JUNE • 2014

NAVFAC Program Perspective

The Future of Munitions Remediation – Advanced Geophysical Classification

If you haven’t heard of Advanced Geophysical Classification, now is the time to catch up on current events. Munitions Response (MR) work is getting a technology boost that should improve site responses by lowering costs and decreasing remediation timeframes. The Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)/Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) have sponsored the development of several tools (e.g. Time-domain Electro-Magnetic Multi-sensor Towed Array Detection System (TEMTADS)/MetalMapper) that when properly applied can determine, to extent of their detection capabilities, the difference between munitions and clutter/debris. In this fashion, remedial efforts can be focused on anomalies that are truly munitions vs. bulk excavations where only low percentages are found to be munitions. In general, if the current equipment (e.g EM-61) can detect an anomaly, classification can be applied to make a decision on the nature of the anomaly.

Multiple avenues for learning about this technology exist, including offerings at the 2014 Remediation Innovative Technology Seminar (RITS) and topics presented during the Basic/Advanced MR Civil Engineer Corps Officer School (CECOS) classes. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) also has several fact sheets which are great introductions written to target a stakeholder audience. These can be found at http://www.itrcweb.org/Guidance/GetDocument?documentID=113

IN THE NEWS

1 NAVFAC Program Perspective The Future of Munitions Remediation-Advanced Geophysical Classification CNO, CMC, SECNAV and SECDEF 2014 Award Winners - Congratulations!

5 Success Stories Optimized Remedial Strategy and Performance Metrics to Manage an Extensive MTBE Plume at the DoDHF, Novato, CA A Helping Hand from Donna Caldwell – NAVFAC LANT

10 Regulatory Updates When Would Lead-Based Paint Be An Issue at My ER Site? Read the FAQs… Updates for Human Health Risk Assessments (HHRAs)

15 Technology Updates The New NIRIS Document Review Module is Here!

17 Workgroup Updates ARTT

MRP NIRIS OPTIMIZATION Rad RAW SEDIMENT

24 Training & Conferences CTC 423, Environmental Contracting Class

Announcing the New OER2 Webinar Series

CECOS Training

ISSUE 8

At present, there is only a limited number of first generation advanced sensors, with a second generation becoming available from the manufacturers in the Fall/Winter 2014 timeframe. Second generation units have a number of refinements incorporated from field experience at demonstration sites. The munitions industry is preparing to purchase these second generation units and offer classification services on a much wider scale than currently available.

In the interim, Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) should be discussing the application of classification technology with their stakeholders as sites progress through the investigation/remediation process. Generally, classification is considered during the Feasibility Study (FS) stage and applied during a remedial or removal action. Demonstration and evaluation of classification technology can also occur during the Remedial Investigation (RI) phase. Under a conventional RI, anomalies are located and intrusively investigated. With a comparatively minimal effort, classification could also be brought into the process to gather classification data for anomalies to be excavated. In this manner, stakeholders can see the technology in action and have a ‘real world’ example to compare the classification results to the excavated anomaly results. Your MR Workgroup member can provide helpful insight into this potential early-look application to aid in stakeholder acceptance of the technology.

Stephen Hurff, P.E. Munitions Response and Radiological Program Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Headquarters (HQ), EV-3 1322 Patterson Ave Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20374 (202) 685-9318/DSN 325 stephen.hurff@navy.mil

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 2

CNO, CMC, SECNAV and SECDEF 2014 Award Winners - Congratulations! Kim Brown NAVFAC HQ (202) 685-0096/DSN 325 kim.brown@navy.mil The Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), as well as the Secretary of Navy (SECNAV) has a well-established awards process in place to honor stellar projects which are provided as SECDEF, SECNAV, Commandant of Marine Corps (CMC) and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) installation and individual/team submittals. SECDEF, SECNAV, CMC and CNO awards are presented annually based on outstanding achievements related to various factors associated with implementing innovative environmental restoration (ER) technology and at the same time optimizing costs and focusing on the Department of Defense (DoD) mission at hand. The CNO 2014 Award Winners in the Installation Category: NAS Meridian, Hunter’s Point, and Moffett Field Naval Air Station Meridian is a multi-mission installation, located in Meridian, Mississippi which is focused on enabling and sustaining the Warfighter from the Shore. The Installation Restoration (IR) project team is comprised of NAVFAC Southeast (SE) Region Program Manager/Remedial Project Manager (RPM), Robert Fisher; NAVFAC SE Environmental staff at NAS Meridian, Jamie Brown; Mississippi Environmental Quality Regulator, Robert Merrell; and CH2M Hill Program Manager, David Chung. This team helped to expedite the remaining cleanup of ER sites in a two-year period which resulted in substantial cost savings via innovative technology while incorporating green and sustainable remediation (GSR) practices. Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS), located in San Francisco, California, is a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installation which was divided into 12 parcels to facilitate its cleanup and ultimate transfer to the San Francisco Redevelopment Successor Agency for reuse. The BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT) is comprised of Keith Forman, Base Environmental Coordinator (BEC); Catherine Haran, Lead RPM (LRPM); Pat Brooks, Business Line Team Lead (BLTL); Chris Yantos, Lara Urizar, Danielle Janda, and Tony Konzen, Installation RPMs; and Cindy Mafara, Contracts. The BCT helped to ensure the successful closure of several radiological waste and petroleum sites. They also learned from earlier treatability studies which were performed on the installation and implemented several remedies include innovative in-situ groundwater treatment, which minimizes the need for costly removal, disposal and monitoring. Naval Air Station Moffett Field (Moffett) is a BRAC facility located in Santa Clara County, California approximately 10 miles north of San Jose. The ER team for the former NAS Moffett is comprised of Scott Anderson, BEC; Jim Whitcomb, LRPM; Bryce Bartelma, RPM; Ed Balsamo, Counsel; and Karen Barba, Contracts. The team effectively remediated contaminated sediments in an active 230-acre stormwater retention pond, and removed contaminated siding and other building materials at a historic structure constructed in the early 1930s to house the dirigible airship U.S.S Macon. The Navy completed these actions on a facility that is owned and operated by another Federal agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Navy’s efforts will allow for NASA’s continued mission at Moffett Field to continue safely for not only the people who work there, but the community and ecologic receptors that surround it. The CNO 2014 Award Winners in the Individual or Team Category: Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek/Fort Story, Cecil Field, and NAS Jacksonville Joint Expeditionary Base (JEB) Little Creek-Fort Story is the major east-coast operating base supporting Overseas Contingency Operations, and Resident commands to provide training venues for front-line support personnel (such as Sea, Air, Land [SEAL] Teams, Explosive Ordnance Disposal [EOD], and Riverine Squadrons). The Project team is comprised of Bryan Peed, NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic (MidLant) RPM; Sharon Waligora, Environmental Division Director, JEB Little Creek - Fort Story Public Works Department (PWD); Paul Herman, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) JEB Little Creek RPM; Wade Smith, VDEQ JEB Fort Story RPM; Jeffrey Boylan, EPA; Cecilia Landin, JEB Little Creek-Fort Story Activity Manager; and Nathaniel Price, JEB Little Creek - Fort Story Project Manager. The team managed to implement various innovative sediment remediation, groundwater, and GSR techniques while ensuring that mission orientation was effectively achieved.

