53 1.30E+00 - 1.25E+01 1.20E+00 - 1.00E+01 2.99E+00 2.61E+00 default (lognormal) 4.35E+00 4.35E+00Barium 53 / 53 1.38E+01 - 1.35E+02 - 6.72E+01 3.14E+01 normal 7.44E+01 7.44E+01Beryllium 2 / 52 1.80E-01 - 7.10E-01 1.00E-01 - 4.00E+00 4.93E-01 7.94E-01 default (lognormal) 7.47E-01 7.10E-01Calcium 53 / 53 8.22E+03 - 1.48E+05 - 6.52E+04 3.52E+04 default (lognormal) 7.69E+04 7.69E+04Chromium 9 / 53 1.10E+00 - 3.60E+00 9.00E-01 - 5.70E+00 1.64E+00 1.03E+00 default (lognormal) 2.13E+00 2.13E+00Cobalt 10 / 53 1.40E+00 - 7.58E+01 5.00E-01 - 5.00E+01 9.80E+00 1.40E+01 default (lognormal) 3.14E+01 3.14E+01Copper 3 / 51 3.90E+00 - 7.00E+00 8.00E-01 - 2.50E+01 3.73E+00 4.82E+00 default (lognormal) 5.44E+00 5.44E+00Iron 47 / 53 1.08E+02 - 2.21E+04 1.43E+01 - 1.85E+02 4.17E+03 5.25E+03 default (lognormal) 1.87E+04 1.87E+04Lead 1 / 51 1.10E+00 - 1.10E+00 1.00E+00 - 3.00E+00 8.38E-01 4.31E-01 default (lognormal) 9.42E-01 9.42E-01Magnesium 53 / 53 7.39E+03 - 7.14E+04 - 2.53E+04 1.66E+04 default (lognormal) 2.99E+04 2.99E+04Manganese 53 / 53 4.74E+01 - 6.41E+03 - 8.42E+02 1.34E+03 lognormal 1.25E+03 1.25E+03Nickel 8 / 53 7.00E+00 - 1.30E+02 7.00E-01 - 4.00E+01 1.27E+01 2.03E+01 default (lognormal) 2.25E+01 2.25E+01Potassium 53 / 53 6.53E+02 - 4.41E+03 - 1.68E+03 7.57E+02 lognormal 1.85E+03 1.85E+03Silver 2 / 51 1.00E+00 - 1.20E+00 1.00E+00 - 5.00E+00 1.09E+00 8.90E-01 default (lognormal) 1.30E+00 1.20E+00Sodium 53 / 53 5.38E+03 - 1.28E+04 - 8.69E+03 1.81E+03 normal 9.11E+03 9.11E+03Vanadium 3 / 52 3.50E+00 - 7.60E+00 1.00E+00 - 5.00E+01 7.21E+00 1.04E+01 default (lognormal) 1.26E+01 7.60E+00Zinc 14 / 53 3.50E+00 - 1.06E+02 6.00E-01 - 2.00E+01 8.04E+00 1.53E+01 default (lognormal) 1.45E+01 1.45E+01aNumber of sampling locations at which chemical was detected compared with total number of sampling locations; duplicates at a location were averaged and considered one sample.bBased on nondetected samples.cNondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit (EPA, 1989, 1992; see RI/RA for references).dBased on the lower of the 95% UCL and the maximum detected concentration (EPA, 1989; see RI/RA for references).μg/L = Micrograms per liter.UCL = Upper confidence limit.FrequencyofDetectionaRange of DetectedConcentrations Quantitation Limitsb(μg/L) (μg/L)Range of SampleMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 16T-205/20/2003Table 17RAGS Part D, Table 6.1,Cancer Toxicity Data -- Oral/Dermal,Phase III Sites - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAChemical Oral Cancer Slope Factor Oral to Dermal Adjusted Dermal Units Weight of Evidence/ Source Dateof Potential Adjustment Cancer Slope Factor (2) Cancer Guideline (MM/DD/YY)Concern Factor (1) DescriptionAcetone NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Trichloroethene 0.40 1 0.40 (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA 02/27/021,2,4-Trichlorobenzene NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/022,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.68 1 0.68 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/022-Chlorophenol NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA 02/27/024-Nitrophenol NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA 02/27/02Acenaphthene NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA 02/27/02Benz[a]anthracene 0.73 1 0.73 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Benzo[a]pyrene 7.3 1 7.3 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.73 1 0.73 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Carbazole 0.02 1 0.02 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 HEAST 02/27/02Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 7.3 1 7.3 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Fluorene NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.73 1 0.73 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Naphthalene NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 C IRIS 02/27/02n-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine 7.0 1 7.0 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Pentachlorophenol 0.12 1 0.12 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Pyrene NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02alpha-BHC 6.3 1 6.3 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Dieldrin 16 1 16 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Heptachlor Epoxide 9.1 1 9.1 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Aroclor 1242 2.0 1 2.0 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Aroclor 1254 2.0 1.0 2.0 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Aroclor 1260 2.00 1 2.00 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/022,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 150000 1 150000 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 HEAST 02/27/02Aluminum NA 0.27 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA 02/27/02Antimony NA 0.15 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA 02/27/02Arsenic 1.50 1 1.5 (mg/kg-d)-1 A IRIS 02/27/02Barium NA 0.07 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Beryllium NA 0.007 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B1 IRIS 02/27/02Cadmium NA 0.025 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B1 IRIS 02/27/02Chromium NA 0.025 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 A IRIS 02/27/02Cobalt NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA 02/27/02Copper NA 0.57 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Iron NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA 02/27/02Lead NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Manganese NA 0.04 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Mercury NA 0.07 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Nickel NA 0.04 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 A IRIS 02/27/02MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 17T-215/20/2003Table 17RAGS Part D, Table 6.1,Cancer Toxicity Data -- Oral/Dermal,Phase III Sites - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAChemical Oral Cancer Slope Factor Oral to Dermal Adjusted Dermal Units Weight of Evidence/ Source Dateof Potential Adjustment Cancer Slope Factor (2) Cancer Guideline (MM/DD/YY)Concern Factor (1) DescriptionSelenium NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Silver NA 0.04 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Thallium NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Vanadium NA 0.026 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA 02/27/02Zinc NA 1 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02(1) Refer to RAGS, Part A.EPA Group:(2) Adjusted CSFd=CSFodivided by Oral to Dermal Adjustment Factor.A - Human carcinogenmg/kg-d = Milligrams per kilogram per day B1 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates that limited human data are availableIRIS = Integrated Risk Information System B2 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence in animals andN/A = Not Applicableinadequate or no evidence in humansD - Not classifiable as a human carcinogenMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 17T-225/20/2003Table 18RAGS Part D, Table 6.2,Cancer Toxicity Data -- Inhalation,Phase III Sites - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAChemical Unit Risk Units Adjustment (1) Inhalation Cancer Units Weight of Evidence/ Source Dateof PotentialSlope Factor Cancer Guideline (MM/DD/YY)ConcernDescriptionAcetone NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Trichloroethene 0.00011 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 0.4 (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA NA1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/022,4-Dinitrotoluene NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/022-Chlorophenol NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA NA4-Nitrophenol NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA NAAcenaphthene NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA NABenz[a]anthracene NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Benzo[a]pyrene 0.00089 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 3.1 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Benzo[b]fluoranthene NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Carbazole NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 HEAST 02/27/02Dibenz[a,h]anthracene NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Fluorene NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Naphthalene NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 C IRIS 02/27/02n-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Pentachlorophenol NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Pyrene NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02alpha-BHC 0.0018 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 6.3 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Dieldrin 0.0046 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 16 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Heptachlor Epoxide 0.0026 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 9.1 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Aroclor 1242 0.00057 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 2.0 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Aroclor 1254 0.00057 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 2.0 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Aroclor 1260 0.0006 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 2.00 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/022,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 42.9 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 150,000 (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 HEAST 02/27/02Aluminum NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA NAAntimony NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA NAArsenic 0.0043 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 15.1 (mg/kg-d)-1 A IRIS 02/27/02Barium NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Beryllium 0.0024 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 8.4 (mg/kg-d)-1 B1 IRIS 02/27/02Cadmium 0.0018 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 6.3 (mg/kg-d)-1 B1 IRIS 02/27/02Chromium 0.012 (μg/m3)-1 3,500 41 (mg/kg-d)-1 A IRIS 02/27/02Cobalt NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA NACopper NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Iron NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA NALead NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 B2 IRIS 02/27/02Manganese NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Mercury NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Nickel NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 A IRIS 02/27/02MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 18T-235/20/2003Table 18RAGS Part D, Table 6.2,Cancer Toxicity Data -- Inhalation,Phase III Sites - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAChemical Unit Risk Units Adjustment (1) Inhalation Cancer Units Weight of Evidence/ Source Dateof PotentialSlope Factor Cancer Guideline (MM/DD/YY)ConcernDescriptionSelenium NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Silver NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Thallium NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02Vanadium NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 NA NA NAZinc NA (μg/m3)-1 3500 NA (mg/kg-d)-1 D IRIS 02/27/02(1) Adjustment Factor applied to Unit Risk to calculate Inhalation Slope Factor = EPA Group:70 kg x 1/20 m3/day x 1,000 μg/mg.A - Human carcinogenμg/m3= Micrograms per cubic meterB1 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates that limited human data are availablemg/kg-d = Milligrams per kilogram per dayB2 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence in animals andIRIS = Integrated Risk Information Systeminadequate or no evidence in humansNA = Not AvailableC - Possible human carcinogenD - Not classifiable as a human carcinogenMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 18T-245/20/2003Table 19RAGS Part D, Table 5.1,Non-Cancer Toxicity Data -- Oral/Dermal,Phase III Sites - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAChemical Chronic/ Oral RfD Oral RfD Oral to Dermal Adjusted Units Primary Combined Sources of RfD (3): Dates of RfD:of Potential Subchronic Value Units Adjustment Factor (1) Dermal Target Uncertainty/Modifying Target Organ Target OrganConcernRfD (2) Organ Factors (MM/DD/YY)Acetone Chronic 0.1 mg/kg/d 1 0.1 mg/kg/d Liver/Kidney 1,000 IRIS 02/27/02Trichloroethene Chronic 0.0003 mg/kg/d 1 0.0003 mg/kg/d NA NA NCEA : NA 02/27/021,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Chronic 0.01 mg/kg/d 1 0.01 mg/kg/d Adrenal 1,000 IRIS 02/27/022,4-Dinitrotoluene Chronic --- mg/kg/d 1 --- mg/kg/d CNS/Liver 100 NA : IRIS 02/27/022-Chlorophenol Chronic 0.005 mg/kg/d 1 0.005 mg/kg/d Reproductive system 1,000 IRIS 02/27/024-Nitrophenol Chronic 0.008 mg/kg/d 1 0.008 mg/kg/d NA NA NCEA : NA 02/27/02Acenaphthene Chronic 0.06 mg/kg/d 1 0.06 mg/kg/d Liver 3,000 IRIS 02/27/02Benz[a]anthracene Chronic --- mg/kg/d 1 --- mg/kg/d NA NA NA 02/27/02Benzo[a]pyrene Chronic --- mg/kg/d 1 --- mg/kg/d NA NA NA 02/27/02Benzo[b]fluoranthene Chronic --- mg/kg/d 1 --- mg/kg/d NA NA NA 02/27/02Carbazole Chronic --- mg/kg/d 1 --- mg/kg/d Liver NA NA : HEAST 02/27/02Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Chronic --- mg/kg/d 1 --- mg/kg/d NA NA NA 02/27/02Fluorene Chronic 0.04 mg/kg/d 1 0.04 mg/kg/d Blood 3,000 IRIS 02/27/02Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Chronic --- mg/kg/d 1 --- mg/kg/d NA NA NA 02/27/02Naphthalene Chronic 0.02 mg/kg/d 1 0.02 mg/kg/d Whole body 3,000 IRIS 02/27/02n-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine Chronic --- mg/kg/d 1 --- mg/kg/d NOAEL NA NA : IRIS 02/27/02Pentachlorophenol Chronic 0.03 mg/kg/d 1 0.03 mg/kg/d Kidney/Liver 100 IRIS 02/27/02Pyrene Chronic 0.03 mg/kg/d 1 0.03 mg/kg/d Kidney 3,000 IRIS 02/27/02alpha-BHC Chronic --- mg/kg/d 1 --- mg/kg/d NA NA NA 02/27/02Dieldrin Chronic 0.00005 mg/kg/d 1 0.00005 mg/kg/d Liver 100 IRIS 02/27/02Heptachlor Epoxide Chronic 0.000013 mg/kg/d 1 0.000013 mg/kg/d Liver 1,000 IRIS 02/27/02Aroclor 1242 Chronic 0.00002 mg/kg/d 1 0.00002 mg/kg/d NA NA NA 02/27/02Aroclor 1254 Chronic 0.00002 mg/kg/d 1 0.00002 mg/kg/d Ocular/Immunological/Integument* 300 IRIS 02/27/02Aroclor 1260 Chronic --- 1 --- Ocular/Immunological/Integument* --- NA2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ Chronic ---1 --- NA --- NAAluminum Chronic 1.0 mg/kg/d 0.27 0.27 mg/kg/d CNS NA NCEA : Professional Judgement 02/27/02Antimony Chronic 0.0004 mg/kg/d 0.15 0.00006 mg/kg/d Blood 1,000 IRIS 02/27/02Arsenic Chronic 0.0003 mg/kg/d 1 0.00030 mg/kg/d Integument * 3 IRIS 02/27/02Barium Chronic 0.07 mg/kg/d 0.07 0.0049 mg/kg/d NOEL/Kidney 3 IRIS 02/27/02Beryllium Chronic 0.002 mg/kg/d 0.007 0.000014 mg/kg/d Gastrointestinal 300 IRIS 02/27/02Cadmium Chronic 0.001 mg/kg/d 0.025 0.000025 mg/kg/d Kidney 10 IRIS 02/27/02Chromium Chronic 0.003 mg/kg/d 0.025 0.000075 mg/kg/d NOEL 300 IRIS 02/27/02Cobalt Chronic 0.02 mg/kg/d 1 0.02 mg/kg/d NA NA NCEA : NA 02/27/02Copper Chronic 0.04 mg/kg/d 0.57 0.023 mg/kg/d Gastrointestinal NA HEAST 02/27/02Iron Chronic 0.3 mg/kg/d 1 0.3 mg/kg/d Liver/Gastrointestinal/Body weight/Organ weight NA NCEA : Professional Judgement 02/27/02Lead Chronic --- mg/kg/d 1 --- mg/kg/d CNS NA NA : IRIS 02/27/02Manganese Chronic 0.02 mg/kg/d 0.04 0.0008 mg/kg/d CNS 1 IRIS 02/27/02Mercury Chronic 0.0003 mg/kg/d 0.07 0.000021 mg/kg/d Immune System NA IRIS 02/27/02Nickel Chronic 0.02 mg/kg/d 0.04 0.0008 mg/kg/d Body weight/Organ weight 300 IRIS 02/27/02Selenium Chronic 0.005 mg/kg/d 1 0.005 mg/kg/d Integument * 3 IRIS 02/27/02Silver Chronic 0.005 mg/kg/d 0.04 0.0002 mg/kg/d Integument * 3 IRIS 02/27/02MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 19T-255/20/2003Table 19RAGS Part D, Table 5.1,Non-Cancer Toxicity Data -- Oral/Dermal,Phase III Sites - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAChemical Chronic/ Oral RfD Oral RfD Oral to Dermal Adjusted Units Primary Combined Sources of RfD (3): Dates of RfD:of Potential Subchronic Value Units Adjustment Factor (1) Dermal Target Uncertainty/Modifying Target Organ Target OrganConcernRfD (2) Organ Factors (MM/DD/YY)Thallium Chronic 0.00007 mg/kg/d 1 0.00007 mg/kg/d Liver/Blood 3,000 IRIS 02/27/02Vanadium Chronic 0.007 mg/kg/d 0.026 0.00018 mg/kg/d Integument * NA HEAST 02/27/02Zinc Chronic 0.30 mg/kg/d 1 0.3 mg/kg/d Blood 3 IRIS 02/27/02(1) Refer to RAGS, Part A.(2) Dermal reference doses were calculated by multiplying the oral reference dose and the oral todermal adjustment factor.(3) NCEA values were obtained from EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table (10/9/2002).* Integument includes skin, hair, nails, sebaceous and sweat glands.CNS=Central Nervous SystemHEAST=Health Effects Assessment Summary TablesIRIS=Integrated Risk Information Systemmg/kg/d = Milligrams per kilogram per dayN/A= Not ApplicableNCEA=National Center for Environmental AssessmentNOEL=No Observed Effect LevelMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 19T-265/20/2003Table 20RAGS Part D, Table 5.2,Non-Cancer Toxicity Data -- Inhalation,Phase III Site - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAChemical Chronic/ Value Units Adjusted Units Primary Combined Sources of (2) Datesof Potential Subchronic Inhalation Inhalation Target Uncertainty/Modifying RfC,RfD, (MM/DD/YY)Concern RfC RfD (1) Organ Factors Target OrganAcetone Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NATrichloroethene Chronic 0.035 mg/m3 0.010 mg/m3 NA NA NCEA : NA 02/27/021,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Chronic 0.0035 mg/m3 0.0010 mg/m3 Liver NA NCEA : HEAST 02/27/022,4-Dinitrotoluene Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NA2-Chlorophenol Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NA4-Nitrophenol Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAAcenaphthene Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NABenz[a]anthracene Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NABenzo[a]pyrene Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NABenzo[b]fluoranthene Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NACarbazole Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NADibenz[a,h]anthracene Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAFluorene Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAIndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NANaphthalene Chronic 0.0032 mg/m3 0.0009 mg/m3 Respiratory system 3,000 IRIS 02/27/02n-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAPentachlorophenol Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAPyrene Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAalpha-BHC Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NADieldrin Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAHeptachlor Epoxide Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAAroclor 1242 Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAAroclor 1254 Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAAroclor 1260 Chronic --- --- --- --- NA --- NA2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ Chronic --- --- --- --- NA --- NAAluminum Chronic 0.0035 mg/m3 0.0010 mg/m3 NA NA NCEA : NA 02/27/02Antimony Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 Respiratory NA NA : IRIS 02/27/02Arsenic Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NABarium Chronic 0.0005 mg/m3 0.00014 mg/m3 NA NA NA : IRIS 02/27/02Beryllium Chronic 0.000020 mg/m3 0.0000057 mg/m3 Lung 10 IRIS 02/27/02Cadmium Chronic 0.00020 mg/m3 0.000057 mg/m3 NA NA NCEA : NA 02/27/02Chromium Chronic 0.00011 mg/m3 0.00003 mg/m3 Lung 90 IRIS 02/27/02Cobalt Chronic 0.000020 mg/m3 0.000006 mg/m3 NA NA NCEA : NA 02/27/02Copper Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAIron Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NALead Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 CNS NA NA : IRIS 02/27/02Manganese Chronic 0.00 mg/m3 0.000014 mg/m3 CNS 1,000 IRIS 02/27/02Mercury Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 CNS 30 NA : IRIS 02/27/02MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 20T-275/20/2003Table 20RAGS Part D, Table 5.2,Non-Cancer Toxicity Data -- Inhalation,Phase III Site - Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAChemical Chronic/ Value Units Adjusted Units Primary Combined Sources of (2) Datesof Potential Subchronic Inhalation Inhalation Target Uncertainty/Modifying RfC,RfD, (MM/DD/YY)Concern RfC RfD (1) Organ Factors Target OrganNickel Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NASelenium Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NASilver Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAThallium Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA IRIS : NA 02/27/02Vanadium Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NAZinc Chronic NA mg/m3 NA mg/m3 NA NA NA NA(1) Adjusted inhalation RfD = RfC*20/70.(2) NCEA values were obtained from EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table (10/9/2002).mg/m3= Milligrams per cubic metermg/kg/d = Milligrams per kilogram per dayN/A= Not ApplicableCNS=Central Nervous SystemNCEA=National Center for Environmental AssessmentIRIS=Integrated Risk Information SystemMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 20T-285/20/2003MK01|L:\RPT\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD \TABLES 21 - 25.DOC 5/20/2003 

