AECOM
Report
Environment
Appendix D
Risk Characterization
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Final\MBTA Readville Yard 5 RAOA FINAL April 2013.docx
April 2013
Environment
Prepared for:
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Ten Park Plaza
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Prepared by:
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, Massachusetts
60133920.1.01
April 2013
Method 3 Risk Characterization Report
MBTA Readville Yard Site
Industrial Drive,
Dedham and Readville, Massachusetts
RTN 3-2856
Environment
Prepared for:
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Ten Park Plaza
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Prepared by:
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, Massachusetts
60133920.1.01
April 2013
Method 3 Risk Characterization Report
MBTA Readville Yard Site
Industrial Drive,
Dedham and Readville, Massachusetts
RTN 3-2856
_________________________________
Prepared By
Timothy F. Markey, Senior Risk Assessor
_________________________________
Reviewed By
Elissa J. Brown, CPG, CHMM, LEP, LSP
AECOM
Report
Environment
i
Contents
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 2-1 3.0 Site Characterization for Risk Assessment ................................................................. 3-1 4.0 Hazard Identification ....................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Data Used in Risk Characterization .................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Soil Data ................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.2 Groundwater Data ................................................................................................ 4-4 4.1.3 Methods for Summarizing Data ............................................................................ 4-5 4.2 Selection of Compounds of Concern .................................................................................. 4-6 4.2.1 Soil COCs ............................................................................................................. 4-7 4.2.2 Groundwater COCs .............................................................................................. 4-7 4.2.3 Summary of COCs................................................................................................ 4-7 5.0 Dose-Response Assessment ........................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Carcinogenic Dose-Response ............................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Noncarcinogenic Dose-Response....................................................................................... 5-2 6.0 Exposure Assessment ................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Potential Receptors and Exposure Scenarios .................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Site Characterization for Exposure Assessment ................................................. 6-2 6.1.2 Potential Receptors Evaluated in the Risk Assessment ..................................... 6-3 6.2 Method for Quantifying Exposure Dose .............................................................................. 6-5 6.3 Exposure Points and Exposure Point Concentrations ....................................................... 6-7 6.3.1 Soil ......................................................................................................................... 6-8 6.3.2 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 6-11 7.0 Human Health Risk Characterization ............................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Non-Cancer Risk.................................................................................................................. 7-2 7.2 Cancer Risk.......................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 Number of Significant Figures in the Risk Characterization ............................................... 7-2 7.4 Risk Characterization For a Potential Trespasser at the Site ............................................ 7-3 7.5 Risk Characterization For a Potential Future Construction Worker at the Site ................. 7-3 J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Environment
ii
7.6 Risk Characterization For a Potential Commercial/Industrial at the Site ........................... 7-4 7.7 Comparison to Applicable or Suitably Analogous Standards............................................. 7-4 7.8 Uncertainties in the Health Risk Assessment ..................................................................... 7-5 7.8.1 Hazard Identification ............................................................................................. 7-5 7.8.2 Dose-Response Assessment ............................................................................... 7-5 7.8.3 Human Health Exposure Assessment ................................................................. 7-8 7.8.4 Risk Characterization............................................................................................ 7-9 7.8.5 Special Considerations for Lead ........................................................................ 7-10 7.8.6 Summary of Sources of Uncertainty .................................................................. 7-11 8.0 Evaluation of Potential Risks to Safety and Public Welfare ...................................... 8-1 8.1 Evaluation of Potential Risks to Safety ............................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Public Welfare Risk Characterization .................................................................................. 8-2 8.2.1 Characterization of Risks to Public Welfare......................................................... 8-2 8.2.2 Upper Concentration Limits .................................................................................. 8-3 8.2.3 Public Welfare Risk Characterization Conclusions ............................................. 8-3 9.0 Environmental Risk Characterization ........................................................................... 9-1 9.1 Stage I Environmental Screening........................................................................................ 9-1 9.1.1 Identification of Complete Exposure Pathways ................................................... 9-2 10.0 Summary and Conclusions of Risk Characterization – Human Health, Safety,
Public Welfare and Environment................................................................................. 10-1 11.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 11-1 J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Environment
iii
List of Attachments
Attachment A - Soil and Groundwater Data and Exposure Point Concentration Calculations
Attachment B - Risk Characterization Tables – MassDEP Trespasser ShortForms
Attachment C - Risk Characterization Tables – MassDEP Construction Worker ShortForms
Attachment D - Risk Characterization Tables – AECOM Spreadsheets for Commercial/Industrial
Worker
List of Tables
Table 1
Summary of Soil Exposure Point Concentrations
Table 2
Summary of Noncarcinogenic and Carcinogenic Risk Due to Potential Soil Exposure
Table 3
Comparison of Exposure Point Concentrations to MCP Method 3 Upper Concentration
Limits
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
1.0
Report
Environment
1-1
Introduction
This Massachusetts Contingency Plan (310 CMR 40.0000 – the MCP) Method 3 Risk Characterization
was performed to determine whether potential exposure to environmental media located at the disposal
site on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Readville Yard facility (“the Site”)
located on Industrial Drive at the border between Dedham and Boston, Massachusetts, associated with
Release Tracking Number (RTN) 3-2856 may pose a potential for significant risk of harm to human
health, safety, public welfare, and the environment as defined by the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
(MCP, 310 CMR 40.0000). Potential risks are evaluated under current land use and reasonably
foreseeable future land use conditions in the absence of further remediation.
The MCP defines a disposal site as including all locations where oil and/or hazardous materials (OHM)
have come to be located (the Site or the Disposal Site). The Disposal Site associated with RTN 3-2856
includes an approximately 42-acre area located on Industrial Drive and straddles the boundary between
the Town of Dedham and the City of Boston (Readville), Massachusetts. Approximately 21 acres of the
Site are located in Readville and 21 acres are located in the Town of Dedham. The portion of the Site
located in Dedham is zoned general residential and the portion of the Site located in Readville is zoned
general and light manufacturing. The Disposal Site does not include Industrial Drive, which is also
owned by the MBTA. The Site location is shown in Figure 1 and the Site Plan is depicted in Figure 2 of
the Class A-3 RAO report.
A Supplemental Phase II Method 3 baseline risk assessment for the Site was prepared by AECOM
(AECOM, 2010), on behalf of the MBTA. Based on the results of the baseline risk assessment, it was
concluded that the Site should be remediated to eliminate the potential risk that could result from direct
contact with soils and fill containing arsenic, lead, antimony, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel,
zinc, extractable petroleum hydrocarbon (EPH) parameters, and select polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). The risk assessment summarized in this Response Action Outcome (RAO)
Statement report, to which this Risk Characterization is an Appendix, was performed using a Method 3
approach (Site-specific risk assessment), as allowed by the MCP. It provides an update to and
supersedes the 2010 Method 3 risk assessment and evaluates post-remedial Site conditions. The
results of this Method 3 risk assessment were used to confirm that further remediation is not required
and to support the development of a RAO statement for the Site.
The results of this risk assessment are intended to support the Class A-3 RAO for the site (RTN 420842). As stated in 310 CMR 40.1036(3), a Class A-3 RAO indicates that:
(a) a Permanent Solution has been achieved;
(b) the level of oil and hazardous material in the environment has not been reduced to
background;
(c)
one or more Activity and Use Limitations have been implemented pursuant to 310 CMR
40.1012 to maintain a level of No Significant Risk; and
(d) OHM at the disposal site do not exceed an applicable Upper Concentration Limit in Soil or
Groundwater listed at 310 CMR 40.0996(7).
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Environment
1-2
This Method 3 Risk Characterization assumes that an AUL will be implemented to prohibit future
residential use of the Site or use of the Site as a park/playground and/or daycare. Additionally, it
assumes that the AUL will preclude excavation of soil without meeting certain precautions.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
2.0
Report
Environment
2-1
Methodology
This risk assessment was completed in accordance with procedures and standards for the
characterization of the risk of harm to health, safety, public welfare and the environment as
presented in Subpart I, 310 CMR 40.0900 of the MCP, and is intended to meet the Response Action
Performance Standard (RAPS) specified in 310 CMR 40.0191. The risk assessment was performed
using a Method 3 approach (Site-specific risk assessment), as described in the MCP. A Method 3
Risk Characterization includes assessment of potential risk of harm to human health, safety, public
welfare, and ecological receptors under all current and reasonably foreseeable Site activities and
uses.
The purpose of this risk characterization is to provide a Method 3 evaluation of soil and groundwater
conditions at the Site. The results of this risk characterization were utilized to establish whether a level
of "No Significant Risk," as that term is defined in the MCP, exists at the Site. The risk assessment was
prepared in accordance with current Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) guidance, including, but not limited to:

The MCP. 310 CMR 40.0000. Last Revised 2008.

MassDEP, 1995. Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization In Support of the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan.

MassDEP, 1996. Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization In Support of the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan. *** Chapter 9 *** Method 3 Environmental Risk
Characterization.

MassDEP. 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2007a, 2009. Technical Updates. Office of Research
and Standards.

MassDEP. 2002d. Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites.

MassDEP. 2008b. ShortForms. Method 3 Human Health Risk Assessment.
The Method 3 Risk Characterization consists of the following steps:

Site Characterization, Section 3.0;

Hazard Identification, Section 4.0;

Human Health Dose-Response Assessment, Section 5.0;

Human Health Exposure Assessment, Section 6.0;

Human Health Risk Characterization, Section 7.0;

Evaluation of Risk of Harm to Safety and Public Welfare, Section 8.0; and

Stage I Environmental Risk Characterization, Section 9.0.
The risk characterization also includes a discussion of uncertainties, referred to as the Uncertainty
Analysis (Section 10.0).
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
3.0
Report
3-1
Environment
Site Characterization for Risk Assessment
The MBTA Readville Yard property occupies an approximately 42-acre area located on Industrial Drive
and straddles the boundary between the Town of Dedham and the City of Boston (Readville),
Massachusetts. The Site is roughly an elongated teardrop shape and its perimeter is defined by a loop
railroad track. The Site is enclosed by an 8-foot tall chain link fence, which restricts access to the Site.
The MBTA property extends beyond the railroad track fencing and includes Industrial Drive. The Site is
mostly unpaved, with the exception of Industrial Drive and a driveway approximately 100 feet wide and
1,700 feet long running east-west along the northern side of the Site.
The Site is abutted by residential properties to the north, east, and west, and by industrial properties to
the south. Residential and commercial properties abut the Site to the west on Ashcroft Street and to the
north opposite the former Dedham Secondary rail line (a.k.a. the “Orphan Line”) on Milton/W. Milton
Street. Commercial and industrial properties, including a school bus garage and storage yard and a
gravel crushing operation, are located to the south, opposite Industrial Drive. The MBTA Readville
commuter rail station, including commuter parking lots and the MBTA 2-Yard facility, is located to the
east.
Materials used for railroad maintenance (ties, track panels, etc.) are currently stored in various areas on
the Site. The western portion of the Property was fenced off and posted with warning signs in October
2001 to restrict access to stockpiles containing soil and miscellaneous debris located within this area.
Historical site building remnants and a drainage ditch located along the approximate Site centerline are
present. It is likely these uses will continue in the foreseeable future, and activities similar to those
currently conducted at the Property can be reasonably expected to continue. Excavation of soil at the
Site is not planned, but could occur in the future for the purpose of utility repair, or other construction.
The potential for conversion of the Site to residential purposes, or for use as a park/playground, were not
considered by this Method 3 Risk Characterization due to the implementation of an AUL precluding
these uses.
For the purposes of the risk characterization and previous investigation/evaluations, the 42-acre Site
was divided into four separate potential exposure areas (Areas 1 through 4) based primarily on
historical use, types and concentrations of contaminants, and existing zoning and access. The four
areas assessed in this Method 3 risk characterization include:

Area 1 – Orphan Line: The Orphan Line was formerly the Dedham Secondary Line and
consists of an approximately 90-foot wide by 3,200–foot long section of abandoned railroad
tracks along the Site’s northern boundary.

Area 2 – Western Fence Line (adjacent to Ashcroft Street): Area 2 is a narrow strip of land
located along the southwestern Site boundary between the exclusion zone (EZ) and a wooded
area followed by residential properties on Ashcroft Street.

Area 3 - Main Rail Yard: The Main Rail Yard is the largest area evaluated for this Site.
Comprising approximately 21 acres, the area contains both active and inactive tracks. The Main
Rail Yard is currently used by MBTA and Massachusetts commuter rail operators for storage of
railroad materials (ties, track panels, etc.), and has a long history of use as a former railroad
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
3-2
Environment
maintenance and storage yard. One large building was formerly located within the Main Rail
Yard, and the foundation of this structure still exists in some areas.

Area 4 - Exclusion Zone: This Area is located west of the Main Rail Yard and occupies most of
the western portion of the Site. Reportedly, Area 4 has been used for railroad associated
materials and a historical burn pit, and has soil piles. Soil and debris stockpiles are present in
this area and evaluated as a separate exposure point in the risk assessment.
In addition to the four areas identified 15 soil and debris stockpiles were located in Area 4.
Site-wide Risk-Based Concentration levels (RBCs) were developed during the risk characterization
process included in the Supplemental Phase II/Phase III report (AECOM, 2010) for four potential
future general use scenarios/receptors, which included: residential, recreational, commercial/
industrial (indoor/outdoor worker) and construction. Contaminants of concern (COCs) carried
through the risk characterization for the four Areas included arsenic, lead, antimony, barium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, zinc, EPH parameters, and select PAHs. Specific contaminants
driving the remediation of the Site include arsenic and lead.
Based on the information collected during the Phase II and risk characterization, the goals of the Phase
III Remedial Action Plan (RAP) (AECOM, 2010) included: the selection of soil excavation (0 to >8 feet)
to meet Commercial/Industrial RBCs and Off-Site Disposal with Stabilization as the preferred alternative
since it was determined to have the greatest potential to cost-effectively attain a reduction of COCs
(mainly metals) in soil to levels that achieve risk-based cleanup goals and meet a condition of No
Significant Risk, and thus reach a Permanent Solution. As discussed in detail in Section 1.5 of the RAO,
soil stockpile removal and focused soil remediation activities were performed in 2011 and 2012 under
Phase IV activities at the Site.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
4.0
Report
4-1
Environment
Hazard Identification
The selection of COCs for quantitative evaluation in the human health risk assessment is the primary
component of the hazard identification. The hazard identification section identifies data used in the risk
characterization and methods for summarizing data, including treatment of non-detect results and the
COC selection process. The representativeness evaluation and data usability assessment is provided in
Section 3.0 of the RAO Statement. To assist in the COC selection process, analytical data collected
from soil and groundwater from unexcavated and post-remedial areas of the Site were compiled and
summarized. Analytical data for soil and groundwater are presented in Attachment A.
4.1
Data Used in Risk Characterization
The data set for the disposal site includes numerous samples collected from soil and groundwater from
the Phase I, Phase II CSA and supplemental Phase II CSA investigations, and from remedial (Phase IV)
activities. Soil samples from the Site investigations that were not excavated during remedial activities
and post-remedial soil samples are the sources of soil data for the current risk assessment. The sample
locations are depicted on Figures 3 through 5 provided in the RAO.
4.1.1
Soil Data
Numerous soil samples were collected from the Site during previous studies conducted at the Property
by other consultants, during AECOM’s Supplemental Phase II investigation and during the Phase IV
activities. These studies indicated that contaminants that may be associated with historical railroad
activities and areas with an industrial history have been detected in Site soil. The predominant OHM
detected included the metals arsenic and lead, and PAHs (petroleum hydrocarbons and very low levels
of VOCs have also been detected in some areas). As discussed in the Supplemental Phase II (AECOM,
2010), soil data obtained via field XRF screening (lead, only) and via laboratory analysis were used in
this current Method 3 risk evaluation.
The soil data from the disposal site were evaluated to determine whether they were representative of
current conditions at the site. Based on the results of the Site investigations, and based on comparison
of the concentrations of metals and PAHs detected in soil at the Site with the concentrations of metals
and PAHs in fill material containing coal ash or wood ash presented in the MassDEP’s technical update
entitled Background Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soil (May 2002)
(MassDEP, 2002a) (“the Background Document”), the following COCs were retained for the
Supplemental Phase II CSA Method 3 risk characterization (AECOM, 2010):
Risk Area
Contaminant of Concern
Risk Area 1
Arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, EPH parameters,
acenaphthylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene
Risk Area 2
Arsenic and lead only
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Risk Area 3
Risk Area 4
Soil Stockpiles
4-2
Environment
Antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
lead, nickel, zinc, EPH parameters
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, 2-methylnaphthalene
Antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
lead, EPH parameters, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
2-methylnaphthalene
Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
EPH parameters, PCBs, toluene, xylenes,
acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene,
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, 2-methylnaphthalene,
naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene
AECOM completed Phase IV soil excavation and stockpile removal activities at areas identified in the
Supplemental Phase II Method 3 risk characterization that did not demonstrate a condition of No
Significant Risk. The excavation activities commenced on August 25, 2011 and involved the excavation
and disposal of over 18,500 tons of impacted soil/stockpile material and over 1,100 tons of railroad ties,
metals, and concrete. These remediation activities are discussed in detail in the Phase IV Final
Inspection Report (AECOM, 2012) and are summarized in Section 1.5 of the RAO.
Confirmatory soil samples were collected at locations on the bottom and side walls of the excavations, or
directly beneath the soil stockpiles, and analyzed for COCs specific to each excavation/stockpile.
Additional excavation was required at certain locations based on the initial confirmatory samples in
several of the excavations.
Soil samples collected from these Phase IV areas prior to the soil excavation activities were not utilized
in this Method 3 risk assessment since the soil represented by these samples were removed or treated
during these remedial activities. It is felt that the post-remediation confirmatory soil samples from these
locations represent current Site conditions in these areas.
The soil samples not used in this Method 3 Risk Characterization included the following pre-remediation
soil samples that were excavated:
Area 2
IRA Soil Sampling, WSE April/May 2002
Zone 2 - 200 feet
Zone 2 - 300 feet
Dup 2 (Zone 2-300 feet)
Zone 2 - 400 feet
Zone 2 - 500 feet
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Environment
4-3
IRA Soil Sampling, WSE May 2002
Z2/0/10/6"
Z2/0/15/6"
Z2/25/10/6"
Z2/50/10/6"
Z2/50/15/6"
Z2/75/10/6"
Z2/100/4/18"
Z2/100/10/6"
DUP-5 (Z2/100/10/18")
Z2/100/15/6"
Z2/125/10/6"
Z2/150/10/6"
Z2/150/15/6"
Z2/175/5/6"
Z2/200/5/6"
Z2/200/17/6"
Z2/231/10/6"
DUP-3 (Z2/250/10/6")
Z2/250/15/6"
Z2/275/10/6"
Z2/300/4/18"
Z2/300/10/6"
Z2/300/10/18"
Z2/300/15/6"
Z2/325/10/6"
Z2/350/10/6"
Z2/350/15/6"
Z2/375/10/6"
Z2/400/5/20"
Z2/400/10/6"
Z2/400/10/18"
Z2400/15/6"
Z2/425/10/6"
Z2/450/10/6"
Z2/450/15/6"
Z2/475/10/6"
Z2/500/4/18"
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
4-4
Environment
Z2/500/10/6"
Z2/500/15/6"
Z2/500/10/18"
DUP-2 (Z2/525/10/6")
EPH Hot Spot (Area 3)
HB/GP-24 (2-4’)
Lead Hot Spot 1 (Area 4)
SS1 (0-0.5’)
Lead Hot Spot 2 (Area 3)
SS1 (0-0.5’)
Cell 637 (ET) (0-0.5’) (0.5-3’)
Cell 637 (LFR) (0-0.5’)
Cell 639 (0-0.5’) (0.5-3’)
Cell 692 (0.5-3’)
Cell 693 (0.5-3’)
Cell 694 (0.5-3’)
Lead Hot Spot 3 (Area 4)
Cell 906 (0-0.5’)
Soil Stockpiles (Area 4)
All Samples
Stockpile Hot Spots (Area 4)
R-S1-C1
R-S15-C1
S20-D4
A summary of the soil samples analytical results used in the risk assessment is presented in Attachment
A of this Method 3 Risk Characterization report.
4.1.2
Groundwater Data
Groundwater samples were collected as part of the Phase II investigation in December 2001, August
2002, and October 2002. The groundwater samples were submitted for analysis for total dissolved
metals and EPH/VPH with target VOCs and PAHs. In addition, monitoring wells EZ/MW-104D and
SA/MW-105D were also submitted for analysis of VOCs according to EPA Method 8260B, to evaluate
potential impact from chlorinated solvents. The detected concentrations of metals included arsenic
ranged from not detected at 5 g/l to 8 g/l. As discussed in the Phase II report, none of the detected
analytes exceeded applicable MCP Method 1 standards during each of the sampling events. No further
groundwater evaluations were undertaken as part of the Supplemental Phase II investigation or
following the Phase IV remedial activities. A summary of the groundwater samples analytical results
collected at the Site is presented in Attachment A-6 of this Method 3 Risk Characterization Report.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
4.1.3
Report
Environment
4-5
Methods for Summarizing Data
As discussed in the Supplemental Phase II risk characterization, for purposes of the risk assessment,
the Site was divided into four separate potential exposure areas (Areas 1 through 4) based primarily on
historical use and types and concentrations of contaminants. These areas were generally consistent
with the areas identified by the MassDEP in the Imminent Hazard (IH) Evaluation dated January 7,
2002. The approximate boundaries of Areas 1 through 4 are shown on Figure 2 in the RAO report and
are described below.

Area 1 – Orphan Line: The Orphan Line was formerly the Dedham Secondary Line and
consists of an approximately 90-foot wide by 3,200–foot long section of abandoned railroad
tracks along the Site’s northern boundary. Previous investigations indicated the presence of
elevated arsenic and lead concentrations in surficial soil within this Area. For the IH Evaluation
conducted by the MassDEP, Area 1 was divided into two exposure areas consisting of the
fenced abandoned rail line and the unfenced 30-foot wide strip that lies south of the residential
properties on West Milton Street. Consistent with the Supplemental Phase II Method 3 risk
characterization, for the purposes of this risk assessment both exposure areas were combined
based on locations within the Site.

Area 2 – Ashcroft Street Fence Line: Area 2 is a narrow strip of land located along the
southwestern Site boundary between the EZ (Area 4) and a wooded area followed by residential
properties on Ashcroft Street. Currently fenced, elevated lead and arsenic concentrations were
also reported in surface soil within this area.

Area 3 - Main Rail Yard: The Main Rail Yard is the largest exposure area evaluated for this
Site. Consisting of approximately 21 acres, Area 3 contains both active and inactive tracks.
Many of the sub-areas described in the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) and Field Investigation
sections of the Phase II report are located within Area 3 as follows: Staging Area, Historical
Source Areas, Loop Track, and Perimeter Monitoring Wells.

Area 4 - Exclusion Zone: The EZ is located west of the Main Rail Yard and occupies most of
the western portion of the Site. The Phase II report indicated that Area 4 has been reportedly
used for stockpiling of soil and railroad associated materials and a potential burn pit (see Phase
II Report). Elevated concentrations of lead, arsenic, PAHs and petroleum compounds have
been detected in surface and subsurface soil. Like the Main Rail Yard, the EZ area is currently
completely fenced.
Area 4 previously contained approximately 15 soil stockpiles. Soil samples from the stockpiles
collected during the Phase II and Supplemental Phase II investigations were analyzed for
parameters to evaluate disposal and/or reuse options. These stockpiles were removed during
the Phase IV remedial activities.
For soil, the data were compiled into summary statistics. For each chemical, the statistics include the
minimum and maximum detected concentrations, frequency of detection, and arithmetic mean
concentrations. The following guidance documents were used to develop the summary statistics:

Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization In Support of the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan, July 1995 (MassDEP, 1995).

Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I – Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part
A (USEPA, 1989a).
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM

Report
4-6
Environment
Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste
Sites. OSWER 9285.6-10. December 2002 (USEPA, 2002).
The steps used to summarize the data by are discussed here.
Treatment of Duplicates: Data for samples and their duplicates were evaluated and the maximum
detected concentration used before summary statistics were calculated, such that a sample and its
duplicate were treated as one sample for calculation of summary statistics (including maximum detection
and frequency of detection).
Treatment of Non-Detects:

Summary statistics were not calculated for chemicals that were not detected in a particular
area/medium.

Where chemicals were detected in some samples and not in others in a particular
area/medium, ½ the reported sample quantitation limit (SQL) was used as a proxy
concentration for the samples reported as non-detect (MassDEP, 1995) (USEPA, 1989b).

