Attachment A - NSWC Package 2 RFP Attachment 3.pdf

Appendix N

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) at Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex

NOTE: The area of Building 779 – Tank Farm was investigated to determine if PFAS was present in the soil and groundwater. Building 779 – Tank Farm is located adjacent to Building 87 on the south side of the building. The presence of PFAS or other soil contaminants may affect construction phase excavated soil management, appropriate offsite disposal facilities, and ability to reuse soils on-site. If construction dewatering operations are required, the water may require treatment to bring concentrations to state surface water criteria.

N00104_002211

NSA MECHANICSBURG, PA

SSIC 5000-33a

FINAL PER AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES SITE INSPECTION

REPORT FOR BUILDING 1082, HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY, BUILDING

1082, BUILDING 56, FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUILDING 779, TANK FARM AND

BUILDING 433, PIER 7 FOAM PUMP HOUSE NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY

MECHANICSBURG ASSOCIATED SPECIAL AREA PHILADELPHIA NAVAL

YARD ANNEX NSA MECHANICSBURG PA

03/01/2023

TETRA TECH

Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

NIRIS Cover sheet rev. 5, Aug 2020

Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Mid-Atlantic

Norfolk, Virginia

Final Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Site Inspection Report for Building 1081 – Hazardous Waste Facility, Building 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facility, Building 56

– Fire Department, Building 779 – Tank Farm, and Building 433 – Pier 7 Foam Pump House

Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg Associated Special Area - Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

March 2023

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

This page intentionally left blank

FINAL

PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES SITE INSPECTION REPORT FOR

BUILDING 1081 – HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY, BUILDING 1082 –

HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY, BUILDING 56 – FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUILDING

779 – TANK FARM, AND BUILDING 433 – PIER 7 FOAM PUMP HOUSE

NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY MECHANICSBURG ASSOCIATED SPECIAL AREA -

PHILADELPHIA NAVAL YARD ANNEX

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

COMPREHENSIVE LONG-TERM

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NAVY CONTRACT

Submitted to:

Department of the Navy

Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Mid-Atlantic 9324 Virginia Avenue, Building Z-140

Norfolk, Virginia 23511-3095

Submitted by:

Tetra Tech

4433 Corporation Lane, Suite 300 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462

CONTRACT NUMBER N6247016D9008

CONTRACT TASK ORDER N4008518F4729

MARCH 2023

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:

APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY:

RICHARD A. MOORE, P.G.

PROJECT MANAGER

TETRA TECH

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

STEVEN H. RUFFING, P.E.

PROGRAM MANAGER

TETRA TECH

VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA

072212/P ii

PFAS Site Inspection for Multiple Areas Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania CTO N4008518F4729 Table of Contents

072212/P iii

Table of Contents List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... v

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ v

List of Appendices ................................................................................................................ vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ix

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Project Screening Levels ..................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Organization ......................................................................................................... 1-3

2.0 Facility Description ................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Facility Location and History ................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Previous PFAS Investigations .............................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Site Geology ......................................................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Site Hydrogeology ................................................................................................ 2-3

2.5 Groundwater Flow Direction ................................................................................. 2-5

3.0 Site Inspection Methods ......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Sample Cross Contamination Avoidance Measures ............................................ 3-1

3.2 Utility Clearance Activities .................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Soil Boring Logging .............................................................................................. 3-3

3.4 Monitoring Well Installation and Development ..................................................... 3-4

3.5 Land Surveying .................................................................................................... 3-5

3.6 Groundwater Level Measurements ...................................................................... 3-5

3.7 Groundwater Sampling ........................................................................................ 3-6

3.8 Equipment Decontamination ................................................................................ 3-7

3.9 Sample Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................... 3-7

3.10 Data Validation ................................................................................................. 3-7

3.11 Investigation-Derived Waste Management ....................................................... 3-8

3.12 Deviations from the Sampling and Analysis Plan .............................................. 3-8

4.0 Site Inspection Results ........................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Building 1081 – Hazardous Waste Facility ........................................................... 4-1

CTO N4008518F4729 Table of Contents

072212/P iv

4.1.1 Site History .................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Field Investigation .......................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.3 Site-Specific Geology and Hydrogeology ...................................................... 4-2

4.1.4 Soil Analytical Results ................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.5 Groundwater Analytical Results ..................................................................... 4-2

4.1.6 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................... 4-3

4.2 Building 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facility ........................................................... 4-3

4.2.1 Site History .................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.2 Field Investigation .......................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.3 Site-Specific Geology and Hydrogeology ...................................................... 4-4

4.2.4 Soil Analytical Results ................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.5 Groundwater Analytical Results ..................................................................... 4-5

4.2.6 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................... 4-5

4.3 Building 56 – Fire Department .............................................................................. 4-6

4.3.1 Site History .................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.2 Field Investigation .......................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.3 Site-Specific Geology and Hydrogeology ...................................................... 4-6

4.3.4 Soil Analytical Results ................................................................................... 4-7

4.3.5 Groundwater Analytical Results ..................................................................... 4-7

4.3.6 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................... 4-8