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 3

The former Naval Air Station (NAS) Cecil Field is a BRAC facility which was the largest military installation in Jacksonville, Florida, and the area and the South’s only Master Jet Base. Members of the BCT are David Criswell and Art Sanford, NAVFAC SE; David Grabka, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); Peter Dao, EPA Region 4; Kara Wimble, Resolution Consultants; Robert Simcik and Megan Boerio, Tetra Tech, Inc; and Jessica Keener, Solutions-IES Contractor. Major team accomplishments include: investigation of 644 ER sites, transfer of 99 percent of the property, achievement of site-wide Construction Complete status by having remedies implemented at all sites, expeditious removal of munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) to minimize impacts to construction/remediation activities, and implementation of a solar-powered air sparging system. NAS Jacksonville (JAX) is located in northwest Florida, and as a master anti-submarine warfare and industrial base, NAS JAX maintains and operates facilities and provides services and materials to support aviation operations. The project team members are Adrienne Wilson, NAVFAC SE RPM; Michael Singletary, NAVFAC SE Technical Manager; Timothy Curtin, NAS JAX ER Program Manager; Mark Peterson, Tetra Tech Project Manager; Eric Davis, CH2M Hill Project Manager; Todd Haverkost, Resolution Consultants Project Manager; Peter Dao, EPA Region 4 Project Manager; and Jennifer Conklin, Florida DEP Project Manager. The team implemented a series of cutting edge, state-of-the-art investigations to support the development of a site-wide, based risk-approach through partnership with the DoD Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Research & Development (R&D) program to demonstrate its usefulness to the program. Also, innovative technologies were performed for vapor intrusion investigations and significant cost savings were achieved by the team. The CMC 2014 Award Winner in the Installation Category: Marine Corp Base (MCB) Camp Lejeune MCB Camp Lejeune is located in Jacksonville, North Carolina where its mission is to maintain combat-ready warfighters for deployment and humanitarian missions abroad. The project team includes NAVFAC MidLant RPMs Dave Cleland, Bryan Beck and José Parra; Base Environmental Management Division personnel Charity Delaney, Patti Vanture, Jenni Reed and Carl Fowler; state regulators and site contractors. The team ensured that passive and sustainable remedy components were applied that are permanent solutions and can be reused or reactivated as needed, at significantly less cost. These components include mulch walls, Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA), soil covers, air sparging, in situ soil stabilization, and Land Use Controls (LUCs). The CMC 2014 Award winner in the Team Category: Marine Corp Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point MCAS Cherry Point is located in Cherry Point, North Carolina where it is vitally important to the training missions of each of the military service branches. The project team includes Bryan Revell, NAVFAC MidLant RPM; William Potter and John Myers, MCAS Cherry Point; Gena Townsend, EPA; George Lane, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); Bill Hannah, Doug Bitterman and Renee Hunt, CH2M HILL; and Erica DeLattre, RHEA. The team has implemented effective pilot studies for In-Situ Enhanced Bioremediation and for a permeable reactive barrier, along with a vapor intrusion investigation which resulted in significant risk reduction. Follow-on SECNAV Award Winners for ER Installation were HPNS and MCB Camp Lejeune; and ER Individual or Team Winners were NAS Cecil Field and MCAS Cherry Point. Follow-on SECDEF Award Winners for ER Installation was MCB Camp Lejeune; and for ER Individual or Team was NAS Cecil Field. NAVFAC would like to extend hearty congratulations to all project teams for a job WELL DONE!!

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 4

Optimized Remedial Strategy and Performance Metrics to Manage an Extensive MTBE Plume at the DoDHF, Novato, CA David Clark NAVFAC SW (619) 532-0973/DSN 822 david.j.clark2@navy.mil Tara Meyers EXWC (805) 982-1614/DSN 551 tara.meyers@navy.mil The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest-Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office West (NAVFAC SW-BRAC PMO West) was able to negotiate a successful remedial strategy for a large-scale, complex groundwater plume with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) at the Department of Defense Housing Facility (DoDHF) Novato, California. The key elements of the strategy included: 1) the definition of target treatment areas (TTAs) within an extensive contaminant plume; 2) the documentation and acceptance of performance metrics prior to remedy implementation by all stakeholders; and 3) ongoing optimization efforts for system operation and long-term monitoring. This project was recently highlighted as a success story within the Water Board regulatory community as an example of effective partnering with NAVFAC. Site Background DoDHF Novato is located approximately 20 miles north of San Francisco, in Marin County, California (Figure 1). It was the site of a former Naval Exchange (NEX) gas station and a former Public Works Center (PWC) gas station operating from the mid-1970s through the early 1990s. Excavation of underground storage tanks (USTs) and conveyance piping associated with the two former Navy gas stations was completed in 1992, at which time groundwater and soil sampling confirmed that gasoline had been released from USTs at each gas station. It was determined that releases associated with the two former Navy gas stations had produced a commingled plume of gasoline-related constituents (Figure 2). Prior to remediation, methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE) concentrations in groundwater were measured as high as 200,000 ug/L, compared to a cleanup goal of 13 ug/L (i.e., the maximum contaminant level [MCL] for MTBE). Additionally, further characterization determined that dissolved MTBE had migrated approximately 0.5 mi. downgradient, with a substantial portion of the plume extending beyond the former Navy property boundary, including underneath an area that was to be developed for housing.

Success Stories

Courtesy of Battelle Figure 1. Regional Map for DoDHF Novato Showing the MTBE Plume.

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 5

Implementation of a Target Treatment Area Approach The remediation strategy for DoDHF Novato was developed based on a robust conceptual site model that relied on three-dimensional visualization of surface topography, site geology, hydrogeology, and contaminant distribution extending from the two source areas to the leading edge of the MTBE plume. In order to effectively remediate such a vast extent of dissolved MTBE, a treatment train approach was implemented starting with on-site source area TTAs and finishing with an off-site hot spot TTA, in an area of the plume where MTBE concentrations were greater than 500 ug/L. TTAs #1 and #2: Treatment of Source Areas on Former Navy Property The initial treatment objectives for the MTBE plume involved eliminating former sources of contamination and minimizing off-site migration of dissolved MTBE mass by actively remediating TTAs #1 and #2 using air sparging and biosparging technologies, respectively. Based on these primary objectives, the Navy project team worked closely with the regulatory agencies to develop quantifiable performance goals established to: (1) provide a framework for measuring the contribution of active remediation to the achievement of the cleanup objectives for the site and (2) mitigate the financial risk associated with continued operation of treatment systems beyond the point of remedial and cost-effectiveness (e.g., asymptotic mass removal). The final performance evaluation framework was negotiated and agreed on between the Navy and regulators prior to system installation and start-up. The established performance evaluation framework was used to govern decision-making related to a continued system operation, optimization, system shutdown, and system re-start, if necessary.

Performance Evaluation Framework For Treatment of Source Areas (TTAs #1 and #2) Goal #1: 95% reduction of dissolved MTBE concentrations in performance monitoring wells located within the treatment area.

Metric: Percent reduction in the average MTBE concentration (i.e., relative to a pre-treatment baseline) in performance monitoring wells.

Goal #2: Establish a stable to shrinking plume on Navy property. Metric: Mann-Kendall statistical tests conducted for each monitoring well to determine whether the MTBE trend is increasing or decreasing and whether the trend is statistically significant.