### T-29 Table 21

Models for Calculating Age-Adjusted Cancer Residential RBSCs for Soil Ingestion, Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA

a a a

c c c adj 

### BW ED x IR

BW ED x IR day)

- year/kg

- (mg IFA + =

For organics:

o adj c 

### CSF x IFA x EF AT x TR (mg/kg) RBSC =

For inorganics:

o adj c 

### CSF x IFA x EF AT x TR (mg/kg) RBSC =

Parameter Definition Value

IFA adj Age-adjusted inhalation factor (mg-year/kg-day). *

IR

c Ingestion rate, child (mg/day). 200

ED

c Exposure duration, child (years). 6

BW

c Body weight, child (kg). 15

IR

a Ingestion rate, adult (mg/day). 100

ED

a Exposure duration, adult (years). 24

BW

a Body weight, adult (kg). 70

TR Target cancer risk. 1.0E-06

AT Cancer averaging time (days). 25,550

EF Exposure frequency (days/year). 350

CSF

o Oral cancer inhalation slope factor (mg/kg-day) -1 . Chemical-specific (Section 6 of
RI/RA)

* Calculated using formula shown above.

mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. mg/kg-day = Milligram per kilogram per day. RBSC = Risk-based screening concentration.MK01|L:\RPT\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD \TABLES 21 - 25.DOC 5/20/2003 

### T-30 Table 22

Model for Calculating Age-Adjusted Cancer Residential RBSCs for Dermal Contact with Soil, Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA

a a a a

c c c c adj 

### BW ED x AF x SA

BW ED x AF x SA day)

- year/kg

- (mg IFA + =

For organics:

o adj c 

### CSF x IFA x EF AT x TR (mg/kg) RBSC =

For inorganics:

o adj c 

### CSF x IFA x EF AT x TR (mg/kg) RBSC =

Parameter Definition Value

IFA adj Age-adjusted inhalation factor (mg-year/kg-day). *

SA

c Exposed skin surface area, child (cm 2 /day). 2,983

AF

c Soil adherence factor, child (mg/cm 2 ). 0.045

ED

c Exposure duration, child (years). 6

BW

c Body weight, child (kg). 15

SA

a Exposed skin surface area, adult (cm 2 /day). 5,651

AF

a Soil adherence factor, adult (mg/cm 2 ). 0.065

ED

a Exposure duration, adult (years). 24

BW

a Body weight, adult (kg). 70

TR Target cancer risk. 1.0E-06

AT Cancer averaging time (days). 25,550

EF Exposure frequency (days/year). 350

CSF

o Oral cancer inhalation slope factor (mg/kg-day) -1 . Chemical-specific (Section 6 of
RI/RA)



### * Calculated using formula shown above.

mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. mg-year/kg-day = Milligram per year per kilogram per day.

RBSC = Risk-based scr eening concentration.MK01|L:\RPT\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD \TABLES 21 - 25.DOC 5/20/2003 

### T-31 Table 23

Model for Calculating Age-Adjusted Cancer Residential RBSCs for Inhalation of VOCs/Particulates, Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA

a c tot a

c c c 3 adj 

### BW ) ED

- (ED x IR

BW ED x IR day)

- year/kg

- (m IFA + =

For organics:



### 1/VF x CSF x IFA x EF AT x TR (mg/kg) RBSC

i adj c 

### =

For inorganics:



### 1/PEF x CSF x IFA x EF AT x TR (mg/kg) RBSC

i adj c 

### =

Parameter Definition Value

IFA adj Age-adjusted inhalation factor (m 3 -year/kg-day). *

IR

c Inhalation rate, child (m 3 /day). 8.4

ED

c Exposure duration, child (years). 6

BW

c Body weight, child (kg). 15

IR

a Inhalation rate, adult, average of male and female (m 3 /day). 13.3

ED tot Exposure duration, total (years). 30

BW

a Body weight, adult (kg). 70

TR Target cancer risk. 1.0E-06

AT Cancer averaging time (days). 25,550

EF Exposure frequency (days/year). 350

CSF i Cancer inhalation slope factor (mg/kg-day) -1 . Chemical-specific (Section 6)

VF Volatilization factor (m 3 /kg). Chemical-specific (Section 6 of
RI/RA)

PEF Particulate emission factor (m 3 /kg). 6.79E+10

* Calculated using formula shown above.

m 3 /kg = Cubic meters per kilogram. mg/kg-day = Milligrams per kilogram per day.

RBSC = Risk-based scr eening concentration.MK01|L:\RPT\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD \TABLES 21 - 25.DOC 5/20/2003 

### T-32 Table 24

Model for Calculating Noncancer Reside ntial RBSCs for Soil Ingestion, Child and Adult, Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA

CF x ) (1/RfD x IRS x ) ED or (ED x EF x FI ) BW or (BW x AT x THQ (mg/kg) RBSC

o c a c a


### =

Parameter Definition Value

THQ Target hazard quotient. 1.0

AT

a Noncancer averaging time , adult (days). 10,950

AT

c Noncancer averaging ti me, child (days). 2,190

BW

a Body weight, adult (kg). 70

BW

c Body weight, child (kg). 15

FI Fraction of contaminated soil ingested (unitless). 1.0

EF Exposure frequency (days/year). 350

ED

a Exposure duration, adult (years). 30

ED

c Exposure duration, child (years). 6

IRS

a Soil ingestion rate, adult (mg/day). 100

IRS

c Soil ingestion rate, child (mg/day). 200

RfD

o Oral reference dose (mg/kg-day). Chemical-specific (Section 6 of
RI/RA)

CF Conversion factor (kg/mg). 1.00E-06

mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. mg/kg-day = Milligrams per kilogram per day. RBSC = Risk-based screening concentration.MK01|L:\RPT\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD \TABLES 21 - 25.DOC 5/20/2003 

### T-33 Table 25

Integrated Risk-Based Screen ing Concentration Algorithm a


### through All Relevant Exposure Pathways, Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA

RBSC int 

### = [(RBSC ing 

### ) -1 

### + (RBSC der 

### ) -1 

### + (RBSC inh 

### ) -1 

### ] -1

Where:

RBSC int = Medium-specific integrated risk-based concentration for all pathways combined. b

RBSC ing = Medium-specific risk-based concentration for ingestion.

RBSC der = Medium-specific risk-based c oncentration for dermal contact.

RBSC inh = Medium-specific risk-based concentration for inhalation.

a Rosenblatt et al., 1982.

b This algorithm is used to estimate the integrated soil RBSC for the agricultural worker (direct contact) in
Level 1, and for the commercial/industrial an d construction workers and resident in Level 2.Table 2 6

Model for Calculating Groundwater Ingestion Risk-Based Screening Concentration s
for Child and Adult Resident and Industrial Worke r

Age-Adjusted Factor for Groundwater Ingestion:

Age-Adjusted Cancer Resident RBSC:

Cancer Industrial Worker RBSC:

Noncancer Child Resident and Industrial Worker RBSCs:

Parameter Definition Value

TR Target cancer risk. 1.00E-06

THQ Target hazard quotient. 0.1

AT

c Averaging time carcinogens (days). 25,550

AT

nc Averaging time noncarcinogens (days). 2,190

EF Exposure frequency (days/year). 350

ED tot Exposure duration, total (years). 30

ED

a Exposure duration, adult (years). 24

ED

c Exposure duration, child (years). 6

BW

a Body weight, adult (kg). 70

BW

c Body weight, child (kg). 15

IRW

a Water ingestion rate, adult (L/day). 2

IRW

c Water ingestion rate, child (L/day). 1

CF Conversion factor (mg/μg). 1.00E-03

CSF

o Oral cancer slope factor ((mg/kg-day) -1 ). Chemical-specific

RfD

o Oral reference dose (mg/kg-day). Chemical-specific Letterkenny Army Depot,

Chambersburg, PA

a c tot a

c c c adj BW ) ED ED ( x IRW

BW ED

x IRW day) year/kg (L IFW − + =

− −

o adj c

CSF x CF x IFW x EF AT x TR ) L / g ( RBSC = μ

o c

CSF x CF x IRW x ED x EF BW x AT x TR ) L / g ( RBSC = μ

o c

RfD 1

x CF x IRW x ED x EF BW x AT x THQ ) L / g ( RBSC = μ

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 26 T-34 5/20/2003Table 27Soil RBSCs Across All Direct Contact Pathways for Future Resident—Child and Adult,Open Vehicle Storage Area (East), DSERTS Site LEAD-114, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAExposure Integrated RBSCsPointCarcinogenicaNoncarcinogenicbCancer Primary NoncancerConcentration Age-Adjusted Child Adult Risk Target RiskChemical (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Age-Adjusted Organ Child Adult1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene8.70E-02 --- 8.45E+00 2.68E+01 --- Adrenal 0.00103 0.0003242,4-Dinitrotoluene1.90E-01 8.12E-01 --- --- 2.34E-07 CNS/Liver --- ---2-Chlorophenol1.20E-01 --- 3.83E+01 3.29E+02 --- Reproductive system 0.00031 0.0000362-Methylnaphthalene1.72E-01 --- 1.56E+02 1.46E+03 --- NA 0.00011 0.0000124-Chloro-3-methylphenol5.10E-02 --- --- --- --- Organ weight --- ---4-Nitrophenol3.30E-01 --- 5.86E+01 4.27E+02 --- NA 0.00056 0.00008Acenaphthene2.38E-01 --- 4.69E+02 4.38E+03 --- Liver 0.00005 0.000005Acenaphthylene1.58E-01 --- --- --- --- NA --- ---Anthracene3.38E-01 --- 2.35E+03 2.19E+04 --- NOEL 0.000014 0.0000015Benz(a)anthracene5.05E-01 8.75E-01 --- --- 5.78E-07 NA --- ---Benzo(a)pyrene4.78E-01 8.75E-02 --- --- 5.46E-06 NA --- ---Benzo(b)fluoranthene5.20E-01 8.75E-01 --- --- 5.94E-07 NA --- ---Benzo(ghi)perylene3.50E-01 --- 2.35E+02 2.19E+03 --- NA 0.00015 0.000016Benzo(k)fluoranthene3.25E-01 8.75E+00 --- --- 3.71E-08 NA --- ---bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate1.66E-01 3.94E+01 1.47E+02 1.07E+03 4.21E-09 Liver 0.00011 0.000016Carbazole3.00E-01 3.19E+01 --- --- 9.39E-09 Liver --- ---Chrysene5.12E-01 8.75E+01 --- --- 5.85E-09 NA --- ---Dibenz(a,h)anthracene1.83E-01 8.75E-02 --- --- 2.09E-06 NA --- ---Dibenzofuran2.07E-01 --- 3.07E+01 2.63E+02 --- NA 0.0007 0.00008Di-n-butyl phthalate1.20E-01 --- 7.33E+02 5.34E+03 --- Increased mortality 0.000016 0.0000022Fluoranthene1.04E+00 --- 3.13E+02 2.92E+03 --- Blood/Kidney/Liver 0.0003 0.00004Fluorene2.63E-01 --- 3.13E+02 2.92E+03 --- Blood 0.00008 0.00001Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene3.37E-01 8.75E-01 --- --- 3.85E-07 NA --- ---Naphthalene2.25E-01 --- 1.03E+01 3.19E+01 --- Whole body 0.0022 0.0007n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine4.20E-02 7.89E-02 --- --- 5.33E-07 NOAEL --- ---Pentachlorophenol5.00E-01 3.85E+00 2.02E+02 1.15E+03 1.30E-07 Kidney/Liver 0.00025 0.000043Phenanthrene8.55E-01 --- 2.35E+02 2.19E+03 --- NA 0.0004 0.00004Phenol1.40E-01 --- 2.20E+03 1.60E+04 --- Fetus 0.000006 0.00000087Pyrene8.77E-01 --- 2.35E+02 2.19E+03 --- Kidney 0.0004 0.000041,2-Dichloroethene, total3.00E-03 --- 7.04E+01 6.56E+02 --- Liver 0.000004 0.000000462-Butanone6.40E-03 --- 4.78E+02 1.52E+03 --- Reproductive system 0.0000013 0.00000042Acetone9.67E-03 --- 7.82E+02 7.29E+03 --- Liver/Kidney 0.000001 0.0000001Ethylbenzene2.00E-03 1.51E+01 2.36E+02 8.70E+02 1.33E-10 Liver/Kidney 0.0000008 0.00000023Trichloroethene3.00E-03 8.28E-02 1.74E+00 1.01E+01 3.62E-08 NA 0.000173 0.0000296Xylenes, total6.00E-03 --- 1.53E+04 1.32E+05 --- Body weight/CNS 0.000000039 0.0000000046Aroclor 12421.72E-02 2.92E-01 1.50E-01 1.20E+00 5.88E-08 NA 0.0114102 0.00143419Aroclor 12541.74E-02 2.92E-01 1.50E-01 1.20E+00 5.96E-08 Ocular/Immunological/Integument* 0.012 0.0015SemivolatilesVolatilesMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 27T-355/20/2003Table 27Soil RBSCs Across All Direct Contact Pathways for Future Resident—Child and Adult,Open Vehicle Storage Area (East), DSERTS Site LEAD-114, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAExposure Integrated RBSCsPointCarcinogenicaNoncarcinogenicbCancer Primary NoncancerConcentration Age-Adjusted Child Adult Risk Target RiskChemical (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Age-Adjusted Organ Child AdultAroclor 12602.96E-02 2.92E-01 1.50E-01 1.20E+00 1.01E-07 Ocular/Immunological/Integument* 0.0196674 0.00247207alpha-BHC1.10E-03 8.76E-02 --- --- 1.26E-08 NA --- ---alpha-Chlordane8.50E-03 1.58E+00 3.66E+00 2.67E+01 5.39E-09 Liver 0.00023 0.000032Dieldrin1.80E-03 3.45E-02 3.66E-01 2.67E+00 5.22E-08 Liver 0.00049 0.000067Endrin ketone3.40E-03 --- 2.20E+00 1.60E+01 --- Liver 0.00015 0.000021gamma-Chlordane6.00E-03 1.58E+00 3.66E+00 2.67E+01 3.80E-09 Liver 0.00016 0.000022Heptachlor epoxide2.40E-03 6.07E-02 9.53E-02 6.94E-01 3.96E-08 Liver 0.0025 0.00035Aluminum1.50E+04 --- 7.63E+03 6.41E+04 --- CNS 0.20 0.023Antimony1.05E+00 --- 2.99E+00 2.35E+01 --- Liver 0.04 0.004Arsenic9.43E+00 4.05E-01 2.30E+00 1.96E+01 2.33E-05 Integument * 0.41 0.05Barium2.03E+02 --- 4.99E+02 3.35E+03 --- NOEL/Kidney 0.04 0.006Beryllium1.14E+00 7.45E+04 7.98E+00 2.34E+01 1.53E-11 Gastrointestinal 0.014 0.005Cadmium2.67E+00 9.93E+04 6.17E+00 2.96E+01 2.68E-11 Kidney 0.04 0.01Calcium1.33E+04 --- --- --- --- NA --- ---Chromium3.51E+01 1.53E+04 1.85E+01 8.87E+01 2.30E-09 Lung 0.19 0.04Cobalt2.50E+01 --- 1.55E+02 1.40E+03 --- NA 0.02 0.0018Copper4.52E+01 --- 3.09E+02 2.74E+03 --- Gastrointestinal 0.015 0.002Iron4.70E+04 --- 2.33E+03 2.11E+04 --- Liver/Gastrointestinal/Body weight/Organ weight 2.0 0.22Leadc8.16E+01 --- --- 4.00E+02 --- CNS --- 0.02Magnesium6.15E+03 --- --- --- --- NA --- ---Manganese1.33E+03 --- 1.34E+02 7.60E+02 --- CNS 0.99 0.17Mercury6.93E-02 --- 2.14E+00 1.44E+01 --- Immune system/CNS 0.003 0.0005Nickel3.46E+01 --- 1.34E+02 7.61E+02 --- Body weight/Organ weight 0.026 0.0045Potassium1.14E+03 --- --- --- --- NA --- ---Selenium8.61E-01 --- 3.88E+01 3.52E+02 --- Integument * 0.002 0.00024Silver1.95E-01 --- 3.35E+01 1.90E+02 --- Integument * 0.001 0.00010Sodium1.33E+02 --- --- --- --- NA --- ---Thallium1.43E-01 --- 5.44E-01 4.93E+00 --- Liver/Blood 0.026 0.003Vanadium2.86E+01 --- 4.35E+01 2.12E+02 --- Integument * 0.066 0.01Zinc1.34E+02 --- 2.33E+03 2.11E+04 --- Blood 0.006 0.0006Carbon, total organic6.69E+04 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Dioxins/Furans---1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD4.42E-08 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF1.73E-08 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD1.78E-09 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF5.25E-10 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---2,3,7,8-TCDF8.38E-10 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---MetalsMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 27T-365/20/2003Table 27Soil RBSCs Across All Direct Contact Pathways for Future Resident—Child and Adult,Open Vehicle Storage Area (East), DSERTS Site LEAD-114, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAExposure Integrated RBSCsPointCarcinogenicaNoncarcinogenicbCancer Primary NoncancerConcentration Age-Adjusted Child Adult Risk Target RiskChemical (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Age-Adjusted Organ Child AdultOCDD4.05E-07 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---OCDF1.57E-07 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ9.86E-10 4.07E-06 --- --- 2.42E-10 NA --- ---Total Risk3.37E-05 4.2 0.59Note: Shading indicates hazard quotient is greater than 1 or cancer risk is greater than 1 x 10-6.aTarget cancer risk, 1E-06.Total Liver HI =2.08 0.23bTarget hazard quotient, 0.1.Total Kidney HI =0.1 0.015cBased on CERCLA/RCRA Corrective Action Level (EPA, 1998).Total NA HI =0.030 0.0035* Integument includes skin, hair, nails, sebaceous and sweat glands.Total CNS HI =1.19 0.2CNS = Central nervous system.Total Integument HI =0.51 0.07mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.Total NOEL HI =0.04 0.006NA = Not available.Total Lung HI =0.19 0.04NOAEL = No-observed-adverse-effect level.Total Gastrointestinal HI =2.05 0.23NOEL = No-observed-effect level.Total Body Weight HI =2.04 0.23NUT = Essential nutrient.Total Organ Weight HI =2.04 0.23RBSC = Risk-Based Screening Concentration.Total Blood HI =0.03 0.00Total Adrenal HI =0.00103 0.000324Total Reproductive System HI =0.00031 0.000037Total Immune System HI =0.03 0.004Total Death HI =0.000016 0.0000022Total Whole Body HI =0.0022 0.0007Total Fetus HI =0.000006 0.00000087Total Ocular HI =0.031 0.0039MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 27T-375/20/2003Table 28Soil RBSCs Across All Direct Contact Pathways for Future Resident - Child and AdultBackwash Discharge Area from Water Treatment Plant,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAExposureIntegrated RBSCsPointCarcinogenicaNoncarcinogenicbCancer Primary NoncancerConcentration (mg/kg) Risk Target RiskChemical (mg/kg) Age-Adjusted Child Adult Age-Adjusted Organ Child AdultAluminum21,704 NA 7.63E+03 6.41E+04 NA CNS 0.28 0.034Antimony0.84 NA 2.99E+00 2.35E+01 NA Liver 0.03 0.004Arsenic9.57 4.05E-01 2.30E+00 1.96E+01 2.36E-05 Integument * 0.42 0.049Barium353 NA 4.99E+02 3.35E+03 NA NOEL/Kidney 0.07 0.011Chromium28.9 1.53E+04 1.85E+01 8.87E+01 1.89E-09 Lung 0.16 0.033Cobalt24.3 NA 1.55E+02 1.40E+03 NA NA 0.02 0.002Iron40,477 NA 2.33E+03 2.11E+04 NA Liver/Gastrointestinal/Body weight/Organ weight 1.74 0.192Leadc62.5 NA NA NA NA CNS NA NAManganese4,017 NA 1.34E+02 7.60E+02 NA CNS 3.00 0.53Nickel37.7 NA 1.34E+02 7.61E+02 NA Body weight/Organ weight 0.03 0.005Selenium1.28 NA 3.88E+01 3.52E+02 NA Integument * 0.0033 0.00036Silver0.6 NA 3.35E+01 1.90E+02 NA Integument * 0.0018 0.00032Thallium0.16 NA 5.44E-01 4.93E+00 NA Liver/Blood 0.03 0.003Vanadium30.3 NA 4.35E+01 2.12E+02 NA Integument * 0.07 0.014Zinc550 NA 2.33E+03 2.11E+04 NA Blood 0.02 0.003Total Risk2.36E-05 5.86 0.88Note: Shading indicates hazard quotient is greater than 1 or cancer risk is greater than 1 x 10-6.aTarget cancer risk, 1E-06.Total Liver HI =1.79bTarget hazard quotient, 0.1.Total Kidney HI =0.071cBased on CERCLA/RCRA Corrective Action Level (EPA, 1998).Total NA HI =0.016mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogramTotal CNS HI =3.29RBSC = Risk-based screening concentration.Total Integument HI =0.49METALS(mg/kg)MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 28T-385/20/2003Table 29Soil RBSCs Across All Direct Contact Pathways for Future Resident - Child and Adult,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAExposureIntegrated RBSCsPointCarcinogenicaNoncarcinogenicbCancer Primary NoncancerConcentration Age-Adjusted Child Adult Risk Target RiskChemical (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Age-Adjusted Organ Child AdultAcetone 0.023 NA 7.82E+02 7.29E+03 NA Liver/Kidney2.95E-06 3.16E-07Benz[a]anthracene0.13 8.75E-01 NA NA 1.49E-07 NA NA NABenzo[a]pyrene0.093 8.75E-02 NA NA 1.06E-06 NA NA NAAluminum13,756 NA 7.63E+03 6.41E+04 NA CNS 1.80E-01 2.14E-02Antimony0.61 NA 2.99E+00 2.35E+01 NA Liver2.02E-02 2.58E-03Arsenic12.9 4.05E-01 2.30E+00 1.96E+01 3.18E-05 Integument * 5.61E-01 6.58E-02Barium 344 NA 4.99E+02 3.35E+03 NA NOEL/Kidney 6.88E-02 1.03E-02Chromium21.4 1.53E+04 1.85E+01 8.87E+01 1.40E-09 Lung1.16E-01 2.41E-02Cobalt23.4 NA 1.55E+02 1.40E+03 NA NA 1.51E-02 1.68E-03Iron 38,965 NA 2.33E+03 2.11E+04 NA Liver/Gastrointestinal/Body weight/Organ weight1.67E+00 1.84E-01Leadc43.3 NA NA NA NA CNS NA NAManganese1,372 NA 1.34E+02 7.60E+02 NA CNS 1.02E+00 1.81E-01Nickel29.1 NA 1.34E+02 7.61E+02 NA Body weight/Organ weight2.18E-02 3.83E-03Thallium0.27 NA 5.44E-01 4.93E+00 NA Liver/Blood4.98E-02 5.50E-03Vanadium28.5 NA 4.35E+01 2.12E+02 NA Integument * 6.56E-02 1.35E-02Zinc78.9 NA 2.33E+03 2.11E+04 NA Blood3.38E-03 3.73E-04DIOXINS/FURANS2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 0.0000034 0.0000041 NA NA 8.42E-07 NA NA NATotal Risk3.39E-05 3.80 0.51aTarget cancer risk, 1E-06.Total Liver HI =1.74bTarget hazard quotient, 0.1.Total Kidney HI =0.069cBased on CERCLA/RCRA Corrective Action Level (EPA, 1998).Total NA HI =0.015mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogramTotal CNS HI =1.21RBSC = Risk-Based Screening Concentration.Total Integument HI =0.63Total NOEL HI =0.069Total Lung HI =0.12Total Gastrointestinal HI =1.67Total Body Weight HI =1.69Total Blood HI =0.053VOLATILESMETALSMK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 29T-395/20/2003Table 30Groundwater Health Risks,Open Vehicle Storage Area,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PACommercial/ IndustrialbCommercial/ IndustrialbAge-Adjusted ResidentbChild ResidentbExposure PointaCancer-BasedEstimatedcNon-Cancer-BasedEstimateddCancer-BasedEstimatedcNon-Cancer-Based PrimaryEstimateddConcentration RBSL Cancer Risk RBSL Hazard Quotient RBSL Cancer Risk RBSL Target Organ Hazard QuotientChemical (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L)OrganicsCarbon disulfide 4.00E-01 NA --- 1.02E+03 3.91E-05 NA --- 1.56.E+02 Fetal toxicity 2.56E-04bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 2.70E+00 20.4 1.32E-07 2.04E+02 1.32E-03 4.8E+00 5.62E-07 3.13.E+01 Liver 8.63E-03Phenol 9.00E-01 NA --- 3.07E+03 2.94E-05 NA --- 4.69.E+02 Fetus 1.92E-04InorganicsAluminum 2.91E+02 NA --- 1.02E+04 2.85E-03 NA --- 1.56.E+03 CNS 1.86E-02Antimony 2.79E+00 NA --- 4.09E+00 6.83E-02 NA --- 6.26.E-01 Blood 4.46E-01Arsenic 4.35E+00 0.2 2.28E-05 3.07E+00 1.42E-01 4.5E-02 9.70E-05 4.69.E-01 Integument * 9.26E-01Barium 7.44E+01 NA --- 7.15E+02 1.04E-02 NA --- 1.10.E+02 NOEL/Kidney 6.80E-02Beryllium 7.10E-01 NA --- 2.04E+01 3.47E-03 NA --- 3.13.E+00 Gastrointestinal 2.27E-02Calcium 7.69E+04 NA --- NA --- NA --- NA NA ---Chromium 2.13E+00 NA --- 3.07E+01 6.93E-03 NA --- 4.69.E+00 NOEL 4.53E-02Cobalt 3.14E+01 NA --- 2.04E+02 1.54E-02 NA --- 3.13.E+01 NA 1.00E-01Copper 5.44E+00 NA --- 4.09E+02 1.33E-03 NA --- 6.26.E+01 Gastrointestinal 8.70E-03Iron 1.87E+04 NA --- 3.07E+03 6.09E-01 NA --- 4.69.E+02Liver/Gastrointestinal/Bodyweight/Organ weight3.98E+00Lead 9.42E-01 NA --- 1.50E+01 --- NA --- NA CNS ---Magnesium 2.99E+04 NA --- NA --- NA --- NA NA ---Manganese 1.25E+03 NA --- 2.04E+02 6.11E-01 NA --- 3.13.E+01 CNS 3.99E+00Nickel 2.25E+01 NA --- 2.04E+02 1.10E-02 NA --- 3.13.E+01 Body weight/Organ weight 7.19E-02Potassium 1.85E+03 NA --- NA --- NA --- NA NA ---Silver 1.20E+00 NA --- 5.11E+01 2.35E-03 NA --- 7.82.E+00 Integument * 1.53E-02Sodium 9.11E+03 NA --- NA --- NA --- NA NA ---Vanadium 7.60E+00 NA --- 7.15E+01 1.06E-02 NA --- 1.10.E+01 Integument * 6.94E-02Zinc 1.45E+01 NA --- 3.07E+03 4.72E-04 NA --- 4.69.E+02 Blood 3.08E-03Total Estimated Cancer Risk 2.29E-05 Total Estimated Cancer Risk 9.76E-05Total Estimated Hazard Index 1.50E+00 Total Estimated Hazard Index 9.78E+00aRefer to Table 6-9 of RI/RA.Total Fetal Toxicity HI = 0.00045bGroundwater risks for each chemical were determined by "risk ratio" of the EPC with chemical-specific,Total Liver HI = 3.99commercial/ industrial and residential, risk-based screening levels. See text in Section 5 for details of methodology.Total