4.4 Building 779 – Tank Farm .................................................................................... 4-8

4.4.1 Site History .................................................................................................... 4-8

4.4.2 Field Investigation .......................................................................................... 4-9

4.4.3 Site-Specific Geology and Hydrogeology ...................................................... 4-9

4.4.4 Soil Analytical Results ................................................................................... 4-9

4.4.5 Groundwater Analytical Results ................................................................... 4-10

4.4.6 Summary of Findings ................................................................................... 4-10

4.5 Building 433 – Pier 7 Foam Pump House .......................................................... 4-11

4.5.1 Site History .................................................................................................. 4-11

4.5.2 Field Investigation ........................................................................................ 4-11

4.5.3 Site-Specific Geology and Hydrogeology .................................................... 4-11

CTO N4008518F4729 Table of Contents

072212/P v

4.5.4 Soil Analytical Results ................................................................................. 4-12

4.5.5 Groundwater Analytical Results ................................................................... 4-12

4.5.6 Summary of Findings ................................................................................... 4-13

5.0 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 5-1

6.0 References ............................................................................................................. 6-1

List of Tables Table 3-1: Construction Details for Permanent Groundwater Wells

Table 3-2: Groundwater Elevation Summary

Table 3-3: Sample Quality Assurance/Quality Control PFAS Results

Table 4-1: Summary of Soil Analytical PFAS Results

Table 4-2: Summary of Groundwater Analytical PFAS Results

List of Figures Figure 1-1: Facility Location Map

Figure 1-2: Potential PFAS Release Areas

Figure 3-1: Sample Location Map – Building 1081 and 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facilities

Figure 3-2: Sample Location Map – Building 56 – Fire Department

Figure 3-3: Sample Location Map – Building 779 - Tank Farm

Figure 3-4: Sample Location Map – Building 433 - Pier 7 Foam Pump House

Figure 3-5: Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Contour Map – December 17, 2021 – Buildings 1081 and 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facilities

Figure 3-6: Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Contour Map – December 17, 2021 – Building 56 – Fire Department

Figure 3-7: Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Contour Map – December 17, 2021 – Building 779 – Tank Farm

CTO N4008518F4729 Table of Contents

072212/P vi

Figure 3-8: Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Contour Map – December 17, 2021 – Building 433 - Pier 7 Foam Pump House

Figure 4-1: PFAS Soil Analytical Results – December 2021, Building 1081 and 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facilities

Figure 4-2: PFAS Groundwater Analytical Results – December 2021, Building 1081 and 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facilities

Figure 4-3: PFAS Soil Analytical Results – December 2021, Building 56 – Fire Department

Figure 4-4: PFAS Groundwater Analytical Results – December 2021, Building 56 – Fire Department

Figure 4-5: PFAS Soil Analytical Results – December 2021, Building 779 – Tank Farm

Figure 4-6: PFAS Groundwater Analytical Results – December 2021, Building 779 – Tank Farm

Figure 4-7: PFAS Soil Analytical Results – December 2021, Building 433 - Pier 7 Foam Pump House

Figure 4-8: PFAS Groundwater Analytical Results – December 2021, Building 433 - Pier 7 Foam Pump House

List of Appendices Appendix A Field Forms

A-1 Soil Sample Logs and Soil Boring Logs and Monitoring Well Construction Forms

A-2 Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Water Well Completion Reports

A-3 Monitoring Well Development Forms

A-4 Groundwater Sample Logs

A-5 Chain of Custodies

Appendix B Utility Maps

Appendix C Validation Letters and Data Packages

Appendix D Waste Manifests

Appendices Not Included

CTO N4008518F4729 Acronyms and Abbreviations

072212/P vii

Acronyms and Abbreviations AFFF Aqueous film-forming foam AST Aboveground storage tank bgs Below ground surface CLEAN Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy CTO Contract Task Order DoD United States Department of Defense DoE Department of Energy ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program HDPE High-density polyethylene HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid IDW Investigation-derived waste J Estimated value LCMSMS Liquid chromatography mass spectrometry mass spectrometry mg/kg-day Milligram per kilogram per day MIDLANT Mid-Atlantic MS Matrix spike MSD Matrix spike duplicate NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command ng/L Nanograms per liter NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit PA Preliminary Assessment PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PNYA Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex PSL Project screening levels PVC Polyvinyl chloride QA Quality assurance QC Quality control

CTO N4008518F4729 Acronyms and Abbreviations

072212/P viii

QSM Quality Systems Manual RI Remedial Investigation RSL Regional screening level SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan SDG Sample delivery groups SI Site Inspection TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

CTO N4008518F4729 Executive Summary

072212/P ix

Executive Summary A Site Inspection (SI) for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) was conducted in 2021 and 2022 at Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg Support Area Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex (PNYA). This PFAS SI report was prepared for the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC) Mid-Atlantic (MIDLANT), as part of Contract Task Order (CTO) N4008518F4729 under Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy (CLEAN) contract number N6247016D9008.