Goal #3: Ensure remedial effectiveness by discontinuing operation if asymptotic conditions continue to be realized after appropriate optimization measures have been taken.

Metric: Evaluation of dissolved MTBE time-series plots for performance monitoring wells to determine if MTBE concentrations approach an incremental slope of zero over time.

Goals #4: Achieve permanent reductions in contaminant concentrations verified through the implementation of rebound monitoring.

Metric: Quantification of contaminant rebound using a regulatory approved methodology and rebound threshold.

Understand your site and continue to optimize the remedy

Courtesy of Battelle Figure 2. Time-Series MTBE Plume Maps Showing the Sequence of the Target Treatment Area Approach Applied at DoDHF Novato.

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 6

During active remediation at DoDHF Novato, three dimensional modeling of the site was used to develop estimates of the dissolved MTBE mass on and off former Navy property. This approach allowed the project team to demonstrate that system operation in TTAs #1 and #2 had functioned as intended by: (1) successfully eliminating the two former sources (as shown in Figure 3 by negligible dissolved MTBE mass remaining on Navy property by 2008) and (2) preventing off-site migration of MTBE (as shown in Figure 3 by stable or decreasing MTBE mass off Navy property through 2008). TTA #3: Hot Spot Treatment Downgradient of Navy Property Due to the success of treatment within the two on-site source areas, mass estimates over time supported that future remediation efforts should be focused in areas downgradient of the former Navy property boundary. This third TTA was designated as an off-site hot spot with MTBE concentrations greater than 500 ug/L. Due to the prior successful air sparging operations, as well as the cost-efficiencies associated with repurposing existing equipment and infrastructure, the Navy selected air sparging as the preferred treatment technology for TTA #3. The performance evaluation framework negotiated for TTA #3 was based on the Navy’s and regulator’s mutual understanding that this was a final action being implemented to address a defined hot spot, stabilize the plume’s leading edge, and accelerate Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA). The Navy project team mitigated the financial risk of long-term operations within a relatively dilute treatment area by negotiating a limited one year operational commitment for the treatment system. The performance goals for TTA #3 were based on an understanding that the specified goals needed to be achievable within a year, while also providing the desired remedial benefits of stabilizing the leading edge and accelerating MNA.

Performance Evaluation Framework For Off-Site Hot Spot Treatment (TTA #3) Goal #1: 75% reduction of dissolved MTBE concentrations in performance monitoring wells located within the treatment area.

Metric: Percent reduction in the average MTBE concentration (i.e., relative to a pre-treatment baseline) in performance monitoring wells.

Goal #2: Successful operation of the air sparging treatment system for one year. Metric: Evaluation of the system operation time, excluding downtime, through an effective operation and maintenance program.

Goals #3: Achieve permanent reductions in contaminant concentrations verified through the implementation of rebound monitoring.

Metric: Quantification of contaminant rebound using a regulatory approved methodology and rebound threshold.

Courtesy of Battelle Figure 3. Modeled Estimates of Dissolved MTBE Mass On and Off Former Navy Property.

Courtesy of Battelle Figure 3. Modeled Estimates of Dissolved MTBE Mass On and Off Former Navy Property

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 7

The air sparging system began operation in TTA #3 on 17 December 2010 and was shut down (with regulatory approval) on 16 December 2011. The system achieved 97% reduction in MTBE concentrations within the active treatment area and 75% reduction in the average MTBE concentration in the performance goal monitoring wells. Rebound monitoring conducted in 2012 showed permanent reductions in MTBE concentrations over the rebound monitoring period. The system was subsequently removed in 2013, marking the successful completion of the TTA directed remediation strategy for DoDHF Novato. Optimization of Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) The Navy’s environmental program at DoDHF has also relied on annual optimization reviews of remedial system performance, as well as groundwater monitoring to continually reduce costs. At peak, groundwater monitoring consisted of sampling approximately 110 wells on a quarterly basis. Through annual optimization reviews, the scope of LTM has been reduced substantially by eliminating wells and by decreasing monitoring frequencies. The Navy’s latest round of optimization recommendations involves LTM of 49 wells on an annual basis, which represents an approximate 89% reduction in the level of effort compared to the monitoring program at its peak. Path Forward and Exit Strategy The optimized remedial strategy and performance metrics resulted in the successful end to active remediation within the former plume hot spots and a transition to MNA. Modeling of MNA performance supports that groundwater cleanup goals will be achieved in all remaining monitoring wells within 15 years (Figure 4), during which time continued optimization efforts are anticipated to further reduce LTM costs at the site.

Negotiate realistic project goals with an exit strategy

Courtesy of Battelle Figure 4. 15-Yr Projection of MTBE (concentrations given in ug/L) in Groundwater at DoDHF Novato.

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 8

A Helping Hand from Geologist Donna Caldwell - NAVFAC Atlantic Christopher Murray NAVFAC EXWC (805) 982-4805/DSN 551 christopher.r.murray@navy.mil It is hard to believe that Donna Caldwell has only been working here at Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic (LANT) for six years because of the huge impact she has made on the overall Environmental Restoration,Navy (ER,N) Program. Donna worked for many years in the private sector developing an expertise in managing Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites and now works as a member of NAVFAC LANT’s Environmental Restoration (ER) Technical Support Group. Her primary focus from a technical support standpoint is assisting Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) with regulatory negotiation. Donna strives to ensure that consistency is being used across the Facility Engineering Commands (FECs) and that RPMs are empowered to comply with Navy Policy and Guidance. Donna’s influence can be felt across many avenues to include her presentations with the Technical Insight Problem Solving (TIPS) and the Remediation Innovative Technology Seminar (RITS), as well as the many partnering teams she has been involved with over the years in a technical support role. She has been a leader in the Vapor Intrusion (VI) arena, from a technical and risk communication standpoint, and has assisted many RPMs with navigating through that complex process. Donna helped develop many of the Navy’s VI guidance documents and tools, to include the web site, and the hot off the press Protectiveness Statement fact sheet for 5 Year Reviews, and is currently working on Risk Communication Guidance for VI. Donna was also instrumental in assisting with the Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR) Fact Sheet, the upcoming Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) tool kit, and even the 5 Year Review Tool Kit. If an RPM ever needs help with a complex ER,N site or situation, Donna will have a solid solution to consider. She thrives on the ER,N experience and is always looking to solve the next great challenge for NAVFAC’s ER,N Program. Donna Caldwell can be contacted at donna.caldwell@navy.mil or (757) 322-4816.

Donna Caldwell, NAVFAC LANT

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 9

Regulatory Updates

Figure 1. LBP NAVFAC Guidance Cover Letter/FAQs

When Would Lead-Based Paint Be An Issue at My ER Site? Read the FAQs… Jennifer Wright NAVFAC LANT (757) 322-8428/DSN 262 jennifer.h.wright@navy.mil The Lead-Based Paint (LBP) NAVFAC Guidance Document (Figure 1) was released on 31 January 2014. The purpose of this document is to help Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) answer specific questions regarding LBP when investigating and remediating Navy Environmental Restoration (ER) sites. The guidance is in a “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)” format and divided into sections to guide the reader. The sections are:

• General information • Environmental Restoration,Navy (ER,N)

eligibility & funding – when is LBP considered a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) release?