For all non-detects for which ½ the SQL was calculated, ½ the SQL was compared to the
maximum detected concentration for that area and medium. Where ½ the SQL was greater
than the maximum detected concentration in a particular area/medium, the SQL value was
not used in the calculation of summary statistics for that chemical in that area and medium
(USEPA, 1989a).
Frequency of Detection: The frequency of detection for each chemical is reported as the number of
samples where that chemical was detected, the number of samples used to calculate statistics, and the
total number of samples analyzed. The number of samples used to calculate statistics reflects the
treatment of non-detects described above.
Minimum Detected Concentration: This is the minimum detected concentration for each
chemical/area/medium combination, after duplicates treated as discussed above.
Maximum Detected Concentration: This is the maximum detected concentration for each
chemical/area/medium combination, after duplicates have been treated as discussed above.
Mean Concentration: This is the arithmetic mean concentration for each chemical/area/medium
combination, after duplicates and non-detected have been treated as discussed above.
Analytical data and summary statistics for compounds detected in soil, including the minimum detected
value, the maximum detected value, and frequency of detection are presented in Attachment A.
According to the MCP, human exposure is unlikely for soil from depths greater than 15 feet. Therefore,
only data for soil depths less than 15 feet below grade are presented in these tables.
4.2
Selection of Compounds of Concern
Petroleum fractions, VOCs, PAHs, and metals were detected in soils and/or groundwater at the Site. An
evaluation of these materials was conducted to assess whether they should be considered background
in accordance with the MCP and MassDEP guidance documents.
Several factors are typically considered in selecting COCs for a site, including frequency of detection
and concentrations of detected compounds, natural background, and historical use of the site.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
4-7
Environment
According to MassDEP guidance (MassDEP, 1995), all compounds detected at the site are COCs,
unless there is a specific, justifiable rationale for dropping the compound from the quantitative risk
characterization. Compounds may be eliminated from the list of study compounds if they are: 1)
detected at concentrations at or below background concentrations; 2) laboratory contaminants; or 3)
detected infrequently at low concentrations.
4.2.1
Soil COCs
Petroleum Fractions and VOCs
Based on the definition of background conditions in 310 CMR 40.0006, it is likely that petroleum
hydrocarbon fractions and VOCs present at the Site would not be considered to be background.
Therefore, no effort was made to quantify background concentrations of petroleum and VOCs in soils or
groundwater, and all detections of these materials are considered to exceed background.
PAHs and Metals
Numerous PAHs and metals were detected in soil samples collected at the Site during the site
assessment activities. In accordance with the MassDEP’s Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum
Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach, Final Policy, October 31,
2002, Policy #WSC-02-411, acenaphthene, 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, and phenanthrene
are the four PAHs that may typically be associated with petroleum such as diesel/fuel oil, although
they are often present in urban fill due to other sources. Since it is not possible to determine whether
these compounds occur at the site due to the petroleum release or due to another source, they will be
considered petroleum constituents.
Evidence of fill, such as coal ash, wood, brick, and metals was observed in numerous borings installed
on-Site. The MassDEP recognizes that PAHs and metals are ubiquitous and consistently present in the
environment and are typically formed during the incomplete burning of organic material including wood
and coal. For this reason, the MassDEP has developed background concentrations for “natural” soils
and “soil containing coal ash or wood ash associated with fill material”. These background levels are
published in the MassDEP’s technical update entitled Background Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soil (May 2002) (MassDEP, 2002a) (“the Background Document”). The
soil sample laboratory analytical results summarized in Attachment A present the detected
concentrations of PAHs and metals in Site soils. These data indicate that the maximum detected
concentrations of many detected PAHs and metals exceeded the MassDEP’s published background
levels for “natural soils” and for urban fill soil containing coal ash or wood ash presented in the
Background Document. All PAHs and metals that presented maximum concentrations exceeding the
MassDEP’s published background levels for “natural soils” and for urban fill soil containing coal ash or
wood ash presented in the Background Document were considered soil COCs for the Site
4.2.2
Groundwater COCs
Groundwater data are summarized in Attachment A-6. All detected OHM were considered groundwater
COCs for the Site.
4.2.3
Summary of COCs
The contaminants considered groundwater COCs at the Site are presented in Attachment A-6 of this
Method 3 Risk Characterization. The contaminants considered COCs for soil are presented in
Attachment A of this Method 3 Risk Characterization, and are summarized below:
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Risk Area
Risk Area 1
Risk Area 2
Risk Area 3
Risk Area 4
VPH Hot Spot
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
Environment
4-8
Contaminant of Concern
Arsenic, cobalt, lead, EPH parameters,
acenaphthylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene
Arsenic
Antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
lead, nickel, zinc, EPH parameters
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, 2-methylnaphthalene
Antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
lead, EPH parameters, PCBs, Acenaphthylene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene, 2-methylnaphthalene
VPH parameters, EPH parameters, acenaphthene,
acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorene,
2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene
April 2013
AECOM
5.0
Report
5-1
Environment
Dose-Response Assessment
The purpose of the dose-response assessment is to identify the relationship between the dose of a
compound and the likelihood and magnitude of adverse health effects that may occur as a result of
exposure to that compound. Based on the observed effect and target organ identified, a numerical
value is developed to estimate the magnitude of the health effect associated with a dose. In the human
health risk characterization process, carcinogenic effects (chronic), and noncarcinogenic effects
(chronic, subchronic) are considered, as discussed further below. Dose-response relationships are
defined by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2011b; 1997) for oral and
inhalation routes of exposure. Dose-response information for oral exposures is used to assess potential
risks from dermal contact, in accordance with USEPA guidance (USEPA, 2004). The results of the
dose-response assessment (dose-response values) are combined with the results of the exposure
assessment (estimates of the magnitude of potential human exposure, presented in Section 6.0) in order
to provide an estimate of potential risk to human health.
In accordance with the MCP, 310 CMR 40.0993(5), primary consideration is given to dose-response
information developed by MassDEP. The MassDEP sources used for this risk assessment are included
the MassDEP ShortForms (MassDEP, 2008b).
USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), an online source of USEPA's most recent toxicity
information (USEPA, 2011b), the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (USEPA,
1997), and USEPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) provisional dose-response
values are often consulted as secondary sources of dose-response information for the COCs.
The receptors/exposure pathways were evaluated using the toxicity information and chemical physical
properties included in the MassDEP ShortForms (MassDEP, 2008b). Dose-response information from
the ShortForms is provided in the ShortForm documentation -
5.1
Carcinogenic Dose-Response
In assessing the carcinogenic potential of a compound, the Human Health Assessment Group (HHAG)
of USEPA classifies the compound into one of the following groups, according to the weight of evidence
from epidemiological and animal studies. The classifications are presented in the IRIS files for
compounds (USEPA, 2011b) and in MassDEP references (MassDEP, 2008b).
Group A - Human Carcinogen (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans)
Group B- Probable Human Carcinogen (B1 - limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans; B2 sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals with inadequate or lack of evidence in
humans)
Group C- Possible Human Carcinogen (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate or
lack of human data)
Group D- Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity (inadequate or no evidence)
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
5-2
Environment
Group E- Evidence of Noncarcinogenicity for Humans (no evidence of carcinogenicity in adequate
studies)
USEPA’s revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA, 2005) include some changes
from the earlier guidelines published in 1986 (USEPA, 1986). These changes include:

Replacing the alphanumeric classification system with a weight-of-evidence narrative and
providing three descriptors (known/likely, cannot be determined, and not likely);

Emphasizing the agent's mode of action;

Using biologically-based extrapolation models; and

Providing three default low-dose extrapolation approaches: the original linear approach, a
nonlinear approach (using a margin of exposure - MOE), or both.
While these represent important advances in carcinogen risk assessment, the approach has not
generally been implemented for constituents with toxicity values on IRIS (USEPA, 2011b).
For compounds with known or suspected carcinogenic effects, the underlying assumption for all
regulatory risk assessments is that there is no threshold for effects. Thus, every dose, no matter how
small, is assumed to pose some finite level of risk. There is considerable uncertainty associated with
this assumption. In addition, uncertainty is also associated with extrapolating laboratory animal or
human study data to the low dose levels encountered in the environment. Because of the uncertainty
associated with the procedure used to estimate Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs), which are the doseresponse criteria used in cancer risk assessment, regulatory agencies make conservative assumptions
in order to be health-protective. Thus, risk characterizations use an "upper-bound" estimate of the
cancer potency to avoid the possibility of underestimating any potential risk to humans. The actual
cancer risk, if any, is almost certainly lower than the estimated risk.
For use in the risk estimation spreadsheets, unit risk values, expressed as risk per microgram per cubic
meter (ug/m3)-1 are often converted to inhalation CSFs (CSFi), expressed as risk per milligram per
kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg-day)-1 following the formula cited in HEAST (USEPA, 1997):
Unit Risk (ug/m3)-1 x 70 kg x 1 day/ 20 m3 x 1,000 ug/mg = CSFi (mg/kg-day)-1.
Dose-response information from the ShortForms is provided in the ShortForm documentation Attachment B (trespasser scenario) and Attachment C (construction or utility worker scenario). These
values were also used for evaluating the commercial/industrial worker scenario (Attachment D).
5.2
Noncarcinogenic Dose-Response
For compounds with known or potential noncarcinogenic effects, it is assumed that there is a dose
below which no adverse effect occurs or above which an adverse effect may be seen. This dose is
called the threshold dose, or No-Observed-Adverse-Effects-Level (NOAEL). The lowest dose at which
an adverse effect is seen is called the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL). By applying
safety (uncertainty) factors to the NOAEL or LOAEL, USEPA and other regulatory agencies derive
Reference Doses (RfDs) for chronic exposure to compounds with potential noncarcinogenic effects. As
applicable, safety (uncertainty) factors are used to account for interspecies variability, variation in
sensitivity within the human population, differences in the route of administration among tests, and other
variables that may lend uncertainty to the extrapolation of test data to environmental settings.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
5-3
Environment
Units for RfDs are milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day), representing a dose of chemical (in
milligrams) per receptor body weight (in kilograms) per day. For inhalation exposures, the reference
concentration (RfC) is expressed as a concentration in air in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) for
continuous, 24 hour/day exposure.
For some COCs, chronic dose-response values were used to evaluate both chronic and subchronic
exposures. For compounds with potential noncarcinogenic effects, use of the chronic RfDs for
subchronic exposures provides a conservative evaluation of potential health risks associated with
exposures over a shorter exposure period.
Dose-response values for the inhalation route of exposure are provided by the USEPA as Reference
Concentrations (RfCs), expressed as milligrams of compounds per cubic meter of air (mg/m3). In order
to compare these dose-response values to an average daily exposure dose, the RfCs are converted to
inhalation RfDs (RfDi), expressed as the corresponding inhaled dose in mg/kg-day. The conversion
from RfC to RfDi follows the formula cited in HEAST (USEPA, 1997):
RfC (mg/m3) x (1/70 kg) x (20 m3/day) = RfDi (mg/kg-day)
Dose-response information from the ShortForms is provided in the ShortForm documentation Attachment B (trespasser scenario) and Attachment C (construction or utility worker scenario). The only
exception was for cobalt and copper since these COCs are not included in the MassDEP ShortForm
“lookup” file v0808.xls that contains the chemical-specific data, including dose-response information.
The chemical/physical constants and toxicity data, along with the references cited, that were added to
the “lookup” file by AECOM are provided in the ShortForm documentation located in Attachment B
(trespasser) and Attachment C (construction worker). These ShortForm values were also used for
evaluating the commercial/industrial worker scenario and are presented in Attachment D.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
6.0
Report
6-1
Environment
Exposure Assessment
The purpose of the exposure assessment for human receptors is to identify pathways through which
humans can be exposed under current and potential future use scenarios, and to make quantitative
estimates of potential exposures to COCs. The first step in the exposure assessment process is the
characterization of the setting of a Site and surrounding area. This is provided in Section 3.0. Using the
Site characterization information, current and potential future property uses and potential human
receptors (i.e., people who may contact the environmental media of interest) are identified. The
receptors assumed to be the most frequently exposed to the media of interest or assumed to be the
most sensitive receptors are identified.
Potential exposure pathways are the routes by which receptors may be exposed to COCs in
environmental media. For complete exposure pathways, the extent of potential exposures is calculated
using both receptor-specific exposure assumptions and compound-specific parameters.
As outlined by the USEPA (1989), an exposure pathway generally consists of four elements:

A source and mechanism of chemical release;

A retention and transport medium (media);

A point of potential human contact with the impacted media; and

An exposure route at the contact point.
In order for an exposure pathway to be complete, all four of the above elements must be met. The
source itself (e.g., soil containing chemicals) may be an exposure point, or an impacted media may
be a contaminant source for other media (e.g., impacted soil could be a source for groundwater
contamination).
The exposure assessment considers the current conditions at the Site and surrounding area in
determining exposure scenarios and exposure concentrations. Additionally, future uses of the Site
and surrounding area are also considered. This analysis assumes that the concentrations of
chemical constituents in environmental media are stable and will not change significantly over time.
This is a conservative assumption, as natural attenuation is expected to reduce contaminant
concentrations with time.
6.1
Potential Receptors and Exposure Scenarios
The identification of potential human receptors and routes of exposure to release-related compounds is
an important step in a human health risk assessment. For each combination of receptor/exposure
pathway, referred to as an exposure scenario, the appropriate exposure assumptions (e.g., intake rates,
exposure frequencies, and durations, and body weights) need to be determined. Typically, upper-bound
values are used to represent many of the parameters of exposure to ensure that the risk assessment will
be adequately health-protective, even for sensitive individuals. In this section, the relevant potential
exposure pathways and receptors are described.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
6.1.1
Report
6-2
Environment
Site Characterization for Exposure Assessment
The Site and surrounding areas are summarized in Section 3.0. A brief summary of information relevant
to this Method 3 risk assessment is included in this section.
The Site is currently vacant and is used by the MBTA and Massachusetts commuter rail operators for
the storage of railroad-related construction materials. It is likely these uses will continue in the
foreseeable future, and activities similar to those currently conducted at the Property can be reasonably
expected to continue. The MBTA has identified the end use of the Site as commercial/industrial, as
discussed at a meeting with the MassDEP in August 2003. It is anticipated that a portion of the Property
located in Dedham will be developed for solar power. In addition, an AUL is in place to preclude future
residential use of the property or development of the property that would result in high frequency/high
intensity use by children (e.g., a daycare or a park/playground). Therefore, direct contact with
contaminated soil and consumption of homegrown fruits and vegetables by future child and adult
residents (or park/playground visitors) was not considered a potential future exposure pathway. Access
to the Site by non-MBTA and Massachusetts commuter rail operator employees is currently restricted by
the presence of an 8-foot high chain link fence that is locked. However, the fence significantly restricts
but does not necessarily preclude access by potential trespassers, and the fence may be removed in the
future. Therefore, direct contact with soil by site employees, and trespassers was considered a complete
exposure pathway.
Direct contact of construction/utility workers to contaminated soils is considered to be a complete
exposure pathway. Individuals conducting subsurface work at the Site represent potential future human
receptors to site soils. Future construction workers and current/future utility workers may come into
direct contact with contaminated soil through incidental ingestion, dermal absorption, and inhalation of
re-suspended soil. The average depth of water at the Site is approximately 14.63 feet below grade.
Therefore, dermal contact by construction/utility workers with contaminated groundwater is unlikely to be
a significant potential exposure pathway. In addition, due to the relatively low levels of groundwater
contamination (which will decrease with time due to biodegradation), and the expected extremely limited
exposure to groundwater by construction/utility workers (i.e., short-term exposures while installing a
pump during dewatering activities), direct contact with groundwater was not considered a significant
exposure pathway.
The nearest surface water body is Sprague Pond, located approximately 1,000 feet south/southeast of
the Site. Based on the groundwater sampling results, no contaminants above applicable standards were
detected. In addition, significant attenuation/dilution is expected as groundwater migrates toward a
surface water body. As such, it is unlikely that OHM will be present in nearby surface water bodies at
detectable concentrations. Therefore, the surface water (and sediment) pathway is considered
incomplete.
As indicated in Figure 6 (MassGIS Data Layer Map) of the RAO, the Site is located approximately 500
feet east-southeast from a medium yield non-potential drinking water source area and designated
ACEC. In addition, a designated open space, Iacono/Readville Playground, is located approximately 500
feet north northeast of the Site. A Zone II (defined as the area of an aquifer which contributes water to a
well under the most severe pumping and recharge conditions that can be realistically anticipated) is
located approximately ½-mile south of the Site. There are no designated drinking water resources,
including Zone As, IWPAs, Sole Source Aquifers or Potential Drinking Water Source Areas, Threatened
or Endangered Species Habitats, or Outstanding Resource Waters, within 500 feet of the Site.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
6-3
Environment
The Town of Dedham’s municipal water supplier is the Dedham-Westwood Water District, which
receives their water supply from 11 artesian wells, six of which are located in Westwood, and five of
which are located in Dedham. The City of Boston receives its water supply through the MWRA, from the
Quabbin Reservoir located in Belchertown, Massachusetts. Based on the above considerations, potable
use of groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the Site is not expected currently or in the foreseeable
future.
Although, the average annual depth to groundwater is approximately 15 feet bgs, no occupied structures
are located on the Site. In addition, significant levels of VOCs were not detected in groundwater and/or
soil at the site. Therefore, potential migration of volatile contaminants from soil and/or groundwater to
the indoor air was not considered a significant/complete exposure pathway. Since VOCs are generally
not considered COCs for soil and groundwater, and due to the large atmospheric dilution factor, human
exposure to vapors in ambient air is also not expected.
As discussed above, the Site is currently vacant and is used by the MBTA and Massachusetts
commuter rail operators for the storage of railroad-related construction materials. It is likely that the Site
will continue to be used for this purpose in the future. A portion of the property located in Dedham is
intended to be used for a solar farm. The Site is mostly unpaved, with the exception of a concrete pad
and a driveway approximately 100 feet wide and 1,700 feet long running east-west along the northern
side of the Site. Although contamination is present in surface soil, the unpaved areas of the Site
(including the soil stockpiles) are heavily vegetated site or covered with stone and, therefore, the
generation of contaminated dust and the resulting inhalation exposures are not expected under current
site conditions. However, although unlikely, the Site vegetation may be removed during future site
uses/activities. Therefore, inhalation exposure to fugitive dust from the Site was considered a potential
future exposure to nearby off-site residents. However, it was demonstrated in the Method 3 risk
characterization included with the Supplemental Phase II CSA (AECOM, 2010), that this pathway poses
a condition of No Significant Risk to nearby off-site residents. Therefore, this pathway was not
evaluated further in this Method 3 risk characterization used to support the RAO.
6.1.2
Potential Receptors Evaluated in the Risk Assessment
Based on the current and potential future site uses, potential human receptors evaluated in this
Method 3 risk characterization include:

Current/future on-Site commercial/industrial workers (adults and teenagers) exposed via
incidental ingestion and dermal exposure to contaminated soil (using AECOM spreadsheets).

Future workers conducting potential future subsurface construction activities (adults and
teenagers) exposed via incidental ingestion and dermal exposure to contaminated soil, and
inhalation of re-suspended soil (using the MassDEP’s ShortForm (MassDEP, 2008b)