The PFAS SI was conducted to gather representative soil and groundwater PFAS data to aid in determining the path forward for five potential PFAS source areas identified during an installation-specific Preliminary Assessment (PA) completed in 2021 at PNYA (Tetra Tech, 2021a). The potential PFAS release areas were selected based on known or suspected PFAS-related historical operations and included areas such as a hazardous storage areas, landfills, and areas where a known release of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) has occurred.

PFAS are a class of anthropogenic compounds characterized by linear and branched carbon chains of varying lengths containing multiple carbon-fluorine bonds. The number of carbon-fluorine bonds and carbon chain length per molecule varies among the wide array of individual PFAS. The strong electronegative force of the carbon-fluorine bond requires a large amount of energy to break, which renders PFAS extremely resistant to biodegradation, photo-oxidation, direct photolysis, and hydrolysis.

In addition to their environmental persistence, PFAS of current environmental interest are generally soluble in water, which facilitates their migration in the environment. Their persistence, mobility, and toxicity create a potential concern for human health and the environment if released into the environment.

The five potential PFAS release areas at PNYA are as follows:

• Building 1081 – Hazardous Waste Facility

• Building 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facility

• Building 56 – Fire Department

• Building 779 – Tank Farm

• Building 433 – Pier 7 Foam Pump House

The methods for conducting the PFAS SI included: 1) advancing soil borings to collect surface and subsurface soil samples; 2) installing new monitoring wells to collect groundwater samples and groundwater gauging data within the potential PFAS release areas; 3) identifying the areas where PFAS concentrations in the environmental media exceed project screening levels (PSLs); and 4) identifying areas where further investigation for PFAS is required to determine nature and extent.

CTO N4008518F4729 Executive Summary

072212/P x

Human health PSLs used to screen PFAS results in soil and groundwater are the risk-based screening levels provided in 2021 United States Department of Defense (DoD) PFAS investigation guidance and were derived using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for tap water based on a hazard quotient of 0.1. The groundwater PSLs also included the newly revised RSL values from USEPA issued in May 2022 for perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), which are based on Tier 2 noncarcinogenic toxicity values. The available medium specific PSLs used to screen PFAS concentrations detected during this SI are summarized below:

Analyte Soil PSL (µg/kg) Groundwater PSL (ng/L)

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 19 6

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 13 4

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1,900 600

Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) 23 6

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 130 39

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 19 5.9 µg/kg – microgram per kilogram ng/L – nanograms per liter

PFAS SI sampling was completed from December 2021 through January 2022.

Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected along with groundwater samples which were collected from newly installed monitoring wells to evaluate the potential presence of PFAS in soil and groundwater. The soil borings and groundwater samples are located near Building 1081 – Hazardous Waste Facility, Building 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facility, Building 56 – Fire Department, Building 779 – Tank Farm, and Building 433 – Pier 7 Foam Pump House. No surface water or sediment samples were collected during the SI.

The following provides a summary of the PFAS SI results and recommendations for each of the five potential PFAS release areas.

Building 1081 – Hazardous Waste Facility

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in groundwater at concentrations above the PSLs. Based on the magnitude of exceedances, it was recommended Building 1081 – Hazardous Waste Facility proceed to a Remedial Investigation (RI).

CTO N4008518F4729 Executive Summary

072212/P xi

Building 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facility

PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA were detected in groundwater at concentrations above the PSLs. Based on those exceedances, it was recommended Building 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facility proceed to a RI.

Building 56 – Fire Department

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in groundwater at concentrations above the PSLs. Based on those exceedances, it was recommended that Building 56 – Fire Department proceed to a RI.

Building 779 – Tank Farm

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in groundwater at concentrations above the PSLs. Based on those exceedances, it was recommended Building 779 – Tank Farm proceed to a RI.

Building 433 – Pier 7 Foam Pump House

PFOS was detected at concentrations greater than its respective PSLs in one soil sample. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in groundwater at concentrations above the PSLs. Based on those exceedances, it was recommended Building 433 – Pier 7 Foam Pump House proceed to a RI.

CTO N4008518F4729 Executive Summary

072212/P xii

CTO N4008518F4729 Introduction

072212/P 1-1

1.0 Introduction

The Site Inspection (SI) was prepared for the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC) Mid-Atlantic (MIDLANT), as part of Contract Task Order (CTO) N4008518F4729 under Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy (CLEAN) contract number N6247016D9008. The PFAS SI was conducted to gather representative soil and groundwater PFAS data to aid in determining the path forward for five potential PFAS release areas identified during the PNYA PFAS Preliminary Assessment (PA) as requiring further assessment (Tetra Tech, 2021a). This SI report summarizes the methodology and results of a per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) SI conducted at Naval Support Mechanicsburg Associated Special Area – Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex (PNYA) (Figure 1-1) in accordance with the PFAS SI Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) (Tetra Tech, 2021b).