• ER,N eligibility & funding – when can ER,N funding be used?

• Investigation and sampling - when and how? • Risk assessment • Land-use controls • Five-year reviews

At Navy facilities, most requirements to control exposure to LBP focus on base housing, work spaces, and schools as these actions are driven by Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In general, the Navy recommends managing lead paint in-place and performing preventive maintenance to keep painted surfaces from deterioration. In a 1999 joint memorandum concerning management of LBP when transferring residential property, Department of Defense (DoD) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed as a matter of policy, CERCLA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) would not be applied, except in limited circumstances. Furthermore, if a contaminant remains entirely inside a building, then EPA does not consider this to be a CERCLA release. So what constitutes a CERCLA release of LBP?

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 10

A release of LBP into the environment occurs when LBP is reasonably expected to exist, and there is evidence of debris (i.e. paint chips) released to the environment. The release may be the result of historical maintenance activities, paint stripping and repainting of a structure, or significant deterioration of paint on a structure due to poor or no maintenance. LBP that is properly maintained and in normal use is not considered a release. Additionally, LBP activities incidental to a CERCLA investigation and/or remedial action, are also ER,N eligible. For Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installations, the process for addressing LBP can be different and involve additional requirements to complete property transfer, such as cleanup as well as abatement responsibilities. The document also identifies how the Public Works Division (PWD) is involved in the cleanup process for LBP, along with its roles and responsibilities. For more information, click on the link to the guidance: https://www.navfac.navy.mil/content/dam/navfac/Specialty%20Centers/Engineering%20and%20Expeditionary%20Warfare%20Center/Environmental/Restoration/er_pdfs/gpr/navfac-ev-guid-lbp-20140131f.pdf

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 11

Updates for Human Health Risk Assessments (HHRAs) Resha Putzrath NMCPHC (202) 290-1140 resha.putzrath@med.navy.mil Jennifer Corack NMCPHC (757) 953-0950/DSN 377 jennifer.corack@med.navy.mil Scientific understanding is always evolving, but to what extent does this need to be reflected in site management decisions? Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) are always encouraged to ensure that the current state of the science is reflected in the risk management decisions that are made for their sites. This article briefly highlights some aspects of what this can mean relative to human health risk assessment (HHRA). RPMs can discuss these scientific updates with their risk assessors to determine if these adjustments are appropriate to be incorporated into their site-specific HHRAs. EPA Updated “Default” Exposure Factors for Human Health Risk Assessments HHRAs performed at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites involve assessing potential exposures to site-related chemicals. Part of quantifying exposure is describing the potential receptor (e.g., body weight, skin surface area) and the activities (e.g., drinking water intake, incidental ingestion of soil) associated with their exposure. To derive these estimates, risk assessors often rely on information based on the entire US population that was compiled by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a document called the Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH). The EFH is an externally peer-reviewed document that summarizes exposure assessment data which may be used by other programs within EPA, including CERCLA HHRAs.

Most of the exposure factors used in HHRAs have largely relied on the 1997 version of the EFH, even though EPA updated this document in 2011. However, EPA recently identified several Superfund‐specific “default” exposure factors that warranted updating based on the information in EFH 2011. Table 1 below summarizes only those “default” exposure parameters that have changed based on consideration of EFH 2011. Note that many exposure parameters for these “default” receptors (e.g., residents, industrial workers) have not changed and therefore are not shown on Table 1 (e.g., child resident body weight is still assumed to be 15 kilograms).

Table 1. EPA Recommended Default Exposure Values that Changed Based on Consideration of EFH 2011.

Parameter Previous Default Value Updated Recommended Value

Adult body weight 70 kilograms (kg) 80 kg

Water ingestion rate, adult 2 liters per day (L/day) 2.5 L/day

Water ingestion rate, child 1 liter per day 0.78 L/day

Resident skin surface area, water, adult 18,000 centimeters squared (cm2) 20,900 cm2

Resident skin surface area, water, child 6,600 cm2 6,378 cm2

Resident water exposure time, adult 0.58 hour 0.71 hour

Resident water exposure time, child 1 hour 0.54 hour

Resident skin surface area, soil, adult 5,700 cm2 6,032 cm2

Resident skin surface area, soil, child 2,800 cm2 2,690 cm2

Worker skin surface area, soil 3,300 cm2 3,470 cm2

Soil adherence factor, worker 0.2 milligrams per centimeter squared (mg/cm2) 0.12 mg/cm2

Resident exposure duration, total 30 years 26 years

Resident exposure duration, adult 24 years 20 years

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 12

OSWER Directive 9200.1‐120 (Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors; dated February 6, 2014) reflects how EPA has decided to incorporate the information from EFH 2011 into CERCLA HHRAs. These updates will also be reflected in the Spring 2014 version of the EPA’s Regional Screening Level (RSL) table (not released at time of this writing).

There are several receptors typically evaluated in HHRAs that do not have any exposure factors that are considered “defaults” such as construction workers, trespassers, recreators, etc. As such, risk assessors will need to rely upon the information in EFH 2011 and professional judgment to derive site-specific exposure factors for these receptors. As always, the activity patterns for these site-specific receptors should be developed by the RPM working closely with the risk assessor.

Inorganic Arsenic Bioavailability Since site-specific information isn’t typically available, most HHRAs assume that all chemicals in environmental media (e.g., soil) are present in bioavailable forms. For most chemicals, this assumption likely overestimates exposure. That is, if a chemical isn’t fully bioavailable, although the receptor may be exposed to it, it either will pass through the receptor undigested (if exposure is oral) or may not enter the body (if exposure is dermal), and therefore would not be available to cause an internal health effect. EPA’s HHRA guidance allows for the use of site-specific and medium-specific bioavailability data to adjust exposure estimates in CERCLA site-specific risk in certain cases (USEPA 1989, 1994, 2012a). In the absence of medium-specific or reliable site-specific data, the default assumption is that the contaminant is as fully bioavailable as the exposure medium at the site (e.g., soil, water, etc.) that was used to derive the toxicity value.

For inorganic arsenic, the oral toxicity values in EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) are based on exposure to arsenic in water (USEPA 2002). The default assumption for assessing exposure to arsenic in soil had been that the bioavailability of arsenic in soil is the same as the bioavailability of arsenic dissolved in water. That is, the relative bioavailability (RBA) of arsenic in soil compared to water-soluble arsenic was assumed to be one (1). That assumption will result in an overestimate of the true risk if the bioavailability of arsenic in soil is less than that of arsenic in water.

EPA published a report (USEPA 2012b) that discusses the RBA of arsenic. As a result of this study, EPA has reflected arsenic’s lower bioavailability in soil as compared to water in the generic RSL table for both residential and industrial contact with soil. The RSL tables use a RBA of 0.6 for arsenic in soil. Note that if baseline HHRAs are not also accounting for this, they may be making some assumptions that are less conservative than the EPA’s conservative, default RSL screening values! As such, Navy risk assessors are encouraged to review EPA’s 2012 report and consider adjusting the RBA for arsenic in soil, if appropriate, for their baseline HHRAs.