CNS HI = 4.01cTarget risk, 1E-06.Total Blood HI = 0.45dTarget hazard quotient, 0.1.Total Integument HI = 1.01eAction level for lead (EPA, 2001)Total Kidney HI = 0.07C = Target risk, 1E-06.Total Gastrointestinal HI = 4.01N = Target hazard quotient, 0.1.Total Body weight/Organ weight HI = 4.05RBSL = Risk-Based Screening Level.Total NOEL HI = 0.11Total Not Available (NA) HI = 0.10MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 30T-405/20/2003Table 31Comparison of Subsurface Levels of COPCs with SSLs for Groundwater Protection,Open Vehicle Storage Area (East), DSERTS Site LEAD-114, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAMaximumSubsurface GW SSL Subsurface GW SSLStatisticaldConcentration (THQ, 0.1, DAF, 20) Exceedance EPC (THQ, 1, DAF, 20) Exceedance Analysis(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (Y or N) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (Y or N) ResultAcetone 0.092 0.25 N N 0.019 2.46 N N 0.015 ± 0.023 ND ---Trichloroethene 0.003 0.00023 C Y 0.003 0.00023 C Y 0.0059 ± 0.00068 ND ---1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.087 0.05 N Y 0.087 0.5 N N 0.19 ± 0.024 ND ---2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND 0.00059 C --- ND 0.00059 C --- ND ND ---2-Chlorophenol 0.12 0.059 N Y 0.12 0.59 N N 0.2 ± 0.019 ND ---4-Nitrophenol 0.33 0.17 N Y 0.33 1.68 N N 0.49 ± 0.045 ND ---Acenaphthene 0.67 7.3 N N 0.24 73 N N 0.2 ± 0.094 ND ---Benz[a]anthracene 1.5 0.95 C Y 0.25 0.95 C N 0.2 ± 0.24 ND ---Benzo[a]pyrene 1.5 0.36 C Y 0.25 0.36 C N 0.21 ± 0.24 ND ---Benzo[b]fluoranthene 2.4 3.07 C N 0.28 3.07 C N 0.24 ± 0.40 ND ---Carbazole 0.67 0.16 C Y 0.23 0.16 C Y 0.21 ± 0.08 ND ---Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.28 0.66 C N 0.21 0.66 C N 0.2 ± 0.032 ND ---Fluorene 0.87 7.6 N N 0.23 76 N N 0.22 ± 0.12 ND ---Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.0 15.1 C N 0.24 15.1 C N 0.19 ± 0.16 ND ---Naphthalene 0.35 0.034 N Y 0.21 0.34 N N 0.2 ± 0.027 ND ---n-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine ND 0.000045 C --- ND 0.000045 C --- ND ND ---Pentachlorophenol 0.5 0.014 C Y 0.5 0.014 C Y 0.49 ± 0.047 ND ---Pyrene 4.2 49.7 N N 0.39 497 N N 0.35 ± 0.71 ND ---alpha-BHC ND 0.00079 C --- ND 0.00079 C --- ND ND ---Dieldrin ND 0.0043 C --- ND 0.0043 C --- ND ND ---Heptachlor Epoxide ND 0.0021 C --- ND 0.0021 C --- ND ND ---Aroclor 1242 ND 0.1 C --- ND 0.1 C --- ND ND ---Aroclor 1254 0.095 0.13 C N 0.025 0.13 C N 0.023 ± 0.014 ND ---Aluminum 17,500 109,515 N N 15,752 1,095,146 N N 12,918 ± 3,797 15,833 ± 3,696 ---Antimony 9.8 1.32 N Y 2.98 13.2 N N 1.75 ± 2.34 0.21 ± 0.076 ---Arsenic 32 0.026 C Y 11.9 0.026 C Y 9.18 ± 6.67 7.38 ± 1.41 NSBarium 1,300 211 N Y 366 2,105 N N 290 ± 295 102 ± 30.1 ---Beryllium 3.8 63.2 N N 1.43 632 N N 1.08 ± 0.64 0.73 ± 0.11 ---Cadmium 8.9 5.49 N Y 8.9 54.9 N N 1.46 ± 2.58 0.066 ± 0.12 ---Chromium 285 4.2 N Y 64.2 42 N Y 49.8 ± 64.9 24 ± 2.76 NSCobalt 44.1 66.0 N N 20 660 N N 16.9 ± 10.2 31.6 ± 39.2 ---Copper 109 1,052 N N 55.4 10,518 N N 44.8 ± 25.3 38.3 ± 11.3 ---Iron 55,800 552 N Y 55,800 5,519 N Y 38,253 ± 12,474 35,056 ± 14,093 NSLead 1,170 270 Y 308 270 Y 174 ± 307 19 ± 4.49 SManganese 2,270 95.2 N Y 1,994 952 N Y 665 ± 531 739 ± 876 NSMercury 0.19 21.9 N N 0.076 219 N N 0.061 ± 0.041 0.037 ± 0.017 ---Nickel 75.7 95.2 N N 36.1 952 N N 31.3 ± 15.8 27.4 ± 10 ---Selenium 2.1 1.9 N Y 1.07 19 N N 0.77 ± 0.58 1.66 ± 0.29 ---Silver 0.66 3.1 N N 0.26 31 N N 0.21 ± 0.2 0.065 ± 0.062 ---Thallium 0.53 0.36 N Y 0.17 3.64 N N 0.15 ± 0.086 0.19 ± 0.18 ---Vanadium 37.4 511 N N 30.1 5,111 N N 25.8 ± 6.83 23.2 ± 2.5 ---Zinc 654 1,362 N N 186 13,622 N N 139 ± 153 55.8 ± 11.8 ---Level 1 COPC SelectionaSubsurface ArithmeticMeanb± StandardDeviation OVSA (mg/kg)Subsurface Arithmetic Meanb,c± Standard DeviationBackground (mg/kg)MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 31T-415/20/2003Table 31Comparison of Subsurface Levels of COPCs with SSLs for Groundwater Protection,Open Vehicle Storage Area (East), DSERTS Site LEAD-114, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PANote: Shading indicates there is an exceedance.aCOPCs for groundwater impact were selected by comparing the maximum detected concentration in aggregate soils to groundwaterSSLs at a DAF of 1, and a THQ of 0.1 or a TR of 1E-06 in the original COPC screen.(see Table 6-2 of RI/RA, RAGS Part D, Table 2.1).bNondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit.cShale-derived horizons B (0.5-1.0 ft bgs) and C (3-4.5 ft bgs) combined; see Table 5-30 of RI/RA.dRight-tailed Mann-Whitney U-Test at 95% confidence level was performed for those chemicals that exceeded the GW SSL (DAF, 20;THQ,1).See Subsection 5.2.10 of RI/RA for explanation of methods and Appendix G of RI/RA for documentation.eThe GW SSL for lead cannot be adjusted based on noncancer effects because the drinking water action level was used in the calculation.C = Carcinogenic.COPC = Chemical of potential concern.DAF = Dillution attenuation factor.EPC = Exposure point concentration.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.N = Non-carcinogenic.ND = Not detected. With respect to the site data, these chemicals had GW SSL exceedances in surface soils only.NS = Not significantly different (p > 0.05).S = Significantly different (p < 0.05).SSL = Soil screening level.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 31T-425/20/2003Table 32Comparison of Subsurface Levels of COPCs with SSLs for Groundwater ProtectionUncurbed AST North of Building 532, DSERTS Site LEAD-126, PDO OU 6,Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAMaximumSubsurface GW SSL Subsurface GW SSLStatisticaldConcentration(THQ, 0.1, DAF, 20) Exceedance EPC (THQ, 1, DAF, 20) Exceedance Analysis(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(Y or N) (mg/kg)(mg/kg)(Y or N)ResultLevel 1 COPC SelectionaSubsurface Arithmetic Meanb± Standard Deviation AST atBuilding 532 (mg/kg)Subsurface Arithmetic Meanb,c± Standard DeviationBackground (mg/kg)Acetone 0.016 0.25 N N 0.016 2.46 N N 0.01 ± 0.0055 ND ---Leade17.6 270 N N 17.1 270 N N 14.9 ± 1.88 19 ± 4.49 ---aCOPCs for groundwater impact were selected by comparing the maximum detected concentration in aggregate soils to groundwaterSSLs at a DAF of 1, and a THQ of 0.1 or a TR of 1E-06 in the original COPC screen(see Table 6-2 of RI/RA, RAGS Part D, Table 2.1).bNondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit.cShale-derived horizons B (0.5-1 ft bgs) and C (3-4.5 ft bgs) combined; see Table 5-23 of RI/RA.dRight-tailed Mann-Whitney U-Test at 95% confidence level was performed for those chemicals that exceeded the GW SSL (DAF, 20;THQ,1).See Subsection 5.2.8 of RI/RA for explanation of methods and Appendix E of RI/RA for documentationeThe GW SSL for lead cannot be adjusted because the action level, not the tapwater RBC, was used in the calculation.COPC = Chemical of potential concern.EPC = Exposure point concentration.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogramN = Noncancer value.ND = Not detected.SSL = Soil screening level.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 32T-435/20/2003 1:08 PMTable 33Comparison of Subsurface Levels of COPCs with SSLs for Groundwater ProtectionBackwash Discharge Area from the Water Treatment Plant - DSERTS Site LEAD-011, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAMaximumSubsurface GW SSL Subsurface GW SSLStatisticaldConcentration(THQ, 0.1, DAF, 20) Exceedance EPC (THQ, 1, DAF, 20) Exceedance Analysis(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(Y or N) (mg/kg)(mg/kg)(Y or N) ResultLevel 1 COPC SelectionaSubsurface Arithmetic Meanb± Standard Deviation BDA(mg/kg)Subsurface Arithmetic Meanb,c± Standard DeviationBackground (mg/kg)Aluminum19,300 109,515 N N 19,300 1,095,146 N N 16,333 ± 2,122 15,833 ± 3,696 ---AntimonyND 1.32 N --- ND 13.2 N --- ND 0.21 ± 0.076 ---Arsenic11.5 0.026 C Y 11.5 0.026 C Y 9.6 ± 1.85 7.38 ± 1.41 NPBarium228 211 N Y 228 2,105 N N 176 ± 58.4 102 ± 30.1 ---Chromium34.3 4.2 N Y 34.3 42 N N 28.6 ± 4.92 24 ± 2.76 ---Cobalt27.6 66 N N 27.6 660 N N 24.6 ± 2.17 31.6 ± 39.2 ---Iron42,400 552 N Y 42,400 5,519 N Y 41,083 ± 1,154 35,056 ± 14,093 NPLeade31.3 270 N N 31.3 270 N N 24.2 ± 6.91 19 ± 4.49 ---Manganese 1,250 95.2 N Y 1,250 952 N Y 759 ± 493 739 ± 876 NPNickel46.6 95.2 N N 46.6 952 N N 37.9 ± 8.44 27.4 ± 10 ---SeleniumND 1.9 N --- ND 19 N --- ND 1.66 ± 0.29 ---Silver0.49 3.1 N N 0.49 31 N N 0.42 ± 0.068 0.065 ± 0.062 ---ThalliumND 0.36 N --- ND 3.64 N --- ND 0.19 ± 0.18 ---Vanadium33.8 511 N N 33.8 5,111 N N 32.2 ± 2.18 23.2 ± 2.5 ---Zinc104 1,362 N N 104 13,622 N N 94.8 ± 8.3 55.8 ± 11.8 ---Note: Shading indicates there is an exceedance.aCOPCs for groundwater impact were selected by comparing the maximum detected concentration in aggregate soils to groundwaterSSLs at a DAF of 1, and a THQ of 0.1 or a TR of 1E-06 in the original COPC screen(see Table 6-2 of RI/RA, RAGS Part D, Table 2.1).bNon-detects were included at half the sample quantitation limit.cShale-derived Horizons B (0.4-1.8 ft bgs) and C (3-4.5 ft bgs) combined. See Table 5-23 of RI/RA.dRight-tailed Mann-Whitney U-Test at 95% confidence level was performed for those chemicals that exceeded the GW SSL (DAF, 20;THQ,1).See Subsection 5.2.8 of RI/RA for explanation of methods and Appendix E of RI/RA for documentationeThe GW SSL for lead cannot be adjusted based on noncancer effects because the drinking water Action Level was used in the calculation.C = Carcinogenic.COPC = Chemical of potential concern.EPC = Exposure point concentration.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogramN = Non-carcinogenic.ND = Not detected. With respect to the site data, these chemicals had GW SSL exceedances in surface soils only.NP = Mann Whitney test could not be performed due to insufficient sample size (n=3)SSL = Soil screening level.MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 33T-445/20/2003 1:08 PMTable 34Building 400 Series Fire Training Area - Evaluation of Potential Groundwater Impacts of Chemicals in Subsurface Soils,Limestone Soils,MaximumSubsurface GW SSL Subsurface GW SSLStatisticaldConcentration (THQ, 0.1, DAF, 20) Exceedance EPC (THQ, 1, DAF, 20) Exceedance Analysis(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (Y or N) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (Y or N) ResultLevel 1 COPCSelectionaSubsurface Arithmetic Meanb± Standard Deviation FTA(mg/kg)Subsurface Arithmetic Meanb,c± Standard DeviationBackground (mg/kg)Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAAcetone 0.054 0.25 N N 0.023 2.46 N N 0.028 ± 0.025 ND ---Benz[a]anthracene 0 0.95 C N 0.130 0.95 C N NA ND ---Benzo[a]pyrene 0 0.36 C N 0.093 0.36 C N NA ND ---2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 0.0000049 0.00004804 C N 0.0000034 0.00004804 C N 0.0000033 ± 0.0000014 NA ---Aluminum 17,900 109,515 N N 13,756 1,095,146 N N 12,068 ± 3,962 10,681 ± 4,122 ---Antimony 0.96 1.32 N N 0.61 13.2 N N 0.603 ± 0.373 0.073 ± 0.004 ---Arsenic 29.4 0.026 C Y 12.9 0.026 C Y 12.66 ± 11.92 5.72 ± 2.80 NSBarium 692 211 N Y 344 2,105 N N 388 ± 234 31.8 ± 11.4 ---Chromium 26.9 4.2 N Y 21.4 42 N N 16.0 ± 7.87 9.67 ± 3.17 ---Cobalt 35.8 66.0 N N 23.4 660 N N 18.5 ± 14.92 19.4 ± 11.3 ---Iron 44,400 552 N Y 38,965 5,519 N Y 38,813 ± 7,878 52,955 ± 73,892 NSLeade52.3 270 N 43.3 270 N 29.2 ± 7.11 17.9 ± 4.35 ---Manganese 1,780 95.2 N Y 1,372 952 N Y 978 ± 696 354 ± 265 SNickel 45.6 95.2 N N 29.1 952 N N 25.6 ± 14.89 16.9 ± 5.85 ---Thallium 1.0 0.36 N Y 0.3 3.64 N N 0.359 ± 0.428 0.091 ± 0.047 ---Vanadium 38.6 511 N N 28.5 5,111 N N 24.9 ± 10.59 8.22 ± 5.01 ---Zinc 95.7 1,362 N N 78.9 13,622 N N 56.1 ± 22.4 37.6 ± 14.8 ---Note: Shading indicates there is an exceedance.aCOPCs for groundwater impact were selected by comparing the maximum detected concentration in aggregate soils to groundwaterSSLs at a DAF of 1, and a THQ of 0.1 or a TR of 1E-06.bNondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit.cLimestone-derived horizons B (2.0-3.5 ft bgs) and C (4-8 ft bgs) combined; see Table 5-31 of RI/RA.dRight-tailed Mann-Whitney U-Test at 95% confidence level was performed for those chemicals that exceeded the GW SSL (DAF, 20; THQ,1).See Subsection 5.2.8 of RI/RA for explanation of methods and Appendix F.2 of RI/RA for documentation.eThe GW SSL for lead cannot be adjusted based on noncancer effects because the drinking water action level was used in the calculation.C = CarcinogenicCOPC = Chemical of potential concernmg/kg = Milligrams per kilogramN = Non-carcinogenicND = Not detected. With respect to the site data, these chemicals had GW SSL exceedances in surface soils only.NS = Not significantly different (p > 0.05)S = Significantly different (p < 0.05)MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 34T-455/20/2003Table 35Building 400 Series Fire Training Area - Evaluation of Potential Groundwater Impacts of Chemicals in Subsurface Soils,Shale Soils,Letterkenny Army Depot - Chambersburg, PAMaximumSubsurface GW SSL Subsurface GW SSLStatisticaldConcentration (THQ, 0.1, DAF, 20) Exceedance EPC (THQ, 1, DAF, 20) Exceedance Analysis(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (Y or N) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (Y or N) ResultLevel 1 COPCSelectionaSubsurface ArithmeticMeanb± StandardDeviation FTA (mg/kg)Subsurface ArithmeticMeanb,c± StandardDeviation Background(mg/kg)Acetone 0.054 0.25 N N 0.023 2.46 N N 0.028 ± 0.025 ND ---Benz[a]anthracene 0.130 0.95 C N 0.130 0.95 C N NA ND ---Benzo[a]pyrene 0.093 0.36 C N 0.093 0.36 C N NA ND ---2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 0.0000049 0.00004804 C N 0.0000034 0.00004804 C N 0.0000033 ± 0.0000014 NA ---Aluminum 17,900 109,515 N N 13,756 1,095,146 N N 12,068 ± 3,962 15,833 ± 3,696 ---Antimony 0.96 1.32 N N 0.61 13.2 N N 0.603 ± 0.373 0.213 ± 0.076 ---Arsenic 29.4 0.026 C Y 12.9 0.026 C Y 12.66 ± 11.92 7.38 ± 1.41 NSBarium 692 211 N Y 344 2,105 N N 388 ± 234 102 ± 30.1 ---Chromium 26.9 4.2 N Y 21.4 42 N N 16.0 ± 7.87 24.0 ± 2.76 ---Cobalt 35.8 66.0 N N 23.4 660 N N 18.5 ± 14.92 31.6 ± 39.2 ---Iron 44,400 552 N Y 38,965 5,519 N Y 38,813 ± 7,878 35,056 ± 14,093 NSLeade52.3 270 N 43.3 270 N 29.2 ± 7.11 19.0 ± 4.49 ---Manganese 1,780 95.2 N Y 1,372 952 N Y 978 ± 696 739.0 ± 876 NSNickel 45.6 95.2 N N 29.1 952 N N 25.6 ± 14.89 27.4 ± 10.0 ---Thallium 1.0 0.36 N Y 0.3 3.64 N N 0.359 ± 0.428 0.186 ± 0.181 ---Vanadium 38.6 511 N N 28.5 5,111 N N 24.9 ± 10.59 23.2 ± 2.50 ---Zinc 95.7 1,362 N N 78.9 13,622 N N 56.1 ± 22.4 55.8 ± 11.8 ---Note: Shading indicates there is an exceedance.aCOPCs for groundwater impact were selected by comparing the maximum detected concentration in aggregate soils to groundwaterSSLs at a DAF of 20, and a THQ of 0.1 or a TR of 1E-06.bNondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit.cShale-derived horizons B (0.5-1.0 ft bgs) and C (3.0-4.5 ft bgs) combined; see Table 5-31 of RI/RA.dRight-tailed Mann-Whitney U-Test at 95% confidence level was performed for those chemicals that exceeded the GW SSL (DAF, 20; THQ,1).See Subsection 5.2.8 of RI/RA for explanation of methods and Appendix F.2 of RI/RA for documentation.eThe GW SSL for lead cannot be adjusted based on noncancer effects because the drinking water action level was used in the calculation.C = CarcinogenicCOPC = Chemical of potential concernmg/kg = Milligrams per kilogramN = Non-carcinogenicND = Not detected. With respect to the site data, these chemicals had GW SSL exceedances in surface soils only.NS = Not significantly different (p > 0.05)S = Significantly different (p < 0.05)MK01\O:\02281016.008\PhaseIII\ROD\Tables 8 -20, 26 - 35 risk tables.xls\Tab 35T-465/20/2003