The sites evaluated in this report consist of:

• Building 1081 – Hazardous Waste Facility

• Building 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facility

• Building 56 – Fire Department

• Building 779 – Tank Farm

• Building 433 – Pier 7 Foam Pump House

The five potential PFAS release areas are shown on Figure 1-2. The potential PFAS release areas were selected based on suspected PFAS-related historical operations and included areas such as hazardous storage areas, landfills, and areas where a known release of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) has occurred.

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of this SI were to determine if PFAS were released and to identify the source of PFAS and the potential for migration of PFAS detected in soil and groundwater, so that a recommendation can be made as to whether additional actions are required per DoD guidance (NAVFAC, 2020). This SI report discusses the results of the December 2021 through January 2022 PFAS SI sampling and provides a comparison of the analytical results to applicable screening levels for PFAS in soil and groundwater.

CTO N4008518F4729 Introduction

072212/P 1-2

1.2 Project Screening Levels

For this SI, the following project screening levels (PSLs) used for screening PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, or GenX) soil and groundwater results are the risk-based residential soil and residential tapwater regional screening levels (RSLs) provided in the May 2022 USEPA RSL Table (USEPA, 2022). This is consistent with the Assistant Secretary Director for DoD Guidance Memorandum for the investigation of PFAS in the DoD environmental cleanup program (DoD, 2022). This guidance memo provides direction on PFAS screening levels to be used in the CERCLA program to determine if further investigation is warranted or if a site can proceed to site closeout. Screening values for PFOS and PFOA were updated, and new screening values were developed for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA, as documented in the updated May 2022 EPA RSL Tables (EPA, 2022). The screening values for PFBS remained unchanged since the May 2021 update to the RSL Tables. This revised memorandum supersedes the ASD Guidance Memo of 15 September 2021.

The RSLs used for screening are based on a hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.1, and the following chronic oral reference doses (RfDs):

Chemical Chronic Oral RfD (mg/kg-day) Source

PFOA 3 x 10-6 ATSDR, 2021

PFOS 2 x 10-6 ATSDR, 2021

PFBS 3 x 10-4 USEPA, 2021b

PFHxS 2 x 10-5 ATSDR, 2021

PFNA 3 x 10-6 ATSDR, 2021 HFPO-DA 3 x 10-6 USEPA, 2021a mg/kg-day – milligrams per kilogram per day ATSDR – Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

The soil PSLs used in this SI for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA are the residential soil RSLs based on an HQ of 0.1 (USEPA, 2022).

• PFOA – 19 µg/kg

• PFOS – 13 µg/kg

• PFBS – 1,900 µg/kg

• PFHxS – 130 µg/kg

• PFNA – 19 µg/kg

• HFPO-DA – 23 µg/kg

CTO N4008518F4729 Introduction

072212/P 1-3

The groundwater PSLs used in this SI for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA are the resident tapwater RSLs based on an HQ of 0.1 (USEPA, 2022):

• PFOA – 6 nanograms per liter (ng/L).

• PFOS – 4 ng/L.

• PFBS – 600 ng/L.

• PFHxS – 39 ng/L.

• PFNA – 5.9 ng/L.

• HFPO-DA – 6 ng/L.

In addition to PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, HFPO-DA, PFHxS, and PFNA, the laboratory analysis includes an additional twelve PFAS. At the time of this report, there are no screening levels for these twelve PFAS; therefore, these results are provided for informational purposes only.

1.3 Organization

This SI report provides documentation of the sampling activities and presents the data collected during these activities. Section 2.0 provides a summary of the facility’s location, history, geologic and hydrogeologic setting, and groundwater flow patterns.

Section 3.0 provides a summary of field activities and sampling procedures. Section 4.0 provides the history, site geology and hydrogeology, and investigation results for each of the eight investigated areas. Section 5.0 provides the recommendations for each potential release area. Section 6.0 provides references used in this report. Tables and figures are provided following the Reference section. Appendices are included at the end of the SI report.

CTO N4008518F4729 Introduction

072212/P 1-4

CTO N4008518F4729 Facility Description

072212/P 2-1

2.0 Facility Description

This section provides a brief history and the setting of PNYA, including a discussion of geological and hydrogeological settings and groundwater flow patterns.

2.1 Facility Location and History

On December 12, 1868, the City of Philadelphia granted title of League Island to the Navy. The League Island that the Navy acquired in the mid-1800s was mapped in 1899 as the U.S. Navy Yard. The island was enlarged over time through placement of fill material. The filling operations connected the island to the mainland and expanded into the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. Fill material, predominantly dredge spoils, consisted of sand and gravel, cinders, brick, concrete, wood, and rubbish. The fill is believed to be a minimum of 5 feet thick throughout much of the Naval Base (EA, 1998).

Located in South Philadelphia at the confluence of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, PNYA was one of the Navy’s largest industrial facilities.