Other Toxicity Values Under Review At the same time that inorganic arsenic is being reviewed by EPA’s IRIS program, other chemicals, such as hexavalent chromium, are also being reviewed. As EPA is reviewing recent data on the mode of action (MOA) for oral carcinogenicity of Cr+6, it is worth noting that CalEPA has not followed the recommendation of its own 2011 PHG of 0.02 µg/L that was proffered prior to the availability of these data. Instead, the final rule is 10 µg/L (Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Division 4, Chapter 14, Article 3, March 14, 2014 revision.)

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 13

References United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/540/1-89-002. December.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1994. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry. October. EPA/600/8-90/066F.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, General Factors. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. August.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Integrated Risk Information System profile for Arsenic, inorganic (CASRN 7440-38-2).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-09/052F. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. September.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012a. Advances in Inhalation Gas Doimetry for Derivation of a Reference Concentration (RfC) and use in Risk Assessment. September. EPA/600/R-12/044.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012b. Compilation and Review of Data on Relative Bioavailability of Arsenic in Soil. OSWER 9200.1-113. December.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February 6.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014b. Integrated Risk Information System Profile for Arsenic, inorganic.

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 14

Technology Updates

The New NIRIS Document Review Module is Here! Kenda Neil NAVFAC EXWC (805) 982-6060/DSN 551 kenda.neil@navy.mil Byron Brant NAVFAC LANT ER Manager Link The Naval Installation Restoration Information Solution (NIRIS) Workgroup is focusing their efforts on refining current system tools and also sustaining the NIRIS system to ensure its functionality for all system users. The workgroup is always looking for new ways to enhance the NIRIS user experience. The NIRIS Workgroup recently deployed a new Document Review module located on the NIRIS Portal (https://niris.navfac.navy.mil/se/nirisportal/). The following section provides an overview of this new module. Document Review Module Introduction Navy Environmental Restoration (ER) projects generate several documents that require technical review by Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), chemists, and other key environmental personnel. To accomplish these document reviews more quickly and efficiently, the NIRIS Workgroup deployed a new Document Review module in NIRIS to give RPMs the ability to load all their documents for review in a single location. The Document Review module currently supports four document types: 1) Sampling Analysis Plan (SAP), Remedial Alternative Analysis (RAA), Explosive Safety Submission (ESS), and Project Management Team (PM Team). Submitters and reviewers are notified throughout the review process by an automated email system. The Document Tool module is located on the NIRIS Portal (Figure 1). A close up of the Document Review module menu is also shown in Figure 1. The Document Review module menu contains several quick links that allow you to access different sections of the module. The menu options and functionalities are described in Table 1.

Figure1. The Document Review module location on the NIRIS Portal is circled in red along with a close-up of the main menu.

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 15

Table 1. Description of Document Review Module Menu Options and Functionality

Document Review Module – It’s a Snap – One, Two, Three! The most common function in the Document Review module is creating documents for review. The easiest way to start a new document review is to click on the “New …” link described in the previous section that corresponds to the document type you want to create. To start a new document review from within the module, click on the “New Document” menu option. Select the document type for the new document review. Use the “<” and “>” arrows to navigate to the correct document type and click the “Select” button (Figure 2). This takes you to the form used to submit a document for review.

Help, Questions, Comments Technical and general support may be obtained by clicking the Support link from the main NIRIS portal: http://go.usa.gov/g5r

Menu Option # Menu Option Functionality 1 Open This link takes you to the module homepage. 2 Documents This link navigates directly to open document reviews in the system. 3 Reviews Same description as #2 - Documents

4 New Document This link takes you directly to the form for submitting a document for review.

5 New PM Team Same description as #4 – New SAP

6 Quick Start Guide

This guide presents abbreviated instructions on how to submit and review documents in the NIRIS system.

7 User Guide The instructions in this User Guide are presented in a detailed workflow format for each document type, which is generally: submission, review, response to comments, completion.

Figure 2. Main Menu of Document Review Module of Where to Select Your Document Type.

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 16

Alternative Restoration Technology Team (ARTT) Josh Fortenberry NAVFAC EXWC (805) 982-4990/DSN 551 josh.fortenberry@navy.mil Gunarti Coghlan NAVFAC HQ (202) 685-9299/DSN 325 gunarti.coghlan@navy.mil Derral VanWinkle NAVFAC SW ER Manager Link The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Alternative Restoration Technology Team (ARTT) Workgroup worked on a wide range of topics in FY13. The ARTT assists in Remediation Innovative Technology Seminar (RITS) topic development and championed development of the Passive Sampler RITS presentation at the 2013 RITS. Members are supporting most 2014 RITS topics as well.

ARTT is an integral part of the NAVFAC Environmental Restoration (ER) Technology Transfer Program, assisting with overall topic selection and product development for numerous ARTT related Technology Transfer (T2) products including the following:

• Handbook for Determining the Sources of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Contamination in Sediments to help Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and their contractors understand the source of PCBs at sediment sites. The document includes a discussion of: 1) the general forensic approach including relevant background information and benefits to Department of Defense (DoD); 2) a general summary of the technical methods that are used in a PCB environmental forensics investigation; and 3) a summary of the application of the described procedures in two demonstration case studies.

• ISCO Design and Quality Assurance Checklist to provide RPMs and their contractors with a framework

for design submittals of in situ remedial systems using the in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) technology. The document provides a summary of best practices for ISCO design, tips for appropriate quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) measures, and links to available standards and references.

• Transitioning from Conventional to Passive Sampling for Groundwater Fact Sheet (in conjunction with

Optimization Workgroup) provides an overall framework that can be used by RPMs in designing a transition plan from conventional sampling to passive sampling for groundwater.

• Best Practices for Injection and Distribution of Amendments Handbook to help RPMs understand "best

practices" for introducing liquid and solid phase amendments into aquifers and improve the likelihood that these amendments are adequately distributed. Best practices and lessons learned are also provided to maximize an RPM’s chance of success in implementing in situ projects that require injection of substances into the ground.

The ARTT assists in ER research and demonstration projects, helping with collection of needs; site selection; and T2 for completed research and demonstration projects including those of the Navy's Environmental Sustainability Development to Integration (NESDI) Program and Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP). If you have a research need, talk to your ARTT member: ARTT Workgroup Members Derral Van Winkle SOUTHWEST ER Manager Link Jim Tarr Mid-ATLANTIC Member Josh Fortenberry EXWC Facilitator/Member Kendra Leibman NORTHWEST Member Arun Gavaskar EXWC Member David Liu NORTHWEST Alternate Gunarti Coghlan HEADQUARTERS Member Elaine Lampitoc PACIFIC Member Kim Parker Brown HEADQUARTERS Alternate Mike Singletary SOUTHEAST Member Paul Burgio HQ (BRAC PMO) Member Michael Pound SOUTHWEST Member Ken Bowers ATLANTIC Member David Steckler WASHINGTON Member Val Jurka ATLANTIC Member