### T a bl e 36

Species of Special Concern, a



### Ph ase III Sit es, L e tt er k enny A rmy D epo t

, Ch am b ers b urg, PA

Federal State Last Seen in

Scientific Name Common Name Status b Status b Franklin Co. c

Known to occur at LEAD

Canis latrans Coyote N U 1987

Ma y occur at LEAD
Cryptotis parva Least shrew N E 1949
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T E --

Crotalus horridus Timber rattlesnake N C 1985

Ruellia humilis Fringed-leaved petunia N E 1984
Opuntia humifusa Prickley-pear cactus N R 1987
Spiia americana Dickcissel sparrow N U 1986 Senecio antennariifolius Cat's paw ragwor t N E 1986

a Source: Environmental Science and Engineering (ESE), Inc. 1992. R isk Assessment of
the Property Disposal Area at Letterkenny Army Depot; Operable Units 1 and 2.
Final Report. Prepared for the Army Environmental Center. ENAEC-IR-CR-93090.

b Species status as of June 2000.

c Status as of October 1992, as listed in ESE (1992).
N = Not a Federal species of concern.
E = Endangered species.
T = Threatened species.

R = native wild plants classified as Disjunct, Endemic, Limit of Range, and Restricted
are included within the Pennsylvania Rare classification.

U = Unknown status. C = Animal considered at risk. Animal that could become endangered or threatened

in the future; uncommon or has restricted habitat distribution. Plant species that are uncommon within the Commonwealth. All species of th e

MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 36) 