The Philadelphia Naval Complex was a major military shipyard with four miles of waterfront on the Delaware River. PNYA, formerly known as the Philadelphia Naval Station and the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, operated as a Naval base for more than 120 years, employing more than 40,000 people during its peak production period during World War II (Trevet, 2016). The PNYA encompassed 300 acres on 9 parcels, including 25,000 linear feet of berthing space; five drydocks; and 34 fixed, floating, and track cranes with facilities that housed 23 fully equipped production shops totaling more than seven million square feet of space. The Base officially closed in 1995 as a result of the 1991 Base Realignment and Closure process. Portions of the complex have been transferred to civilian uses as the Philadelphia Naval Business Center, and the Navy has retained some space, mostly as part of the Ship Systems Engineering Station (Trevet, 2016).

PNYA is situated in a highly industrialized and developed area. Much of the former Navy property has been transferred to the City of Philadelphia for use as the Philadelphia Naval Business Center. The transferred property use now includes office space, industrial and manufacturing processes, and research and development.

2.2 Previous PFAS Investigations

No previous PFAS investigations have been conducted at PNYA (Tetra Tech, 2021a).

CTO N4008518F4729 Facility Description

072212/P 2-2

2.3 Site Geology

The soils at PNYA have been extensively altered by construction and filling operations, making the identification of specific soil types impractical. Extensive filling operations occurred throughout League Island, covering the original soils and tidal marsh substrata. This fill material, consisting of sand and gravel, rubbish, garbage, cinders, and other material, is in excess of 5 feet thick throughout much of the area.

The geologic formations underlying PNYA consist of pre-Cretaceous, Cretaceous, and Quaternary-aged deposits. The pre-Cretaceous rocks serve as the basement rock for the overlying Cretaceous and Quaternary sediments. These pre-Cretaceous units are a complex group of crystalline rocks, consisting of metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous rocks (Envirodyne Engineers, 1983).

The upper surface of the crystalline rock has been extensively weathered, leaving a layer of residual clay. This clay layer is a few feet thick in the vicinity of PNYA.

Underlying the clay is the well foliated, dense, mica schist. The mica schist is characterized by joints and fractures as a result of weathering and deformation.

The depth to the top of the bedrock surface varies from 100 feet in the northwestern portion of the PNYA area to 240 feet in the central portion of the base. The bedrock surface dips to the southeast and is channeled by the ancestral Schuylkill River. One of these erosional channels or troughs, the League Island Trough, runs through PNYA.

Another erosional trough, the Greenwich Point Trough, occurs just east of PNYA.

These ancient valleys are important because they contain thick accumulations of highly permeable, coarse grained Cretaceous sediments.

Overlying the pre-Cretaceous crystalline rocks are non-marine sedimentary deposits of the Raritan Formation which represent three cycles of sedimentation. Each cycle begins with a series of coarse sands and closes with silts and clays. The members of the Raritan Formation, in ascending order, are the Farrington sand, the lower clay, the Sayreville sand, the middle clay, the Old Bridge sand, and the upper clay. The thickness of these members is influenced by the League Island Trough.

The Farrington sand member consists predominantly of coarse sand and fine gravel which grades upward into medium to fine grained sands containing a few beds of white clay. The Farrington sand member reaches a maximum thickness of around 90 feet at

PNYA.

Overlying the Farrington sand member is the lower clay member, which consists of clay interspersed with thin lenses of fine grained sand. The lower clay member reaches a

CTO N4008518F4729 Facility Description

072212/P 2-3 maximum thickness of 61 feet near the mouth of the League Island Trough. The lower clay member serves as a confining bed for the underlying Farrington sand member.

The Sayreville sand member overlies the lower clay member. The Sayreville sand consists of very fine to coarse grained sand beds that are interspersed with a few beds of clay. The thickness of the Sayreville member varies throughout PNYA from around 10 to 25 feet.

The middle clay member overlies the Sayreville sand, serving as a confining bed. The middle clay is the most extensive clay member of the Raritan formation. The middle clay is composed of clay with occasional thin streaks or lenses of fine-grained sand in its middle and upper parts. The thickness of the middle clay varies considerably throughout the PNYA area, reaching a maximum of 75 feet.

The Old Bridge sand member overlies the middle clay. This member consists of medium to coarse grained sand with a minor amount of fine to very fine sand. At the base of the member beds of gravel commonly occur. The thickness of the Old Bridge sand exceeds 30 feet along the axis of the League Island Trough but is absent throughout much of PNYA.

The upper clay is the uppermost member of the Raritan Formation, and where present, it overlies the Old Bridge sand member. The upper clay consists of sandy and carbonaceous clays. The typical thickness of the upper clay member is less than 20 feet and is absent in parts of PNYA.

Overlying the Cretaceous sediments are Pleistocene glacial outwash deposits of sand, gravel, and clay which vary from 10 to 50 feet in thickness. These Pleistocene deposits are composed of sand and gravel with pebbles and boulders of sandstone, siltstone, chert, quartzite, and mica schist. These deposits were originally much thicker in the area of PNYA but have undergone extensive erosion. The Pleistocene sediments are covered by recent deposits consisting of highly organic silt and fine sand.