Workgroup Updates

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 17

Munitions Response Program (MRP) Bryan Harre NAVFAC EXWC (805) 982-1795/DSN 551 bryan.harre@navy.mil Paula Gilbertson NAVFAC WASH ER Manager Link The Munitions Response (MR) Workgroup developed Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) guidance for the Navy’s Munitions Response Program (MRP) for both terrestrial and underwater Munitions Response Sites (MRSs). This guidance document provides the framework for conducting a Munitions Response RI/FS for Navy and Marine Corps MRSs under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). This guidance document includes an overview of the U.S. Department of the Navy (DON) MRP and the regulatory framework governing investigations and response actions under the MRP. In addition, the roles and responsibilities of key personnel and offices under the MRP are discussed. The focus of this guidance document is on one phase in the MRP, the RI/FS phase. Chapters discuss scoping the Munitions Response RI/FS, Terrestrial and Underwater Remedial Investigations (RIs), Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC)/material potentially presenting an explosive hazard (MPPEH) Removal and Treatment Technologies, the Feasibility Study (FS), and the RI/FS Report. There are significant differences between an RI for a MRS and an RI for a traditional Installation Restoration (IR) site. Unlike projects focusing on toxicity effects (human health or ecological) from chemical contamination (although this type of contamination may exist on the site), the primary objective of the RI is to evaluate the potential explosive safety hazard at the site. The primary technique for evaluating the site is to perform a detailed geophysical investigation with follow-on intrusive investigations of target anomalies to determine the extent of MEC contamination and to verify site boundaries. Munitions detection technologies that perform the detailed geophysical investigation in the RI are discussed further in the guidance, along with new geophysical techniques using classification capable sensors. Also, the Explosives Safety Submission (ESS) must be approved before intrusive RI work begins due to the likely contact with munitions. In general, terrestrial remedial technologies for MRSs include options for detection, removal, and treatment of MEC. Treatment options will vary depending on the type of MEC to be addressed, and include blow in place (BIP) with or without engineering controls, consolidated detonations, and using a contained destruction chamber. Like a traditional IR site, the reasonably anticipated future land use or reasonably anticipated future use for underwater sites should be considered when scoping the RI activities and developing remedial options during the FS for MRSs. The current site ownership and plans for future site ownership are important considerations in evaluating the anticipated future use, and the impact of any future change in use on the protectiveness of the proposed remedy must be evaluated as part of the FS. In addition, training is periodically offered by Civil Engineer Corps Officer School (CECOS) on the MR RI/FS. The course title is “Advanced Munitions Response Site Management” on the CECOS web site www.cecos.navy.mil. See your local MR Workgroup member for the latest version of the RI/FS guidance. MRP Workgroup Members Paula Gilbertson WASHINGTON ER Manager Link Ray Kobeski NORTHWEST Member Bryan Harre EXWC Facilitator/Member Justin Peach NORTHWEST Alternate Steve Hammett EXWC Member Lance Higa PACIFIC Member Steve Hurff HEADQUARTERS Member John Schoolfield SOUTHEAST Member Patricia McFadden HQ (BRAC PMO) Member Mike Cornell SOUTHWEST Member Mike Green ATLANTIC Member Brian Wallace NSWC Workgroup Support Dan Hood ATLANTIC Member Tom Douglas NAVEODTECHDIV Workgroup Support Johnny Noles ATLANTIC Member Sherry McCahill NOSSA Workgroup Support

Stacin Martin ATLANTIC (BRAC PMO)

Member Doug Murray NOSSA Workgroup Support

Krista Parra Mid-ATLANTIC Member Chris Gamache USMC HQ Member

Brian Helland Mid-ATLANTIC (BRAC PMO) Member Ryan Mayer WASHINGTON Member

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 18

Naval Installation Restoration Information Solution (NIRIS) Kenda Neil NAVFAC EXWC (805) 982-6060/DSN 551 kenda.neil@navy.mil Byron Brant NAVFAC LANT ER Manager Link The NIRIS Workgroup is focusing their efforts on refining current system tools and also sustaining the NIRIS system to ensure its functionality for all system users and enhance the NIRIS user experience. The Training and Outreach Focus Group (TOFG) developed training exercises that provide step-by-step instructions on how to use the new Analytical Data Query Tool. The following section highlights an example of one of five training exercises available now on the NIRIS Portal. Analytical Data Query Tool Exercises Training Exercises for the Analytical Data Query Tool are now available on the Portal. The exercises are based on data at Norfolk Naval Base (Mid-Atlantic region). If you do not have access to Norfolk, the new Training Request link will take you directly to that installation to gain access. Figure 1 shows an example of the format for one of the training exercises. The NIRIS system is located at https://niris.navfac.navy.mil/se/nirisportal NIRIS Workgroup Members Byron Brant ATLANTIC ER Manager Link VACANT Mid-ATLANTIC Member TBD - Vacant ATLANTIC Program Mgr Aaron Vernik NORTHWEST Member Kenda Neil EXWC Member Mike Ishibashi PACIFIC Member Josh Fortenberry EXWC Alternate Robert R. Fisher SOUTHEAST Member Steve Hurff NAVFAC HQ Member Adam Hill SOUTHWEST Member Bonnie Capito ATLANTIC Records Mgmt Nathan Delong WASHINGTON Member Brian Whitehouse HAWAII Member Danielle Janda WEST (BRAC PMO) Member

Figure 1. Screen shot of NIRIS Data Query Tool Training Exercise.

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 19

Optimization Amy Hawkins NAVFAC EXWC (805) 982-4890/DSN 551 kenda.neil@navy.mil Karla Harre NAVFAC EXWC ER Manager Link The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Optimization Workgroup continues to hold regular conference calls. These calls have recently covered a wide range of topics including the following:

• Updates to the Management and Monitoring Approach • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Land Use Control (LUC) Checklist Issues/NAVFAC LUC

Crosswalk • NAVFAC Five Year Review Toolkit • Keyport and Whidbey Island Optimization Reviews • Using Environmental Technical Services Contracting for Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) • Navy Sites in Remedial Action-Operation (RA-O) and Strategies for Achieving Response Complete (RC) • Data Analysis During Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) and Evaluating the Progress of MNA • SiteWise Version 3.0

In the first quarter of FY13 the Optimization Workgroup published the updated NAVFAC Guidance for Optimizing Remedial Action-Operation November 2012 http://www.navfac.navy.mil/content/dam/navfac/Specialty%20Centers/Engineering%20and%20Expeditionary%20Warfare%20Center/Environmental/Restoration/er_pdfs/guid_pol/navfacexwc-ev-ug-1301-opt-rao-20121001.pdf and the white paper Integrating Green and Sustainable Remediation Metrics Within the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Process During the Feasibility Study http://www.navfac.navy.mil/content/dam/navfac/Specialty%20Centers/Engineering%20and%20Expeditionary%20Warfare%20Center/Environmental/Restoration/er_pdfs/g/navfacesc-ev-rpt-gsr-cercla-integrate-201207.pdf The Workgroup also supported updates being made to SiteWise which is now available as SiteWise Version 3 at https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/CENTERS/NFESC/ERBSEC/OPT/. During the year the Workgroup analyzed optimization opportunities for sites scheduled to reach Remedy in Place (RIP) after 2014 and is now supporting the broad optimization effort Headquarters (HQ) is leading for sites in RA-O. Throughout the year, the Workgroup also supported the LUC Template and Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR) Factsheet development being led by NAVFAC Atlantic (LANT) and the Three Site Energy Mitigation Analysis led by NAVFAC Engineering and Expedition Warfare Center (EXWC), reviewed the Passive Sampler Selection Tool and provided information for preparation of a white paper on sites where Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR) analysis has been completed. If you have any questions or would like further information on anything the Workgroup is doing, please contact your local Workgroup representative.