### T-47 5/20/2003Table 37Level 1 SLERA —Comparison of Maximum Detected Soil Concentrations (0-0.5 ft) with Ecological Benchmarks,Open Vehicle Storage Area,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAOak Ridge National Laboratory BenchmarksRatio ofMaximum Microorganisms/ NOAEL-Based Wildlife Region III Lowest MaximumDetected Earthworm Microbial Processes Benchmarks BTAG Ecological Detected Conc.Concentration Phytotoxicity Toxicity Toxicity Mammals Birds Benchmarks Benchmark to LowestChemical (mg/kg) Sample ID(mg/kg)a(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)d(mg/kg) BenchmarkVolatilesAcetone 0.04 57TP04B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Semivolatilesbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.70 57TP14B001 NBA NBA NBA 0.09e4.1E-04eNBA 0.00041 1,707Carbazole 0.35 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Dibenzofuran 0.16 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Di-n-Butylphthalate 0.09 57DS05D001 200 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 200 0.00052,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.19 57TP58B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---2-Methylnaphthalene 0.16 57TP75B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---n-Nitrosodipropylamine 0.04 57TP58B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsAcenaphthene 0.46 57TP67B001 20.0 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 4.6Anthracene 0.46 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 4.6Benz(a)anthracene 1.90 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 19.0Benzo(a)pyrene 1.90 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10h0.10 19.0Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.80 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 28.0Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.20 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 12.0Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.90 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 9.0Chrysene 2.20 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 22.0Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.36 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 3.6Fluoranthene 4.10 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 41Fluorene 0.28 57TP67B001 NBA 30.0 NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 2.8Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.40 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 14.0Napthalene 0.12 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 1.2Phenanthrene 2.60 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 26.0Pyrene 3.70 57TP67B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 37.0Polychlorinated BiphenylsAroclor 1242 0.10 57TP52B001 40.0iNBA NBA 0.04i0.07i0.10g0.04 2.70Aroclor 1260 0.08 57TP07B001 40.0iNBA NBA 0.04i0.07i0.10g0.04 2.26Pesticidesalpha-BHC 0.001 57DS04D001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 100h100 0.00001alpha-Chlordane 0.01 57DS04D001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 0.09Dieldrin 0.002 57DS04D001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 0.02Endrin ketone 0.003 57DS04D001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 0.03gamma-Chlordane 0.01 57DS04D001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 0.06Heptachlor epoxide 0.002 57DS04D001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 0.02MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 37)T-485/20/2003Table 37Level 1 SLERA —Comparison of Maximum Detected Soil Concentrations (0-0.5 ft) with Ecological Benchmarks,Open Vehicle Storage Area,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAOak Ridge National Laboratory BenchmarksRatio ofMaximum Microorganisms/ NOAEL-Based Wildlife Region III Lowest MaximumDetected Earthworm Microbial Processes Benchmarks BTAG Ecological Detected Conc.Concentration Phytotoxicity Toxicity Toxicity Mammals Birds Benchmarks Benchmark to LowestChemical (mg/kg) Sample ID(mg/kg)a(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)d(mg/kg) BenchmarkInorganicsAluminum 19,100 57TP03B001 50.0 NBA 600 NBA NBA 1.0g1.00 19,100Antimony 3.70 57TP21B001 5.00 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.48g0.48 7.71Arsenic 13.6 57SD05D001 10.0 60.0 100 0.99 10.2 328g0.99 13.7Barium 364 57TP26B001 500 NBA 3,000 32.9 28.3 440g28.3 12.9Beryllium 1.40 57TP02B001 10.0 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.02g0.02 70.0Cadmium 14.7 57SB06B001 4.00 20.0 20.0 0.60 0.42 2.50g0.42 35.0Calciumj198,000 57TP17B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Chromium 72.1 57DS07D001 1.00 0.40 10.0 11.0 1.61 0.01h0.01 9,613Cobalt 41.9 57TP29B001 20.0 NBA 1,000 NBA NBA 100g20.0 2.10Copper 59.9 57TP12B001 100 50.0 100 37.0 51.5 15.0g15.0 3.99Iron 52,100 57TP24B001 NBA NBA 200 NBA NBA 12.0h12.0 4,342Lead 212 57TP60B001 50.0 500 900 74.0 4.05 0.01h0.01 21,200Magnesium 11,400 57TP17B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 4,400f4,400 2.59Manganese 4,840 57DS05D001 500 NBA 100 NBA NBA 330g100 48.4Mercury 1.10 57DS04D001 0.30 0.10 30.0 0.01 0.00005 0.06f0.00005 21,569Nickel 50.2 57SD05D001 30.0 200 90.0 24.6 12.1 2.00g2.00 25.1Potassiumj2,420 57TP23B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Selenium 2.30 57SD05D001 1.00 70.0 100 0.02 42.0 1.80f0.02 109.5Silver 0.46 57TP62B001 2.00 NBA 50.0 NBA NBA 0.00001g0.00001 46,939Sodiumj345 57DS06D001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Thallium 0.34 57TP31B001 1.00 NBA NBA 0.21 NBA 0.001g0.001 340Vanadium 34.6 57TP61B001 2.00 NBA 20.0 5.50 NBA 0.50g0.50 69.2Zinc 220 57DS05D001 50.0 200 100 160 0.85 10.0g0.85 259Note: Shading indicates the maximum detection exceeds the benchmark.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.NBA = No benchmark available.NOAEL = No-observed-adverse-effect level.aORNL, 1997a. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants:1997 Revision.bORNL, 1997b. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process:1997 Revision.cORNL, 1997c. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Ecological Endpoints.dEPA, 1995b.Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group Screening Levels - Draft.September, 1995.efRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora and fauna.gRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora.hRegion III BTAG soil screening level for fauna.iBenchmark for total PCBs was used as surrogate value.jChemical is an essential nutrient, and concentrations at the site are not expected to pose a significant ecological risk to organisms at this site.Derived with information provided in U.S. EPA. 1999.Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.EPA530-D-99-001C.MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 37)T-495/20/2003Table 38Level 2 SLERA —Comparison of Exposure Point Concentrations of Chemicals of Concern in Soils with Ecological Benchmarks,Open Vehicle Storage Area,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAOak Ridge National Laboratory BenchmarksExposure Microorganisms/ NOAEL-Based Wildlife Region III Lowest Ratio ofPoint Earthworm Microbial Processes Benchmarks BTAG Ecological EPCConcentration Phytotoxicity Toxicity Toxicity Mammals Birds Benchmarks Benchmark to LowestChemical(mg/kg)a(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)d(mg/kg)d(mg/kg)e(mg/kg) BenchmarkVolatilesAcetone 0.04 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Semivolatile Organic Chemicalsbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.13 NBA NBA NBA 0.01f0.00004fNBA 0.00004 3,098Carbazole 0.20 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Dibenzofuran 0.16 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.19 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---2-Methylnaphthalene 0.16 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---n-Nitrosodipropylamine 0.04 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsAcenaphthene 0.28 20.0 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 2.85Anthracene 0.26 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 2.60Benz(a)anthracene 0.50 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 4.97Benzo(a)pyrene 0.52 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10i0.10 5.19Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.59 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 5.93Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.35 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 3.51Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.30 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 3.00Chrysene 0.57 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 5.72Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.23 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 2.28Fluoranthene 0.82 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 8.19Fluorene 0.28 NBA 30.0 NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 2.80Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.37 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 3.65Napthalene 0.1200000 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 1.20Phenanthrene 0.71 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 7.13Pyrene 0.81 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 8.11Polychlorinated BiphenylsAroclor 1242 0.10 40.0jNBA NBA 0.04j0.07j0.10h0.04 2.70Aroclor 1260 0.08 40.0jNBA NBA 0.04j0.07j0.10h0.04 2.26InorganicsAluminum 14,843 50 NBA 600 NBA NBA 1.00h1.00 14,843Antimony 0.78 5.0 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.48h0.48 1.63Arsenic 8.75 10.0 60.0 100 0.99 10.2 328h0.99 8.84Barium 163 500 NBA 3,000 32.9 28.3 440g28.3 5.76MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 38)T-505/20/2003Table 38Level 2 SLERA —Comparison of Exposure Point Concentrations of Chemicals of Concern in Soils with Ecological Benchmarks,Open Vehicle Storage Area,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAOak Ridge National Laboratory BenchmarksExposure Microorganisms/ NOAEL-Based Wildlife Region III Lowest Ratio ofPoint Earthworm Microbial Processes Benchmarks BTAG Ecological EPCConcentration Phytotoxicity Toxicity Toxicity Mammals Birds Benchmarks Benchmark to LowestChemical(mg/kg)a(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)d(mg/kg)d(mg/kg)e(mg/kg) BenchmarkBeryllium 1.06 10.0 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.02h0.02 52.8Cadmium 5.10 4.0 20.0 20.0 0.60 0.42 2.50h0.42 12.1Chromium 29.5 1.0 0.40 10.0 11.0 1.61 0.01i0.01 3,933Cobalt 24.4 20 NBA 1,000 NBA NBA 100h20.0 1.22Copper 42.1 100 50.0 100 37.0 51.5 15.0h15.0 2.81Iron 43,001 NBA NBA 200 NBA NBA 12.0i12.0 3,583Lead 56 50 500 900 74.0 4.05 0.01i0.01 5,586Magnesium 6,123 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 4,400g4,400 1.39Manganese 1,137 500 NBA 100 NBA NBA 330g100 11.4Mercury 0.07 0.30 0.10 30.0 0.01 0.00005 0.06g0.00005 1,443Nickel 33.3 30.0 200 90.0 24.6 12.1 2.00h2.00 16.6Selenium 1.11 1.0 70.0 100 0.02 42.0 1.80g0.02 52.8Silver 0.13 2.0 NBA 50.0 NBA NBA 0.00001h0.00001 13,510Thallium 0.13 1.0 NBA NBA 0.21 NBA 0.001h0.001 133Vanadium 27.5 2.0 NBA 20.0 5.50 NBA 0.50h0.50 54.9Zinc 106 50 200 100 160 0.85 10.0h0.85 125Note: Shading indicates the maximum detection exceeds the benchmark.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.NBA = No benchmark available.NOAEL = No-observed-adverse-effect level.aSee Table 6-24 of RI/RA.bORNL, 1997a. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants:1997 Revision.cORNL, 1997b. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process:1997 Revision.dORNL, 1997c. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Ecological Endpoints.eEPA, 1995b.Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group Screening Levels - Draft.September, 1995.fgRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora and fauna.hRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora.iRegion III BTAG soil screening level for fauna.jBenchmark for total PCBs were used as surrogate value.Derived with information provided in U.S. EPA. 1999.Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.EPA530-D-99-001C.MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 38)T-515/20/2003Table 39Statistical Comparison of Site and Background Chemical Concentrations in Shale Surface Soils,Open Vehicle Storage Area,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAChemicalData DistributionOVSAData DistributionShale ReferenceStatisticalAnalysisdResultInorganicsAluminum13,747±3,282default (lognormal)13,515± 1,157 normal NSAntimony0.67±0.66lognormal0.36± 0.11 normal SArsenic8.21±2.36normal 8.05 ± 0.58 normal NSBarium148± 61.6 default (lognormal) 134 ± 28.0 default (lognormal) NSBeryllium1.00± 0.18 default (lognormal) 0.83 ± 0.05 normal SCadmium1.10± 2.66 default (lognormal) ND ---SeChromium27.1± 11.0 default (lognormal) 22.6 ± 1.51 normal SCobalt22.7± 7.24 normal 14.2 ± 3.29 lognormal SCopper39.6± 10.6 normal 24.4 ± 2.06 normal SIron36,384± 9,389 default (lognormal) 39,060 ± 2,427 normal NSLead49.9± 38.9 default (lognormal) 24.9 ± 1.41 normal SMagnesium5,684± 1,886 normal 4,075 ± 427 normal SManganese1,010± 648 lognormal 837 ± 415 default (lognormal) NSMercury0.07± 0.16 default (lognormal) ND ---SeNickel31.3± 8.67 normal 20.3 ± 2.26 normal SSelenium0.69± 0.62 default (lognormal) 1.40 ± 0.19 normal NSSilver0.11± 0.10 default (lognormal) 0.04 ± 0.01 default (lognormal) SThallium0.12± 0.06 default (lognormal) 0.11 ± 0.05 default (lognormal) NSVanadium26.2± 5.53 normal 26.5 ± 1.08 normal NSZinc97.5± 32.2 lognormal 57.7 ± 4.93 normal SNote: Shading indicates significantly different (p < 0.05).aNon-detects were included at half the sample quantitation limit.bSurface soils (0-0.5 ft bgs). Data are untransformed as shown in Table 6-1 of RI/RA.cHorizon A (0-0.5 ft bgs). Data are transformed as shown in Table 5-28 of RI/RA.dRight-tailed Mann-Whitney U-Test at 95% confidence level. See Subsection 5.2.8 of RI/RA for explanation of methods.eReporting limits for the reference soils were used to perform the Mann-Whitney U-Test.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.ND = Not detected in background.NS = Not significantly different (p > 0.05).Arithmetic Mean ± StandardDeviation OVSAa,b(mg/kg)Arithmetic Mean ± StandardDeviation Shale Referencea,c(mg/kg)MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 39)T-525/20/2003Table 40Level 1 SLERA—Comparison of Maximum Detected Soil Concentrations (0-0.5 ft) with Ecological Benchmarks,Backwash Discharge Area (DSERTS Site LEAD-011),Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAOak Ridge National Laboratory BenchmarksRatio ofMaximum Microorganisms/ NOAEL-Based Wildlife Region III Lowest MaximumDetected Earthworm Microbial Processes Benchmarks BTAG Ecological Detected Conc.Concentration Phytotoxicity Toxicity Toxicity Mammals Birds Benchmarks Benchmark to LowestChemical (mg/kg) Sample ID(mg/kg)a(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)d(mg/kg) BenchmarkInorganicsAluminum 30,500 34DS03D001 50 NBA 600 NBA NBA 1.00f1.00 30,500Antimony 1.30 34DS06D001 5.0 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.48f0.48 2.71Arsenic 14.1 34SB10B001 10 60 100 0.99 10.2 328f0.99 14.2Barium 1,110 34SB06B001 500 NBA 3,000 32.9 28.3 440e28.3 39.2Beryllium 1.10 34SB03B001 10 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.02f0.02 55.0Cadmium 1.20 34DS06D001 4.0 20 20.0 0.60 0.42 2.50f0.42 2.9Calciumh167,000 34DS06D001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Chromium 32.8 34DS03D001 1.00 0.40 10.0 11.0 1.61 0.008g0.008 4,373Cobalt 26.3 34DS01D001 20.0 NBA 1,000 NBA NBA 100f20.0 1.32Copper 48.2 34DS01D001 100 50 100 37.0 51.5 15.0f15.0 3.21Iron 46,700 34SB10B001 NBA NBA 200 NBA NBA 12.0g12.0 3,892Lead 123 34DS06D001 50.0 500 900 74.0 4.05 0.01g0.01 12,300Magnesium 8,690 34DS01D001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 4,400e4,400 1.98Manganese 2,270 34DS03D001 500 NBA 100 NBA NBA 330e100 22.7Mercury 0.21 34DS04D001 0.30 0.10 30.0 0.015 0.000051 0.058e0.0001 4,118Nickel 46.7 34DS01D001 30.0 200 90.0 24.6 12.1 2.00f2.00 23.4Potassiumh1,600 34DS01D001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Selenium 1.90 57DS01D001 1.0 70 100 0.021 42.0 1.80e0.02 90.5Silver 0.48 34SB10B001 2.0 NBA 50.0 NBA NBA 0.00001f0.00001 48,980Sodiumh217 34DS06D001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Thallium 0.16 34SB01B001 1.0 NBA NBA 0.21 NBA 0.001f0.001 160Vanadium 28.7 34DS01D001 2.0 NBA 20.0 5.50 NBA 0.50f0.50 57.4Zinc 2,300 34DS03D001 50 200 100 160 0.85 10.0f0.85 2,706Note: Shading indicates the maximum detected concentration exceeds the benchmark.aORNL, 1997a. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision.bORNL, 1997b. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process:1997 Revision.cORNL, 1997c. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Ecological Endpoints.PRGs were adjusted to NOAEL-based criteria using a factor of 10.dEPA, 1995b.Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group Screening Levels - Draft.September, 1995.eRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora and fauna.fRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora.gRegion III BTAG soil screening level for fauna.hChemical is an essential nutrient, and concentrations at the site are not expected to pose a significant ecological risk to organisms at this site.MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 40)T-535/20/2003Table 41Level 2 SLERA—Comparison of Exposure Point Concentrations of Chemicals of Concern in Soils with Ecological Benchmarks,Backwash Discharge Area (DSERTS Site LEAD-011),Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAOak Ridge National Laboratory BenchmarksRatio ofExposure Microorganisms/ NOAEL-Based Wildlife Region III Lowest MaximumPoint Earthworm Microbial Processes Benchmarks BTAG Ecological Detected Conc.Concentration Phytotoxicity Toxicity Toxicity Mammals Birds Benchmarks Benchmark to LowestChemical(mg/kg)a(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)d(mg/kg)d(mg/kg)e(mg/kg) BenchmarkInorganicsAluminum 19,834 50 NBA 600 NBA NBA 1.00g1.0 19,834Antimony 0.84 5.0 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.480g0.48 1.7Arsenic 9.37 10 60.0 100 0.99 10.2 328g0.99 9.5Barium 353 500 NBA 3,000 32.9 28.3 440f28.3 12.5Beryllium 0.98 10 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.020g0.02 48.8Cadmium 0.37 4.0 20.0 20.0 0.60 0.42 2.500g0.42 0.88Chromium 28.4 1.00 0.40 10.0 11.0 1.61 0.008h0.01 3,790Cobalt 22.5 20.0 NBA 1,000 NBA NBA 100g20.0 1.13Copper 44.2 100 50.0 100 37.0 51.5 15.0g15.0 2.94Iron 37,594 NBA NBA 200 NBA NBA 12.0h12.0 3,133Lead 62.5 50 500 900 74.0 4.05 0.010h0.01 6,247Magnesium 7,659 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 4,400f4,400 1.7Manganese 1,262 500 NBA 100 NBA NBA 330f100 12.6Mercury 0.11 0.30 0.10 30.0 0.015 0.00005 0.058f0.0001 2,066Nickel 37.7 30 200 90 24.6 12.1 2.0g2.00 18.8Selenium 0.88 1.0 70 100 0.02 42.0 1.80f0.02 42.0Silver 0.32 2.00 NBA 50.0 NBA NBA 0.0000098g0.00001 32,251Thallium 0.16 1.0 NBA NBA 0.21 NBA 0.001g0.001 160Vanadium 25.6 2.0 NBA 20.0 5.50 NBA 0.50g0.50 51.3Zinc 550 50.0 200 100 160 0.85 10.0g0.850 647Note: Shading indicates the EPC exceeds the benchmark.aSee Table 6-24 of RI/RA.bORNL, 1997a. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision.cORNL, 1997b. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process:1997 Revision.dORNL, 1997c. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Ecological Endpoints.PRGs were adjusted to NOAEL-based criteria using a factor of 10.eEPA, 1995b.Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group Screening Levels - Draft.September, 1995.fRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora and fauna.gRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora.hRegion III BTAG soil screening level for fauna.MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 41)T-545/20/2003Table 42Statistical Comparison of Site and Reference Chemical Concentrations in Shale Surface Soil,Backwash Discharge Area (DSERTS Site LEAD-011),Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAData DataDistribution Distribution StatisticalBDA Shale ReferenceAnalysisdChemicalResultInorganicsAluminum 15,836 ± 5,865 lognormal 13,515 ± 1,157 normal NSAntimony 0.67 ± 0.32 normal 0.36 ± 0.11 normal SArsenic 7.80 ± 2.87 normal 8.05 ± 0.58 normal NSBarium 220 ± 297 default (lognormal) 134 ± 28.0 default (lognormal) NSBeryllium 0.90 ± 0.13 normal 0.83 ± 0.047 normal NSChromium 25.4 ± 5.47 normal 22.6 ± 1.51 normal SCobalt 19.7 ± 5.17 normal 14.2 ± 3.29 lognormal SCopper 40.7 ± 6.41 normal 24.4 ± 2.06 normal SIron 33,355 ± 7,759 normal 39,060 ± 2,427 normal NSLead 40.0 ± 30.8 lognormal 24.9 ± 1.41 normal NSMagnesium 6,784 ± 1,603 normal 4,075 ± 427 normal SManganese 956 ± 560 normal 837 ± 415 default (lognormal) NSMercury 0.06 ± 0.06 default (lognormal) ND default (lognormal) NSNickel 33.9 ± 6.86 normal 20.3 ± 2.26 normal SSelenium 0.55 ± 0.49 default (lognormal) 1.40 ± 0.19 normal NSSilver 0.24 ± 0.14 normal 0.044 ± 0.013 default (lognormal) SThallium 0.14 ± 0.03 default (lognormal) 0.11 ± 0.053 default (lognormal) NSVanadium 23.1 ± 4.68 normal 26.5 ± 1.08 normal NSZinc 310 ± 661 default (lognormal) 57.7 ± 4.93 normal SaNondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit.bHorizon A (0-0.5 ft bgs). Data are untransformed as shown in Table 6-21 of RI/RA.cHorizon A (0-0.5 ft bgs). Data are untransformed as shown in Table 5-20 of RI/RA.dRight-tailed Mann-Whitney U-test at 95% confidence level unless otherwise noted. See Subsection 5.2.8 of RI/RA for explanationof methods and Appendix F of RI/RA for output.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.ND = Not detected in reference soils. Statistical comparison based on quanitation limits.NS = Not significantly different (p > 0.05).S = Significantly different (p < 0.05).Note: Shaded values indicate exceedances.BDA = Backwash Discharge Area.Arithmetic Mean ±Standard DeviationShale Referencea,c(mg/kg)Arithmetic Mean ±Standard DeviationBDAa,b(mg/kg)MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 42)T-555/20/2003Table 43Level 1 SLERA—Comparison of Maximum Detected Soil Concentrations (0-0.5 ft) with Ecological Benchmarks,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-118C, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAOak Ridge National Laboratory BenchmarksRatio ofMaximum Microorganisms/ NOAEL-Based Wildlife Region III Lowest MaximumDetected Earthworm Microbial Processes Benchmarks BTAG Ecological Detected Conc.Concentration Phytotoxicity Toxicity Toxicity Mammals Birds Benchmarks Benchmark to LowestChemical (mg/kg) Sample ID(mg/kg)a(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)d(mg/kg) BenchmarkSemivolatilesbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.240 71TP02B001 NBA NBA NBA 0.090e0.00041eNBA 0.00041 585Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsBenz(a)anthracene 0.130 71TP02B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 1.30Benzo(a)pyrene 0.093 71TP02B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10h0.10 0.930Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.150 71TP02B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 1.50Chrysene 0.140 71TP02B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 1.40Fluoranthene 0.250 71TP02B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 2.50Phenanthrene 0.130 71TP02B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 1.30Pyrene 0.210 71TP02B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10f0.10 2.10Polychlorinated BiphenylsAroclor 1260 0.032 71TP02B001 40.0iNBA NBA 0.037i0.066i0.100g, i0.037 0.863Dioxins/Furans2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (Humans/Mammals) 4.96E-06 71TP02B001 NBA NBA NBA 3.2E-07 NBA 0.010h3.15E-07 15.732,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (Birds) 4.02E-06 71TP02B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA 1.6E-06 0.010h1.58E-06 2.54InorganicsAluminum 17,900 71TP05B001 50.0 NBA 600 NBA NBA 1.00g1.00 17,900Antimony 0.69 71TP08B001 5.00 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.480g0.480 1.44Arsenic 10.0 71TP08B001 10.0 60.0 100 0.990 10.2 328g0.990 10.1Barium 282 71TP04B001 500 NBA 3,000 32.9 28.3 440f28.3 10.0Beryllium 1.40 71TP02B001 10.0 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.020g0.020 70.0Calciumj9,770 71TP02B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Chromium 26.9 71TP05B001 1.00 0.400 10.0 11.0 1.61 0.008h0.008 3,587Cobalt 26.0 71TP05B001 20.0 NBA 1,000 NBA NBA 100g20.0 1.30Copper 33.9 71TP02B001 100 50.0 100 37.0 51.5 15.0g15.0 2.26Iron 44,400 71TP05B001 NBA NBA 200 NBA NBA 12.0h12.0 3700Lead 52.3 71TP02B001 50.0 500 900 74.0 4.05 0.010h0.010 5,230Magnesium 5,040 71TP05B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 4,400f4,400 1.15MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 43)T-565/20/2003Table 43Level 1 SLERA—Comparison of Maximum Detected Soil Concentrations (0-0.5 ft) with Ecological Benchmarks,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-118C, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAOak Ridge National Laboratory BenchmarksRatio ofMaximum Microorganisms/ NOAEL-Based Wildlife Region III Lowest MaximumDetected Earthworm Microbial Processes Benchmarks BTAG Ecological Detected Conc.Concentration Phytotoxicity Toxicity Toxicity Mammals Birds Benchmarks Benchmark to LowestChemical (mg/kg) Sample ID(mg/kg)a(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)d(mg/kg) BenchmarkManganese 1,570 71TP01B001 500 NBA 100 NBA NBA 330f100 15.7Mercury 0.060 71TP08B001 0.30 0.10 30.0 0.015 0.000051 0.058f0.0001 1,176Nickel 32.5 71TP04B001 30.0 200 90.0 24.6 12.1 2.00g2.00 16.3Potassiumj1,390 71TP07B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Silver 0.140 71TP01B001 2.00 NBA 50.0 NBA NBA 0.00001g0.00001 14,286Sodiumj93.8 71TP07B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA ---Thallium 0.130 71TP08B001 1.00 NBA NBA 0.210 NBA 0.001g0.001 130Vanadium 32.8 71TP05B001 2.00 NBA 20.0 5.50 NBA 0.500g0.500 65.6Zinc 95.7 71TP04B001 50.0 200 100 160 0.850 10.0g0.850 113Cyanide (Total) 0.24 71TP01B001 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.005h0.005 48.0Note: Shading indicates the maximum detection exceeds the benchmark.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.NBA = No benchmark available.PRG = Preliminary remediation goal.NOAEL = No-observed-adverse-effect level.aORNL, 1997a. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision.bORNL, 1997b. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process:1997 Revision.cORNL, 1997c. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Ecological Endpoints.PRGs were adjusted to NOAEL-based criteria using a factor of 10.dEPA, 1995b.Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group Screening Levels - Draft.September, 1995.efRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora and fauna.gRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora.hRegion III BTAG soil screening level for fauna.iBenchmark for total PCBs was used as surrogate value.jChemical is an essential nutrient, and concentrations at the site are not expected to pose a significant ecological risk to organisms at this site.Derived with information provided in U.S.EPA. 1999.Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.EPA530-D-99-001C.MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 43)T-575/20/2003Table 44Level 2 SLERA—Comparison of Exposure Point Concentrations of Chemicals of Concern in Soils with Ecological Benchmarks,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-118C, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAOak Ridge National Laboratory BenchmarksRatio ofExposure Microorganisms/ NOAEL-Based Wildlife Region III Lowest MaximumPoint Earthworm Microbial Processes Benchmarks BTAG Ecological Detected Conc.Concentration Phytotoxicity Toxicity Toxicity Mammals Birds Benchmarks Benchmark to LowestChemical(mg/kg)a(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)d(mg/kg)d(mg/kg)e(mg/kg) BenchmarkSemivolatilesbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.190 NBA NBA NBA 0.090f4.1E-04fNBA 0.00041 463Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsBenz(a)anthracene 0.070 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 0.70Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.078 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 0.78Chrysene 0.074 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 0.74Fluoranthene 0.117 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 1.17Phenanthrene 0.070 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 0.70Pyrene 0.103 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.10g0.10 1.03Dioxins/Furans2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (Humans/Mammals) 0.000003 NBA NBA NBA 3.2E-07 NBA 0.01i0.0000003 10.52,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (Birds) 0.000003 NBA NBA NBA NBA 1.6E-06 0.01i0.000002 1.92InorganicsAluminum 13,756 50.0 NBA 600 NBA NBA 1.00h1.00 13,756Antimony 0.477 5.0 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.480h0.480 0.99Arsenic 8.06 10.0 60.0 100 0.99 10.2 328h0.990 8.15Barium 215 500 NBA 3,000 32.9 28.3 440g28.3 7.60Beryllium 1.33 10 NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.020h0.020 66.6Chromium 21.4 1.0 0.40 10 11.0 1.61 0.008i0.01 2,855Cobalt 22.5 20 NBA 1,000 NBA NBA 100h20.0 1.13Copper 30.7 100 50.0 100 37.0 51.5 15.0h15.0 2.05MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 44)T-585/20/2003Table 44Level 2 SLERA—Comparison of Exposure Point Concentrations of Chemicals of Concern in Soils with Ecological Benchmarks,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-118C, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAOak Ridge National Laboratory BenchmarksRatio ofExposure Microorganisms/ NOAEL-Based Wildlife Region III Lowest MaximumPoint Earthworm Microbial Processes Benchmarks BTAG Ecological Detected Conc.Concentration Phytotoxicity Toxicity Toxicity Mammals Birds Benchmarks Benchmark to LowestChemical(mg/kg)a(mg/kg)b(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)c(mg/kg)d(mg/kg)d(mg/kg)e(mg/kg) BenchmarkIron 37,516 NBA NBA 200 NBA NBA 12.0i12.0 3,126Lead 43.3 50 500 900 74.0 4.05 0.010i0.010 4,330Magnesium 3,630 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 4,400g4,400 0.82Manganese 1,372 500 NBA 100 NBA NBA 330g100 13.7Mercury 0.040 0.30 0.100 30 0.015 0.00005 0.058g0.0001 790Nickel 28.0 30 200 90 24.6 12.1 2.00h2.00 14.0Silver 0.089 2.0 NBA 50 NBA NBA 0.0000098h0.00001 9,074Thallium 0.093 1.0 NBA NBA 0.21 NBA 0.001h0.001 92.8Vanadium 28.0 2.0 NBA 20 5.5 NBA 0.50h0.500 56.1Zinc 78.9 50 200 100 160 0.850 10.0h0.850 92.8Cyanide (Total) 0.177 NBA NBA NBA NBA NBA 0.005i0.005 35.3Note: Shading indicates the maximum detection exceeds the benchmark.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.NBA = No benchmark available.PRG = Preliminary remediation goal.NOAEL = No-observed-adverse-effect level.aSee Table 6-34 of RI/RA.bORNL, 1997a. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision.cORNL, 1997b. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process:1997 Revision.dORNL, 1997c. Oak Ridge National Laboratories.Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Ecological Endpoints.PRGs were adjusted to NOAEL-based criteria using a factor of 10.eEPA, 1995b.Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group Screening Levels - Draft.September, 1995.fgRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora and fauna.hRegion III BTAG soil screening level for flora.iRegion III BTAG soil screening level for fauna.Derived with information provided in U.S. EPA. 1999.Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.EPA530-D-99-001C.MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 44)T-595/20/2003Table 45Statistical Comparison of Site and Reference Chemical Concentrations in Shale Surface Soil,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-118C, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAData DataDistribution Distribution StatisticalB400 FTA ReferenceAnalysisdChemicalResultInorganicsAluminum 11,558 ± 3,282 normal 13,515 ± 1,157 normal NSArsenic 6.6 ± 2.2 normal 8.1 ± 0.6 normal NSBarium 182 ± 50.0 normal 134 ± 28.0 default (lognormal) SBeryllium 1.238 ± 0.141 normal 0.830 ± 0.047 normal SChromium 18.2 ± 4.74 normal 22.6 ± 1.51 normal NSCobalt 19.1 ± 5.09 normal 14.2 ± 3.29 lognormal SCopper 26.063 ± 6.97 normal 24.4 ± 2.06 normal NSIron 34,450 ± 4,576 normal 39,060 ± 2,427 normalNSeLead 37.8 ± 8.15 normal 24.9 ± 1.41 normal SManganese 1,134 ± 355 normal 837 ± 415 default (lognormal) SMercury 0.032 ± 0.012 default (lognormal) ND default (lognormal) NSNickel 23.5 ± 6.70 normal 20.3 ± 2.26 normal NSSilver 0.069 ± 0.029 default (lognormal) 0.044 ± 0.013 default (lognormal) SThallium 0.077 ± 0.023 default (lognormal) 0.106 ± 0.053 default (lognormal) NSVanadium 25.4 ± 3.963 normal 26.5 ± 1.08 normal NSZinc 66.3 ± 18.7 normal 57.7 ± 4.93 normal NSCyanide, Total 0.140 ± 0.046 default (lognormal) NA --- ---Note: Shaded metals indicate which chemicals have site concentrations that are significantly greater than background concentrations.aNondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit.bHorizon A (0-0.5 ft bgs). Data are untransformed as shown in Table 6-34 of RI/RA.cHorizon A (0-0.5 ft bgs). Data are untransformed as shown in Table 5-37 of RI/RA.dRight-tailed Mann-Whitney U-test at 95% confidence level unless otherwise noted. See Subsection 5.2.8 of RI/RA for explanationof methods and Appendix F of RI/RA for documentation.eRight-tailed T-test at 95% confidence level. Assumption of equal variances confirmed in data set using the Equal Variance Test.FTA = Fire Training Area.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.NA = Not analyzed in background.ND = Not detected in reference soils.NS = Not significantly different (p < 0.05).S = Significantly different (p > 0.05).Arithmetic Mean ±Standard DeviationReferencea,c(mg/kg)Arithmetic Mean ±Standard DeviationB400 FTAa,b(mg/kg)MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 45)T-605/20/2003Table 46Statistical Comparison of Site and Reference Chemical Concentrations in Limestone Surface Soil,Building 400 Series Fire Training Area, DSERTS Site LEAD-118C, SE OU 8,Letterkenny Army Depot,Chambersburg, PAData DataDistribution Distribution StatisticalB400 FTA ReferenceAnalysisdChemicalResultInorganicsAluminum 11,558 ± 3,282 normal 4,479 ± 767 normal SArsenic 6.6 ± 2.2 normal 6.2 ± 0.8 normal NSBarium 182 ± 50.0 normal 77.8 ± 12.6 normal SBeryllium 1.238 ± 0.141 normal 1.96 ± 0.206 default (lognormal) NSChromium 18.2 ± 4.74 normal 11.7 ± 4.60 lognormal SCobalt 19.1 ± 5.09 normal 20.5 ± 3.31 default (lognormal)NSeCopper 26.063 ± 6.97 normal 5.88 ± 1.55 normal SIron 34,450 ± 4,576 normal 17,430 ± 3,506 normalSeLead 37.8 ± 8.15 normal 23.0 ± 2.76 normal SManganese 1,134 ± 355 normal 1,705 ± 454 default (lognormal) NSMercury 0.032 ± 0.012 default (lognormal) 0.075 ± 0.132 default (lognormal) NSNickel 23.5 ± 6.70 normal 7.86 ± 1.83 normal SSilver 0.069 ± 0.029 default (lognormal) ND default (lognormal) SThallium 0.077 ± 0.023 default (lognormal) 0.065 ± 0.020 default (lognormal) SVanadium 25.4 ± 3.963 normal 10.8 ± 1.67 normal SZinc 66.3 ± 18.7 normal 22.2 ± 4.73 normal SCyanide, Total 0.140 ± 0.046 default (lognormal) NA --- ---Note: Shaded metals indicate which chemicals have site concentrations that are significantly greater than background concentrations.aNondetects were included at half the sample quantitation limit.bHorizon A (0-0.5 ft bgs). Data are untransformed as shown in Table 6-34 of RI/RA.cHorizon A (0-0.5 ft bgs). Data are untransformed as shown in Table 5-37 of RI/RA.dRight-tailed Mann-Whitney U-test at 95% confidence level unless otherwise noted. See Subsection 5.2.8 of RI/RA for explanationof methods and Appendix F of RI/RA for documentation.eRight-tailed T-test at 95% confidence level. Assumption of equal variances confirmed in data set using the Equal Variance Test.FTA = Fire Training Area.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.NA = Not analyzed in background.ND = Not detected in reference soils.NS = Not significantly different (p < 0.05).S = Significantly different (p > 0.05).Arithmetic Mean ±Standard DeviationB400 FTAa,b(mg/kg)Arithmetic Mean ±Standard DeviationReferencea,c(mg/kg)MK01\O:\02281016.008\Tables 36-46.xls(Table 46)T-615/20/2003