Current/future Site trespassers, including nearby residents (adults and teenagers) exposed
via incidental ingestion and dermal exposure to contaminated soil (using the MassDEP’s
ShortForm (MassDEP, 2008b).
The MCP identifies 0-3 feet as surface soil (accessible soil) for evaluating current potential exposures
and >3-15 feet (potentially accessible) as the depth of interest for potential future exposure scenarios.
Under future conditions, exposure to soil at depth (>-15 feet below grade) was also considered a
potentially complete exposure pathway for future site workers, trespassers, and construction workers.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
6-4
Environment
It should be noted that this risk assessment did not quantitatively evaluate potential exposures and
resultant health risks to site soils by potential utility workers. However, due to the conservative exposure
assumptions and receptors used by the MassDEP in the Short Form for Human Health Risk
Assessment under the MCP, April 28, 2006, revised September 26, 2008, it is expected that the
construction worker exposure scenario provided a worst-case evaluation of potential human exposures
and resultant health risks from subchronic exposures at the Site. The MassDEP’s Guidance on
Implementing Activity and Use Limitations, May 1999, states that when evaluating emergency utility
repair work it is appropriate to consider only those contaminants that may pose an acute or short-term
risk through dermal contact and incidental ingestion (i.e., cyanide) and potential acute dermal reactions
associated with exposure to specific metals (e.g., hexavalent chromium and nickel). In addition, the
MassDEP has stated in the Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization - In Support of the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan document the following. “Of all the chemicals commonly detected at
disposal sites, cyanide is the only one which could pose a significant health risk from a one-time
exposure to concentrations that are often found in the environment. Although acute exposures to some
other hazardous materials could pose a health risk at some level, the concentrations at which acute
exposures are of concern are much higher than levels typically found in the environment.” The OHM of
concern at this site are VOCs, metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and certain target PAHs, and does not
include cyanide. Based on these considerations, the construction worker exposure scenario evaluated
in this Method 3 Risk Characterization is considered to provide a worst-case evaluation of potential
human exposures and resultant health risks due to potential excavation activities at the Site.
6.1.2.1 Current/Future Trespasser
The MassDEP’s Trespasser Soil ShortForm was used to evaluate the nearby resident potentially
exposed to soil by ingestion and dermal contact while trespassing on the Site. The trespasser is
assumed to be a youth between the ages of 11 and 18 years weighing 50.7 kg. For evaluating
subchronic noncarcinogenic effects, a youth between the ages of 11 and 12 years, with a body weight of
40.3 kg, is evaluated. The youth is assumed to trespass at the Disposal Site for 60 days per year (2 day
per week, 30 weeks per year) and ingest 50 mg of soil per day. The trespasser’s hands, forearms, and
feet are assumed to contact soil (2,940 cm2 for evaluating chronic exposures and 2,477 cm2 for
evaluating subchronic exposures). All assumptions, equations, and references are provided in the
Trespasser Soil ShortForm (MassDEP, 2008b). Summary printouts of the Trespasser Soil ShortForm
are provided in Attachment B.
6.1.2.2 Future Construction Worker
The MassDEP Construction Worker Soil ShortForm is used to evaluate ingestion of soil, dermal contact
with soil, and inhalation and ingestion of dust by a construction worker during future soil excavation
activities. The construction worker is assumed to be an 18-25 year old female, weighing 58 kg, who
works 5 days per week (130 days total), ingests 100 kg of soil per working day, and whose face, hands,
forearms, and feet may be exposed to soil (area of 3,477 cm2). All assumptions, equations, and
references are provided in the Construction Worker Soil ShortForm (MassDEP, 2008b). Summary
printouts of the Construction Worker Soil ShortForm are provided in Attachment C.
6.1.2.3 Current/Future Commercial/Industrial Worker
AECOM spreadsheets were used to evaluate ingestion of soil and dermal contact with soil by a
commercial/industrial worker while working on-site. The exposure assumptions used to evaluate this
exposure receptor/scenario were the same as those used by the MassDEP for the derivation of the
Method 1 S-2 Soil Standards (MassDEP, 2008a) since these standards were established for an adult
commercial/industrial receptor. The use of the exposure assumption used to derive the MassDEP’s
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
6-5
Environment
Method 1 S-2 Soil Standards to evaluate an on-site worker receptor for this Method 3 risk
characterization is very conservative, because workers are not currently on-site on a regular basis.
Commercial/industrial worker exposure to soil is assumed to occur 4 days per week, 30 weeks per year
(from April to October – i.e., 120 days). The soil ingestion rate was 50 mg/day. It was assumed that the
commercial/industrial worker’s face, hands, forearms, and lower legs may be exposed to soil (3,473
square centimeters surface area). The skin adherence factor was assumed to be 0.03 milligrams per
square centimeter. The commercial/industrial worker was assumed to weigh 61.1 kg, the average
weight for adult female age 18-45 years. The exposure assumptions for the commercial/industrial
worker are summarized in Table D-1, provided in Attachment D.
6.2
Method for Quantifying Exposure Dose
To estimate the potential risk to human health that may be posed by the presence of COCs at the Site, it
is first necessary to estimate the potential exposure dose of each COC. The exposure dose is estimated
for each compound via each exposure pathway by which the receptor is assumed to be exposed.
Exposure dose equations combine the estimates of compound concentration in the environmental
medium of interest with assumptions regarding the type and magnitude of each receptor's potential
exposure to provide a numerical estimate of the exposure dose.
The average daily dose (ADD) is a quantitative estimate of how much of each compound is taken
into the receptor's body during exposure. The ADD is expressed as milligrams of OHM per
kilograms of body weight per day (mg/kg/day). The general form of the dose equation is:
ADD =
Total Amount of OHM Contacted * RAF
Body Weight * Averaging Period
Relative absorption factors (RAFs) are used to account for the differences in absorption likely to
occur between exposures under Site conditions and those that occurred under the experimental
conditions that form the basis of the toxicity values. Absorption differences may result from matrix
effects (e.g., doses absorbed from soil versus water) as well as from routes of administration (e.g.,
oral versus dermal exposure). RAFs adjust the calculated Site dose to make it comparable to the
available toxicity information. RAFs used in this risk assessment are incorporated into the
MassDEP’s ShortForms. These values were also used for evaluating the commercial/industrial
worker scenario (Attachment D).
ADDs are calculated differently for assessment of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects from
ingestion and dermal contact exposures. For assessment of non-carcinogenic effects, the ADD is
averaged over the exposure period. Therefore, the AP is equal to the EP. The result or ADD is an
estimate of dose experienced during the actually quantified theoretical period of exposure.
Averaging Periodnon-carcinogenic = Exposure Period
For carcinogenic effects there is assumed to be no threshold level, and exposures are cumulative
over a lifetime. The dose received is, therefore, averaged over a lifetime (70 years) instead of over
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Environment
6-6
just the exposure period. The resulting dose estimate is referred to as a lifetime average daily dose,
or LADD.
Averaging Periodcarcinogenic = Lifetime (70 years)
The average daily exposure (ADE) is a quantitative estimate of applied concentration of each
compound for the receptor during exposure. The ADE is expressed as micrograms (µg) per cubic
meter of air (m3) and is based on the exposure point concentration (EPC) and an adjustment for the
amount of time the receptor spends in the area with contaminated air. The general form of the
exposure equation is:
ADE=
EPC * ExposureFrequency* ExposurePeriod* ConversionFactors
AveragingPeriod
As with ADDs, ADEs are calculated differently for assessment of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
effects. For assessment of non-carcinogenic effects, the ADE is averaged over the exposure period.
The resulting ADE is an estimate of dose experienced during the actual period of exposure.
Averaging Periodnon-carcinogenic = Exposure Period
For carcinogenic effects there is assumed to be no threshold level, and exposures are cumulative
over a lifetime. The exposure received is therefore averaged over a lifetime (70 years) instead of
over just the exposure period. The resulting exposure estimate is referred to as a lifetime average
daily exposure, or LADE.
The equations for estimating a receptor’s average daily dose (both lifetime and subchronic/chronic) for
the soil pathways are presented in the ShortForm summary tables, Attachments B and C. The
standardized equations for estimating a commercial/industrial worker’s average daily dose (both lifetime
and chronic) are presented below.
Estimating Potential Exposure from Ingestion of and Dermal Contact with Soil
The following equations are used to calculate potential risks from incidental ingestion of and dermal
contact with soil by a commercial/industrial worker.
Average Daily Dose (Lifetime and Chronic) Following Incidental Ingestion of Soil (mg/kg-day):
ADD 
CS x IR x EF x ED x RAFo x CF
BW x AT
Where:
ADD
=
Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
CS
IR
EF
ED
RAFo
CF
BW
AT
Report
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Environment
6-7
Soil or sediment/soil concentration (mg/kg soil)
Ingestion rate (mg soil/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (year)
Oral-Soil Relative Absorption Factor (RAF) (unitless)
Unit conversion factor (kg soil/106 mg soil)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Average Daily Dose (Lifetime and Chronic) Following Dermal Contact with Soil (mg/kg-day):
ADD 
CS x SA x AF x EF x ED x RAFd x CF
BWxAT
Where:
ADD
CS
SA
AF
EF
ED
RAFd
CF
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)
Soil concentration (mg/kg soil)
Exposed skin surface area (cm2/day)
Soil to skin adherence factor (mg soil/cm2)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (year)
Dermal-Soil RAF (unitless)
Unit conversion factor (kg soil/106 mg soil)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Risk calculations were conducted using “unit concentrations” (estimated based on a soil unit
concentration of 1 mg/kg). This approach calculates the risks for each COC per soil concentration
(called unit risks) for the commercial/industrial worker exposure scenario for current and future
evaluations. To calculate the potential risks associated with each EPC, the unit risk associated with a
specific COC and exposure point is multiplied by the EPC. The tables showing this information are
called scaling tables. The use of the unit risk calculation and scaling tables minimizes the number of risk
calculation spreadsheets. The exposure assumptions for soil exposure by an on-site
commercial/industrial worker are presented in Attachment D, Table D-1.
Exposure point concentrations (EPCs) used for estimating potential exposures are discussed in Section
6.3.
6.3
Exposure Points and Exposure Point Concentrations
Exposure points are located where potential receptors may contact COCs at or from the Site. The
concentrations of COCs in the environmental media that receptors may contact, referred to as the
EPCs, must be estimated to determine the magnitude of potential exposure. The EPCs are discussed
below. The soil exposure points at the Site are: current exposures – soil from 0-3 feet; and, future
exposures - soil from 0-3 feet and >3-15 feet.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
6.3.1
Report
6-8
Environment
Soil
As described in the MassDEP's Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization, soil Exposure Points
encompass only continuous areas of contaminated soil and do not include clean soil. Therefore, the
boundary of an Exposure Point is no larger than the extent of contamination at the Site. The potential
Exposure Points for contact with soils is the release area itself (i.e., the entire disposal site boundary).
It should be noted that soil samples collected from the Site in areas that involved soil remediation during
the Phase IV remedial activities were not utilized in this Method 3 risk assessment since the soil
represented by these samples was excavated or treated. Refer to Section 4.1.1.
In order to provide a risk characterization to support the RAO for the Site, AECOM considered the same
Exposure Points and areas of concern as those described in previous risk assessments. As discussed
previously, the Site was divided into four areas or Exposure Points based on historical use, types and
concentrations of contaminants. These Exposure Points included surface soils (0-3 feet to evaluate
potential current and future exposures) and also subsurface soil (>3-15 feet to evaluate potential future
exposures) in the following areas of concern at the Site, as appropriate:




Area 1 (Orphan Line) (0-3 feet).
Area 2 (Ashcroft Street Fence Line) (0-3 feet).
Area 3 (Main Rail Yard) (0-3 feet, and > 3 feet).
Area 4 (EZ) (0-3 feet, and > 3 feet).
As specified in 310 CMR 40.0926, EPCs are typically calculated by averaging the contaminant
concentration measured by each sample, using one-half the reporting limit for samples with nondetected values. The MCP [310 CMR 40.0926(3)(b)(1)] further states that arithmetic averaging for EPCs
should only be done if: the arithmetic average is less than or equal to the applicable standard; seventyfive percent of the data points used in the averaging do not exceed the applicable standard; and, no data
point used in the averaging is ten times greater than the applicable standard. Since these criteria are
not met, in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0926(3)(c) “the use of the maximum concentrations or the 95th
percentile upper confidence limit on the mean, whichever is lower, shall be used to estimate an
Exposure Point concentration”. The 95% UCL of the mean concentration, assuming site soil data are
normally distributed, was calculated as follows:
95% UCL = m x + (t *
Where:
sx
)
n
mx
=
average or arithmetic mean concentration
t
=
t-value from the Students t-distribution with n-1 degrees
of freedom (significance level or α=0.05)
sx
=
standard deviation
n
=
number of samples collected for analysis
In accordance with the MassDEP's Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization - In Support of the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan, the mean concentration was calculated using a value of one-half the
method detection limit as a proxy concentration when an OHM was not detected in a particular sample.
If an OHM was not detected in any of the samples, a value of zero was assumed in place of the method
detection limit (i.e., it was assumed the OHM was not present). When a duplicate analysis was available
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
6-9
Environment
for a particular sample, the higher detected concentration was used in the EPC calculation. When both
were available, the higher result from the laboratory data and XRF screening data was conservatively
used. If no analytes were detected in a particular sample, the sample was not used in the calculation of
EPCs.
As discussed in the MassDEP's Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization - In Support of the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan, the MCP allows averaging of soils to develop EPCs, provided that
“hot spot” concentrations are not inappropriately averaged with other soil data affected. The
identification of a hot spot is based on consideration of both the concentrations and spatial pattern of
contamination. Knowledge of a defined source area and site-specific observations and data may also
help to define the extent of a hot spot.
In accordance with the MCP (310 CMR 40.0926) site data were evaluated to determine whether hot
spots may be present at the site. The hot spot evaluations for the soil exposure areas are presented in
this section.
Evaluation of Potential Hot Spots in Soil
In the MCP, 310 CMR 40.0006, a hot spot is defined as a discrete area where the concentrations of oil
or hazardous material are substantially higher than concentrations in the surrounding area. A discrete
area where the concentration is greater than one hundred times the surrounding concentration is always
a hot spot. A discrete area where the concentration difference is greater than ten times the surrounding
area concentration may be a hot spot, if the exposure potential is greater in the hot spot area than in
other areas of the site, and the distribution and concentrations of the OHM is indicative of a hot spot.
According to the MCP, concentrations of oil or hazardous material equal to or less than an applicable
Method 1 standard are not considered indicative of a hot spot.
Previous risk characterizations performed for the Site identified the following locations that were
considered “hot spots” at the Site:

Soil sample SA/GP-44 (9 to 11 feet) was considered to be a “VPH Hot Spot” and was not
averaged with data collected from other locations within the Main Rail Yard (Area 3). In SA/GP44, the concentration of total VPH (unadjusted) was 694 mg/kg, and consisted of 154 mg/kg
(C9-C10 aromatics) and 193 mg/kg (C9-C12 aliphatics, adjusted), which was 10 to 100 times
greater than the VPH concentrations detected in surrounding locations (SA/GP-18, SA/GP-46
and SA/TP-8). Other COCs at SA/GP-44 included the two EPH fractions and the target PAHs
2-methylnaphthalene and acenaphthylene.

Soil sample HB/GP-24 (2 to 4 feet) was considered an “EPH Hot Spot” and was not averaged
with data collected from other locations within the Main Rail Yard (Area 3). In HB/GP-24, the
concentration of total unadjusted EPH was 6,851 mg/kg and consisted of 60.6 mg/kg (C9-C18
aliphatics), 5,600 mg/kg (C19-C36 aliphatics) and 1,190 mg/kg (C11-C22 aliphatics), which was
10 to 100 times greater than the EPH concentrations detected in surrounding locations (HA/GP40 and HA/GP-42).
During the IH Evaluation in 2000, Rizzo identified two surface soil sample locations as “lead hot
spots”. Lead was detected at 20,000 mg/kg in surface soil sample SS01 (0-6”) in the EZ (Area
4) and at 15,000 mg/kg in surface soil sample SS22 (0-6”) in the Main Rail Yard (Area 3). Rizzo
treated these two locations as separate exposure points in the IH Evaluation because lead
concentrations in these areas were significantly higher than in other adjacent samples.
Similarly, for the Phase II risk assessment the Rizzo surface soil samples SS01 and SS22 were
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
6-10
Environment
evaluated separately as hot spots and were not averaged with other soil samples (0 to 6 inches)
in calculating EPCs for lead in surface soil. However, the MassDEP XRF soil screening data
indicated lead concentrations between 2,563 and 3,820 mg/kg near Rizzo SS22 (15,000 mg/kg)
and lead concentrations of 1,263 mg/kg near Rizzo SS01 (20,000 mg/kg). The soil data sets
used in estimating EPCs in surface soil were generally large (100+ samples) and exclusion of
the two Rizzo samples SS01 and SS22 as separate exposure points was considered
appropriate, in the Phase II Risk Characterization for evaluation of lead in surface soil. For the
revised Method 3 Characterization provided in the Supplemental Phase II CSA (AECOM, 2010),
SS01 was also considered a separate exposure point for evaluating surface soil lead (Lead Hot
Spot 1). Further evaluation of surface soil sample SS22 revealed that this sample is located
within a cluster of soil samples with elevated lead concentrations. As such, surface sample
SS22 was considered part of a larger hot spot evaluated as part of the Method 3 Risk
Characterization provided in the Supplemental Phase II CSA (AECOM, 2010) (refer to Lead Hot
Spot 2, below).

In Area 3, elevated levels of lead were observed in Cell 637 at 0-0.5 feet (20,015 mg/kg via
XRF) (10,000 mg/kg via lab analysis), Cell 639 at 0-0.5 feet (37,900 mg/kg), Cell 692 at 0.5-2
feet (49,100 mg/kg), and 694 (0.5-3 feet) (27,500 mg/kg) at concentrations above the lead UCL
of 3,000 mg/kg. In addition, elevated lead concentrations were observed in adjacent Cell 693 at
0.5-3 feet (6,518.4 mg/kg) during Levine Fricke Recon, Inc. (LFR’s) Phase IV Remedy
Implementation Plan (RIP) lead XRF screening. Rizzo’s surface soil sample SS22 is located on
the northern edge of Cell 639 (in the southern edge of Cell 695) and is also considered part of
this hot spot. Therefore, the area of the Site located in the Main Rail Yard defined by these
sample locations was considered a separate exposure point (Lead Hot Spot 2) in the Method 3
Characterization provided in the Supplemental Phase II CSA (AECOM, 2010).

In Area 4, an elevated concentration of lead was present in Cell 906 at 0-0.5 feet (9,520 mg/kg)
above the lead UCL of 3,000 mg/kg. Lead concentrations in surrounding cells were well below
the lead UCL and revised RBC. As such, this location in Area 4 was considered a separate
exposure point (Lead Hot Spot 3) in the Method 3 Characterization provided in the
Supplemental Phase II CSA (AECOM, 2010).
With the exception of the VPH Hot Spot, soil excavation activities were performed during the Phase IV
activities at all of the hot spots previously identified at the Site. In addition, all soil Stockpiles and
associated Stockpile Hot Spots were also removed during the Phase IV activities. The post-remediation
confirmatory soil samples from these locations were included with the data from the Area of the Site in
which these hot spots (and stockpiles) were located.
Soil data for soil remaining at the Site following the Phase IV activities is presented in Attachment A, and
summary statistics for soil data utilized in this risk assessment are also presented in the tables (0-3 feet
and >3-15 feet). In general, no discrete areas were identified where the concentration differences were
as high as a factor of 100. Furthermore, within the exposure point, the exposure potential is expected to
be equal for all receptors. That is, the exposure potential is equal throughout the various portions of the
paved and unpaved areas of the Site. It is also unlikely that a receptor would be exposed to one specific
soil location for a long period of time (i.e., a subchronic or chronic exposure). Additionally, under
MassDEP guidance a hot spot cannot be created as a result of remedial action. Therefore, with the
exception of the VPH Hot Spot, no hot spots exist in the Exposure Points.
The soil EPCs for VPH Hot Spot, were assumed to be the maximum detected concentration of each
COC since only one sample was collected in this hot spot and due to the small area encompassed by
this hot spot.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Environment
6-11
The soil EPCs are summarized in Table 1. The soil data, summary statistics and soil EPC calculations
are presented in Attachment A.
6.3.2
Groundwater
As discussed in Section 6.1.1, no significant/complete groundwater exposure pathways were identified
(i.e., no Exposure Points were identified).
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
7.0
Report
7-1
Environment
Human Health Risk Characterization
The potential risk to human health associated with possible exposure to COCs at or from a disposal site
is evaluated in this step of the risk assessment process. Risk characterization is the process in which
the dose-response information (Section 5.0) is integrated with estimates of human exposure derived in
the Exposure Assessment (Section 6.0). The result is a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that
humans will experience any adverse health effects, based on numerous assumptions made throughout
each stage of the risk assessment process. Two general types of health risk are characterized for each
potential exposure pathway considered: potential carcinogenic risk and potential noncarcinogenic risk,
as discussed further in Sections 7.1 and 7.2, respectively.
Under current and future conditions potential receptors include a trespasser, a future construction
worker, and a future on-Site commercial/industrial worker. As discussed previously, trespasser
exposures and construction worker exposures at the Site were evaluated using the MassDEP’s Short
Form for Human Health Risk Assessment under the MCP version 4-06, April 28, 2006, revised
September 26, 2008 (MassDEP, 2008b). Potential exposures and resultant health risks to site soils by
potential on-Site commercial/industrial workers were evaluated using AECOM spreadsheets since the
MassDEP has not developed a ShortForm for this receptor/exposure scenario. The exposure
assumptions and dose-response information used to evaluate on-Site commercial/industrial worker
exposures were in accordance with the MassDEP default values for this receptor. This risk assessment
did not quantitatively evaluate potential exposures and resultant health risks to site soils by potential
utility workers. However, due to the conservative exposure assumptions and receptors used by the
MassDEP in the Short Form for Human Health Risk Assessment under the MCP, April 28, 2006, revised
September 26, 2008, and since no acutely toxic site-related OHM are present on-Site, it is expected that
the future construction worker exposure scenario provided a worst-case evaluation of potential adult
human exposures and resultant health risks during potential soil excavation activities.
Risk calculation spreadsheets and results for the receptors are provided in:

Attachment B (current and future trespasser).

Attachment C (future construction or utility worker).

Attachment D (future on-Site commercial/industrial worker).
Sections 7.4 and 7.5 present the risk characterization results using the MassDEP’s Short Form for
Human Health Risk Assessment under the MCP version 4-06, April 28, 2006, revised September 26,
2008 for the current and future potential trespasser and the future construction worker, respectively.
The risk characterization results for the current and future commercial/industrial worker using AECOM
spreadsheets are presented in Section 7.6. Potential carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards
are summarized separately for each human receptor at each Exposure Point as presented in Table 2.
As required by MassDEP guidance, EPCs are evaluated with respect to applicable and suitably
analogous standards in Section 7.7.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
7.1
Report
Environment
7-2
Non-Cancer Risk
The indicator used to describe the potential for non-carcinogenic health effects is the Hazard Index
(HI). For a given chemical, the HI is the ratio of a receptor's exposure level (or dose) to the level of
exposure considered to be safe. In this risk characterization, a safe level of exposure is represented
by the RfD or RfC for each compound. An HI that does not exceed 1 indicates the receptor's
exposure to that COC is unlikely to result in an adverse health effect.
Hazard Index = ADD/RfD or
Hazard Index = ADE/RfC
When the HIs for each of the COCs at the Site are summed for each receptor, the result is a total
Site Hazard Index. This total Site Hazard Index is referred to as a screening HI because it does not
segregate different compounds of concern based on their mode of toxicological activity.
Thus, when used as an indicator of total Site non-carcinogenic risk, the screening HI is likely to
overstate the actual level of non-carcinogenic risk. If the screening level HI is not greater than 1, this
indicates there is no significant non-carcinogenic health risk associated with Site exposures. In this
case, there is no need to refine the assessment by segregating constituent-specific HIs by critical
effect.
7.2
Cancer Risk
The potential for carcinogenic health effects is estimated as the incremental Excess Lifetime Cancer
Risk (ELCR). The ELCR represents the incremental probability of an exposed individual developing
cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure. For each COC, the ELCR is the product of the
Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD) or Lifetime Average Daily Exposure (LADE) and that
compound's carcinogenic potency. The indicator of carcinogenic potency used in this risk
characterization is the EPA Cancer Slope Factor (CSF) or Unit Risk.
ELCR = LADD x CSF or
ELCR = LADE x Unit Risk
As in the case of non-cancer risk, the ELCRs for each of the different compounds and pathways are
summed to produce a receptor-specific cumulative ELCR. This cumulative ELCR is compared to
the risk management criterion of 1 x 10-5 (one in one hundred thousand). A cumulative ELCR that
does not exceed 1 x 10-5 indicates that no significant carcinogenic risk is present due to COCs at the
Site. A cumulative ELCR greater than 1 x 10-5 indicates a potential for significant cancer risk is
present as defined by the MCP.
7.3
Number of Significant Figures in the Risk Characterization
The MassDEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup has recently posed the question of how many
significant figures should be used in Method 1 and Method 3 risk assessments. As presented in
their Technical Update (MassDEP, 2009), the MassDEP has stated that there are three options
concerning how many significant figures should be used to present the EPCS and the risk results in
a risk assessment. Alternative 1 states that the risk characterization may use the Absolute Method,
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
7-3
Environment
wherein all EPCs and risk estimates are compared to promulgated standards and risk limits without
rounding (no additional considerations are necessary). Alternative 2 is to use the Rounding Method,
which displays EPCs and the risk results using a minimum of 2 significant figures without further
consideration. Alternative 3 uses the Rounding Method with 1 significant figure. In the case of a
Method 3 Risk Characterization, Alternative 3 also requires a check of the precision of the analytical
data and toxicity values used. The MassDEP has stated that they expect that most Method 3 risk
assessments should be expressed as 1 significant figure. A review of the toxicity values provided in
the 2008 ShortForms reveals that the toxicity values for the COCs are generally expressed in 2
significant figures; however, the noncarcinogenic toxicity factors typically have uncertainty factors or
modifying factors that have 1 significant figure, ranging from 1 to 3 orders of magnitude (i.e., 10 to
1000). Therefore, the toxicity factors are considered to have low precision. In addition, these
toxicity factors are based on a wide range of toxic end points (e.g., lead is based on the National
Primary Drinking Water Action Level that was not derived from a specific toxic endpoint while the
toxic endpoint for C9-C18 aliphatic hydrocarbons is changes in blood chemistry and liver weight).
As such, these COCs are not considered to have additive effects and summing their individual
hazard quotients to calculate an HI is questionable. Based on these considerations, and considering
that the 2008 ShortForms present the HI and ELCR in 1 significant figure, AECOM feels that it is
appropriate to use 1 significant figure to express the cumulative Site risk in this Method 3 Risk
Characterization.
7.4
Risk Characterization For a Potential Trespasser at the Site
A potential trespasser may be exposed to soil at the Site by ingestion or dermal contact. The trespasser
assessment was conducted using MassDEP’s Trespasser Soil ShortForm (MassDEP, 2008b). The
MassDEP Trespasser Soil ShortForm provides dose-response values and other chemical-specific input
values, exposure assumptions, equations and summary tables. The Trespasser Soil ShortForm
printouts are presented in Attachment B.
Potential risks for the trespasser were estimated using soil data from 0 to 3 feet to evaluate current
exposures and from 0 to 15 feet below grade (i.e., 0-3 feet and >3-15 feet) at each exposure point to
evaluate potential future exposures at the Site. The EPCs used in the Trespasser Soil ShortForm are
those developed for use in this risk assessment (Section 6.3.1).
The results of the Trespasser Soil ShortForm calculations are presented in Table 2. As shown in this
tables, the noncarcinogenic subchronic and chronic HIs for the current and future trespasser at all the
Exposure Points at the Site do not exceed the MCP acceptable noncarcinogenic HI level of 1 indicating
that noncarcinogenic effects are unlikely to occur.
As demonstrated in Table 2, the potential ELCRs posed by the incidental ingestion and dermal exposure
to COCs in soil by a current and future Site trespasser at all the Exposure Points at the Site do not
exceed the MassDEP’s target risk level of 1 x 10-5.
7.5
Risk Characterization For a Potential Future Construction Worker at the
Site
A worker at a future construction project or utility project may be exposed to soil in an excavation by
ingestion or dermal contact and to fugitive dust from the excavation by inhalation and ingestion. The
future construction worker risk assessment was conducted using MassDEP’s Construction Worker Soil
ShortForm (MassDEP, 2008b). The MassDEP Construction Worker Soil ShortForm provides dose-
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
7-4
Environment
response values and other chemical-specific input values, exposure assumptions, equations and
summary tables. The Construction Worker Soil ShortForm printouts are presented in Attachment C.
Potential risks for the hypothetical construction worker/utility worker were conservatively estimated using
soil data from 0 to 15 feet below grade (i.e., 0-3 feet and >3-15 feet) to evaluate potential future
exposures at each exposure point at the Site. The EPCs used in the Construction Worker Soil
ShortForm are those developed for use in this risk assessment (Section 6.3.1).
The results of the Construction Worker Soil ShortForm calculations are presented in Table 2. As shown
in this table, the noncarcinogenic subchronic HIs for the future construction worker in Area 1, Area 2 and
the VPH Hot Spot Exposure Points at the Site do not exceed the MCP acceptable noncarcinogenic HI
level of 1 indicating that noncarcinogenic effects are unlikely to occur. The subchronic HIs for the future
construction worker in Area 3 and Area 4 are above the MassDEP’s target HI level of 1.0 indicating a
condition of No Significant Risk does not exist for non-cancer effects at these Exposure Points.
However, an AUL is in place to preclude excavation of soil without meeting certain precautions, thereby
eliminating these potential health risks to future construction workers at the Site.
As demonstrated in Table 2, the potential ELCRs posed by the incidental ingestion and dermal exposure
to COCs in soil by a future construction worker at all the Exposure Points at the Site do not exceed the
MassDEP’s target risk level of 1 x 10-5.
7.6
Risk Characterization For a Potential Commercial/Industrial at the Site
A potential commercial/industrial worker may be exposed to soil at the Site by ingestion or dermal
contact. As discussed previously, the MassDEP has not developed a ShortForm for evaluating the
commercial/industrial worker scenario. Therefore, AECOM spreadsheets were utilized to evaluate this
potential exposure scenario. As discussed in Section 6.2, to calculate the potential risks associated with
each EPC for the Site, the unit risk estimate based on a unit soil concentration of 1 mg/kg is multiplied
by the EPC. The tables showing this information are called scaling tables. The scaling tables are
presented with the unit risk calculation spreadsheets in Attachment D.
Potential risks for the commercial/industrial worker were estimated using soil data from 0 to 3 feet to
evaluate current exposures and from 0 to 15 feet below grade (i.e., 0-3 feet and >3-15 feet) to evaluate
potential future exposures at the Site. The EPCs used in to evaluate the commercial/industrial worker
are those developed for use in this risk assessment (Section 6.3.1).
The results of the Trespasser Soil ShortForm calculations are presented in Table 2. As shown in this
table, the noncarcinogenic chronic HIs for the current and future commercial/industrial worker at all the
Exposure Points at the Site do not exceed the MCP acceptable noncarcinogenic HI level of 1 indicating
that noncarcinogenic effects are unlikely to occur.
As demonstrated in Table 2, the potential ELCRs posed by the incidental ingestion and dermal exposure
to COCs in soil by a current and future Site commercial/industrial worker at all the Exposure Points at
the Site do not exceed the MassDEP’s target risk level of 1 x 10-5.
7.7
Comparison to Applicable or Suitably Analogous Standards
The MCP requires a comparison of EPCs to applicable and suitably analogous human health standards
as part of a Method 3 risk assessment. Applicable or suitably analogous standards are formally
promulgated standards intended to protect human health and the environment from adverse effects of
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
7-5
Environment
hazardous agents. Such standards are media-specific. In accordance with MassDEP policy/guidance,
the MCP Method 1 risk characterization standards are not considered to be applicable or suitably
analogous standards for Method 3 risk assessments.
There are no applicable or suitably analogous soil standards available for Site COCs. Federal and state
drinking water standards are not applicable or suitably analogous standards for this Site, because
groundwater at the Site is not classified as GW-1.
7.8
Uncertainties in the Health Risk Assessment
Scientific uncertainties are associated with site chemical characterization, estimates of exposures, doseresponse relationships and risks presented in any human health evaluation. It is generally accepted in
the scientific community that the degree of uncertainty associated with quantitative risk assessments
cannot be stated in absolute terms.
The uncertainties in this report are unavoidable in that they depend, to a greater or lesser extent, upon
many technical judgments and imperfect mathematical models of the physical, chemical and biological
processes involved.
The risk assessment process uses information from a variety of sources, such as analytical data from
the Site investigation and toxicity data from published research. This information is combined with
assumptions regarding potential receptors and Site use. Uncertainties may be present in each of these
assumptions, and may affect the outcome of the risk assessment. The risk assessment was developed
to be a conservative estimate of potential adverse health effects. Its results should not be interpreted as
definitive quantitative values. Uncertainties in the various portions of this risk assessment are discussed
below.
7.8.1
Hazard Identification
The identification of constituents present in soil (and groundwater) and their distribution across the Site
are dependent upon the sampling and analytical program conducted. Conservative assumptions were
made in developing soil EPCs that likely lead to overestimates of actual exposure point concentrations.
EPCs were often based on detected concentrations in samples collected from higher concentration
areas since sampling programs tend to focus on areas of higher concentration, resulting in a high-end
estimate of the EPC.
7.8.2
Dose-Response Assessment
The risk characterization evaluates potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects to receptors
following exposure to compounds in media at a Site. Dose-response assessments for
noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects have several sources of uncertainty. Sources of
uncertainty for toxicity values (USEPA, 1989) may include:

Using dose-response information from effects observed at high doses to predict the adverse
health effects that may occur following exposure to low levels expected from human contact
with the agent in the environment;

Using dose-response information from short-term exposure to predict the effects of long-term
exposures, and vice-versa;

Using dose-response information from animal studies to predict effects in humans;
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM

Report
7-6
Environment
Using dose-response information from homogeneous animal populations or healthy human
populations to predict the effects likely to be observed in the general population consisting of
individuals with a wide range of sensitivities.
In the discussion below, the more important sources are discussed further.
Animal-to-Human Extrapolation in Noncarcinogenic Dose-Response Evaluation
For many compounds, animal studies provide the only reliable information on which to base an estimate
of adverse human health effects. Extrapolation from animals to humans introduces a great deal of
uncertainty into the risk characterization. Some of this uncertainty can be reduced if a compound's fate
and the mechanism by which it causes adverse effects is known in both animals and humans. When
the fate and transport mechanism for a compound are unknown, uncertainty increases. The procedure
used to extrapolate noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects from animals to humans makes
conservative assumptions and incorporates several uncertainty factors, such that overestimation of
effects in humans is far more likely than underestimation. Nevertheless, because the fate of compounds
can differ in humans and animals, it is possible that animal experiments will not reveal an adverse effect
in humans. The opposite may also be true: effects observed in animals may not be observed in humans
resulting in an overestimation.
Use of Chronic Reference Doses to Evaluate Subchronic Exposure
Chronic RfDs were often used to evaluate potential exposures to the future construction worker,
although this is a subchronic scenario, with an exposure duration of only six months. Subchronic HIs
were also estimated for the trespasser scenario. Use of chronic RfDs may result in an overestimate of
potential risks to these receptors.
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Dose-Response
Significant uncertainties exist in estimating carcinogenic dose-response values. These are due to
experimental and epidemiologic variability, as well as uncertainty in extrapolating both from animals to
humans and from high to low doses. Three major issues affect the validity of dose-response
assessments used to estimate potential excess lifetime cancer risks: (1) the selection of a study (i.e.,
data set) upon which to base the calculations, (2) the conversion to an equivalent human dose
corresponding to the animal dose used, and (3) the mathematical model used to extrapolate from
experimental observations at high doses to the very low doses potentially encountered at a Site.
Study Selection
Study selection involves the identification of a data set that provides sufficient, well-documented doseresponse information to enable a valid extrapolation. Ideally, human data are preferable to animal data,
although adequate human data sets are relatively uncommon. Therefore, it is often necessary to seek
dose-response information from a species that biologically resembles humans (e.g., with respect to
metabolism, physiology, and pharmacokinetics), and where the route of administration is similar to the
expected mode of human exposure (e.g., inhalation and ingestion). Cancer incidence data should allow
for determination of statistically significant elevations in the occurrence of tumors at specific target organ
Sites. When multiple valid studies are available, the USEPA bases CSFs on the one study and site that
show the most significant increase in tumor incidence with increasing dose. In some cases, this
selection is done in spite of tumor incidence in other organs and total tumor incidence showing
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
7-7
Environment
significant decreases with increasing dose. Consequently, the current study selection criteria are almost
certain to lead to substantial overestimation of potential cancer risks in humans.
Interspecies Dose Conversion
Significant uncertainties exist in estimating carcinogenic dose-response values. These are due to
experimental and epidemiologic variability, as well as uncertainty in extrapolating both from animals to
humans and from high to low doses. The procedures used to extrapolate from animals to humans
involve conservative assumptions and incorporate uncertainty factors such that overestimation of effects
in humans is more likely than underestimation. When data are available from several species, the
lowest dose that elicits effects in the most sensitive species is used for the calculation of the RfD. To
this dose are applied uncertainty factors, generally of 1 to 10 each, to account for intraspecies variability,
interspecies variability, study duration, and/or extrapolation of a low effect level to a no effect level.
Thus, most reference doses used in risk assessment are 100- to 10,000-fold lower than the lowest effect
level found in laboratory animals.
High to Low Dose Extrapolation
The concentration of compounds to which people are potentially exposed to from environmental
releases is usually much lower than the levels used in the studies from which dose-response
relationships are developed. Estimating potential health effects at such Sites, therefore, requires the
use of models that allow extrapolation of health effects from high experimental to low environmental
doses. These models contain assumptions that may introduce a large amount of uncertainty.
For instance, the USEPA CSFs are derived using the upper 95% confidence limit of the slope predicted
by the linearized multistage model. USEPA recognized that this method produces very conservative risk
estimates and that other mathematical models exist. Several dose-response models are available for
low-dose extrapolation. These include the probit, the multi-hit, the logit, and the multistage models.
These models are generally statistical in character and have little or no biological basis. In the
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA, 1986), USEPA states:
No single mathematical procedure is recognized as the most appropriate for low-dose extrapolation
in carcinogenesis. When relevant biological evidence on mechanism of action exists (e.g.,
pharmacokinetics or target organ dose), the models or procedures employed should be consistent
with the evidence. When data and information are limited, however, and when much uncertainty
exists regarding the mechanism of carcinogenic action, models or procedures that incorporate lowdose linearity are preferred when compatible with the limited information.
USEPA policy is to use the linearized multistage model unless there is adequate scientific justification for
using another model. Scientists in many countries and the U.S. have determined that such justification
exists for some compounds.
USEPA emphasizes in the guidelines that the upper-bound estimate generated by the linearized
multistage model leads to a plausible upper limit to the risk that is consistent with some proposed
mechanisms of carcinogenesis (i.e., the one-hit model). Such an estimate, however, does not give a
realistic prediction of the risk. The true risk is unknown and may be as low as zero. An established
policy does not yet exist for using "most likely" or "best" estimates of risk within the range of uncertainty
defined by the upper- and lower-limit estimates.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Environment
7-8
With the exception of copper and cobalt, the toxicity values used in this risk characterization are
USEPA-verified RfDs/RfCs and slope factors, and were obtained from the MassDEP’s ShortForm for
Human Health Risk Assessment under the MCP version 4-06, April 28, 2006, revised September 26,
2008. The COCs cobalt and copper are not included in the MassDEP ShortForm “lookup” file
v0808.xls that contains the chemical-specific data, including dose-response information. The
chemical/physical constants and toxicity data, along with the references cited, that were added to
the “lookup” file by AECOM followed the typical risk assessment hierarchy (i.e., IRIS, HEAST, EPA
documents, MassDEP sources, etc.). Most of the toxicity values used in this risk characterization
are EPA-verified RfDs/RfCs and slope factors. These values, as presented in IRIS, are derived
using a number of safety factors and are accompanied by a statement of confidence in the value
itself, the critical study, and the overall data base for RfDs/RfCs, and the weight-of-evidence
classifications for slope factors. The MassDEP has derived toxicity values for VPH/EPH fractions
using a reference surrogate compound approach for these complex mixtures of hydrocarbons. The
method involves segregating the petroleum hydrocarbons present in mixtures into broad chemical
classes and further into subgroups or fractions based upon their size, and with consideration of
comparative toxicity and structure activity relationships (SARs). For each subgroup of compounds,
a reference compound was initially identified to represent the toxicity of all compounds in the range.
The compound was usually chosen because its toxicity was relatively well characterized. For each
reference compound, an EPA published value was identified or a value was identified based on
available toxicity information.
7.8.3
Human Health Exposure Assessment
Exposure assessment consists of two basic steps: estimation of EPCs and estimation of human
exposure dose. The concentration of each compound is calculated at each potential human receptor
point. Estimates of EPCs require assumptions that can lead to uncertainty, particularly if modeling is
used. Once the concentrations in a medium have been predicted, human exposure and dose need to
be estimated. These, too, require assumptions that may lead to uncertainty. The more important
sources of uncertainty for the exposure estimation are discussed below.
Estimation of EPCs
The sampling plan was biased toward areas where contamination was known or suspected. Soil data
that were excavated and removed from the Site were not evaluated in this risk assessment. An
uncertainty present in any risk assessment is that the EPCs utilized in the analysis are assumed
representative of the entire site as a whole. Use of the 95% UCL of the arithmetic mean soil
concentrations helped to ensure that the analysis provides a conservative estimate of potential human
exposures. Therefore, the potential risks to current/future trespassers, future construction workers, and
commercial/industrial workers are unlikely to be underestimated. Due to the large amount of site soil
data and the fact that the analytical results for majority of the data within each Exposure Point are not
highly variable, it is possible that the average concentrations in soil may be more representative of the
true EPCs for the chronic and subchronic scenarios evaluated. It is also assumed in the risk analysis
process that the EPCs have not changed since sampling was conducted and will not change over time;
i.e., that they remain constant.
Although much Presumptive Certainty was not obtained for all data as described in the CAM, no data
usability issues were identified that would limit the usability of the data. All soil samples were analyzed
by MCP Analytical Methods that are detailed in the MassDEP’s CAM, and that provided information
allowing for the assessment of the accuracy, precision, reproducibility, and sensitivity of the data. Minor
issues were noted with laboratory control performance criteria, which may bias the data high or low;
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
7-9
Environment
however, these issues did not affect the usability of the data and due to the conservative assumptions
incorporated into the derivation of the EPCs (discussed above) are unlikely to affect the overall
conclusions of the risk assessment. None of the Organic Criteria for Rejection of Data or Inorganic
Criteria for Rejection of Data presented in the Data Usability Guidance document were met. Based on
these considerations, these data are considered to be of sufficient quality to support this RAO report.
Estimation of Exposure Dose
There is uncertainty associated with exposure assessment because the range of potential human
activity is broad. Variability is associated with differences between individual receptors, such as
body weight, skin surface area, and rates of soil or water ingestion. Conservative assumptions that
are consistent with those recommended by MassDEP risk guidance documents have been used in
developing pathway exposure factors that are anticipated to err on the side of protection of health.
The exposure assumptions used by the MassDEP in the ShortForm for Human Health Risk
Assessment under the MCP version 4-06, April 28, 2006, Revised September 26, 2008 were
generally used to evaluate the future construction worker and trespasser exposure scenarios. In
addition, the exposure assumptions used by the MassDEP in the derivation of the Method 1 S-2 soil
standards were used to evaluate the commercial/industrial worker scenario.
7.8.4
Risk Characterization
The risk calculations were performed using a deterministic methodology as required under MCP
guidance. In a deterministic methodology, a single value (point estimate) is used for exposure
parameters and EPCs. The result is that a single risk value is calculated for each scenario and receptor
of concern. However, the use of a mix of mid-range and conservative exposure assumptions is intended
to produce realistic upper-end exposure estimates, which will be protective of public health and produce
risk estimates that will be valid for comparison to MCP Cumulative Risk Limits.
Risk from Multiple Compounds
Once the estimated exposure to and risk from each COC at the Site were quantified, the total risk posed
by environmental media was determined by summing compound-specific risks. In this risk
characterization, the HIs were summed regardless of the similarity of their toxicity endpoints. This
approach, which is conservative, introduces uncertainty into the risk characterization process. The
summed HI does not appropriately estimate the risk posed by exposure to these compounds if the toxic
endpoints differ for the compounds. Rather, it overestimates the true risk, if any, because exposure to
these compounds is not expected to result in additive effects in the human body. Summation of HIs for
all compounds is required, according to MassDEP guidance (MassDEP, 1995) as a preliminary analysis
to determine if the HI exceeds 1, which is the current MCP regulatory criterion for noncarcinogenic
effects.
Sensitive Subpopulations
The risk characterization did not specifically address potential risks to sensitive subpopulations.
However, the dose-response values used in this report account for sensitive subpopulations by means
of uncertainty factors. As explained previously, reference doses are derived by applying uncertainty
factors to the No or Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs or LOAELs, respectively). One of
the uncertainty factors typically applied to a NOAEL or LOAEL accounts for potential differences in
response between "average" members of the population and "sensitive" members of the population.
This is often referred to as intra-species extrapolation. Therefore, the use of RfDs into which this factor
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Environment
7-10
has already been incorporated ensures that the risk characterization is adequately protective of sensitive
subpopulations.
This risk assessment did not quantitatively evaluate potential exposures and resultant health risks to
utility workers. However, the MassDEP has stated in the Guidance for Disposal Site Risk
Characterization - In Support of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan document the following. “Of all
the chemicals commonly detected at disposal sites, cyanide is the only one which could pose a
significant health risk from a one-time exposure to concentrations that are often found in the
environment. Although acute exposures to some other hazardous materials could pose a health risk at
some level, the concentrations at which acute exposures are of concern are much higher than levels
typically found in the environment.” The OHM of concern at this site are metals, petroleum
hydrocarbons and certain target PAHs, and does not include cyanide.
7.8.5
Special Considerations for Lead
The USEPA has stated that the current knowledge of lead pharmacokinetics indicates that risk values
derived by standard procedures (i.e., a RfD approach) would not truly indicate the potential risk, because
of the difficulty in accounting for pre-existing body burdens of lead (USEPA’s IRIS database). It is felt
that the health effects due to lead exposures are better represented by blood lead levels. The USEPA's
and the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) level of concern for blood lead levels is currently 10
micrograms per deciliter (μg/dl). The USEPA has developed a computer model for exposure to lead in
the environment. This model is referred to as the Integrated Exposure, Uptake, and Biokinetic Model
(IEUBK). The IEUBK model utilizes a partially compartmentalized physiologic-based pharmacokinetic
model that estimates potential bodily uptakes and resultant blood lead levels in children due to exposure
to environmental lead. This model has been validated at several Superfund Sites. Using the IEUBK
model, the USEPA has developed a strictly health-based acceptable residential (i.e., children) lead soil
screening level of 400 mg/kg for use at CERCLA and RCRA sites (OSWER Directive #9355.4-12). This
soil lead level provides a 95% probability that a child will not have a blood lead level above the USEPA
and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 10 μg/dl blood lead level of concern.
Because the IEUBK model cannot be used in evaluating potential health risks posed to adolescents and
adults by lead at the Site, lead in soil may be evaluated using the USEPA’s Adult Lead Methodology
(EPA-540-R-03-001, OSWER Dir #9285.7-54). This methodology is designed for assessing risks
associated with adult exposures to lead in soil/sediment by relating soil lead concentrations to blood lead
concentrations in an exposed population. Using this methodology, a risk-based evaluation of adult
exposures to lead in soil can be performed based on the relationship between the soil lead concentration
and the blood lead concentration in the developing fetus of adult women that have site exposures prior
to or during pregnancy.
Despite the availability of the lead models discussed above and at MassDEP’s direction, lead was
evaluated using the MassDEP’s Risk Assessment Shortforms in order to streamline this Method 3 Risk
Characterization. This approach was also used to evaluate the commercial/industrial worker scenario.
As such, lead was evaluated using the MassDEP’s RfD approach. As demonstrated by Gradient as part
of updating the site-specific RBCs for the Site in LFR’s Phase IV RIP (LFR, 2006), the adult blood lead
model results in approximately 3-times lower RBCs for the Site under the residential, construction
worker, commercial/industrial worker and recreational user scenarios than those derived by the RfD
approach. Therefore, evaluating lead using a RfD approach may underestimate the resultant health
risks for these receptors. Although the RfD approach creates some uncertainty with respect to the
overall risk estimates for soil lead, the overall conclusions of this Method 3 Risk Characterization would
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Environment
7-11
not likely change. Therefore, AECOM evaluated lead exposures using the approach utilized by the
MassDEP (i.e., RfD approach).
7.8.6
Summary of Sources of Uncertainty
The large number of assumptions made in the risk characterization introduces considerable uncertainty
that could potentially lead to over- or under-estimation of human health or environmental risks. As
discussed elsewhere in this report, any one person's potential exposure and subsequent risk are
influenced by many variable parameters, which differ for individuals and compounds. Despite inevitable
uncertainties associated with the risk characterization process, the use of the health-protective scenarios
and the conservative nature of the assumptions employed in risk calculations and the risk evaluations
likely lead to an overestimation of potential risks.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
8-1
Environment
8.0
Evaluation of Potential Risks to Safety and Public Welfare
8.1
Evaluation of Potential Risks to Safety
As required by 310 CMR 40.0960, the risk of harm to safety was also characterized based on the Site
data and the Site receptor and exposure information discussed previously. The risk to safety must be
evaluated separately from the Method 1, 2, or 3 evaluation of risk of harm to health, public welfare, and
the environment. The purpose of evaluating the risk of harm to safety is to identify conditions that have
resulted or may result in a release of oil and/or hazardous material that will pose a threat of physical
harm or bodily injury to people.
As discussed in the MassDEP’s Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization - In Support of the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan (1995) conditions that may constitute a risk of harm to safety include:

The threat of fire or explosion, or the presence of explosive vapors;

Rusted or corroded drums or containers;

Weakened berms;

Reactive chemicals stored or disposed of in an unsafe manner;

Unsecured pits, ponds, lagoons or other dangerous structures;

Uncontained materials which exhibit the characteristics of corrosivity, reactivity, flammability, or
are infectious;

The presence of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation; and

The presence of conditions unrelated to the release that may increase the risk of exposure to a
receptor.
Additionally, the MCP requires that current and reasonably foreseeable disposal site conditions must
be compared to applicable or suitably analogous safety standards, guidelines and policies when
characterizing the risk of harm to safety.
No evidence of release-related physical hazards such as corroded storage drums or containers,
weakened berms, unsecured structures, or conditions unrelated to the release which may increase the
risk of exposure to a receptor were noted during site visits.
Based on the known released (non-background) materials, reactive chemicals, radiation, or infectious
corrosive, or flammable materials were not anticipated. The soil concentrations of the metals, petroleum
hydrocarbons and certain target PAHs determined by laboratory analysis do not suggest a risk of fire or
explosion hazard. In addition, non-aqueous phase liquid is not present, and the materials are located in
soil (and groundwater), where the availability of oxygen to sustain combustion is limited. Therefore, a
condition of "No Significant Risk" of harm to safety, as related to the fuel oil release, exists at the Site.
No applicable or suitably analogous safety standards, guidelines, or policies for characterizing the risk of
harm to safety exist for the analytes present in environmental media at the Site.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
8.2
Report
8-2
Environment
Public Welfare Risk Characterization
The MCP defines two purposes for conducting a characterization of risk to public welfare: (a) to identify
and evaluate nuisance conditions that may be localized, and (b) to identify and evaluate significant
community effects. The characterization of risk to public welfare considers effects that are or may result
from the presence of residual contamination or the implementation of a proposed remedial alternative
(310 CMR 40.0994).
The existence of nuisance conditions, loss of property uses, and any non-pecuniary effects not
otherwise considered in the risk of harm to health, safety, and the environment were considered.
Potential nuisance conditions cited in the MCP include:

Persistent and noxious odors in ambient or indoor air;

Lack of accessible drinking water free of noxious tastes and odors; and

Harmful effects on livestock.
The characterization of the risk of harm to public welfare considers Site, receptor, and exposure
information, as well as data collected pursuant to the response action(s) being performed. The
characterization of risk of harm to public welfare also considers such factors as the existence of
nuisance conditions, loss of active or passive property use(s), and any non-pecuniary effects not
otherwise considered in the characterization of risk of harm to health, safety, and the environment, but
which may accrue due to the degradation of public resources directly attributable to the release or threat
of release of OHM or the remedial alternative (310 CMR 40.0994(2)).
The risk of harm to public welfare is characterized by comparing the concentration of each OHM to the
UCLs in soil and groundwater, as defined in 310 CMR 40.0996. In addition, a level of No Significant
Risk of harm to public welfare exists or has been achieved, if no nuisance conditions, such as noxious
odors, persist.
8.2.1
Characterization of Risks to Public Welfare
As discussed below, no risks to public welfare were identified. Although often located at the ground
surface, field observations and air monitoring performed during IRA, Phase II, Phase IV and
Supplemental Phase II investigations indicate that the presence of these COCs does not contribute to
the generation of dust, odors, or other nuisance conditions. In addition, the relatively low levels of
volatile chemicals in the soil (and groundwater), and the fact that no occupied structure is located on the
Site, indicate that indoor air impacts are not likely at the Site. There are no data to indicate that
contamination is spreading to off-site locations at levels that could adversely impact property values and
property uses in the vicinity of the Site.
For petroleum-contaminated sites, MassDEP guidance (MassDEP, 2002b) has suggested rules of
thumb for determining when an odor condition would generally not be considered a nuisance condition.
The rules of thumb that would be applicable to potential intermittent odors are:

Odors observed in the subsurface during excavation or boring advancement would generally not
be considered a nuisance condition, as long as such odors are not detectable in ambient or
indoor air, and as long as there are no plans to excavate or disturb such areas.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
8-3
Environment

Odors observed in the breathing zone of the ambient air, or indoor air of an impacted structure,
would generally not be considered a nuisance condition, if such odors do not persist for more
than three months.

Odors observed in the breathing zone of the ambient air would generally not be considered a
nuisance condition if they are discernable less than ten days a year.