2.4 Site Hydrogeology

The Delaware River makes up the southern border of the historical base boundary, with the Schuylkill River serving as the western border. There are no streams within the boundaries of PNYA. League Island historically had extensive marsh areas, especially in the eastern portions of PNYA. However, filling activities have eliminated these marshes. All surface runoff from PNYA is either directly or indirectly (via storm drains) into the Schuylkill or Delaware rivers, or into the Reserve Basin which is connected to the Schuylkill River. Figure 1-2 depicts the surface water runoff flow directions near the potential PFAS release areas. Runoff that enters the Schuylkill River is discharged into

CTO N4008518F4729 Facility Description

072212/P 2-4 the Delaware River, which ultimately discharges into the Atlantic Ocean through Delaware Bay. The tidal fluctuations of the Delaware River estuary extend upstream past PNYA as far as Trenton, New Jersey. This tidal influence greatly reduces the streamflow, which serves to increase the residence time of chemicals discharged into the river. However, net flow within the Delaware river is southwest to the Delaware bay.

The Delaware River makes up the southern border of the historical base boundary, with the Schuylkill River serving as the western border. There are no streams within the boundaries of PNYA. League Island historically had extensive marsh areas, especially in the eastern portions of PNYA. However, filling activities have eliminated these marshes. All surface runoff from PNYA is either directly or indirectly (via storm drains) into the Schuylkill or Delaware rivers, or into the Reserve Basin which is connected to the Schuylkill River. Figure 1-2 depicts the surface water Runoff that enters the Schuylkill River is discharged into the Delaware River, which ultimately discharges into the Atlantic Ocean through Delaware Bay. The tidal fluctuations of the Delaware River estuary extend upstream past PNYA as far as Trenton, New Jersey. This tidal influence greatly reduces the streamflow, which serves to increase the residence time of chemicals discharged into the river. However, net flow within the Delaware river is southwest to the Delaware bay.

Groundwater within the Pleistocene sand and gravel aquifer is unconfined and is largely controlled by the surface topography with groundwater flowing toward surface water bodies. Therefore, the surficial groundwater movement is toward and discharges to either the Delaware or Schuylkill Rivers.

As discussed in the geology section, the Raritan Formation represents three fining-upward cycles of sedimentation. Each of the cycles begins with a series of coarse sands and ends with silts and clays. The three sand members, in ascending order, are the Farrington, Sayreville, and Old Bridge. Each of these sand aquifers can provide significant quantities of groundwater. However, in southern Philadelphia in general and in the area of PNYA, the Farrington sand aquifer historically was by far the best source of groundwater. Prior to the 1960s, when the conversion to municipal water occurred, most of the wells on base and in the South Philadelphia vicinity drew water from this member. However, since the early 1980s, the volume of groundwater withdrawn from the Farrington (and the Raritan Formation as a whole) in Pennsylvania has been negligible (USGS, 2001).

The Raritan Formation occurs under mostly unconfined conditions in Pennsylvania where the units either outcrop or occur at shallow depths. Groundwater within the Raritan Formation becomes increasing confined as it migrates downgradient to the southeast, towards the Delaware River and New Jersey. The artesian aquifers of

CTO N4008518F4729 Facility Description

072212/P 2-5 the Raritan Formation historically discharge into the Schuylkill and Delaware rivers.

(Envirodyne Engineers, 1983).

Groundwater extraction from the Raritan Formation has greatly increased in New Jersey concurrent with the decline to cessation of pumping in Pennsylvania. This eastward shift of the pumping center has created a large, regional cone of depression in the Raritan Formation that is centered in southern New Jersey and extends westward beneath the Delaware River into Pennsylvania. The vertical gradient is oriented downward in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania and is strong enough to induce the Delaware River surface water to flow downward into the aquifer as the river becomes a losing stream within this area (USGS, 2001; USGS, 1994). Before the aquifer system was developed as a significant water-supply source, aquifer heads were above sea level. When the aquifer system was developed, heads declined to below sea level. It was determined that a significant part of the aquifer system withdrawals in the Camden, New Jersey area were derived from induced recharge from the Delaware River (New Jersey Geological Survey, 1995).

2.5 Groundwater Flow Direction

In general, groundwater flows toward the nearest surface water body. Figure 1-2 shows the general groundwater flow across the shipyard. Groundwater at Buildings 1081 and 1082 – Hazardous Waste Facilities flows north-northeast towards the Reserve Basin, which is connected to the Schuylkill River to the west.

CTO N4008518F4729 Facility Description

072212/P 2-6

CTO N4008518F4729 Site Inspection Methods

072212/P 3-1

3.0 Site Inspection Methods

The SI field investigation was conducted from December 6, 2021 to February 22, 2022.

This section describes the field investigation activities and quality control procedures used during the PFAS SI. In general, all field work was conducted in accordance with the approved SAP (Tetra Tech, 2021b).

Groundwater sampling was completed in 18 newly installed wells. Well construction details are provided in Table 3-1. Well locations for each of the areas are shown on Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-4. Field forms documenting the SI sampling are provided in Appendix A.