# Figures

03P-0752

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD OF** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_TABLES_FIGURES.DOC FINAL 

## FIGURESProperty location shown in black. Base map image adapted from the U.S. Geological Survey 30x60 minute quadrangle maps, Carlisle, PA (photo inspected 1985) and Hagerstown, MD, PA, WV (1983).

Scale
1:100,000 0 4

5 0 Kilometers Miles N

WV MD PENNSYLVANIA

98P-0629 Letterkenny Army Depot

Philadelphia Harrisburg Pittsburgh



### LETTERKENNY

ARMY DEPOT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Baltimore District Letterkenny Army Depot

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

FIGURE 1 

## P ROPERTY 

## L OCATION1

3 2

4 

## PDO Area SE Area

Letterkenny

Township Greene Township 2-74A 2-36

2-74B 2-76

2-48

2-69 2-63 2-71

2-64 2-52 2-49

2-40 2-38

2-39

2-42

2-68 2-44 2-43

2-45 2-46

2-37 2-67 2-51

2-58 2-59 2-50 2-47

2-53 and

2-53-L 2-41 2-65 2-61 2-35

2-62

2-60

2-66 2-77

2-55

2R-84L-3 (Texas) 2R-80L-3 (Coffey) 2-72

2-54 and 2-54-L 2-56 2-57

2-70 and

2-70-L 29

2

7 1

5 4 6

24 8 3 9

23

22 (Railroad) 27

31 (Railroad) 25

21 18

20 16

17

19 13 11 34 33

12 10 26

28 Parcel 3-89

3-90

3-91 Parcel Parcel 2R-86L-3 (Carbaugh) Buildings

Roads

N

E W

S



### Letterkenny Army Depot Chambersburg, PA

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District

Date: 03-07-03 

### Figure 3 Location of Phase III Parcels With PDO and SE Areas Legend:

SM

1250 0 1250 Feet

| Q:\LEAD\aprs\phase3.apr | Layout- phase3 rev0 | q:\lead\pdfs\phase_3\in\phase3_rev0.eps | 9:18 AM, 4/30/2003 | Drainage Divides Enclave

Phase I Parcels 1

1 Phase II Parcels (Does not show all roads) 2-48

2-48 Phase III Parcel That is Lower Portion of Phase II Parcel (8ft. below ground surface to center of the earth) 2-70-L

248 Phase III Parcels 3-90 Shale/Limestone Boundary

BRAC Sites Open Vehicle Storage Area (OVSA) Backwash Discharge Area from

the Water Treatment Plant Former Uncurbed AST at Building 532 Building 400 Series Fire Training Area 1

2

3

4 Township Line

Note: Parcel 3-92 (Letterkenny Reservoir) is located off-depot and is not shown here.N

E W

S



### Letterkenny Army Depot Chambersburg, PA

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District

Date: 02-03-03 

### Figure 4 Former Layout of Groundwater Operable Units (OUs) Legend:

SM

1400 0 1400 Feet



### | Q:\LEAD\aprs\gw_ous.apr | Layout- gw ous | q:\lead\pdfs\gw_ous\in\gw_ous.eps | 10:31 AM, 4/22/2003 | Shale/Limestone Boundary

PDO OU 4: Groundwater Associated with the PDO Oil Burn Pit PDO OU 2: PDO Area Groundwater and Surface Water SE OU 3: Disposal Area VOC- Contaminated Groundwater Subbasin Drainage Divide Major Watershed Divide

Enclave Area Drainage

SE OU 10: Southern Southeast

Industrial Area VOC-Contaminated Groundwater South of Gate 6 (Conococheague Drainage System)

SE OU 11: Northern Southeast

Industrial Area VOC-Contaminated Groundwater North of Gate 6

Note: SE OU 6 (not shown) is SE Area Off-Post VOC-Contaminated Groundwater

(beyond boundaries of SE OU 3 and SE OU 11) Base Features SE OU 3 Drains to the Susquehanna River Watershed via Rowe Run

SE OU 11 Drains to the Susquehanna River Watershed via Rowe Run Rowe Run PDO OU 4 Drains to the Susquehanna River Watershed via Meghan Mackenzie Run and Muddy Run

Ammo Area

PDO OU 2 Drains to the Potomac River Watershed via the Rocky Spring

Branch System Gate 1

Outfall of Storm Sewers from SE Area

to the Southeast Drainageway to Conococheague Creek SE OU 10 Drains to the Potomac River Watershed via the SE Drainageway to the Conococheague Creek

(includes Off-Post) Gate 6N

E W

S



### Letterkenny Army Depot Chambersburg, PA

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District

Date: 02-03-03 

### Figure 5 Current Layout of Groundwater Operable Units (OUs) Legend:

SM

1400 0 1400 Feet



### | Q:\LEAD\aprs\gw_ous.apr | Layout- gw ous rev1 | q:\lead\pdfs\gw_ous\in\gw_ous_rev1.eps | 10:39 AM, 4/22/2003 | Shale/Limestone Boundary

PDO OU 7 SE OU 13 Southern Martinsburg Shale Region (SMSR) Groundwater PDO OU 4: Groundwater Associated with the PDO Oil Burn Pit PDO OU 2: PDO Area Groundwater and Surface Water SE OU 6: Off-Post VOC-Contaminated Groundwater North of Gate 6 SE OU 3A: Disposal Area VOC- Contaminated Groundwater SE OU 3B: Area Upgradient of VOC Contamination Source in SE OU 3A Subbasin Drainage Divide Major Watershed Divide

Enclave Area Drainage

SE OU 10: Southern Southeast

Industrial Area VOC-Contaminated Groundwater South of Gate 6 (Conococheague Drainage System)

SE OU 11: Northern Southeast

Industrial Area VOC-Contaminated Groundwater North of Gate 6 SE OU 10 (Off-Post)

Note: SE OU 6 (entire area shown) is SE Area Off-Post VOC-Contaminated Groundwater

(beyond boundaries of SE OU 3 and SE OU 11) Base Features

SE OU 6 Drains to the Susquehanna River Watershed

SE OU 11 Drains to the Susquehanna River Watershed via Rowe Run Rowe Run SE OU 3A Drains to the Susquehanna River Watershed via Rowe Run

SE OU 3B Drains to the Susquehanna River Watershed via Rowe Run

PDO OU 4 Drains to the Susquehanna River Watershed via Meghan Mackenzie Run and Muddy Run

Ammo Area

PDO OU 2 Drains to the Potomac River Watershed via the Rocky Spring

Branch System Gate 1

Outfall of Storm Sewers from SE Area

to the Southeast Drainageway to Conococheague Creek SE OU 10 Drains to the Potomac River Watershed via the SE Drainageway to the Conococheague Creek

(includes Off-Post) Gate 6

PDO OU 7 Drains to the Potomac River Watershed via

the Rocky Spring Branch System

SE OU 13 Drains to the Potomac River Watershed via the Conococheague Creekq:/lead/dgn/n27/site57a_3.dgn May. 16, 2003 11:24:5803P-0018-2**GROUNDWATER FLOW IN SOUTHERN MARTINSBURG SHALE REGION AT LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT** **FIGURE 10**610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780 **Overburden Silty Clay**RailroadTracksSandbagRoadHeliportRoadRoadCoffeyAvenueApproximate FormationShale/LimestoneContactApproximate FormationLimestone/ShaleContact**ESE Elevation**(Feet/MSL)**WNW Elevation**(Feet/MSL)**CHAMBERSBURG LIMESTONE MARTINSBURG SHALE** **Overburden Soils Red Brown Silty Clay** 

**Overburden Silty Clay CHAMBERSBURG LIMESTONE** **MARTINSBURG SHALE**

**Form ation Contact (Approxim** 

**ate) Formation Contact (Approximate)** ApproximateWater Table

**Dark Brown Clayey Silt** **NOTE: 68** °**Dip Corrected to 80**°**Dip for Vertical Exaggeration** **NOTE: 68** °**Dip Corrected to 80**°**Dip for Vertical Exaggeration**  **Form ation C**  **ontact (A pproxim**  **ate) Formation Contact (Approximate)**  **Form ation C**  **ontact (A pproxim**  **ate) CHAMBERSBURG LIMESTONE** 

SM**Horizontal Scale In Feet Vertical** **Scale In Feet** **Vertical Exaggeration 10:1**0100 200 300 400010**LEGEND Overburden:** Dark brown clayey silt-sandy silt**Overburden:**Red brown-orange brown silty clay**Chambersburg Limestone:**Light-dark gray, argillacious, hard,abundant white calcite veins, occasional solution cavities present**Martinsburg Shale:**Dark gray to blue-gray, fissile, friable-occ hard,occ calcite veins at depth; occ sandstone and siltstone interbedsGeneralized groundwater flow directionApproximate depth to waterWNW Elevation: Elevation on the west northwest side of the SMSRESE Elevation: Elevation on the east southeast side of the SMSR

# Glossary of Terms

03P-0752

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD OF** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_GLOSSARY FINAL 

## GLOSSARY OF TERMS

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD OF** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_GLOSSARY FINAL G- 1 

### GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Administrative Record A collection of document s containing all the in formation and reports generated during the entire phase of investigation and cleanup at a site, which

are used to make a decision on the selection of a response action under

CERCLA. This file is to be available fo r public review and a copy maintained at or near the site, usually at one of the information repositories (Coyle Free Library).

Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) An assessment performed to characterize and evaluate potential risks to plants and animals if remedial activities are not performed at a site.

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) The process by which the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is rightsizing. As part of this procedure, excess infrastructure and property that are no longer needed to support the defense mission are being closed and/or realigned.

Cancer Risk Cancer risks are expressed as nu mbers reflecting the increased chance that a person will develop cancer if exposed to chemicals or substances. For example, EPA’s acceptable risk range for CERCLA sites is 1 x 10 -4 to 1 x 10 -6

. This means that the probability of cancer should not be greater than a 1-in10,000 chance to a 1-in-1,000,000 chance above background.

Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) Chemicals, either present at the site as a result of historical activities or of likely concern to human health and the environment, which are evaluated in

the risk assessment.

Contaminants of Concern (COCs) Chemicals identified through the risk assessment process as the primary chemicals that may cause unacceptable human health and/or ecological risk.

Commercial/Industrial Use As referenced in this docu ment means the use as administrative/office space, manufacturing, warehousing, restaurants, hotels/motels, and retail activities.

Under this definition residential and daycare uses are prohibited.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) A Federal law passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) to investigate and clean up abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. DoD cleanups are funded by the defense budget or individual service funds (e.g., LEAD cleanup is paid for with U.S. Army funds).

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Analysis of the practicability of a proposal; e.g., a description and technical evaluation/cost analysis of the need for a removal action and potential cleanup alternatives for a CERCLA site, where the technologies or alternatives evaluated have already been narrowed-down to a small number of alternatives that can be readily implemented. The EE/CA usually

recommends selection of the most cost-effective viable alternative.

Environmental Baseline Survey A detailed search and review of availabl e information (Army, Federal, state, and local), analysis of aerial photographs, interviews with current and/or former employees, review of ongoing resp onse actions, visual inspections, and

identification of sources of contamination to determine the environmental condition of a property.

Exposure Pathways Describes the course a chemical or physical agent takes from the source to the exposed receptor. Elements of the exposure pathway are: (1) the source of the released chemical; (2) the contaminated medium (e.g., soil); (3) a point of

contact with the contaminated medium ; and (4) an exposure route (e.g., ingestion, inhalation) at a contact point.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD OF** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_GLOSSARY FINAL G- 2 

### GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued)

Groundwater Underground water that fills pores in soil or openings in rocks to the point of saturation. Groundwater is often used as a source of drinking water via municipal or domestic wells.

Hazard Index (HI) A number indicative of noncarcino genic health effects, which is the ratio of the existing level of exposure to an acceptable level of exposure. A value equal to or less than one indicates that the human population is not likely to experience adverse effects from exposure.

Human Health Risk

Assessment An evaluation of the risk posed to human health should remedial activities not be implemented.

Information Repository A file containing current in formation, technical reports, reference documents,

and other information on a CERCLA site . The information repository includes the Administrative Record file. This is maintained by LEAD and EPA.

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) The Federal regulation that guides the CERCLA program. The NCP was revised in February 1990. The purpose of the NCP is to provide the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oils and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants.

National Priorities List (NPL) A list developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of

uncontrolled hazardous substance releas e sites or abandoned hazardous waste

sites in the United States that are considered priorities for long-term environmental investigation, remedial evaluation, and response. LEAD is on

the Federal facilities NPL.

Operable Unit (OU) Term for each of a number of separate activities or actions that each comprises an incremental step toward compre hensively addressing environmental problems at a CERCLA site. The cleanu p of a site can be divided into a number of operable units, depending on the complexity of the problems associated with the site. Operable units may, for example, address geographical portions of a site or spec ific site problems, such as groundwater

contamination.

Organic Compound Chemicals that are carbon-based compounds, such as solvents, oils, and pesticides. Most are not readily dissolved in water. Exposure to some organic compounds may increase the risk of developing cancer.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) A group of over 100 different chemicals (for example, benzo(a)pyrene) that are formed during incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances such as tobacco or charbroiled meat. PAHs are found mostly in coal tar, crude oil, creosote, and roofing tar. Present in low concentrations virtually everywhere, PAHs occasionally reach elevated concentrations as the result of prol onged industrial activities involving burning, or by releases of materials such as creosote-based wood preservatives, that contain PAHs in hi gh concentrations. PAHs are slow to degrade in the environment and can also accumulate in the tissues of marine

animals. PAHs are a concern because so me of them cause cancers in humans

and are harmful to fish when concentrations are elevated.

Proposed Plan A document that presents a proposed cleanup alternative, rationale for the preference, and requests public input regarding the proposed alternative.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD OF** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_GLOSSARY FINAL G- 3 

### GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued)

Property Disposal Office (PDO) Area The PDO Area is located in the southeastern part of Letterkenny Army Depot

and contains industrial and maintenance operations, offices, and recreational

areas. The PDO Area is located on the we stern side of a drainage divide, west of the SE Area. This part of LEAD was added to the NPL in 1989 due to the presence of VOC-contaminated groundwate r located in the area (see Figure 2).

Record of Decision (ROD) A legal public document th at describes the cleanup action or remedy selected for a CERCLA site, the basis for the choice of that remedy, and public

comments on alternative remedies. The ROD is based on information and technical analysis generated during the RI/FS process.

Remedial Action Implementation of plans and spec ifications, developed as part of the design, to

remediate a site.

Remedial Investigation (RI) A study of a facility or site that provides information supporting the evaluation for the need for a remedy an d/or selection of a remedy for a site where hazardous substances have been disposed of. The RI identifies the nature and extent of contamination at the facility.