Odors observed in the ambient air or indoor air of an impacted structure would generally not be
considered a nuisance condition if the occupants of such a structure do not believe such odors
significantly affect or degrade their quality of life.
No persistent and noxious odors from the site have been reported in ambient or indoor air. Potential
odors are not believed to pose a significant risk to public welfare based on these rules of thumb and
infrequent occurrence and low potential for exposure.
The Property and surrounding areas are serviced by municipal water provided by the MWRA. There are
no public or private drinking water wells/sources (e.g., reservoirs) within a 500-foot radius of the Site.
Due to the distance to the nearest public or private water supply source, the direction of groundwater
flow beneath the Site, and the fact that very low levels of OHM were detected in site groundwater, the
municipal water supplies for the area and private wells are unlikely to be impacted by site groundwater.
The nearest surface water body is Sprague Pond, located approximately 1,000 feet south/southeast of
the Site. Based on the groundwater sampling results, no contaminants above applicable standards were
detected. In addition, significant attenuation/dilution is expected as groundwater migrates toward a
surface water body. As such, it is unlikely that OHM will be present in nearby surface water bodies at
detectable concentrations.
The foreseeable activities and uses at nearby properties include residential and commercial uses and
the presence of contaminants at the Site does not inhibit those uses, or restrict, or require the restriction
of, the use of the nearby properties. The presence of contamination at the Site is not expected to result
in monetary or non-monetary impacts to the public welfare.
8.2.2
Upper Concentration Limits
The risk of harm to public welfare is also characterized by comparing the concentrations of contaminants
in soil and groundwater to the UCLs, as described in the MCP. In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0996,
soil or groundwater contaminant EPCs exceeding UCLs, “indicate the potential for significant risk of
harm to public welfare and the environment under future conditions”. As demonstrated in Table 3, no
EPCs in soil or groundwater exceed the respective UCL.
8.2.3
Public Welfare Risk Characterization Conclusions
Based on the above considerations, no nuisance conditions exist or will result from the release, as
defined by the following conditions described in 310 CMR 40.0994(4): the breathing zone of ambient
and indoor air is currently and will in the foreseeable future remain free from persistent, noxious
odors (related to the release condition); and there is accessible drinking water that is and will in the
reasonably foreseeable future remain free from noxious taste and odors. In addition, no community
is or will likely experience significant adverse impacts from the release. Finally, the requirements of
310 CMR 40.0996 concerning the Method 3 UCLs are met. Therefore, it is concluded that a
condition of No Significant Risk to public welfare exists from the Site.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
9.0
Report
9-1
Environment
Environmental Risk Characterization
The MCP specifies two components be included in an environmental risk characterization. The first step
involves combining site-specific information on OHM distribution, OHM toxicity, and receptor exposure to
assess the risk of harm to habitats and biota. The second step involves comparing the concentrations of
OHM in environmental media, for current and reasonably foreseeable exposure pathways, to Applicable
or Suitably Analogous Standards and to the UCLs specified in the MCP.
To facilitate the elimination of insignificant exposure pathways from more involved evaluations, the MCP
divides the environmental risk characterization process into two stages - Stage I Environmental
Screening and Stage II Environmental Risk Characterization. The Stage I Environmental Screening is
used to evaluate the need for a quantitative Stage II Risk Characterization. The objective of the Stage I
assessment, as stated in 310 CMR 40.0995, is to identify and document conditions which do not pose a
significant risk of harm to site biota and habitats based upon the absence of a complete exposure
pathway. A Stage I screening is used to eliminate from further evaluation those situations in which
either: (1) the exposures are clearly unlikely to result in environmental harm, or (2) harm is readily
apparent. Exposure pathways that are not eliminated in Stage I are carried through the quantitative
Stage II Environmental Risk Characterization process. No significant Risk of harm to public welfare and
the environment exists for current and future conditions if: (1) no significant exposure pathways have
been identified in the Stage I screening, and (2) no concentration of OHM exceeds an Applicable or
Suitably Analogous Standard and the UCLs.
As described below, due the remedial actions performed at the Site, conditions do not pose a
current or future potential for significant risk to ecological aquatic receptors in nearby surface
water/sediment and significant effects to terrestrial receptors are unlikely since the open space at
the Site is less than two acres in size. Therefore, a condition of No Significant Risk of harm to the
Site biota and habitats exists and a Stage II Environmental Risk Characterization is not required.
9.1
Stage I Environmental Screening
The Stage I Environmental Screening involves evaluating all available information to determine whether
plants and/or animals are currently exposed, or could potentially be exposed, to contamination at or from
the Site. In accordance with the MassDEP’s Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization - In
Support of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, a complete exposure pathway means that the
contamination is actually reaching plants or animals, or is likely to do so in the future. If a potential
exposure is not complete and is not likely to be complete in the future, hypothetical risks postulated for
that pathway do not have to be considered further and do not have to be carried through the Stage II
Environmental Risk Characterization process. Each complete exposure pathway is evaluated in the
Stage I to determine whether it is potentially significant. Any complete exposure pathways associated
with readily apparent harm are identified. Conditions that include readily apparent harm include visibly
stressed biota, contaminant concentrations that exceed environmental standards, and visible oil or tar
distributed over an area of soil greater than 2 acres or over an area of sediment greater than 1,000 ft2.
The MassDEP’s Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization - In Support of the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan dictates that the Stage I Screening should:
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
9-2
Environment

Identify potential exposure pathways.

For complete exposure pathways, determine whether risk of harm is readily apparent. If harm is
readily apparent, a full quantitative risk characterization (Stage II) may not be necessary.

Determine whether each pathway is or could be a complete exposure pathway, and eliminate
incomplete exposure pathways from further consideration.

For the remaining complete exposure pathways, an effects-based screening step should be
conducted to determine whether the pathway clearly does not pose a significant risk.
Those pathways that do not pose a significant risk are then eliminated from further assessment.
9.1.1
Identification of Complete Exposure Pathways
The MBTA Readville Yard property occupies an approximately 42-acre area located on Industrial Drive
and straddles the boundary between the Town of Dedham and the City of Boston (Readville),
Massachusetts. The Site is roughly an elongated teardrop shape and its perimeter is defined by a loop
railroad track. The Site is enclosed by an 8-foot tall chain link fence, which restricts access to the Site.
The Site is mostly unpaved, with the exception of a driveway approximately 100 feet wide and 1,700 feet
long running east-west along the northern side of the Site. Industrial Drive, also owned by the MBTA is
not included in the Site.
The Site is used for the storage of railroad materials. It is likely this use will continue in the foreseeable
future, and activities similar to those currently conducted at the Property can be reasonably expected to
continue. A solar farm is expected to be placed on the Dedham portion of the property.
According to the GIS Data Layer map, presented as Figure 6 in the RAO, the Site is located
approximately 500 feet east-southeast from a medium yield non-potential drinking water source area
and designated ACEC. In addition, a designated open space, Iacono/Readville Playground, is located
approximately 500 feet north northeast of the Site. A Zone II (defined as the area of an aquifer which
contributes water to a well under the most severe pumping and recharge conditions that can be
realistically anticipated) is located approximately ½-mile south of the Site. There are no designated
drinking water resources, including Zone A, IWPA, Sole Source Aquifers or Potential Drinking Water
Source Areas, Threatened or Endangered Species Habitats, or Outstanding Resource Waters, within
500 feet of the Site. The nearest surface water body is Sprague Pond, located approximately 1,000 feet
south/southeast of the Site.
Available evidence was evaluated to determine whether there are current or potential reasonably
foreseeable future exposures of environmental receptors to contamination at or from the Site. Sources
of such evidence included historical records, site data, field observations, and information gathered
during interviews with employees. Based on our evaluations, no records exist of damage done to plant
or animal populations due to the release of OHM at the Site. There is no known evidence that OHM at
or from the Site has come to be located in the surface water or sediment of Sprague Pond. In addition, it
is unlikely that OHM will migrate to Sprague Pond at detectable concentrations. Therefore, it is highly
unlikely that the migration of groundwater from the Site to Sprague Pond will result in surface water
concentrations exceeding the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC).
The Site is located in a mixed commercial/industrial and residential area. The Site has been historically
used, and is currently used, as a rail yard and natural vegetation on the Site is limited to sporadic weeds
and trees/shrubs due to Site development and an urban location. Impacted soils have been reported in
soils at the ground surface. Therefore, it is possible that plants and burrowing wildlife could directly
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
Environment
9-3
contact the impacted Site soils. In the future, if the deeper soils become uncovered and are brought to
the surface, terrestrial receptors may contact these impacted soils.
A further evaluation of the presence of potentially significant exposure pathways was completed. Since
no soil screening criteria are available, the terrestrial habitat has been screened on the basis of its size.
For the purposes of this screening, the size of undeveloped/open land at the Site determines the specific
evaluation of terrestrial environments. The MassDEP’s Guidance for Disposal Site Risk
Characterization In Support of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, Chapter 9, Method 3
Environmental Risk Characterization, Interim Final Policy, BWSC/ORS-95-141. April 1996 states that for
the purposes of the screening process, undeveloped/open land is characterized by the presence of
native vegetation, and does not include landscaped residential and commercial parcels.
Based on this MassDEP definition, the undeveloped/open space at the Site is less than 2 acres in size.
Therefore, no further action to characterize ecological risk is required for sites unless:

Contaminant transport from surface soil to an ACEC is possible, or

State-listed threatened or endangered species, or other species of special concern are present.
According to the MassGIS map (Figure 6 of the RAO), the Site is not:

Within an ACEC nor is contaminant transport from surface soil to an ACEC possible, or

The location of state-listed threatened or endangered species, or other species of special
concern.
Given the above considerations, no potential complete environmental exposure pathways exist or are
likely to exist in the future.
9.1.1.1
Upper Concentration Limits
As discussed previously in Section 8.2.2 and as presented on Table 3, the EPCs of all COCs in soil
and groundwater are less than the respective Method 3 UCLs.
9.1.1.2
Conclusions
Based on the above evaluations, the environmental conditions at the Site indicate that:

No physical evidence of harm to the environment exists.

No complete/significant environmental receptor pathways exist or are likely to exist in the future.

All soil and groundwater EPCs do not exceed the UCLs.
Therefore, a condition of No Significant Risk to the environment has been demonstrated at the Site
and a Stage II Environmental Risk Characterization is not required.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Report
10-1
Environment
10.0
Summary and Conclusions of Risk Characterization –
Human Health, Safety, Public Welfare and Environment
In accordance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, 310 CMR 40.0990, a Method 3 Risk
Characterization was conducted for the MBTA Readville Yard 5 Site located on Industrial Drive in
Dedham and Boston, Massachusetts, associated with RTN 3-2856. In accordance with the MCP,
the risk characterization included a separate characterization of risks to human health, public
welfare, safety and the environment.
Based on the above evaluations, and with the incorporation of an AUL to prohibit future residential
use of the Site or use of the Site as a park/playground and/or daycare, and that precludes
excavation of soil without meeting certain precautions, the environmental conditions at the Site
indicate that:

A condition of No Significant Risk of harm to human health exists at the Site for current and
foreseeable future Site conditions.

A condition of No Significant Risk to safety exists at the Site.

A condition of No Significant Risk to public welfare exists at the Site.