3.1 Sample Cross Contamination Avoidance Measures

The combination of extremely low regulatory criteria and high potential for cross-contamination require special precautions to avoid compromising sample results integrity for PFAS analysis. These measures are detailed in the Tetra Tech standard operating procedure SA-1.8 Sample Acquisition for PFAS Analysis provided in the SAP for this investigation (Tetra Tech, 2021b) and are summarized as follows:

Field Personnel Clothing and Protective Gear

• The drilling and sampling field teams wore clothing that had been washed at least six times without fabric softener to remove possible stain-resistant coatings.

• The drilling and field teams avoided unnecessary contact with upholstery in vehicles because many fabrics may be treated with stain-resistant materials containing PFAS. Well-washed towels were placed on the seats to prevent contact with car seats and other materials that could transfer PFAS to clothing worn by samplers.

• During wet weather, drilling and field teams used rain gear made from polyurethane. The drilling and field teams avoided wearing water-resistant (e.g., Gore-Tex or similar material) clothing or footwear (e.g., boots) immediately prior to or during sample collection and management.

• The drilling and field teams avoided wearing coated Tyvek or similar coated personal protective equipment suits. The drilling and field teams wore un-powdered nitrile gloves at all times while collecting and handling samples and changing gloves often. In addition, a change to a new pair of gloves was put on prior to collecting each sample.

CTO N4008518F4729 Site Inspection Methods

072212/P 3-2

• The drilling and field teams avoided wearing cosmetics or using shampoos, hair conditioners, moisturizers, hand cream, or other similar personal care products on the day of sampling. As necessary, the team used sunscreens and insect repellants made with 100-percent natural ingredients and that the Air Force Civil Engineer Center has identified as acceptable for use.

Sample Containers and Shipping Materials

• No Teflon-lined low-density polyethylene or other fluoropolymer-containing materials were used during the drilling and sampling effort.

• The driller used acetate sleeves for the direct push borings.

• High-density polyethylene (HDPE) and silicone tubing and HDPE were used and set on HDPE sheeting during groundwater sampling. Shallow groundwater samples were collected through a peristaltic pump.

• Soil samples were homogenized in stainless steel bowls.

• The field team used non-PFAS decontamination supplies specifically Liquinox.

• Consistent with the SAP, samples were collected in clean, laboratory-supplied plastic containers made from HDPE. Teflon-lined caps were not used in the sample containers.

• Coolers for sample shipping were lined with commercially available plastic bags (3-millimeter thick trash can liners), and samples were cooled with commercially available double-bagged ice.

3.2 Utility Clearance Activities

Required subsurface utility clearance activities were conducted prior to intrusive activities. The Pennsylvania One-Call System (811) was notified on November 29, 2021, that intrusive activities would be taking place (assigned ticket numbers were 20213333137-000, 20213333190-000, 20213333215-000, and 20213333165). In addition to the above pre-cautions, the upper 5 feet of soil were cleared using an air knife and hand tools prior to drilling to confirm there were no unidentified utilities at the location. Site utility maps are found in Appendix B.

The following paragraphs identify changes to monitoring well installation locations based on the present of underground utilities and other clearance concerns.

CTO N4008518F4729 Site Inspection Methods

072212/P 3-3

Near Building 1081 (see Figure 3-1), the location for monitoring well 1081MW01 was moved three feet northwest due to a water line, and monitoring well 1081MW02 was moved three feet west due to the presence of a sewer line.

Near Building 1082 (see Figure 3-1), the location for monitoring well 1082MW04 was moved approximately 50 southwest due to a concrete slab found at a depth of approximately 8 feet below ground surface (bgs).

Near Building 56 – Fire Department (see Figure 3-2), the locations for monitoring wells 56MW01 and 56MW02 were relocated approximately 30 feet north due to the proximity of active firehouse garage bays. The location for monitoring well 56MW03 was relocated approximately 60 feet north due to a concrete basement foundation found at a depth of approximately 7 feet bgs. The location for monitoring well 56MW04 was initially moved approximately 60 feet north due to the same concrete feature found at 56MW03. However, another concrete slab was encountered at approximately 2 feet bgs at three different drilling locations. A monitoring well was not installed at this location due to the inability to locate a suitable downgradient drilling location.

Near Building 779 (see Figure 3-3), the location for monitoring well 779MW01 was moved approximately 20 feet south due to a concrete slab found at approximately 18 inches bgs. The location for monitoring well 779MW03 was moved approximately 50 feet south due to several subsurface utilities in the area (sewer, water, electric, gas, and fiberoptic). The location for monitoring well 779MW04 was moved approximately 5 feet west due to access issues from trees and shrubs.

3.3 Soil Boring Logging

Continuous-core soil samples were collected at each permanent monitoring well for geologic logging. The soil borings were advanced by East Coast Drilling Inc. of Mount Laurel, New Jersey, a Pennsylvania licensed driller.