Optimization Workgroup Members Kim Parker Brown HEADQUARTERS Lead Tim Reisch ATLANTIC Member Gunarti Coghlan HEADQUARTERS Alternate Tom Spriggs ATLANTIC Member Karla Harre EXWC ER Manager Link Mark Hutchinson Mid-ATLANTIC Member Amy Hawkins EXWC Facilitator Carla Cellucci NORTHWEST Member Tanwir Chaudhry EXWC Contractor Grady May NORTHWEST Alternate Issis Long EXWC Alternate Kim Markillie PACIFIC Member Cecily Sabedra BRAC Member Mike Singletary SOUTHEAST Member Derek Robinson BRAC Alternate Melanie Kito SOUTHWEST Member Jan Nielsen ATLANTIC Member Joe Rail WASHINGTON Member

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 20

Rad Team Workgroup Update Josh Fortenberry NAVFAC EXWC (805) 982-4990/DSN 551 josh.fortenberry@navy.mil Steve Hurff NAVFAC HQ (202) 685-6293/DSN 325-9318 stephen.hurff@navy.mil Howard Hickey NAVFAC MW (847) 688-2600/DSN 792-5999 x148 howard.hickey@navy.mil The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Rad Team is not chartered, but was convened due to the anticipated environmental impacts as a result of the upcoming Historical Radiological Assessments at active installations. The Team will help share lessons learned and best practices by preparing training and providing outreach to Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) in consultation with Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Radiological Affairs Support Office (RASO). The Team is currently updating the Navy Environmental Restoration Program (NERP) Manual and plans to update the Business Management System (BMS). The Team has prepared and is in the process of presenting the Radiological Communication and Coordination Stand-down presentation that outlines roles and responsibilities and Department of the Navy (DON) policy, guidance, and procedures applicable for radiologically impacted Environmental Restoration (ER) sites. A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) list was attached to the presentation to help RPMs answer ‘what if’ situations that may arise on a site. If you have any questions or would like further information on anything the Team is doing, please contact your local Team representative. Rad Team Workgroup Members Howard Hickey MIDWEST ER Manager Link Dr. Steve Doremus NAVSEA RASO Member Steve Hurff HEADQUARTERS Member Chris Generous NORTHWEST Member Gunarti Coghlan HEADQUARTERS Alternate Joe Strzempka PACIFIC Member Chris Murray EXWC Member Michael Singletary SOUTHEAST Member Josh Fortenberry EXWC Alternate Ralph Pearce SOUTHWEST Member Val Jurka ATLANTIC Member Melanie Kito SOUTHWEST Member Todd Bober Mid-ATLANTIC Member Joe Rail WASHINGTON Member

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 21

Risk Assessment Workgroup (RAW) Trish Venable NAVFAC EXWC (805) 982-1411/DSN 551 patricia.venable@navy.mil Kris Saboda NAVFAC PAC ER Manager Link The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Risk Assessment Workgroup (RAW) continues to hold regular conference calls and held a face-to-face meeting in March 2013. During FY14, RAW is focusing its efforts in the following areas:

• Emerging Contaminant (EC) Guidance – The RAW’s strategy for providing guidance on emerging contaminants is to follow the Department of Defense (DoD) EC Policy (INST 4715.18 of 11 Jun 2009) and prepare individual guidance documents or fact sheets on specific emerging contaminants. The RAW is supporting efforts led by NAVFAC Atlantic (LANT) to prepare fact sheets for 1,4-Dioxane & RDX.

• Perfluorochemical (PFC) Guidance – The RAW’s PFC subgroup is developing guidance in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the investigation and remediation of PFCs. Due to the complexity of the issue, highlights were also developed to summarize the guidance and facilitate concurrence by Environmental Restoration (ER) managers. These highlights will be incorporated into the PFC Guidance/FAQs.

• Vapor Intrusion (VI) Issues - The RAW is supporting LANT initiatives relating to a number of VI issues: o Short term exposure Trichloroethylene (TCE) o Risk Communication Guidance o Relevance of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) levels to VI sampling.

• Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) Guidance Update - The RAW has initiated an update of the ERA Guidance along with development of a Factsheet on Eco Risk products.

• Risk Assessments (RAs) on Rad Waste Sites – The RAW has established a subgroup to identify/develop guidance for Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) faced with conducting Remedial Actions (RAs) at Rad waste sites. The subgroup will coordinate direction on this issue with the NAVFAC Radiological Team.

Planned FY14 efforts also include: supporting development of an underwater Munitions Constituents (MC) white paper and addressing Polycyclic/Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) issues at Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC)/Environmental Restoration, Navy (ER,N) sites. In the past year, the RAW provided review comments on a number of documents including: the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) Toolkit, Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) VI and Petroleum Vapor Intrusion (PVI) Guidance, and an Environmental Data Quality Workgroup (EDQW) issue paper on Uncertainty in Risk Assessment and a LANT Underwater MC paper. Additionally, the RAW supported the release of the final Lead-based Paint Guidance/FAQs.

For questions or information on workgroup initiatives, please contact a RAW member. RAW Workgroup Members Kim Parker Brown HEADQUARTERS Lead Jennifer Corack NMCPHC Member Kris Saboda PACIFIC ER Manager Link Yvonne Walker NMCPHC Alternate Trish (Patricia) Venable EXWC Facilitator Steve Saepoff NORTHWEST Member Dave Barclift BRAC Member Cindy O’Hare NORTHWEST Alternate La Rae Landers BRAC Alternate Brandon Swope SPAWAR Member Donna Caldwell ATLANTIC Member Patty Whittemore SOUTHEAST Member Jennifer Wright ATLANTIC Member Virginia Makale SOUTHWEST Member Ken Bowers ATLANTIC Alternate Fred Evans WASHINGTON Member Linda Cole Mid-ATLANTIC Member Chris Gamache USMC HQ Support Ed Corl NAVSEA Member

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 22

Sediment Amy Hawkins NAVFAC EXWC (805) 982-4890/DSN 551 amy.hawkins@navy.mil Dina Ginn NAVFAC NW ER Manager Link The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Sediment Workgroup was established and had their first conference call during the second quarter of FY13. The group has since met regularly by conference call. A primary effort for the group during its early months was developing goals and objectives for the workgroup and drafting a workgroup charter. In addition to that task, Sediment Workgroup conference calls have covered a range of topics including:

• ESTCP In Situ Wetland Remediation Demonstration – The workgroup heard a presentation from two Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Principal Investigators (PIs) on their respective projects treating contaminated sediments in situ. The workgroup was interested in seeing the In Situ Sediment Remediation Framework document being developed by one of the projects and supported the idea of providing the presentation of both projects as a webinar to a broader NAVFAC audience.

• Sediment R&D Proposals from SSC for FY14 – Navy researchers from SPAWAR Systems Center (SSC)

Pacific shared the Research & Development (R&D) proposals they are submitting for FY14 with the workgroup. The workgroup members had the opportunity to provide input related to sediment needs they were aware of or sites that may be appropriate for technology demonstrations.