A condition of No Significant Risk to the environment exists at the Site for current and
foreseeable future Site conditions.
Accordingly, further Comprehensive Response Actions are not required at the Site in accordance to
310 CMR 40.0800.
.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
11.0
Environment
11-1
References
310 CMR 40.0000. The Massachusetts Contingency Plan. Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Boston,
MA. Last revision effective 2/14/08.
AECOM. 2010. Supplemental Phase II/III and Revised Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan
(RIP), Release Tracking Number 3-2856, January 2010.
AECOM. 2012. Phase IV Final Inspection Report (FIR) and Completion Statement, Release
Tracking Number 3-2856, May 16, 2012.
LFR. 2006. Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan, MBTA Readville 5-Yard Facility, Industrial Drive,
Boston/Dedham, Massachusetts, RTNs 3-2856 and 3-18777, June 9, 2006. Levine Fricke
Recon, Inc. (LFR), Amended July 18, 2006.
MassDEP. 1992. Background Documentation for the Residential Short Form. Office of Research and
Standards.
MassDEP. 1995. Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization and Related Phase II Activities in Support of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. Office of Research and Standards.
MassDEP. 1996. Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization In Support of the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan *** Chapter 9 *** Method 3 Environmental Risk
Characterization. Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup and Office of Research and Standards.
Interim Final Policy, BWSC/ORS-95-141. April 1996.
MassDEP. 1999. Guidance on Implementing Activity and Use Limitations. Interim Final Policy.
BWSC Policy WSC-99-300.
MassDEP. 2002a. Background Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soil.
Technical Update. Office of Research and Standards.
MassDEP. 2002b. Weighted Skin-Soil Adherence Factors. Technical Update. Office of Research
and Standards.
MassDEP. 2002c. Calculation of an Enhanced Soil Ingestion Rate. Technical Update. Office of
Research and Standards.
MassDEP. 2002d. Characterizing Risks Posed on Petroleum Contaminated Sites. Implementation of
MassDEP VPH/EPH Approach. Final Policy. Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. October 31, 2002.
WSC- Policy# 02-411
MassDEP. 2004. Updated Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fraction Toxicity Values for the VPH/EPH/APH
Methodology. Final. Office of Research and Standards. November 2003. Issued August 2004.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Environment
11-2
MassDEP. 2006. Exposure Assessment Methods used to Develop Method 1 Standards Supplemental Documentation. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
[URL: http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/compliance/riskasmt.htm].
MassDEP. 2007a. Characterization of Risks Due to Inhalation of Particulates by Construction
Workers. Technical Update. Updated February 2007. Office of Research and Standards.
MassDEP. 2007b. Master MCP Q & A 1993 – 2007. URL:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/policies.htm#facts.
MassDEP. 2008a. Development of MCP Risk-Based Levels for Soil and Groundwater.
Spreadsheets. Effective February 2008.
MassDEP. 2008b. Short Form for Human Health Risk Assessment under the MCP version 4-06, April
28, 2006. Revised September 26, 2008.
MassDEP. 2009. Technical Update: Expressing the Precision of Exposure Point Concentrations and
Risk Estimates in MCP Risk Characterizations. Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection. December 2009. Office of Research and Standards.
NIOSH. 2007. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. URL:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html. Accessed November, 2007.
USEPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. Volume 1 - General Factors. Update to Exposure
Factors Handbook May 1989. Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/P95/002Fa. August 1997.
USEPA. 1986. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Federal Register. 5 51(185):3399234003.
USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
December 1989. EPA/540/1-89/002.
USEPA. 1997. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. EPA-540-R98-036. Office of
Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2001. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Ecological Risk Assessment.
Originally published: EPA Region IV. 1995. Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletin No. 2:
Ecological Screening Values. Updated November 30, 2001.
USEPA. 2002. Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion Into Indoor Air Pathway From Groundwater and Soils.
Draft Guidance. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA530-F-02-052. November
2002.
USEPA, 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part E). Guidance for Dermal Exposure Assessment.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Environment
11-3
USEPA. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EAP/630/P-03/001F. Risk Assessment
Forum. March 2005.
USEPA. 2009. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2009 Update. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
External Review Draft. EPA/600/R-09/052. July 2009.
USEPA. 2011. USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). June 2011. [URL:
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm].
USEPA. 2012. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C. URL: http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
Environment
Tables
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
TABLE 1
1
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
MBTA Readville Yard Site
Readville and Dedham, MA
Area 1
Parameters
Area 2
Area 3
VPH Hot
Spot
Area 4
Units
Depth (feet)===>
0-3
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
VPH
C9-C12 Aliphatics
C9-C10 Aromatics
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics
C19-C36 Aliphatics
C11-C22 Aromatics
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
36
>3
0-3
33
4.8
363
>3
0-3
>3
0-3
>3
28
23
237
31
7
1207
1244
21
528
10.8
6.4
86
16
4.9
132
1235
30.9
274.6
25
37
25
7
114
25.3
7.6
360
2835
193
154
22
128
151
26
95
PCBs
PCBs (Total)
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
10
37
32
19
69
103
22
35
34
1520
500
1660
3.7
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.6
0.5
1.3
2.3
3.8
1
5.3
0.8
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.6
Notes:
1. EPH = Extractable petroleum hydrocarbons.
VPH = Volatile petroleum hydrocarbons.
PAHs = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration. Refer to text.
Blank value indicates analyte is not considered a Chemical of Concern for the Area/depth interval.
Summary of EPCs_4-27-12.xls
22.7
6.3
194
1666
0-3
Page 1 of 1
3.4
1.2
1.8
2.7
0.5
4
1.4
0.5
1.164
4.67
6.26
4.26
5.83
5.19
1.92
Table 2
Summary of Noncarcinogenic and Carcinogenic Risks Due to Potential Soil Exposure 1,2
MBTA Readville Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Exposure Scenario
Soil Depth (ft bgs):
Trespasser
Subchronic HI
Chronic HI
ELCR
0-3
Area 1
>3
0-3
Area 2
>3
0-3
Area 3
>3
0-3
Area 4
>3
0.2
0.07
1.E-06
NA
NA
NA
0.05
0.02
1.E-06
NA
NA
NA
0.4
0.2
7.E-07
0.4
0.2
2.E-07
0.6
0.3
1.E-06
0.8
0.4
3.E-07
NA
NA
NA
0.006
0.03
NC
Construction Worker
Subchronic HI
Chronic HI
ELCR
1
NA
7.E-07
NA
NA
NA
0.7
NA
6.E-07
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
6.E-07
2
NA
2.E-07
3
NA
1.E-06
3
NA
3.E-07
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NC
NC
0.4
7.E-06
NC
0.6
1.E-06
NA
NA
NA
NC
0.02
NC
Commercial/Industrial Worker
Subchronic HI
NC
NA
NC
NA
NC
NC
Chronic HI
0.1
NA
0.03
NA
0.3
0.3
5.E-06
NA
4.E-06
1.E-06
ELCR
6.E-06
NA
Notes:
1. HI - Hazard Index (Noncarcinogenic)
ELCR - Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
NA - Not Applicable.
NC - Not Calculated.
ft bgs - feet below ground surface
2. BOLD/SHADED results indicated exceedance of MassDEP target HI of 1 or target ELCR of 1 x 10-5.
Readville Risk Summary Table_4‐27‐12.xlsx
VPH Hot Spot
0-3
>3
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS TO UPPER CONCENRATION LIMITS 1
MBTA Readville Yard Site
Readville and Dedham, MA
Method 3 UCL
EPC
Soil (mg/kg)
Parameters
Soil
(mg/kg)
Groundwater
(ug/l)
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
300
200
10,000
3,000
NE
NE
3,000
7,000
10,000
80,000
9,000
100,000
2,000
NE
NE
150
2,000
50,000
VPH
C9-C12 Aliphatics
C9-C10 Aromatics
20,000
5,000
100,000
100,000
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics
C19-C36 Aliphatics
C11-C22 Aromatics
20,000
20,000
10,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100
100
VOCs
Chloroform
Methyl teritary butyl ether
Xylenes (Total)
8,000
5,000
10,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
10,000
10,000
10,000
300
3,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
300
10,000
10,000
3,000
5,000
10,000
10,000
60,000
100,000
600
5,000
4,000
500
1,000
700
400
2,000
400
1,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
PCBs
PCBs (Total)
Area 1
0-3
36
4.8
363
Area 2
>3
0-3
33
Area 3
>3
Area 4
VPH Hot Spot
0-3
>3
0-3
>3
28
23
237
31
7
1207
1244
21
528
10.8
6.4
86
16
4.9
132
1235
30.9
274.6
25
37
25
7
114
25.3
7.6
360
2835
22.7
6.3
194
1666
Groundwater 2
(ug/l)
8
210
60
193
154
26
95
22
128
151
10
37
32
19
69
103
22
35
34
1520
500
1660
520
590
3,600
3.7
2.2
4.12
2.55
0.6
3.8
1
5.3
0.5
1.3
2.3
0.8
0.6
3.4
1.2
1.8
2.7
0.5
4
1.164
1.4
0.5
Notes:
1. EPH = Extractable petroleum hydrocarbons.
VPH = Volatile petroleum hydrocarbons.
PAHs = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration. Refer to text.
Blank value indicates analyte is not considered a Chemical of Concern for the Area/depth interval.
ug/l = Micrograms per liter.
2. Groundwater EPC is the maximum detected concentration from December 2001, August 2002 and October 2002 sampling. Metals are dissolved metals concentrations.
Comparison of EPCs to UCLs_4-27-12.xls
0-3
4.67
6.26
4.26
2.4
1.1
1.7
5.83
1.3
5.19
1.92
1
4.1
AECOM
Environment
Attachment A
Soil and Groundwater Data
and Exposure Point
Concentration Calculations
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
ATTACHMENT A-1
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 1 (ORPHAN LINE)
Shallow Soil Data - Fill (0 to 3 feet)
MBTA Readville Yard, Readville, MA.
WSE,Phase II Data
OL/SS-1
Analyte
OL/SS-2
Summary Statistics
OL/SS-3
OL/SS-4
OL/SS-5
No. of
Samples
No. of
Detects
Frequency of
Detection
Min
Max
Mean
Upper 95%
UCL of Mean
95th Percentile
MassDEP Urban
Background
Concentration (Fill
Soil Containing Ash)
Site Maximum
Detected
Concentration
Above
Background?
Number Samples
Retained
Above Urban
As COC?
Background
Units
0 to 1
Fill
2 to 2.5
Fill
0 to 1
Fill
2 to 3
Fill
0 to 1
Fill
1.5 to 2
Fill
0 to 1
Fill
2 to 3
Fill
0 to 1
Fill
2 to 2.5
Fill
Total Metals
Arsenic
Cobalt
Lead
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
29
3.7
59
13
3.9
20
6.2
5.1
69
3.4
3
8.4
20
5
98
4.2
4.8
11
8.5
4.7
50
2.4
4
5.6
8.4
4.4
68
3.4
4.8
11
10
-
10
-
100%
-
3
-
5.1
-
4.3
-
4.8
-
5.1
-
20
4
600
Yes
Yes
Yes
1
6
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics, Unadjusted
C19-C36 Aliphatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
5.2
32.9
131
112
5.3
12.9
31.7
30.5
5.25
18.6
222
158
5.8
5.8
76.4
62.3
6.15
34.3
99.7
79.7
5.2
5.2
55.2
44.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.15
34.5
91.9
69.4
5.2
14.9
43.8
43.2
5.15
5.15
13.6
13.6
10
10
10
10
0
6
9
9
0%
60%
90%
90%
ND
12.9
13.6
13.6
ND
34.5
222
158
ND
17
77
62
ND
26
123
95
ND
34.4
181.1
137.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
No
Yes
No
Yes
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg-dry)
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
1.4
2.95
2.74
1.04
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.611
0.266
0.266
0.263
0.263
1.37
0.263
1.30
0.263
6.45
11.7
6.66
1.93
0.291
0.291
0.291
0.291
0.291
0.291
1.32
3.1
1.94
0.291
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.723
3.43
2.3
1.34
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
1.7
1.24
0.731
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
1.66
4.45
3.48
1.16
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
1
0
1
0
5
7
6
5
0%
0%
10%
0%
10%
0%
50%
70%
60%
50%
ND
ND
1.37
ND
1.30
ND
0.723
0.611
1.24
0.731
ND
ND
1.37
ND
1.30
ND
6.45
11.7
6.66
1.93
ND
ND
0.38
ND
0.37
ND
1.29
2.87
1.94
0.76
ND
ND
0.6
ND
0.6
ND
2.6
5.3
3.4
1.2
ND
ND
0.9
ND
0.9
ND
4.3
8.4
5.2
1.7
1
1
1
2
4
2
20
10
20
3
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
C-PAHs (mg/kg-dry)
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.31
2.18
2.45
2.47
1.16
1.22
0.261
0.266
0.266
0.537
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
6.12
6.02
4.92
8.00
4.43
2.83
1.94
1.47
1.49
1.23
1.89
1.06
0.673
0.291
1.64
2.04
2.16
3.02
1.26
1.1
0.962
0.903
1.19
1.15
1.66
0.853
0.647
0.676
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
1.63
2.19
1.93
2.9
1.22
0.942
0.934
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
6
7
6
6
6
4
60%
60%
70%
60%
60%
60%
40%
0.903
1.19
0.537
1.66
0.853
0.647
0.676
6.12
6.020
4.920
8.000
4.430
2.830
1.940
1.4
1.6
1.5
2.1
1.1
0.8
0.6
2.7
2.9
2.6
3.8
2.0
1.4
1.0
4.1
4.3
3.8
5.8
3.0
2.1
1.5
9
7
8
4
7
3
1
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Soil Type
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAH = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
A-1 Risk Area 1_2-2-12.xlsx/Table 1
ATTACHMENT A-1
TABLE 2
RISK AREA 1 (West Milton Street Fence Line and Orphan Line)
Statistical Summary of Lead Data
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet)
MBTA - Readville Yard Site, Dedham, MA.
DEP's XRF Screening Data
Orphan Line
Total Lead
Sample ID
IRA Soil Sampling, WSE April/May 2002
Zone 1 - 200 feet
Zone 1 - 250 feet
Zone 1 - 500 feet
Zone 1 - 600 feet
Zone 1 - 900 feet (Soil Excavated from this area)
Zone 1 - 1300 feet
Zone 1 - 1350 feet
Zone 1 - 1600 feet
Zone 1 - 2450 feet
Zone 1 - 2700 feet (Soil Excavated from this area)
Zone 1 - 2750 feet/Zone 1 2750 Duplicate
Zone 1 - 2800 feet
(ft from bridge)
1 ft
6 ft
Location
1 ft
6 ft
540
560
180
190
0
100
200
300
400
347
131
116
248
192
556
173
128
146
164
100
150
200
250
300
171
206
516
343
499
416
462
496
773
353
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
204
421
267
376
247
316
307
618
200
127
1247*
927
250
200
150
500
600
700
800
900
204
253
228
173
130
104
154
147
203
183
350
400
450
500
550
172
856
85
534
235
167
113
90
381
243
1950
2000
2050
2100
2150
362
193
171
45
187
369
240
218
187
378
3400*
440
300
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
End of line
132
116
133
113
206
106
372
136
135
209
243
403
419
469
361
474
415
365
486
567
199
172
206
108
280
237
208
386
163
156
183
166
139
96
200
142
162
211
245
130
201
259
168
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
1650
226
291
245
657
228
348
496
355
209
152
181
380
218
462
283
3630
311
309
156
354
187
201
398
86
484
510
107
239
1008
238
308
258
324
390
111
312
141
922
339
415
299
101
270
202
2200
2250
2300
2350
2400
2450
2500
2550
2600
2650
2700
2750
2800
2850
2900
2950
3000
2050
3100
158
346
187
162
47
169
254
286
477
528
3258
764
283
417
256
236
373
230
90
185
323
328
154
81
122
354
440
704
219
1286
259
2583
470
319
183
192
45
32
IRA Excavation Confirmatory Sampling, WSE, June, 2002:
Zone 1 -900 feet (Average of side-wall, pit bottom and dup samples
Zone 1 - 2700 feet (Average of side-wall, pit bottom and dup sampl
368
73
WSE, Phase II Samples, 2002
OL/SS-1 (0 to 1 foot)
OL/SS-1 (2 to 2.5 foot)
OL/SS-2 (0 to 1 foot)
OL/SS-2 (2 to 3 foot)
OL/SS-3 (0 to 1 foot)
OL/SS-3 (1.5 to 2 foot)
OL/SS-4 (0 to 1 foot)
OL/SS-4 (2 to 3 foot)
OL/SS-5 (0 to 1 foot)
OL/SS-5 (2 to 2.5 foot)
59
20
69
8.4
98
11
50
5.6
68
11
LFR XRF Data, November-December 2005
333 (0-6")
333 (6"-3')
387 (0-6")
387 (6"-3')
441 (0-6")
441 (6"-3')
Pb 1 ft S of track Pb 1 ft N of track Location
<28.65
250.8
<31.65
50.6
231
38.4
Notes:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
A-1 Risk Area 1_2-2-12.xlsx/Table 2
West Milton Street Fence Line
(mg/kg)
* = Astrisk indicates that the soil represented by the sample has been removed from the Site. Not included in statistics.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Statistics
Number of Samples
213
Minimum Concentration
6
Maximum Concentration
3,630
Average
310
t-value
1.971
95th Percentile
680.5
Standard Deviation
392
95% Confidence Limit
53
95% UCL on the Mean
363
ATTACHMENT A-1
TABLE 3
RISK AREA 1 (West Milton Street Fence and Orphan Line)
Statistical Summary of Arsenic Data
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet bgs)
MBTA - Readville Yard Site, Dedham, MA.
Risk Area
Milton St.
(Soil Excavated)
(Soil Excavated)
(Includes Dup)
Orphan Line
Sample ID
IRA Soil Sampling, WSE April/May 2002
Zone 1 - 200 feet
Zone 1 - 250 feet
Zone 1 - 500 feet
Zone 1 - 600 feet
Zone 1 - 900 feet
Zone 1 - 1300 feet
Zone 1 - 1350 feet
Zone 1 - 1600 feet
Zone 1 - 2450 feet
Zone 1 - 2700 feet
Zone 1 - 2750 feet
Zone 1 - 2800 feet
WSE, Phase II Samples, 2002
OL/SS-1 (0 to 1 foot)
OL/SS-1 (2 to 2.5 foot)
OL/SS-2 (0 to 1 foot)
OL/SS-2 (2 to 3 foot)
OL/SS-3 (0 to 1 foot)
OL/SS-3 (1.5 to 2 foot)
OL/SS-4 (0 to 1 foot)
OL/SS-4 (2 to 3 foot)
OL/SS-5 (0 to 1 foot)
OL/SS-5 (2 to 2.5 foot)
No. of Samples
Min
Max
Average
95th Percentile
Standard Deviation
t-value
95% Confidence Interval
95% UCL of the Mean
Notes:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
* = Astrisk indicates that the soil represented by the sample has been removed from the Site.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
A-1 Risk Area 1_2-2-12.xlsx/Table 3
Total Arsenic
(mg/kg)
56
81
11
36
16
21
24
51
82
47
30
14
29
13
6
3.4
20
4.2
8.5
2.4
8.4
3.4
22
2
82
26
80
24
2.080
11
36
ATTACHMENT A-2
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 2 - ASHCROFT STREET FENCE LINE
Statistical Summary of Arsenic Data
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 Feet) - Post-Excavation
MBTA - Readville Yard Site, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
AECOM Lab Data, January 2012
AA-SW-B
AA-SW-WSW
AA-SW-WW
AA-SW-EW
AA-SW-ESW
AA-1B
AA-1-WW
AA-1-EW
AA-2-EW
AA-3-EW
RY5-AA-1-2
RY5-AA-2-2
RY5-AA-3-2
RY5-AA-4-2
RY5-AA-5-2
AA-6-3
AA-7-3
AA-8-3
AA-9-3
AA-10-3
Statistical Summary
No. of Samples
No. of Detects
Frequency of Detection
Minimum Concentration
Maximum Concentration
Average Concentration
Standard Deviation
T-value
95% Confidence Interval
Upper 95% UCL on the Mean
MassDEP Urban Background (Fill Soil)
CA/T 95th Percentile Urban Background
Max. Concentration Above Background?
Total Arsenic (mg/kg)
9.3
40
84
3.1
3.7
4.8
20
75
<2.7
<2.7
2.7
6.6
<2.5
44
47
7.7
<2.9
50
9.4
19
23
19
83%
2.7
270
22
26
2.074
11
33
20
21
Yes
Notes:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilograms, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
A-2 Risk Area 2_2-2-12.xls/Table 1
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 3 (MAIN RAIL YARD)
Statistical Summary - Lead in Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All Data Sources
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
PHASE II, WSE, June 2002
BL/SS-4/0-6"
130
BL/SS-5/0-6"
2,900
BL/SS-6/0-6"
1,000
BL/SS-7/0-6"
280
BL/SS-8/0-6"
36
PHASE II, WSE, June 2002
SA/GP-39 (0-2 feet)
600
DDHA/-1(0 to 1 foot)
5,400
DD/HA-2 (0 to 1.5 feet)
160
DD/HA-3 (0 to 1.5 feet)
54
DD/HA-4 (0 to 1.5 feet)
140
SA/GP-17 (2 to 4 feet)
4.5
SA/GP-40 (2 to 4 feet)
8.2
HB/GP-26 (2 to 4 feet)
350
CL/GP-20 (2 to 4 feet)
3,800
CL/GP-21(2 to 4 feet)
1,300
CL/GP-22 (2 to 4 feet)
33
IRA, Rizzo, October 2000
SS21 Readville
82
SS23 Readville
1,300
SS28 Readville
910
SS29 Readville
4,000
SS30 Readville
1,200
SS31 Readville
4,600
SS32 Readville
4,800
SS33 Readville
3,000
SS34 Readville
1,500
SS35 Readville
3,200
SS36 Readville
5,500
SS37 Readville
1,900
SS38 Readville
2,300
SS39 Readville
5,600
SS40 Readville
2,300
SS41 Readville
SS42 Readville
4,000
1,900
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 1 of 10
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 3 (MAIN RAIL YARD)
Statistical Summary - Lead in Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All Data Sources
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
SS43 Readville
1,600
SS44 Readville
1,300
SS45 Readville
480
SS46 Readville
500
SS47 Readville
340
SS48 Readville
4,900
MassDEP XRF Lead data
Row C 0
253
Row C 50
357
Row C 100
231
Row C 150
161
Row C 200
235
Row C 250
377
Row C 300
303
Row C 350
326
Row C 400
240
Row C 450
339
Row C 500
239
Row C 550
305
Row C 600
291
Row C 650
331
Row C 700
366
Row C 750
254
Row C 800
423
Row C 850
365
Row C 950
487
Row C 1000
378
Row C 1050
324
Row C 1100
311
Row C 1150
416
Row C 1200
213
Row C 1250
248
Row C 1300
190
Row C 1350
259
Row C 1400
249
Row C 1450
Row C 1500
238
348
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 2 of 10
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 3 (MAIN RAIL YARD)
Statistical Summary - Lead in Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All Data Sources
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
Row C 1550
228
Row C 1600
330
Row C 1650
285
Row C 1750
484
Row C 1800
252
Row C 1850
347
Row C 1900
1206
Row C 1950
Row C 2000
Row C 2050
Row C 2100
Row C 2150
Row C 2200
Row C 2250
Row C 2300
Row DE 50
Row DE 100
Row DE 150
Row DE 200
Row DE 300
Row DE 400
Row DE 500
Row DE 600
Row DE 700
Row DE 800
Row DE 900
Row DE 1000
Row DE 1100
Row DE 1200
Row DE 1300
Row DE 1400
Row DE 1500
Row DE 1600
Row DE 1700
Row DE 1800
Row DE 1900
Row DE 2000
Row DE 2100
Row DE 2200
Row DE 2300
Row FG 800
Row FG 900
Row FG 1000
Row FG 1100
Row FG 1200
367
246
335
265
398
364
210
324
130
283
187
297
490
818
718
309
267
212
260
392
365
287
232
311
254
253
411
212
334
388
370
449
201
568
785
377
321
519
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 3 of 10
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 3 (MAIN RAIL YARD)
Statistical Summary - Lead in Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All Data Sources
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
841
990
619
500
7600
3983
848
832
338
467
925
1060
835
1416
1980
1646
2270
1990
2273
2016
2266
1013
1263
2946
378
748
1630
442
1420
2043
1173
1470
783
805
1396
911
276
2463
116
102
540
990
414
437
261
425
427
Row FG 1300
Row FG 1400
Row FG 1500
Row FG 1600
Row FG 1700
Row FG 1800
Row FG 1900
Row FG 2000
Row HI 800
Row HI 900
Row HI 1000
Row HI 1100
Row HI 1200
Row HI 1300
Row HI 1400
Row HI 1500
Row HI 1600
Row HI 1700
Row HI 1800
Row HI 1900
Row HI 2000
Row HI 2100
Row HI 2200
Row HI 2300
Row JK 1000
Row JK 1100
Row JK 1200
Row JK 1300
Row JK 1400
Row JK 1500
Row JK 1600
Row JK 1700
Row JK 1800
Row JK 1900
Row JK 2000
Row JK 2100
Row JK 2200
Row JK 2300
Row LM 1300
Row LM 1400
Row LM 1500
Row LM 1600
Row LM 1700
Row LM 1800
Row LM 1900
Row LM 2000
Row LM 2100
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 4 of 10
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 3 (MAIN RAIL YARD)
Statistical Summary - Lead in Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All Data Sources
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
551
459
343
323
143
245
545
376
460
520
258
204
284
357
51
113
Row LM 2200
Row LM 2300
Row NO 1600
Row NO 1700
Row NO 1800
Row NO 1900
Row NO 2000
Row NO 2100
Row NO 2200
Row NO 2300
Row PQ 2000
Row PQ 2100
Row PQ 2200
Row PQ 2300
Row RS 2200
Row RS 2300
LFR XRF Data, November-December 2005 1
105
105
215
215
247
247
259
259
264
264
268
268
324
324
355
355
356
356
357
357
358
358
360
360
361
361
362
362
370
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 5 of 10
113.7
1779.2*
43.7
1189.6
932.8
<28.35
347.6
763.6
38.6
1069.6
1360
<33.9*
28.5
2228.8*
1779.2
<27
1289.6
<33
789.2
<35
1229.6
<32
32.8
841.6
320.6
<35
268.8
<29
1929.6
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 3 (MAIN RAIL YARD)
Statistical Summary - Lead in Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All Data Sources
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
<23.7
84
1580*
161.5
551.6
34
1129.6
1769.6
<33
320.4
<36
372
782.4
269
<32
1229.6
<34
45.9
3219.2
132.6
542.8
167.9
<31.8
688
1120*
<33
443.6
<35
796.4
<36
37
975.2
115.3
890.4
127.3
1160
43.8
1520*
55.5
1149.6
194.2
<29.4
104
1229.6
101.4
<26.25
398
370
375
375
386
386
411
411
412
412
413
413
414
414
415
415
416
416
417
417
418
418
423
423
467
467
467
468
468
469
469
470
470
471
471
472
472
473
473
474
474
476
476
485
485
493
493
523
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 6 of 10
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 3 (MAIN RAIL YARD)
Statistical Summary - Lead in Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All Data Sources
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
401.4*
536
579.6
83.4
586.8
44.6
941.6
1200
<32
697.6
1489.6
43.4
654.4
496.8
980.8
702.8
843.2
1109.6
1529.6
912.8
981.6
457.6
568.8
1809.6
1859.2
84.3
2979.2
53.6
896
88.7
<26.7
37.9
657.2
1300
960
2708.8
2129.6
4128
1020
1049.6
2579.2
6188.8
<30.45
62
5158.4
110
1120
523
524
524
525
525
526
526
527
527
528
528
532
532
579
579
580
580
581
581
582
582
583
583
584
584
585
585
593
593
597
597
601
601
635
636
636
638
638
640
640
641
641
696
748
748
749
749
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 7 of 10
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 3 (MAIN RAIL YARD)