Eighteen soil borings were advanced using direct push technology and 18 new permanent monitoring wells were installed at the same soil boring locations using hollow stem augers. Soil samples at the new permanent monitoring wells were collected using 2-inch, 5 foot long Macro-core samplers. The soil borings were logged using the Unified Soil Classification System in accordance with the SAP (Tetra Tech, 2021b). Soil sample descriptions are presented on boring logs provided in Appendix A-1. Soil was screened for volatile organic compounds with a photoionization detector fitted with a

10.6 electron volt lamp, and detections ranged from 0 to 0.2 parts per million.

A total of 20 surface soils (0- to 0.5-foot interval) were collected and 4 subsurface soils (5- to 6-foot and 8- to 10-foot intervals). Following collection, each sample container

CTO N4008518F4729 Site Inspection Methods

072212/P 3-4 was uniquely labeled, identified on a laboratory chain of custody form, and stored on ice at approximately 6 degrees Celsius in a laboratory-supplied sample cooler. All soil samples were sent to the laboratory within 48 hours of being collected. Sample coolers were shipped via priority overnight delivery using an overnight courier service (FedEx) to Battelle, a DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) and Pennsylvania-certified laboratory, in Norwell, Massachusetts. Soil log sheets and chain of custody forms are provided in Appendix A-1 and A-5.

Soil samples were analyzed for the 18 PFAS listed in the USEPA drinking water method (Method 537.1) by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry mass spectrometry (LCMSMS) compliant with DoD/Department of Energy (DoE) Consolidated Quality Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.3, Appendix B, Table B-15, as specified in the approved SAP (Tetra Tech, 2021b). The results of the soil samples are discussed in Section 4.0.

3.4 Monitoring Well Installation and Development

The 18 new monitoring wells were installed at the five potential PFAS release areas and screened in the surficial water table aquifer. The SAP anticipated the monitoring wells would be 30 feet bgs, but adjustments were made in the field due to the encountered depth of groundwater. Monitoring well construction details are provided in Table 3-1.

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Water Well Completion Reports are provided in Appendix A-2.

The new monitoring wells were constructed of 2-inch inside diameter threaded and flush-jointed polyvinyl chloride (PVC) Schedule 40 riser pipe. The monitoring wells were installed using a 10-foot long Schedule 40 PVC well screen with 0.020-inch (20-slot) machined slot size. The sand pack for the monitoring wells consisted of a Filter Sand #0 that was brought to approximately 1 to 2 feet above the top of the well screen. An annular bentonite seal of approximately 1 to 2 feet was placed on top of the sand pack.

The bentonite seal was hydrated with PFAS-free water. The monitoring wells were completed as a flush-mount well within an 8-inch diameter well vault with a traffic rated, water-tight, bolt down, steel cover. The well vaults were emplaced in 6-inch thick, 2-feet by 2-feet flush-mount high strength concrete pad. Each monitoring well was fitted with a water-tight locking well cap and keyed-alike padlock. Well construction detail logs are provided in Appendix A-1.

Monitoring well development was conducted to remove soil fines from the well screen filter pack and the adjacent formation to restore permeability. The monitoring wells were developed at least 24 hours after monitoring well installation. A submersible pump was used to surge and purge each monitoring well until water quality parameters

CTO N4008518F4729 Site Inspection Methods

072212/P 3-5 stabilized or for a maximum duration of 2 hours. Monitoring well development log sheets are provided in Appendix A-3. Turbidity values were measured during development to achieve a value of less than 10 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs).

Two monitoring wells did not reach a turbidity value of less than 10 NTU after 2 hours of purging. Monitoring well 779MW02 reached 46.3 NTU after being purged for 130 minutes and monitoring well 56MW03 reached 641 NTU after being purged for 120 minutes while allowing time for the monitoring well to recharge.

3.5 Land Surveying

Horizontal coordinates (easting and northing) for the newly installed permanent monitoring wells were recorded using a differential global positioning system with submeter accuracy. Coordinates for the installed permanent monitoring well locations were recorded using the coordinate system of Pennsylvania State Plane Coordinate Grid, North American Datum of 1983 in United States survey feet. The locations of the new monitoring wells were surveyed for horizontal and vertical control on January 25, 2022 by Dennis W. Sklar, Inc. of Bensalem, Pennsylvania, a Pennsylvania-licensed professional land surveyor, in accordance with the SAP (Tetra Tech, 2021b). Vertical elevations were referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988. The elevations for the monitoring wells were measured at the top of the uncapped PVC well riser pipe.

The ground surface elevation immediately adjacent to wells was also surveyed. All vertical and horizontal measurements were to the nearest 0.01 foot. The survey information is provided on the monitoring well construction sheets in Appendix A-1.

3.6 Groundwater Level Measurements

Groundwater levels were measured (gauged) prior to sampling the monitoring wells.

Water levels were measured in the 18 monitoring wells on January 3, 2022.

Measurements were taken with an electronic water level indicator using the top of the well riser at each monitoring well as the reference point for determining depth to groundwater. Water level measurements were recorded to the nearest 0.01 foot on the groundwater level measurement sheet. The water level measurements were used in conjunction with the top of well riser survey elevation to determine the groundwater elevations. Table 3-2 summarizes the water levels measured and associated groundwater elevations.