Removal Action Short-term immediate actions taken to address releases of hazardous substances that may require expedited response.

Residential Use As referenced in this ROD mean s use as housing, daycare facilities, schools (excluding education and training programs for persons over 18 years of age), assisted living facilities, and outdoor recreational activities. Unrestricted use (community and commercial/industrial included) is permitted under this

definition.

Risk Assessment Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the risk posed to human health and/or the environment by the actual or potential presence and/or use of specific pollutants.

Risk-Based Screening Level Risk-based concentrations established by EPA associated with specific levels

of risk. These concentrations have been developed for a variety of exposure scenarios, including ingestion and i nhalation. They are used to screen

chemicals for inclusion in the risk assessment.

Semivolatile Organic Compounds Organic compounds that volatilize slowly at standard room temperature (20 degrees C and 1 atmosphere pressure).

Site The facility or part of the facility and any other areas in close proximity to the facility where a hazardous substanc e, hazardous waste, hazardous constituent, pollutant, or contaminant from the facility has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or has migrated or otherwise come to be

located.

Southeastern (SE) Area The farthest southeastern part of Letterkenny Army Depot that contains mostly industrial and maintenance operations and offices, as well as some
recreational areas, and is located on the eastern side of a drainage divide. Thispart of the Depot was added to the NPL in 1987 due to the presence of VOCcontaminated groundwater located in th e northern half (referred to as the Disposal Area) and in the southern half (referred to as the Southeast Industrial Area) (see Figure 2).

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) A modification (amendment) to CERCLA enacted on 17 October 1986.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD OF** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01|O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_GLOSSARY FINAL G- 4 

### GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued)

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) An organic (carbon-containing) compound that evaporates (volatilizes) readily at room temperature. Examples of VOCs are trichloroethene (TCE) and dichloroethene (DCE).

# Responsiveness Summary

03P-0752O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_RESPONSESUM.DOC FINAL 1 

# LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT

PHASE III PARCELS

CHAMBERSBURG, FRANKLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

# RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

AUGUST 2003



# SECTION 1

OVERVIEW

Based on an assessment of the removal action completed and site conditions, the U.S. Department of the Army (Army) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected a remedy for the Phase III parcels at Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD), Chambersburg, PA. The Commonwealth of Penns ylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) concurs with the sele cted remedy. The selected remedy applies to the soil and groundwater associated with the Open Vehicle St orage Area (OVSA), the Uncurbed Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) North of Building 532 Site, the Backwash Di scharge Area at the Water Treatment Plant, and the Building 400 Series Fire Training Area (FTA), and the So uthern Martinsburg Shale Region (SMSR) soils for the current and intended future commercial/industrial use as well as in the event of a possible but unlikely future nonindustrial land use. As specified in this Record of De cision (ROD), the selected remedy is no further action, which will be protective of human health and the environment.

Based on the fact that no comments were received during the public comment period, the residents and Letterkenny Industrial Development Authority (LIDA) appear not to object to the no further action alternative for the Phase III parcels. No written or verbal comments were received during the public comment period on the Proposed Plan.



# SECTION 2

BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

CHRONOLOGY OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Community relations activities at LEAD to date have included public meetings; review and coordination meetings with Federal and state regulatory personnel; site visits; meetings with electe d Federal, state, and local officials and with community groups; news releases to the local media; and direct contact with nearby property

owners.

Community interviews were conducted in 1988 as part of the process of developing the Public Involvement and Response Plan, which was published in 1990. At the time of the 1988 community interviews, the primary areas of concern to the community were the groundwater contam ination problem and associated health and property value issues. Interviews were conducted in 1997 as part of the revised Community Relations Plan (WESTON, 1997).

LEAD has a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), which began meeting in 1996 and focuses primarily on the restoration activities related to the Defense Environmental Restoration Account and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions. The Restoration Advisory Boar d replaced the Technical Review Committee, formed in 1988, which was the previous means by which the community could provide comments and review progress on the environmental programs at LEAD. LEAD representatives attend Restoration Advisory Board meetings and Letterkenny Industrial Development Authority (LIDA) meetings (formerly the Franklin County Reuse Committee) and provide status updates on environmental activities at LEAD.

Meetings with regulatory agency personnel have been conducted regularly and are held with representatives

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ESPONSIVENESS** 

### S **UMMARY**

O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_RESPONSESUM.DOC FINAL 2 from LEAD, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA CE), the Pennsylvania Depa rtment of Environmental Protection (PADEP), EPA Region III, Department of the Army, and the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (which is a subordinate Command of the U.S. Ar my Materiel Command). Topics of discussion at these meetings generally include review of project status, revi ew of new technical information, resolution of problem
areas, and direction and schedule of further studies. In addition to the formal meetings, LEAD, USACE, PADEP, and EPA personnel maintain frequent telephon e and E-mail contact on an as-needed basis.

Site visits to LEAD have been made by representatives of the Restoration Advisory Board, USACE, PADEP, EPA Region III, and contractors. Numerous site visits by the regulatory agency representatives have promoted communication among LEAD, PADEP, and EPA.

Periodically since June 1982, when the groundwater cont amination problem was first identified, formal news releases have been issued by LEAD concerning the grou ndwater issue and other sources of contamination. These news releases typically contain information on the initial phases of investigation and/or remedial work. Recently, much of the news coverage has concer ned cleanup with regard to the BRAC parcels and the status of lease and transfer of the property.

The residents in the vicinity of LEAD have generally reacted favorably to the efforts made by the Army with regard to the identification and cleanup programs un derway and proposed. The off-post sampling of wells for potential groundwater contamination during the 1980s made nearby residents more aware of the contamination problems existing at LEAD. However, the proactive approach by the Army to identify potential problems and mitigate exposure (by providing connections to a public drinking water source for residents whose wells had potential or known contamination) was received favorably.



### KEY COMMUNITY CONCERNS

The community is greatly concerned about the CERCLA sites and LEAD over the long term. Community interviews were conducted on 26-28 June 1997 at the Depo t as part of the revised Community Relations Plan. Telephone interviews were conducted prior to and after the on-site interviews. Each interview participant was asked 37 questions. A total of 19 individuals participated in the interviews: 2 Depot residents and 17 Chambersburg-area residents. Persons interviewed for th e revised Community Relations Plan identified seven

areas of concern.



### Cleanup Activities

Generally, the interviewees were pleased with the ongo ing environmental cleanup ac tivities. Several people noted that for the last 8 to 10 years, Depot staff have worked hard to solve environmental problems at the site. Some interviewees expressed concern that the cleanup activities were taking too long. The majority of interviewees agreed that the government is committed to cleaning up the hazardous wastes at LEAD. Most of the

interviewees wanted to know the status of specific cleanup activities (e.g., da ta, results, costs, and schedule). One mentioned that some of the environmental reports were too technical to understand.

Some wanted the government to finish the remedial proc ess as quickly as possible, whereas others thought that the government should take the time needed to conduct a thorough remedial process. One individual believed that the Army’s environmental standards may not be as stringent as the public’s standards in the level of cleanup

activities.

Several expressed a concern to return areas to farmland use and to coordinate efforts to preserve existing

farmland. A few residents noted that farmers do not seem to be concerned about contamination because farming activities continue on property adjacent to LEAD.

Some were concerned that cleanup activities would continue after areas were open for public reuse. One resident said that $350 million was too much to pay for groundwater contamination cleanup on-site and that documentation of the historic value of a warehouse before tearing it down was “foolish.”



### Reuse

Noting the economic impact of having fewer civilian jo bs with the realignment of LEAD, the majority of the

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ESPONSIVENESS** 

### S **UMMARY**

O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_RESPONSESUM.DOC FINAL 3 interviewees have accepted LIDA’s reuse plan.

Some thought the reuse of areas of LEAD was a positive step in preserving farmland/agriculture and pristine areas of Franklin County.

Some thought the reuse plan was overly optimistic and that the public would have to pay for the reuse activities. Many interviewees were concerned about the feasibility of taking care of the reuse areas of LEAD. Many were concerned about the potential liability if additional Army -generated contamination is discovered in the reuse

areas.

A few were concerned about the types of industry that may be brought in and the potential for re-contaminating the site and creating noise or traffic problems. Some were concerned with how the Army will provide access to the reuse areas, grant public use of the reservoir, and share the Depot’s infrastructure (electricity, water, sewer, etc.). One person suggested that the state establish a low- level radioactive waste disposal facility as a reuse option

at LEAD.



### Contamination

Several interviewees stated that the extent of contamination is unknown and that more contamination may be discovered. One said that the Army brought materials from across the country for disposal at the Depot. Another

said that studies show that the cont amination is spreading. Residents are concerned that the solvents in the groundwater and streams will directly affect the populati on. Several mentioned concerns about specific areas at the Depot:

 Apartment complex (Kenny Gardens housing).

 Old quarry (Fagan’s Quarry).

 Rocky Spring Lake.

 Mercury in the lake.

 Fire practice-training areas.

 Lead contamination at the ammunition detonation area.

 Discharge from LEAD (below Gate 6) into streams after a heavy rain.



### Air Quality

A few residents said that the Army needs to addre ss air quality in addition to soils and groundwater

contamination.



### Ammunition Detonation

Many residents expressed concern about the ammunition detonation activities at the Depot. They said the Army sometimes conducts this activity on weekends during the noon hour. Some interviewees believe that the blasting is causing plaster to crack in homes adjacent to and about a mile from LEAD. One resident said that the impact of the detonations is worse for homes a greater distance from LEAD than the homes nearer the Depot. Several

mentioned that contaminants must be released into the air as a result of the ammunition detonation. Residents voiced concern about noise, air quality, and dust control regarding the detonation activities.



### Government

Half of the interviewees said that the general public mistrusts Federal and stat e government agencies. One
resident said, “No matter what an individual thinks, the government will do what they want and that the government does not think an individual is important to consider.” However, the majority of the interviewees believe that PADEP is the most credible gove rnment agency regarding environmental issues.



### Army

The majority of the interviewees believe that the Army is committed to cleaning up the contamination at LEAD. One resident was pleased that LEAD is a government site because the Army is obligated to clean up the site, whereas a commercial venture could opt to abandon a contam inated property. Some specific concerns include the

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ESPONSIVENESS** 

### S **UMMARY**

O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_RESPONSESUM.DOC FINAL 4 following:

 The Army is rushing to transfer areas to the public because of community pressure and could compromise environmenta l cleanup activities.

 The Army cannot meet the deadlines because of the holdup caused by complex environmental problems.

 Some individuals have reservations about some info rmation received from LEAD and are concerned that they may not be getting all of the information. One in dividual participated in two tours of the facility and questioned the use and contents of a building with concertina wire. The question was not answered to the individual’s satisfaction; therefore, this person believes the Army is hiding something.

 There was a lack of response from the LEAD Public Affairs Officer when residents complained about the blasting and poor quality of the office ’s answering machine (very short tape).

Of the 19 interviewees, 18 said they had an understanding of the BRAC activities at LEAD. The majority of the interviewees were favorable toward the cleanup activities related to the BRAC parcels. In addition, the majority of the interviewees were supportive of LIDA’s reuse pl an. Most individuals also were favorable toward the cooperation and interaction between the Army and LIDA in freeing the to-be-excessed parcels as soon as possible.



# SECTION 3

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT

PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES

The public comment period on the Proposed Plan for th e Phase III parcels was held from 14 April to 13 May 2003. No comments were received during this time. On 23 Ap ril 2003, a public availabilit y session was held at the Building 10, Letterkenny Great Room to present the Proposed Plan (in the form of a poster presentation) and to entertain questions and comments from the public. Ther e were no questions, and no comments were made during the public availability session.

# Attachment 1 References

03P-0752

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD OF** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_ATT1REF.DOC FINAL 

## ATTACHMENT 1

REFERENCES

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD OF** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_ATT1REF.DOC FINAL 1-1 

### ATTACHMENT 1

REFERENCES

Acker, R.C. 1955. Water Supply from Wells for Letterkenny Ordnance Works . Letter Report to District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District.

Becher, A.E. and L.E. Taylor. 1982. Groundwater Resources in the Cumberland and Contiguous Valleys of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Water Resources Report 53. Harrisburg, PA.

EA (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology). 1991. Site Investigation, LEAD.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. User’s Guide for the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children. Prepared by the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. OERR. Washington, DC. EPA 9285.7-42. 540-K-01-005. May 2001.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 530-

D-99-0016.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part D, Stan dardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments ). Interim

. EPA 540-R-97-033. OSWER 9285.7-01D. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. January 1998.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995a. CERCLA Remedy Selection Process . Directive

9355.7-04. O ffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. May 1995.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995b. EPA Region III BTAG Screening Levels. Draft

. Philadelphia, PA.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the

Concentration Term . Publication 9285.7-081. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. May

1992.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS), Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/002.

Office of Solid Waste and Emer gency Response, Washington, DC.

EPA, Army, and PADEP (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IIII, U.S. Army, and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 1989. Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120, In the Matter of the U.S. Army's Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania and Impacted Environs, Admini strative Docket Number III-FCA-CERC-001. February 1989.

ERM (Environmental Resources Management, Inc.). 1995. Letterkenny Army Depot

― SWMU Site Investigation Follow-on Report. ELIN A009

. January 1995.

ESE (Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc.). January 1993a. Remedial Investigation of the Property Disposal Office Area at Letterkenny Army Depot. Final Report.

ESE (Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc.). 1993b. Remedial Investigation of the Southeastern Area at Letterkenny Army Depot . Final Report. June 1993.

ESE (Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc.). 1992. Remedial Investigation of the Property Disposal Office Area at Letterkenny Army Depot . Draft-Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA), Aber deen Proving Ground, MD. Gainesville, FL.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD OF** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_ATT1REF.DOC FINAL 1-2 FCRC (Franklin County Reuse Committee) (now known as the Letterkenny Industrial Development Authority [LIDA]). 1997. Letterkenny Army Depot Reuse Strategy Summary Report . May 1997.

IT (IT Corporation). 2001. Property Disposal Office Area Operable Unit 6 Southeast Area, Operable Unit 8 – Removal Action Completion Report PAH-Contam inated Soils at the Open Vehicle Storage Area (OVSA), Letterkenny Army Depo t, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Final. May 2001.

LEAD (Letterkenny Army Depot). April 2003. Installation Action Plan for Letterkenny Army Depot,

FY 2004.

ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. Environmental Restoration Program, ORNL, Oak Ridge, TN.

ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter In vertebrates and Heterotrophic Processes: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. Environmental Restoration Program, ORNL, Oak Ridge, TN.

ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). 1997c. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints. Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-162/R2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy. August 1997.

Rosenblatt, D., J. Dacre, and D. Cogley. 1982. “An Environmental Fate Model Leading to Preliminary Pollutant Limit Values for Human Health Effects.” In: Environmental Risk Analysis for

Chemicals . R.A. Conway (Editor). Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

WESTON (Weston Solutions, Inc.). July 2003a. Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment Report for the Open Vehicle Storage Area (DSERTS Sites LEAD-110 and LEAD-114), Property Disposal Office (PDO) Area Operable Unit (OU) 6 and Southeast ern (SE) Area OU 8, Letterkenny Army Depot . Final.

WESTON (Weston Solutions, Inc.). April 2003b. Summary Report on the Groundwater Quality in the Southern Martinsburg Shale Region, Letterkenny Army Depot. Final.

WESTON (Weston Solutions, Inc.). April 2003c. Proposed Plan for Phase III Parcels, Letterkenny Army Depot. Final.

WESTON (Weston Solutions, Inc.). August 2003d. Finding of Suitability to Transfer for the Phase III Parcels, Letterkenny Army Depot. Final.

WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). September 2002a. Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment Report for the Former Uncurbed AST (FAST) Site North of Building 532, Property Disposal Office (PDO) Area Operable Unit (OU) 6, DSERTS Site LEAD-126, Letterkenny Army Depot. Final.

WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). September 2002b. Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment Report for the Building 400 Series Fire Training Area, Southeast ern (SE) Area Operable Unit (OU) 8, Letterkenny Army Depot. Final.

WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). October 2002c. Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment Report for the Backwash Discharge Area (DSERTS Site LEAD-011) , Southeastern (SE) Area Operable Unit (OU) 8, Letterkenny Army Depot. Final.

WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). July 2001. Record of Decision for the Phase II Parcels, Letterkenny Army Depot. Final.

WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). June 2000a. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Open Vehicle Storage Area Soils, Property Disposal Office (PDO) Area Operable Unit (OU) 6 and Southeastern (SE) Area OU 8, Letterkenny Army Depot. Final.

### LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT **P HASE**  

### III **P ARCELS**  

### —R **ECORD OF** 

### D **ECISION**

MK01\O:\02281016.008\PHASE III\ROD\ROD_ATT1REF.DOC FINAL 1-3 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). November 2000b. Supplement 1 to the Final Environmental Survey for Letterkenny Army Depo t, BRAC 95 Action

.

WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). May 1999. Addendum to the Environmental Baseline Survey for Letterkenny Army Depot.

WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1998a. Record of Decision for Phase I Parcels, Letterkenny Army Depot. September 1998.

WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1998b. Community Relations Plan, Letterkenny Army Depot . Final. August 1998.

WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1996. Environmental Baseline Survey, Letterkenny Army Depot,

BRAC 95 Action.