Statistical Summary - Lead in Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All Data Sources
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
422.4
4358.4*
297
481.2
31.9
346
437.2
<37.2
337.8
<37.2
70.7
<29.7
673.6
<36.45
<25.05
<34.35
<31.05
<35.1
523.2
<31.8
69.8
<33.75
30.6
<22.8
165.1
<30.6
<24
<31.95
842.4*
<32.7
36.5
375.2
38
41.2
198.1
<35.4
55.3
<25.95
35.1
35.7
<26.4
<36.15
369.4
<25.65
750
750
751
751
752
752
753
753
761
761
805
805
806
806
807
807
808
808
809
809
814
814
861
861
862
862
863
863
864
864
917
917
918
918
919
919
920
920
973
973
974
974
975
975
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 8 of 10
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 3 (MAIN RAIL YARD)
Statistical Summary - Lead in Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All Data Sources
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
LFR Laboratoy Data, November-December 2005
105
247
248
268
324
355
375
417
467
473
523
528
750
864
975
Lead (mg/kg)
3110
530*
533
24.2
2240
1090*
1640
3020*
1580
3180
460
584*
7590
1550
352*
AECOM XRF Data, June 2008
247 (0-0.5)
355 (0-0.5)
418 (0-0.5)
473 (0-0.5)
636 (0-0.5)
640 (0-0.5)
247 (0.5-3.0)
355 (0.5-3.0)
418 (0.5-3.0)
473 (0.5-3.0)
636 (0.5-3.0)
640 (0.5-3.0)
193
3990
487
2206
973
917
15
125
56
3440
2392
1040
AECOM Lab Data, November 2011
RY5-637-B
RY5-637-EW
RY5-637-SW
RY5-637-WW
RY5-639/S22-B
RY5-639/S22-EW
RY5-639/S22-NW
RY5-639/S22-SW
RY5-639/S22-WW
RY5-692-WW
RY5-694-EW
RY5-694-NW
2900
1700
1700
1200
1000
1100
3100
1600
1200
3100
14000
410
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 9 of 10
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 1
RISK AREA 3 (MAIN RAIL YARD)
Statistical Summary - Lead in Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All Data Sources
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
AECOM XRF Data, December 2011
692-South
692-West
692-North
693-North
694-East
694-South
695-North
Lead (mg/kg)
4054
2774
20500
6967
8856
11100
4593
Summary Statistics:
No. of Samples
No. of Detects
Frequency of Detection
Minimum Concentration
Maxiumum Concentration
Average Concentration
Standard Deviation
t-value
95% Confidence Interval
95% UCL on the Mean
391
336
86%
5
20,500
1,052
1,932
1.966
192
1,244
MassDEP Urban Background (Fill Soil)
CA/T 95th Percentile Urban Background
Max. Concentration Above Background?
600
1,100
Yes
Notes:
1. Note that two results in a given reference cell from the LFR XRF 2005 data are for depths
of 0'-0.5' and 0.5'-3' below grade.
* - Duplicate sample analyzed by XRF and laboratory. Higher detected result of the duplicate
analyses used in the summary statistics. Asterisk placed on result not used.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 10 of 10
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 2
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 3 (Main Yard area)
Subsurface Soil Sampling (>3 feet) - LFR and Earth Tech Data
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
LFR XRF Data, November-December 2005
215
259
355
361
413
414
472
526
579
581
581
584
585
635
636
638
640
641
694
694
696
748
748
749
749
750
750
753
753
761
917
42.8
178.7
<35
<33*
<34
<34
405
130.1
980.8
1819.2
891.2
77.7
442.4
595.6
1600*
7974.4
730.8
7776
5427.2
<23.4
400.2*
4588.8
407
449.3
417.1
592.7
359.5
330.4
<29.85
213.6
46.8
LFR Laboratoy Data, November-December 2005
361 (3-6')
636 (8-11')
696 (3-8')
2.89
3350
984
AECOM XRF Data, June 2008
247 (3.0-6.0)
418 (3.0-6.0)
473 (3.0-6.0)
636 (3.0-6.0)
640 (3.0-6.0)
16
25
1118
1371
1153
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 2
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 2
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 3 (Main Yard area)
Subsurface Soil Sampling (>3 feet) - LFR and Earth Tech Data
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
AECOM XRF Data, December 2011
692 (TP-1)
693 (TP-2)
694 (TP-3)
Lead (mg/kg)
69
70
28
AECOM XRF Data, January 2012
692-B6
692-B7
692-B8
692-B9
692-B10
692-B11
693-B6
693-B7
693-B8
693-B9
693-B10
693-B11
694-B6
694-B7
694-B8
694-B9
694-B10
694-B11
37
38
62
16
21
76
58
29
30
15
23
17
1556
57
64
347
362
450
AECOM Laboratory Data, January 2012
692-B10
692-B11
693-B10
693-B11
694-B10
694-B11
13*
67*
3*
4.2*
27*
110*
Summary Statistics:
No. of Samples
No. of Detects
Frequency of Detection
Minimum Concentration
Maxiumum Concentration
Average Concentration
Standard Deviation
t-value
95% Confidence Interval
95% UCL on the Mean
66
52
79%
2.89
7,974
814
1,711
1.997
421
1,235
MassDEP Urban Background (Fill Soil)
CA/T 95th Percentile Urban Background
Max. Concentration Above Background?
600
1,100
Yes
Notes:
* - Duplicate sample analyzed by XRF and laboratory. Higher detected result of the duplicate
analyses used in the summary statistics. Asterisk placed on result not used.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 2
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 3
RISK AREA 3 - MAIN RAIL YARD
Soil Statistical Summary
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - FILL UNIT - ALL DATA
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Drainage Ditch Locations
Total Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Parameters
Units
Staging Area
Historic
Building
Location
SA/GP-39 DD/HA-1 DD/HA-2 DD/HA-3 DD/HA-4 SA/GP-17 SA/GP-40 HB/GP-26
0 to 2
0 to 1
0 to 1.5 0 to 1.5 0 to 1.5
2 to 4
2 to 4
2 to 4
Baseline Conditions Locations
BL/SS-4/0-6"
6/29/02
BL/SS-5/0-6"
6/29/02
BL/SS-6/0-6"
6/29/02
BL/SS-7/0-6"
6/29/02
BL/SS-8/0-6"
6/29/02
CL/GP-20 CL/GP-21 CL/GP-22
2 to 4
2 to 4
2 to 4
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
20
5.7
69
13
4.5
700
11
210
38
13
260
29
10
740
32
1400
3.2
4.9
24
9.8
4.2
40
7.3
60
1.1
4.6
23
11
5.2
21
8.4
41
5.3
8.6
24
11
4.7
44
8.5
68
1
3.1
37
9.4
5.5
20
9.7
44
1.05
2.4
17
11
4.4
16
7
32
9.1
9.7
61
13
4.6
62
9.2
120
4.3
6.6
22
12
4
38
7.8
46
39
32
420
70
6.9
280
15
670
8
69
170
79
5.1
290
14
1,100
9.2
18
35
16
4.6
68
11
89
1.05
4.8
14
19
2.6
29
12
99
84
25
150
30
11
3,200
50
640
36
35
97
16
12
3,800
24
190
1.05
2.1
12
8.1
4.1
18
6.2
23
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics
C19-C36 Aliphatics
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
5.6
47.6
74.7
71.4
5.6
65.7
80.4
74.8
5.5
30.2
42.9
40.3
5.55
13.6
41.7
38.9
5.6
19.9
99.6
83.2
5.2
5.2
18.1
16.8
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
6.25
35.2
82.1
80.8
3
31.5
87.9
81
55.3
257
258
216
13.4
57.9
104
93.3
18.9
132
216
178
5.2
348
334
330
58.9
133
295
279
14.1
96.6
204
169
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.2895
0.861
0.715
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
1.13
1
0.281
0.2745
0.2745
0.2745
0.2745
0.2745
0.2745
0.2745
0.689
0.602
0.2745
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.854
0.757
0.278
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.826
2.43
1.9
1.24
0.2605
0.2605
0.2605
0.2605
0.2605
0.2605
0.2605
0.69
0.559
0.2605
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
1.22
0.995
0.275
0.291
0.945
0.291
0.291
1.16
0.291
5.42
6.97
6.35
2.44
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.753
1.76
1.49
0.298
0.272
0.272
0.733
0.272
0.667
0.272
3.93
5.55
3.93
3.61
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.777
0.680
0.640
0.59
1.35
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
1.84
1.66
1.31
0.59
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
4.95
5.91
5.39
1.18
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.281
0.281
0.571
0.576
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.287
0.76
0.861
1.27
0.281
0.281
0.281
0.2745
0.2745
0.661
0.653
0.2745
0.2745
0.2745
0.278
0.278
0.574
0.556
0.278
0.278
0.278
1.05
1.51
1.57
2.03
0.913
0.817
2.09
0.2605
0.2605
0.2605
0.2605
0.2605
0.2605
0.2605
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.649
1.05
1.15
1.16
0.634
0.275
0.275
2.59
3.42
2.96
4.84
2.55
2.18
0.886
0.966
1.26
1.36
1.76
0.849
0.704
0.298
2.47
3.13
4.41
3.94
1.86
1.46
1.42
0.261
0.629
0.895
0.756
0.261
0.261
0.261
1.74
1.96
2.5
2.26
1.53
0.59
0.59
3.01
3.28
3.7
3.58
2.41
1.55
0.301
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 3
Center Line Locations
Page 1 of 4
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 3
RISK AREA 3 - MAIN RAIL YARD
Soil Statistical Summary
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - FILL UNIT - ALL DATA
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
LFR, December 2005
Total Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Parameters
Units
404-S1/6"-2' 1132-S1/6"-3' 268 (H-S1)/6"-3' 347-S1/6"-3' 463-S1/6"-3' 465-S1/6"-3' 523-S1/6"-3' 528-S1/6"-3' 800-S1/6"-3' 864-S1/6"-3'
12/02/05
12/08/05
12/13/05
11/30/05
12/05/05
12/07/05
11/29/05
11/29/05
12/12/05
12/07/05
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
66.6
113
18.50
-
18.2
18.6
8.83
-
2.9
26.3
12.6
-
2.7
26.8
10.5
-
2.6
37.70
9.54
-
2.7
366
26.2
-
2.6
69.9
15.9
-
5.82
122
14.8
-
27.1
1,230
85.2
-
8.48
121
22.8
-
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics
C19-C36 Aliphatics
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 3
Page 2 of 4
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 3
RISK AREA 3 - MAIN RAIL YARD
Soil Statistical Summary
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - FILL UNIT - ALL DATA
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
AECOM, November 2011
Units
RYS-637-B
11/30/11
RYS-637-EW
11/30/11
RYS-637-SW
11/30/11
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
10
-
21
-
1.4
-
1.3
-
1.3
-
1.3
-
1.4
-
3.3
-
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics
C19-C36 Aliphatics
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Parameters
RYS-637-WW RYS-639/S22-B RYS-639/S22-EW
11/30/11
11/30/11
11/30/11
RYS-639/S22-NW RYS-639/S22-SW RYS-639/S22-WW
11/30/11
11/30/11
11/30/11
HB/GP-24-EW
11/30/11
HB/GP-24-NW
11/30/11
HB/GP-24-WW
11/30/11
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
5
11
11
27
170
140
120
5.5
5.5
38
32
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 3
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 3
RISK AREA 3 - MAIN RAIL YARD
Soil Statistical Summary
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - FILL UNIT - ALL DATA
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Summary Statistics
Units
No. of
Samples
No. of
Detects
Frequency
of
Detection
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
16
35
26
26
16
16
16
16
12
35
26
26
11
11
11
11
75%
100%
100%
100%
69%
69%
69%
69%
3.2
2.10
12
8.1
2.6
16
6.2
23
84
69
1,230
85
12
3,800
50
1,400
16
12
137
22
6
585
15
302
23
17
247
21
3
1,167
12
424
2.131
2.032
2.060
2.060
2.131
2.131
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics
C19-C36 Aliphatics
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
16
16
16
16
3
9
12
12
19%
56%
75%
75%
3
13.6
11
11
59
348
334
330
13
77
113
101
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
0
2
1
0
2
0
7
13
13
5
0%
13%
6%
0%
13%
0%
44%
81%
81%
31%
ND
0.945
0.733
ND
0.667
ND
0.290
0.689
0.559
0.640
ND
1.350
0.733
ND
1.160
ND
5.420
6.970
6.350
3.610
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
8
9
12
12
7
5
3
50%
56%
75%
75%
44%
31%
19%
0.287
0.629
0.571
0.756
0.634
0.704
0.886
3.010
3.420
4.410
4.840
2.550
2.180
2.090
Total Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Parameters
Min
Max
Mean
Standard
Deviation
t-value
MassDEP
Urban
Site Maximum
Background
Detected
Number
95%
Concentration Concentration
Upper 95%
Samples
95th
Confidence
(Fill Soil
UCL of
Above
Above Urban Retained
Percentile Containing Ash) Background? Background As COC?
Interval
Mean
2.131
2.131
12
6
100
9
1
622
6
226
28
18
237
31
7
1,207
21
528
50.3
44.5
406.5
76.8
11.3
3,350.0
36.5
1,175
7
20
50
40
4
200
600
30
300
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
8
7
13
3
14
6
2
4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
17
95
101
93
2.131
2.131
2.131
2.131
9
50
54
50
22
128
167
151
56
280
305
292
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
ND
0.387
0.327
ND
0.378
ND
1.280
1.959
1.657
0.780
ND
0.306
0.134
ND
0.241
ND
1.799
2.171
1.877
0.956
ND
2.131
2.131
ND
2.131
ND
2.131
2.131
2.131
2.131
ND
0.163
0.071
ND
0.128
ND
0.958
1.157
1.000
0.509
ND
0.6
0.4
ND
0.5
ND
2.2
3.1
2.7
1.3
ND
1.0
0.6
ND
0.8
ND
5.1
6.2
5.6
2.7
1
1
1
2
4
2
20
10
20
3
ND
Yes
No
ND
No
ND
No
No
No
Yes
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
ND
Yes
No
ND
No
ND
No
No
No
Yes
0.935
1.183
1.394
1.530
0.826
0.628
0.521
0.968
1.160
1.307
1.450
0.809
0.591
0.524
2.131
2.131
2.131
2.131
2.131
2.131
2.131
0.516
0.618
0.696
0.773
0.431
0.315
0.279
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.3
1.3
0.9
0.8
2.7
3.3
3.9
4.2
2.4
1.7
1.6
9
7
8
4
7
3
1
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 3
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 4
RISK AREA 3 - MAIN RAIL YARD
Soil Statistical Summary
Subsurface Soil (>3 feet) ALL DATA
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Staging Area (Fill Unit)
SA/GP-17 SA/GP-19
2 to 4
6 to 8
SA/GP-19
8 to 12
SA/GP-42
10 to 12
SA/GP-40
8 to 10
1.05
2
17
7.2
4.1
16
6.1
28
1.05
2.4
17
11
4.4
16
7
32
1
2
24
10
5.1
28
8.4
38
31
19
300
43
11
1,100
290
1500
1
2
24
7.5
4.2
16
6.2
28
100
39
200
66
12
630
34
2200
1.2
1.8
15
5.2
3.5
7.6
5.1
11
1.2
1.9
17
6.3
3.8
8.2
5.9
12
1.2
1.8
16
6.2
3.7
8.1
6.2
13
1.2
1.8
14
5.3
3.4
7
5.1
30
1.2
2.1
18
6.4
3.9
7.8
6.2
19
1.1
1.7
20
5.4
3.9
22
7
80
1.3
1.9
28
6.6
4
10
5.8
16
1.2
2.1
15
5.3
3.1
7.3
5
11
1.2
1.7
20
6.2
3.5
7.6
5.2
12
1.2
1.8
12
5.3
3.5
6.7
4.8
11
1.05
1.9
17
5.7
3.8
10
5.9
15
1.05
2
23
8.6
4.1
12
6.6
17
1.05
1.7
21
9.3
4.6
13
6.4
20
1.1
1.6
21
6
3.4
9.8
5.1
15
1
1.9
22
11
3.8
11
8.2
16
5.2
5.2
18.1
16.8
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
15
317
244
236
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
6.6
58.9
27.1
27.1
6.15
6.15
6.15
6.15
6.15
6.15
6.15
6.15
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
49.6
36.1
45.3
45.3
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
6
6
6
6
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.690
0.559
0.261
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
1.11
1.77
1.3
0.278
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.266
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.686
0.821
0.743
0.74
0.582
0.278
0.278
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.309
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.329
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.298
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
1
3.1
37
9.4
5.5
20
9.7
44
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics
C19-C36 Aliphatics
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
SA/GP-42
4 to 8
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm)
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection lim
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 4
Staging Area (Native Soil)
SA/GP40/(DUP)
10 to 12
SA/GP-40
2 to4
Units
Parameters
Total Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
SA/GP-41 SA/GP-41
4 to 8
10 to 12
SA/GPSA/GP-17 18/GP(DUP) SA/GP-18
10 to 12
12 to 14
14 to 16
Page 1 of 3
SA/GP-46 SA/GP-46 SA/GP-47
8 to 10
10 to 12
12 to 14
SA/GP-47
14 to 16
SA/MW-105D SA/MW-105D
2 to 4
10 to 12
P/MW-109
12 to 14
P/MW-110/(DUP) P/MW-111
12 to 14
12 to 14
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 4
RISK AREA 3 - MAIN RAIL YARD
Soil Statistical Summary
Subsurface Soil (>3 feet) ALL DATA
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Centerline Locations (Fill Unit)
Historical Building Locations (Fill Unit)
Units
HB/GP-24 HB/GP-25 HB/GP-25
4 to 6
4 to 8
10 to 12
HB/GP-26
2 to 4
HB/GP-46
4 to 8
CL/GP-22
2 to 4
CL/GP-23
4 to 8
CL/GP-23
10 to 12
Historical Building Locations
(Native Soil)
LFR, December 2005
HB/GP-45 HB/GP-45 HB/GP-46 CL/GP-20 CL/GP-21 CL/GP-22 361-S1/3-6' 696-S1/3-8'
8 to 10
10 to 12
14 to 16
12 to 16
12 to 16
8 to 12
11/28/05
12/05/05
AECOM, January 2012
HB/GP-24-B
11/30/11
17.3
278
15.3
-
20.2
532
66.3
-
-
1.25
-
1.35
-
1.4
-
1.35
-
-
-
-
5
11
16
16
-
-
-
-
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
1
1.9
17
5.8
4
13
5.5
16
1.05
2.2
29
7.6
4.1
19
7.7
35
1.05
1.6
15
4.8
3.2
9.6
5.3
58
9.1
9.7
61
13
4.6
62
9.2
120
4.8
4.2
27
7.6
4.3
47
6.8
51
1.05
2.1
12
8.1
4.1
18
6.2
23
1.25
4.5
37
5.7
3.2
25
5.4
12
1
1.4
21
7.3
3.6
10
5.3
17
1.35
4.6
39
12
4
12
7.1
25
1.1
0.92
13
4.4
2.6
8
4.6
11
1.2
1.1
14
4.8
2.8
7.6
4.9
14
1.2
1.8
12
5.3
3.5
9.4
5
12
1.2
3
22
7.5
4.5
10
7.5
36
1.1
2.3
16
7.1
3.6
12
5.8
23
2.6
11.7
5.94
-
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics
C19-C36 Aliphatics
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
5.1
49.2
5.1
5.1
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
6.25
35.2
82.1
80.8
5.2
22.9
45.2
43.4
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
14
47.8
67.4
67.4
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
6.85
6.85
6.85
6.85
5.55
5.55
5.55
5.55
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.632
0.313
0.313
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.255
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.313
0.660
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.313
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.261
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.317
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.343
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.278
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.305
Page 2 of 3
AECOM, November 2011
636-S1/8-11'
11/29/05
Parameters
Total Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm)
COC- Chemical of Concern for the Site
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
PAH = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
UCL - Upper Confidence Limit
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection lim
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 4
Centerline Locations (Native Soil)
692-10/11.5' 692-11/11.5' 694-10/11'
01/05/12
01/05/12
01/04/12
694-10/11'
01/04/12
ATTACHMENT A-3
TABLE 4
RISK AREA 3 - MAIN RAIL YARD
Soil Statistical Summary
Subsurface Soil (>3 feet) ALL DATA (Excluding SA/GP-44 9-11')
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Summary Statistics
MassDEP Urban Site Maximum
Background
Detected
Number
Concentration Concentration
95%
Upper
Samples
(Fill Soil
Above
Confidence 95% UCL
Above Urban Retained
95th
Interval
of Mean Percentile Containing Ash) Background? Background As COC?
Parameters
Total Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Units
No. of
Samples
No. of
Detect
Frequency
of Detection
Min
Max
Average
Standard
Deviation
t-value
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
36
43
39
39
36
36
36
36
4
38
39
39
36
36
33
36
11%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
92%
100%
4.8
0.92
11.7
4.4
2.6
6.7
4.6
11
100
39
532
66.3
12
1,100
290
2,200
5.0
4.3
52.7
11.3
4.3
62.1
14.9
128.4
17.1
7.0
102.8
14.3
1.9
205.6
47.4
432.2
2.030
2.018
2.024
2.024
2.030
2.030
2.030
2.030
6
2
33
5
1
70
16
146
10.8
6.4
86.0
16.0
4.9
132
30.9
274.6
14.6
18.8
280.2
45.3
6.9
204.0
15.8
465.0
7
20
50
40
4
200
600
30
300
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3
2
5
3
14
2
2
2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics
C19-C36 Aliphatics
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
37
37
37
37
4
9
9
9
11%
24%
24%
24%
14
11
16
16
50
317
244
236
7
20
19
19
7
52
42
41
2.028
2.028
2.028
2.028
2
17
14
14
10
37
33
32
14
52
71
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
2
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
8%
6%
0%
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.11
0.632
0.559
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.11
1.770
1.300
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.309
0.348
0.322
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.140
0.260
0.175
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.030
2.030
2.030
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.047
0.088
0.059
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
0.4
0.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.6
0.4
ND
1
1
1
2
4
2
20
10
20
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
No
No
No
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
No
No
No
ND
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
3%
6%
3%
3%
3%
0%
0%
0.686
0.660
0.743
0.74
0.582
ND
ND
0.686
0.821
0.743
0.740
0.582
ND
ND
0.297
0.310
0.298
0.298
0.294
ND
ND
0.071
0.110
0.080
0.080
0.055
ND
ND
2.030
2.030
2.030
2.030
2.030
ND
ND
0.024
0.037
0.027
0.027
0.019
ND
ND
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
ND
ND
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
ND
ND
9
7
8
4
7
3
1
No
No
No
No
No
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
No
No
No
No
ND
ND
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm)
COC- Chemical of Concern for the Site
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
PAH = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
UCL - Upper Confidence Limit
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection lim
A-3 Risk Area 3_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 4
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
WSE, Phase II, 2002:
BC/SS-1/0-6" (24-JUL-02)
190
BC/SS-2/0-6"(24-JUL-02)
580
BC/SS-3/0-6"(24-JUL-02)
820
BP/HA-1/0-1'(16-AUG-02)
100
BP/HA-2/0-1'(16-AUG-02)
230
CL/GP-10/S-1/0-4' (23-JUL-02)
790
HB/GP-14/S-1/0-4'(24-JUL-02)
26
EZ/GP-2/S-1/0-4'(22-JUL-02)
95
EZ/GP-4/S-1/0-4'(22-JUL-02)
3
EZ/GP-7/S-1/0-4'(23-JUL-02)
540
EZ/GP-8/S-1/0-4'(23-JUL-02)
1,200
EZ/GP-43/0-2'(26-JUL-02)
1,100
HB/GP-15/S-1/1-3'(24-JUL-02)
400
HB/GP-16/S-1/1-3'(24-JUL-02)
590
BP/HA-1/2-2.5'(16-AUG-02)
25
BP/HA-2/1.8-2'(16-AUG-02)
130
Rizzo, IH Data, 2000:
SS02 Readville
590
SS03 Readville
580
SS04 Readville
9,600
SS05 Readville
2,800
SS06 Readville
92
SS07 Readville
64
SS08 Readville
1,200
SS09 Readville
6,500
SS10 Readville
46
SS11 Readville
970
SS12 Readville
3,500
SS13 Readville
5,500
SS14 Readville
610
SS15 Readville
500
SS16 Readville
410
SS17 Readville
2,200
SS18 Readville
180
SS19 Readville
9,100
SS20 Readville
5,100
SS24 Readville
760
SS25 Readville
570
SS26 Readville
570
SS27 Readville
410
DEP IH 2002 XRF Lead Screening Data
Row C 2400
195
Row C 2450
213
Row C 2500
221
Row C 2550
200
Row C 2600
293
Row C 2650
323
Row C 2700
234
Row C 2750
233
Row C 2800
253
Row C 2850
Row C 2900
280
223
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 1 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
Row C 2950
232
Row C 3000
290
Row C 3050
236
Row C 3100
143
Row D/E 2400
161
Row D/E 2500
198
Row D/E 2600
274
Row D/E 2700
343
Row D/E 2800
431
Row D/E 2900
336
Row F 2500
763
Row F 2550
909
Row F 2600
871
Row F 2650
1,576
Row F 2700
2,113
Row F 2750
1,906
Row F 2800
2,230
Row F 2850
3,460
Row F 2900
2,810
Row F 3000
3,820
Row F 3050
2,563
Row F 3100
1,456
Row G 2450
432
Row G 2500
2,030
Row G 2550
1,283
Row G 2800
2,373
Row G 2850
3,490
Row G 2900
2,283
Row G 2950
2,746
Row G 3000
8,076
Row G 3050
5,150
Row G 3100
754
Row G 3150
463
Row H 2450
2,350
Row H 2900
2,116
Row H 2950
999
Row H 3000
1,330
Row H 3050
2,969
Row H 3100
3,833
Row H 3150
415
Row I 2400
2,210
Row I 2450
2,003
Row I 3000
691
Row I 3050
435
Row I 3100
919
Row I 3150
370
Row J 2650
2,813
Row J 2700
1,516
Row J 2950
1,470
Row J 3000
1,042
Row J 3050
670
Row J 3100
2,400
Row J 3150
1,019
Row K 2400
Row K 2450
681
1,380
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 2 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
Row K 2650
2,550
Row K 2700
1,873
Row K 2750
1,313
Row K 2800
1,163
Row K 2850
2,106
Row K 2900
1,813
Row K 3000
524
Row K 3050
949
Row K 3100
7,810
Row K 3150
2,036
Row L 2400
630
Row L 2450
718
Row L 2500
880
Row L 2550
1,403
Row L 2600
997
Row L 2650
594
Row L 2700
2,230
Row L 2750
982
Row L 2800
670
Row L 2850
431
Row L 2900
406
Row L 3000
305
Row L 3050
1,526
Row L 3100
5,100
Row M 2400
484
Row M 2450
559
Row M 2500
1,183
Row M 2550
1,473
Row M 2600
1,216
Row M 2650
1,029
Row M 2700
1,556
Row M 2750
615
Row M 3000
782
Row M 3050
3,110
Row M 3100
2,310
Row M 3150
415
Row N 2400
363
Row N 2450
631
Row N 2500
616
Row N 2550
980
Row N 2600
1,823
Row N 2650
1,490
Row N 2700
759
Row N 2750
309
Row N 2900
212
Row N 2950
252
Row N 3000
3,166
Row N 3050
676
Row O 2400
945
Row O 2500
729
Row O 2550
916
Row O 2600
875
Row O 2650
1,370
Row O 2700
Row O 2750
519
171
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 3 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
Row O 2800
266
Row O 2850
271
Row O 2900
309
Row P 2400
649
Row P 2450
945
Row P 2500
906
Row P 2550
779
Row Q 2400
330
Row Q 2450
272
Row Q 2500
505
Row Q 2550
513
Row Q 2600
849
Row Q 2700
714
Row Q 2750
850
Row Q 2800
726
Row Q 2850
306
Row Q 2900
190
Row Q 2950
87
Row R 2400
223
Row R 2450
294
Row R 2500
242
Row R 2550
208
Row R 2600
354
Row R 2650
327
Row R 2700
288
Row R 2750
282
Row R 2800
192
Row R 2850
297
Row S 2400
335
Row S 2450
130
Row S 2500
263
Row S 2550
140
Row S 2600
92
Row S 2650
139
Row S 2700
90
Row S 2750
276
Row S 2800
203
LFR XRF Data, November-December 2005
240
240
242
242
292
292
293
293
294
294
295
295
296
296
297
297
298
298
346
346
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
153.6
146.8
347.4
47.5
267.4*
<24.75
136.5
<27.6
220.8
<29.1
174.1
27.6
202.1
59.9
3200*
26.7
172.7
125.3
400.2
<19.95
Page 4 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
347
347
348
348
349
349
350
350
351
351
354
354
401
401
402
402
403
403
404
404
404
405
405
406
406
407
407