• Draft ITRC Sediment Remediation Framework Document – Several workgroup members participate on

this Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) team and kept the team apprised of issues arising during document development. The workgroup provided input on the draft framework both during calls and through written comments. The NAVFAC ITRC team members are continuing to work on this effort and keep the Sediment Workgroup updated in FY14.

As the NAVFAC Sediment Workgroup continues its efforts in FY14, the workgroup charter has been approved and finalized by the Environmental Restoration (ER) Managers and a follow-on effort will be documenting short term goals for the workgroup. This list of goals will include some efforts which are expected to be ongoing or recurring such as updating and maintaining the existing sediment site inventory spreadsheet, providing and maintaining sediment site related content and links for the NAVFAC ER and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) web site, and working with ESTCP and the Navy Environmental Sustainability Development to Integration (NESDI) Program on proposals and projects.

If you have any questions or would like further information on anything the workgroup is doing, please contact your local workgroup representative.

Sediment Workgroup Members Kim Parker Brown HEADQUARTERS Lead Ellen Brown NORTHWEST Member Dina Ginn NORTHWEST ER Manager Link Chris Generous NORTHWEST Alternate Arun Gavaskar EXWC Member Kim Markillie PACIFIC Member Amy Hawkins EXWC Facilitator Arne Olsen SOUTHEAST Member Tara Meyers EXWC Alternate Michael Pound SOUTHWEST Member David Barclift ATLANTIC Member Melanie Kito SOUTHWEST Alternate Tom Spriggs ATLANTIC Member Armalia Berry-

Washington WASHINGTON Member Johnny Noles ATLANTIC Member Bart Chadwick SSC PACIFIC Support Bryan Peed Mid-ATLANTIC Member Jim Leather SSC PACIFIC Support Jennifer Corack NMCPHC Support

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 23

Training and Conferences

CTC 423, Environmental Contracting Class Issis Long EXWC (805) 982-4847/DSN 551 issis.long@navy.mil Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), Acquisition Specialists and all environmental professionals:

• Do you need help selecting the contract vehicle to best suit your project needs? • Are you uncertain about the contracting process and contract methods? • Do you need clarification of Naval Facilities Engineering Command’s (NAVFAC’s) Environmental

Business Line Acquisition Strategy (EBLAS) and how to apply it?

Cost-to-Complete (CTC) 423, Environmental Contracting, has been redeveloped to answer these questions and more day-to-day issues encountered in environmental contracting.

For two years, a team of subject matter experts across NAVFAC’s environmental and acquisition business lines including representatives from NAVFAC Headquarters (HQ), NAVFAC Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (EXWC) and Facilities Engineering Commands (FECs), have collaborated on restructuring the environmental contracting course. Environmental and acquisition personnel with years of NAVFAC environmental contracting experience will be instructing CTC 423 in order to ensure the material is taught with a NAVFAC perspective. Participation in the course allows students to:

1) Learn environmental laws and regulations,

2) Discern the difference between firm fixed price and cost reimbursement contracts, and

3) Understand the phases of the contracting process for environmental services from planning to closeout and more!

The Environmental Contracting course (CTC 423) is a two and a half day class. Students may register through Naval Facilities Institute (NFI) for the class starting this summer.

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 24

Announcing the New Open Environmental Restoration Resource (OER2) Webinar Series! The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) is pleased to announce the Open Environmental Restoration Resource (OER2) Webinar Series. NAVFAC developed the OER2 Webinar Series for the Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) Community. We hope that the Community finds the new format and content interesting and we will solicit feedback after each Webinar to make the series more valuable over time. Who Should Attend? Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), Contractors, and other remediation practitioners who support and execute the ERP for the Department of the Navy (DON).

Please pass on this flyer to Navy RPMs and Contractors who support the ERP Why Attend?

• Obtain the latest Department of Defense (DoD) and DON’s policies and guidance on the ERP • Hear about the latest tools, technologies, and practices to improve the ERP’s efficiency • Promote innovation and share lessons learned among the ERP Community • Provide feedback to the ERP Leadership

Topics The Conceptual Site Model (CSM) – A Primary Focus of the Navy’s Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) Review July 23, 2014 presented by Ken Bowers, NAVFAC Atlantic The SAP and its review have traditionally focused on quality assurance (QA), sampling methods, analytical methods, etc. However, over the last 3 or 4 years, SAP reviews have increasingly focused on the site’s CSM and the data quality objectives (DQOs) of the planned effort, thus leading to improvements in the environmental stewardship that we exercise, early identification of future issues, and sometimes significant savings. Register at: http://go.usa.gov/kQV9 New NAVFAC Munitions Response (MR) Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Guidance September 24th, 2014 presented by Bryan Harre, NAVFAC EXWC You will learn about the new MR RI/FS guidance document. The Webinar will focus on what is in the new guidance, and how it can help you prepare a quality MR RI/FS. Register at: http://go.usa.gov/kUsz Webinar Info Webinar link and call information will be provided via the Environmental Restoration (ER) Technology Transfer (T2) email. To get on the email list, or if you have questions or feedback, please contact: josh.fortenberry@navy.mil. The Webinar series will be offered the fourth Wednesday every other month from 11 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Pacific time (8-9 HI, 2-3 Eastern) for 30 min., followed by a Question and Answer (Q&A) session. Disclaimer: This seminar is intended to be informational and does not indicate endorsement of a particular product(s) or technology by the Department of Defense or NAVFAC EXWC, nor should the presentation be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of any of those Agencies. Mention of specific product names, vendors or sources of information, trademarks, or manufacturers is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the Department of Defense or NAVFAC EXWC. Although every attempt is made to provide reliable and accurate information, there is no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, adequacy, efficiency, or applicability of any product or technology discussed or mentioned during the seminar, including the suitability of any product or technology for a particular purpose. Participation is voluntary and cannot be misconstrued as a new scope or growth of an existing scope under any contracts or task orders under NAVFAC.

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 25

Civil Engineer Corps Officer School (CECOS) Training Kyle Nguyen CECOS (805) 982-2877/DSN 551 kyle.nguyen@navy.mil July 2014 14~18 Environmental Sampling Design and Data Quality Assurance Yokosuka, Japan August 2014 05~07 Munitions Response Site Management Norfolk, VA September 2014 16~18 Advanced Munitions Response Site Management Norfolk, VA 09~11 Environmental Negotiation Workshop San Diego, CA To enroll in any class, register on-line using the CECOS link above or submit a CECOS Fax Quota Request Form to the CECOS Registrar via FAX (805) 982-2918. The Fax Quota Request Form, as well as confirmation of receipt, may be obtained by contacting the Registrar at (805) 982-2895. Please register at least three weeks prior to the class start date.

Get a Head Start on Your Article for Upcoming Issues of ERN: Please provide a complete article including text and graphics (photographs with captions and credits, schematics, charts, etc.). All articles must be approved by your Public Affairs Office (PAO) and copyright releases are required for copyrighted material. If you plan to submit multiple articles, send them as separate files. Tentative deadlines for upcoming issues of ERN:

Issue 9 4 Jul 2014 Issue 10 4 Nov 2014 Issue 11 4 Mar 2015

Questions, comments, or distribution list addresses please contact the ER News Editor:

Anita W. Ortiz NAVFAC EXWC EV32 (805) 982-5462 DSN 551-5462 anita.w.ortiz@navy.mil

JUNE • 2014 ERN • 26