410
410
457
457
458
458
459
459
462
462
463
463
463
465
465
466
512
512
513
513
514
514
515
515
516
516
517
517
518
518
519
519
521
521
522
522
568
568
569
569
570
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Lead (mg/kg)
<26.7
<25.2
214
<29.7
268
<35.25
104.6
<19.95
837.6
<32.25
<25.2
1320
114.9
<20.85
188.5
<26.4
352.6
135.5
440.4
665.2
38.9
818
<23.7
590.4
<17.7
422
768
527.2*
35.5
352.6
58.5
522.8
207.4
825.6
<26.55
397.8
54.1
973.6
974
64.2
769.6
1120
774
200
149.8
242.2
<28.5
544.8
<27.15
333.8
<25.05
1009.6
41.7
2508.8*
682
1580
257.2
738
140.4
656.8
61.9
308.6
612.8
157.5
<28.35
60.2
<29.4
74.8
Page 5 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
570
571
571
572
572
573
573
574
574
577
577
578
578
623
623
625
625
626
626
627
627
627
628
628
629
629
633
633
634
634
679
679
680
680
681
681
685
685
686
686
687
687
688
688
690
690
691
691
734
735
735
739
739
740
740
742
742
743
743
789
789
790
790
791
791
795
795
796
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Lead (mg/kg)
<29.85
244.4
<27.6
231.4
<25.95
802
44.5
1200*
<28.65
1129.6
1100
892
1800
366.2
258.2
328.4
<29.25
119.2
<31.5
106.5
107
<23.7
253.2
<33.15
776.4
451.6
2659.2
1320
2160
1080
416.8
51.8
197.8
26
95.1
<29.7
206.8
<26.7
589.2
141
6598.4
5059.2
7520
2129.6
10899.2
3449.6
7686.4
4137.6
140.1
135
<25.65
234.2
<22.05
476.4
<35.1
2889.6
39.3
4697.6*
4057.6
139.5
<28.2
4198.4*
47.2
341
<20.85
786
1329.6
1620
Page 6 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
797
797
798
798
799
799
800
800
802
802
803
803
845
845
846
846
846
847
847
848
848
849
849
850
850
852
852
854
854
857
857
858
858
859
859
860
860
901
901
902
902
903
903
907
907
908
908
913
913
914
914
915
916
916
959
959
960
960
962
962
964
964
968
968
969
969
970
970
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Lead (mg/kg)
2329.6
3169.6
1649.6
1009.6
4809.6*
2468.8
6467.2
8716.8
5040
883.2
3000
<29.4
305.2
75.7
22297.6
22,298
235
592
<25.95
<28.8
<33.9
208
<29.1
665.2
50.1
2840
8556.8
406.8
604
1340
<30.75
3427.2
<26.25
4208
44.2
<37.05
<28.8
458.8
<33.6
4457.6
<30
491.6
<28.5
4988.8
4560
758.4
3188.8
1549.6
464.4
1609.6
33.3
<32.25
<28.65
40.1
185.7
<31.05
361.6
<23.4
1180
633.6
407.8
1569.6
787.2
34.5
275
115
1040
<31.65
Page 7 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
971
971
972
972
1014
1014
1015
1015
1016
1016
1017
1017
1018
1018
1019
1019
1020
1020
1021
1021
1022
1022
1025
1025
1026
1026
1027
1027
1028
1028
1071
1071
1072
1072
1073
1073
1074
1074
1075
1075
1078
1078
1079
1079
1080
1080
1081
1081
1083
1083
1128
1128
1129
1129
1130
1130
1132
1132
1133
1133
1134
1134
1135
1135
1136
1136
1186
1186
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Lead (mg/kg)
1300
124.6
149.2
<32.7
288.2
35.3
222.6
32.9
7654.4
<31.05
888.8
<31.5
3417.6
92.3
1089.6
13990.4
1849.6
<24.3
30489.6
<31.65
1549.6
97.8
117.1
<28.65
58.5
<25.05
<40.65
34.8
156
<22.05
1689.6
183.7
510.8
<32.55
6988.8
110.3
4137.6
72.6
8787.2*
732.8
2560
75.7
326.2
<29.55
126.8
<24.3
213.6
29.6
<26.1
<32.85
475.2
<31.65
3388.8
<30.6
344.2
52.2
<31.65
210.2
119.9
<30.3
127.4
<33.75
53.5
<33.45
43.1
<27.75
3609.6
144.4
Page 8 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
LFR Laboratory Data, November-December 2005
292
297
410
457
517
574
743
790
799
846
970
1016
1075
301
5,580
671
345*
4,550
1,900
7,930
4,230
7,690
21100*
992*
5260*
10,000
AECOM XRF Data, June 2008
297 (0-0.5)
410 (0-0.5)
463 (0-0.5)
517 (0-0.5)
634 (0-0.5)
688 (0-0.5)
690 (0-0.5)
742 (0-0.5)
790 (0-0.5)
797 (0-0.5)
799 (0-0.5)
800 (0-0.5)
846 (0-0.5)
858 (0-0.5)
908 (0-0.5)
1018 (0-0.5)
1020 (0-0.5)
1022 (0-0.5)
1073 (0-0.5)
1075 (0-0.5)
1078 (0-0.5)
297 (0.5-3.0)
410 (0.5-3.0)
463 (0.5-3.0)
517 (0.5-3.0)
634 (0.5-3.0)
688 (0.5-3.0)
690 (0.5-3.0)
790 (0.5-3.0)
797 (0.5-3.0)
799 (0.5-3.0)
800 (0.5-3.0)
846 (0.5-3.0)
858 (0.5-3.0)
908 (0.5-3.0)
1016 (0.5-3.0)
1018 (0.5-3.0)
1022 (0.5-3.0)
1073 (0.5-3.0)
1075 (0.5-3.0)
1078 (0.5-3.0)
1130 (0.5-2.5)
348
895
1,623
3,399
4,000
8,715
8,126
1,245
24,627
2,549
8,630
8,207
4,235
3,768
3,156
1,246
2,975
1,126
8,713
2,695
4,888
70
<13
128
161
1,394
477
4,166
15
375
7,922
8,083
18
102
2,384
594
17
<13
481
552
136
<14
AECOM Laboratory Data, June 2008
1016 (0-0.5)
1130 (0-0.5)
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
107
553
Page 9 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
AECOM XRF Data, December 2011
Stockpile 18-A-2
Stockpile 18-A-3
Stockpile 18-A-6
Stockpile 18-A-7
Stockpile 18-A-8
Stockpile 18-A-9
Stockpile 18-A-10
Stockpile 18-A-11
Stockpile 7-A-B-1
Stockpile 7-A-B-2
Stockpile 7-A-B-3
Stockpile 7-A-B-4
Stockpile 7-A-B-5
Stockpile 7-A-B-6
Stockpile 7-A-B-7
Stockpile 7-A-B-8
Stockpile 7-A-B-9
Stockpile 7-A-B-10
Stockpile 7-A-B-11
Stockpile 7-A-B-12
Stockpile 7-A-B-13
Stockpile 7-A-B-14
Stockpile 7-A-B-15
Stockpile 16-A-1
Stockpile 16-A-2
Stockpile 16-A-3
Stockpile 16-A-4
Stockpile 16-A-5
Stockpile-16-D-1
Stockpile-16-D-2
Stockpile-16-D-3
Stockpile-16-D-4
Stockpile-16-D-5
Stockpile 16-E-1
Stockpile 16-E-2
Stockpile 16-E-3
Stockpile 16-E-4
Stockpile 16-E-5
Stockpile 16-F-1
Stockpile 16-F-2
Stockpile 16-F-3
Stockpile 16-F-4
Stockpile 16-F-5
Stockpile 4-A-1
Stockpile 4-A-2
Stockpile 4-A-3
Stockpile 4-A-4
Stockpile 4-A-5
Stockpile 8-A-1
Stockpile 8-A-2
Stockpile 8-A-3
Stockpile 8-A-4
Stockpile 8-A-5
Stockpile 17-A-1
Stockpile 17-A-2
Stockpile 17-A-3
Stockpile 17-A-4
Stockpile 17-A-5
Stockpile 6-A-1
Stockpile 6-A-2
Stockpile 6-A-3
Stockpile 6-A-4
Stockpile 6-A-5
Stockpile 6-B-1
Stockpile 6-B-2
Stockpile 6-B-3
Stockpile 6-B-4
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Lead (mg/kg)
695
2,882
634
1,487
98
231
215
705
181
52
149
89
52
3,093
658
164
3,626
236
95
57
91
170
64
892*
838
1,490
667
1,417
1,854*
861
221
3,255
3,111
2,577
2,214
293
822
1,288
1,656
685
2,726
1,082
3,048
303
104
272
74
95
131
254
115
66
295
1,152
344
814
1,337
2,678
569
585
330
175
181
559
364
633
290
Page 10 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Stockpile 6-B-5
RS-1-1
RS-1-2
RS-1-3
RS-1-4
RS-1-5
Stockpile 20-A-1-1
Stockpile 20-A-1-2
Stockpile 20-A-1-3
Stockpile 20-A-1-4
Stockpile 20-A-1-5
Stockpile 20-A-2-1
Stockpile 20-A-2-2
Stockpile 20-A-2-3
Stockpile 20-A-2-4
Stockpile 20-A-2-5
Stockpile 20-A-3-1
Stockpile 20-A-3-2
Stockpile 20-A-3-3
Stockpile 20-A-3-4
Stockpile 20-A-3-5
Stockpile 20-A-4-1
Stockpile 20-A-4-2
Stockpile 20-A-4-3
Stockpile 20-A-4-4
Stockpile 20-A-4-5
Stockpile 20-A-5-1
Stockpile 20-A-5-2
Stockpile 20-A-5-3
Stockpile 20-A-5-4
Stockpile 20-A-5-5
Stockpile 20-A-6-1
Stockpile 20-A-6-2
Stockpile 20-A-6-3
Stockpile 20-A-6-4
Stockpile 20-A-6-5
Stockpile 20-B-1-1
Stockpile 20-B-1-2
Stockpile 20-B-1-3
Stockpile 20-B-1-4
Stockpile 20-B-1-5
Stockpile 20-B-2-1
Stockpile 20-B-2-2
Stockpile 20-B-2-3
Stockpile 20-B-2-4
Stockpile 20-B-2-5
Stockpile 20-B-3-1
Stockpile 20-B-3-2
Stockpile 20-B-3-3
Stockpile 20-B-3-4
Stockpile 20-B-3-5
Stockpile 20-C-1-1
Stockpile 20-C-1-2
Stockpile 20-C-1-3
Stockpile 20-C-1-4
Stockpile 20-C-1-5
Stockpile 20-C-2-1
Stockpile 20-C-2-2
Stockpile 20-C-2-3
Stockpile 20-C-2-4
Stockpile 20-C-2-5
Stockpile 20-D-1-1
Stockpile 20-D-1-2
Stockpile 20-D-1-3
Stockpile 20-D-1-4
Stockpile 20-D-1-5
Stockpile 20-D-2-1
Stockpile 20-D-2-2
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Lead (mg/kg)
362
267*
264
201
129
233
1461*
1,888
1,609
2,408
2,091
1753*
1,727
1,144
1,457
1,069
1072*
1,081
684
1,851
1,465
1,471*
1,481
1,356
1,345
1,478
2230*
1,230
1,398
1,495
1,323
2816*
1,289
2,060
1,933
1,872
2,291
1,617
1,928
2,737
2,004
1880*
2,647
1,991
527
5,907
1,130*
1,590
1,631
1,855
2,111
1071*
1,361
949
316
1,309
983
3,677
200
352
251
1,170
4,226
824
964
1,031
1881*
690
Page 11 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Stockpile 20-D-2-3
Stockpile 20-D-2-4
Stockpile 20-D-2-5
Stockpile 20-D-3-1
Stockpile 20-D-3-2
Stockpile 20-D-3-3
Stockpile 20-D-3-4
Stockpile 20-D-3-5
906-1
906-2
906-3
Stockpile 19-A-1
Stockpile 19-A-2
Stockpile 19-A-3
Stockpile 19-A-4
Stockpile 19-A-5
Stockpile 21-A-1-1
Stockpile 21-A-1-2
Stockpile 21-A-1-3
Stockpile 21-A-1-4
Stockpile 21-A-1-5
Stockpile 22-A-1
Stockpile 22-A-2
Stockpile 22-A-3
Stockpile 22-A-4
Stockpile 22-A-5
Stockpile 9-A-1
Stockpile 9-B-1
Stockpile 10-A-1
Stockpile 10-A-2
Stockpile 10-A-3
Stockpile 10-A-4
Stockpile 10-A-5
Stockpile 10-B-1
Stockpile 10-B-2
Stockpile 10-B-3
Stockpile 10-B-4
Stockpile 10-B-5
Stockpile 10-C-1
Stockpile 10-C-2
Stockpile 10-C-3
Stockpile 10-C-4
Stockpile 10-C-5
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Lead (mg/kg)
1,326
1,369
659
1793*
334
527
2,098
1,276
7,333
1,322
6,158
3122*
4,046
1,375
6,307
2,096
2628*
1,883
1,441
1,063
1,304
1409*
1,318
1,529
1,479
1,222
164
1,189*
9,142
12,100
8,100
3,688
4,305
3709*
1,405
6,251
3,371
2,623
1439*
3,280
2,295
1,019
3,017
Page 12 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 1
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Shallow Soil (0 to 3 feet) - All data Sources (Excluding Rizzo SS01)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
AECOM Laboratory Data, December 2011
Stockpile 18-A-6
Stockpile 16-A-1
Stockpile-16-D-1
Stockpile 16-E-1
Stockpile 4-A-1
Stockpile 8-A-1
Stockpile 17-A-1
Stockpile 6-A-1
Stockpile 6-B-1
RS-1-1
Stockpile 20-A-1-1
Stockpile 20-A-2-1
Stockpile 20-A-3-1
Stockpile 20-A-4-1
Stockpile 20-A-5-1
Stockpile 20-A-6-1
Stockpile 20-B-1-1
Stockpile 20-B-2-1
Stockpile 20-B-3-1
Stockpile 20-C-1-1
Stockpile 20-C-2-1
Stockpile 20-D-1-1
Stockpile 20-D-2-1
Stockpile 20-D-3-1
Stockpile 19-A-1
Stockpile 21-A-1-1
Stockpile 22-A-1
Lead (mg/kg)
100*
1,200
2,900
1200*
36*
92*
160*
180*
260*
1,500
2,600
2,800
1,800
3,100
2,300
8,000
2000*
3,500
4,800
2,800
840*
2400*
3,700
2,600
4,300
4,300
4,000
AECOM Laboratory Data, January 2012
Stockpile 9-A-1
Stockpile 9-B-1
Stockpile 10-A-1
Stockpile 10-B-1
Stockpile 10-C-1
64*
1400
4900*
4,400
4,000
Summary Statistics:
No. of Samples
No. of Detects
Frequency of Detection
Minimum Concentration
Maxiumum Concentration
Average Concentration
Standard Deviation
t-value
95% Confidence Interval
95% UCL on the Mean
757
680
90%
3
30,490
1,477
2,648
1.963
189
1,666
MassDEP Urban Background (Fill Soil)
CA/T 95th Percentile Urban Background
Max. Concentration Above Background?
600
1,100
Yes
Notes:
1. Note that two results in a given reference cell from the LFR XRF 2005 data are for depths
of 0'-0.5' and 0.5'-3' below grade.
* - Duplicate sample analyzed by XRF and laboratory. Higher detected result of the duplicate
analyses used in the summary statistics. Asterisk placed on result not used.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 1
Page 13 of 13
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 2
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Subsurface Soil sampling (>3 feet) - LFR and AECOM Data
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
LFR XRF Data, November-December 2005
292
296
406
407
512
517
518
578
633
634
634
686
687
688
690
691
691
743
748
748
795
796
796
798
798
799
800
802
850
854
907
907
908
908
962
964
964
964
969
1019
1021
1075
1130
76.4
<27.75*
<24.45
32.6
<25.65*
321.7
291.1
27.15
<23.25
21.2
5049.6
<29.7
43.6
45
44.1
2499.2
78.6
67.4
306
547.7
89.7
5280
2510
115.6
472
454.4*
3708.8
30.7
79.6
<25.05
1859.2
970.4
3548.8
<24.3
<27.15
1200
1649.6
1569.6
<26.85
<23.85
81.2
90.7
86.1
LFR Laboratoy Data, November-December 2005
1075 (3-6')
296 (3-5')
512 (3-5')
690 (11-13')
790 (3-6')
796 (13.5')
799 (10-15')
85.5*
15.4
13
37.8*
909
371*
694
AECOM XRF Data, June 2008
297 (3.0-6.0)
355 (3.0-6.0)
463 (3.0-6.0)
517 (3.0-6.0)
634 (3.0-6.0)
688 (3.0-4.5)
690 (3.0-6.0)
742 (3.0-6.0)
790 (3.0-6.0)
797 (3.0-6.0)
799 (3.0-6.0)
800 (3.0-6.0)
846 (3.0-6.0)
858 (3.0-6.0)
37
71
47
231
586
3350
2596
9238
83
14521
6322
11464
<26
122
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 2
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 2
Soil Statistical Summary
RISK AREA 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Subsurface Soil sampling (>3 feet) - LFR and AECOM Data
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Sample ID
Lead (mg/kg)
30649
152
16
<13
36
908 (3.0-6.0)
1020 (3.0-6.0)
1022 (3.0-6.0)
1073 (3.0-4.0)
1075 (3.0-4.0)
AECOM Laboratory Data, June 2008
410 (3-6')
1078 (3-6')
19.5
21.7
Summary Statistics:
No. of Samples
No. of Detects
Frequency of Detection
Minimum Concentration
Maxiumum Concentration
Average Concentration
Standard Deviation
t-value
95% Confidence Interval
95% UCL on the Mean
71
61
86%
13
30,649
1,756
4,560
1.994
1079
2,835
MassDEP Urban Background (Fill Soil)
CA/T 95th Percentile Urban Background
Max. Concentration Above Background?
600
1,100
Yes
Notes:
1. Note that two results in a given reference cell from the LFR XRF 2005 data are for two different
depths below grade.
* - Duplicate sample analyzed by XRF and laboratory. Higher detected result of the duplicate
analyses used in the summary statistics. Asterisk placed on result not used.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 2
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 3
RISK AREA 4 - EXCLUSION ZONE
Statistical Summary - Metals, EPH Parameters and PAHs in Surface Soil (0 to 3 feet)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
WSE, 2002 PHASE II
Parameters
Units
LFR, December 2005
BC/SS-1/0-6"
BC/SS-2/0-6"
BC/SS-3/0-6"
BP/HA-1/0-1
BP/HA-2/0-1
CL/GP-10/S-1/0-4
HB/GP-14/S-1/0-4
EZ/GP-2/S-1/0-4
EZ/GP-4/S-1/0-4
EZ/GP-7/S-1/0-4
EZ/GP-8/S-1/0-4
EZ/GP-43/0-2
HB/GP-15/S-1/1-3
HB/GP-16/S-1/1-3
24-JUL-02
24-JUL-02
24-JUL-02
16-AUG-02
16-AUG-02
23-JUL-02
24-JUL-02
22-JUL-02
22-JUL-02
23-JUL-02
23-JUL-02
26-JUL-02
24-JUL-02
24-JUL-02
BP/HA-1/2-2.5 BP/HA-2/1.8-2
16-AUG-02
16-AUG-02
970-S1/0.5-3'
8-Dec-05
Total Metals
Antimony
mg/kg
11
9.8
13
1
2.6
99
1
1
1
8.6
3
26
5.2
8.4
1
1
-
Arsenic
mg/kg
140
18
26
4.9
8.4
57
3.1
2.7
2.2
8.3
3.1
18
7.7
3
2.6
4.2
2.6
Chromium
mg/kg
9.1
20
23
7.7
9.9
12
47
9.8
6.2
16
44
26
10
20
5.7
6
0.3
Cobalt
mg/kg
6.3
5.8
7.3
5
4.3
5.4
4.8
4.7
4.5
6.2
2
6.4
7.8
2.5
4.6
4.4
9.68
Copper
mg/kg
70
240
200
25
50
510
12
21
12
160
110
340
73
27
21
24
-
Lead
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
EPH
C9-C18 Alipahtics
mg/kg
5.4
11.1
5.5
5.1
26
36.3
5.15
5.1
5.15
11.4
16.8
40
5.45
5.3
5.1
5.1
-
C19-C36 Aliphatics
mg/kg
38.8
124
36.8
5.1
70.4
248
5.15
5.1
5.15
57.5
36.7
89.6
5.45
5.3
5.1
5.1
-
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
mg/kg
94.5
281
80.4
5.1
66.5
157
5.15
5.1
5.15
122
99.7
351
17.4
5.3
5.1
26.6
-
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
83.2
234
70.6
5.1
66.5
130
5.15
5.1
5.15
116
96.3
317
16.7
5.3
5.1
26.6
-
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Total PCBs
mg/kg
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
mg/kg
0.269
0.555
0.275
0.253
0.255
0.896
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.278
0.641
0.555
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
2-Methylnaphthalene
mg/kg
0.269
0.555
0.275
0.253
0.255
1.49
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.592
0.966
1.3
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
0.269
0.555
0.275
0.253
0.255
0.585
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.278
0.261
0.555
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.269
0.555
0.275
0.253
0.255
0.291
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.278
0.261
0.555
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Anthracene
mg/kg
0.269
1.22
0.275
0.253
0.255
0.291
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.278
0.261
0.555
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Fluorene
mg/kg
0.269
0.555
0.275
0.253
0.255
0.291
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.278
0.261
0.555
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
0.269
5.42
0.643
0.253
0.255
1.66
0.258
0.255
0.258
1.01
0.589
2.02
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
1.62
8.09
1.51
0.253
0.838
2.07
0.258
0.255
0.258
1.38
0.261
3.98
0.723
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Pyrene
mg/kg
1.39
6.12
1.44
0.253
0.681
1.84
0.258
0.255
0.258
1.01
0.532
3.36
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
0.868
3.01
0.606
0.253
0.255
1.55
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.278
0.261
2.26
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
1.03
3.49
0.815
0.253
0.255
1.84
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.613
0.261
2.72
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Chrysene
mg/kg
1.27
4.24
1.05
0.253
0.732
2.55
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.741
0.261
3.72
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
1.56
4.83
1.27
0.253
1.03
4.16
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.278
0.261
4.33
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
1.79
4
1.24
0.253
0.645
2.2
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.859
0.669
4.61
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
0.97
3.43
0.696
0.253
0.255
1.99
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.278
0.261
2.63
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
mg/kg
0.828
2.9
0.603
0.253
0.255
2.6
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.278
0.261
2.11
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
0.269
0.555
0.275
0.253
0.255
1.14
0.258
0.255
0.258
0.278
0.261
1.13
0.272
0.266
0.255
0.255
-
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 3
Page 1 of 4
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 3
RISK AREA 4 - EXCLUSION ZONE
Statistical Summary - Metals, EPH Parameters and PAHs in Surface Soil (0 to 3 feet)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
AECOM, November 2011 (0-0.5')
AECOM, June-July 2008
Parameters
Units
AECOM, December 2011 (0-0.5')
742/0.5-3'
1016/0-6"
1020/0.5-3'
1130/0-6"
AA-5-EW AA-NW-EW AA-NW-ENW Stockpile 7-A-B-1
23-Jun-08
18-Jun-08
19-Jun-08
19-Jun-08
17-Nov-11
17-Nov-11
17-Nov-11
20-Dec-11
Stockpile 7-A-B-2
Stockpile 7-A-B-3
Stockpile 16-A-1
Stockpile 16-D-1
Stockpile 16-E-1
Stockpile 16-F-1
Stockpile 4-A-1
Stockpile 8-A-1
Stockpile 17-A-1
Stockpile 6-A-1
Stockpile 6-B-1
Stockpile 20-A-1-1
20-Dec-11
20-Dec-11
16-Dec-12
16-Dec-12
16-Dec-12
16-Dec-12
27-Dec-11
27-Dec-11
27-Dec-11
27-Dec-11
27-Dec-11
27-Dec-11
Total Metals
Antimony
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Arsenic
mg/kg
2.29
12.2
13.1
14.5
270
120
110
3.6
1.4
6.4
1.25
9.8
1.25
1.25
1.3
1.25
1.25
160
75
11
Chromium
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cobalt
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Copper
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lead
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
EPH
C9-C18 Alipahtics
mg/kg
27.5
18.4
16
15.45
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C19-C36 Aliphatics
mg/kg
27.5
18.4
16
15.45
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
mg/kg
27.5
18.4
16
15.45
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
27.5
18.4
16
15.45
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Total PCBs
mg/kg
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
mg/kg
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.095
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2-Methylnaphthalene
mg/kg
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.095
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.095
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.095
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Anthracene
mg/kg
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.095
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fluorene
mg/kg
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.095
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.84
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.1
1.2
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pyrene
mg/kg
0.1
1.3
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.58
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.68
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chrysene
mg/kg
0.1
1
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.1
1.2
0.2
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.36
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
mg/kg
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.59
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.095
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 3
Page 2 of 4
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 3
RISK AREA 4 - EXCLUSION ZONE
Statistical Summary - Metals, EPH Parameters and PAHs in Surface Soil (0 to 3 feet)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
AECOM, December 2011 (0-0.5')
Stockpile 20-A-2-1 Stockpile 20-A-3-1 Stockpile 20-A-4-1 Stockpile 20-A-5-1 Stockpile 20-A-6-1
Parameters
Units
27-Dec-11
27-Dec-11
27-Dec-11
27-Dec-11
27-Dec-11
Stockpile 20-B-1-1
Stockpile 20-B-2-1
29-Dec-11
29-Dec-11
Stockpile 20-B-3-1 Stockpile 20-C-1-1 Stockpile 20-C-2-1 Stockpile 20-D-1-1 Stockpile 20-D-2-1 Stockpile 20-D-3-1
29-Dec-11
29-Dec-11
29-Dec-11
29-Dec-11
29-Dec-11
29-Dec-11
Stockpile 19-A-1
30-Dec-11
Stockpile 21-A-1-1 Stockpile 22-A-1-1
30-Dec-11
30-Dec-11
Total Metals
Antimony
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Arsenic
mg/kg
7.9
7.7
9.2
10
17
1.4
3.8
9.1
-
-
-
-
-
8.7
5.3
1.55
Chromium
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cobalt
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Copper
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lead
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
EPH
C9-C18 Alipahtics
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C19-C36 Aliphatics
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.16
0.055
-
-
-
-
-
-
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Total PCBs
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.205
0.23
0.205
-
-
-
2-Methylnaphthalene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.205
0.23
0.205
-
-
-
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.77
0.96
1.5
-
-
-
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.205
0.23
0.205
-
-
-
Anthracene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1.2
1.3
-
-
-
Fluorene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.205
0.23
0.205
-
-
-
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
2.6
3
-
-
-
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.4
9.3
14
-
-
-
Pyrene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
8.7
15
-
-
-
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
2.1
2.9
-
-
-
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.5
6.3
8.1
-
-
-
Chrysene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.4
7.1
8.7
-
-
-
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.2
9.2
12
-
-
-
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.5
3.4
4.2
-
-
-
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
5.4
6.7
-
-
-
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
3
4
-
-
-
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.55
0.74
0.97
-
-
-
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 3
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 3
RISK AREA 4 - EXCLUSION ZONE
Statistical Summary - Metals, EPH Parameters and PAHs in Surface Soil (0 to 3 feet)
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
AECOM, January/December 2011
Stockpile 18-A-1
Parameters
Units
30-Dec-11
Stockpile 9-A-1
11-Jan-12
Stockpile 9-B-1
11-Jan-12
Summary Statistics
Stockpile 10-A-1
No. of
25-Jan-12
Samples
No. of
Detects
Frequency
of
Detection
Min
Max
Average
Standard
Deviation
t-value
MassDEP
Urban
Background Site Maximum
Concentration
Number
Detected
95%
Upper
(Fill Soil
Samples
Concentration
Confidence 95% UCL
Containing
Above Urban Retained As
Above
Interval
COC?
of Mean 95th Percentile
Ash)
Background? Background
Total Metals
Antimony
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
16
10
63%
2.6
99
12.0
24.1
2.131
13
25
44.3
7
Yes
7
Yes
Arsenic
mg/kg
1.25
1.35
4.7
1.45
52
38
73%
2.2
270
23.4
50.1
2.008
14
37
129.0
20
Yes
8
Yes
Chromium
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
17
16
94%
5.7
47.0
16.0
13.0
2.120
7
22.7
44.6
40
Yes
2
Yes
Cobalt
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
17
17
100%
2
9.68
5.4
1.9
2.120
1
6.3
8.2
4
Yes
15
Yes
Copper
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
16
16
100%
12
510
118.4
142.0
2.131
76
194
382.5
200
Yes
3
Yes
Lead
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
600
-
-
-
EPH
C9-C18 Alipahtics
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
20
5
25%
11.4
40
13.6
11.0
2.093
5
19
36.5
NA
-
-
Yes
C19-C36 Aliphatics
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
20
8
40%
36.7
248
41.0
58.7
2.093
27
69
130.2
NA
-
-
Yes
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
20
10
50%
17.4
351
70.2
96.1
2.093
45
115
284.5
NA
-
-
-
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
20
10
50%
17.4
317
63.3
84.0
2.093
39
103
238.2
NA
-
-
Yes
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
3
2
67%
0.300
2.160
0.938
1.093
4.303
2.714
3.7
2.0
NA
-
-
Yes
Naphthalene
mg/kg
-
-
-
0.27
25
4
16%
0.3
0.896
0.296
0.183
2.064
0.076
0.4
0.6
1
No
0
No
2-Methylnaphthalene
mg/kg
-
-
-
0.21
25
6
24%
0.3
1.49
0.373
0.359
2.064
0.148
0.5
1.2
1
Yes
2
Yes
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
-
-
-
0.1
25
6
24%
0.3
1.5
0.355
0.316
2.064
0.130
0.5
0.9
1
Yes
1
Yes
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
-
-
-
0.31
25
1
4%
0.31
0.31
0.250
0.114
2.064
0.047
0.3
0.5
2
No
0
No
Anthracene
mg/kg
-
-
-
0.92
25
5
20%
1
1.3
1.128
0.160
2.064
0.066
1.2
1.2
4
No
0
No
Fluorene
mg/kg
-
-
-
0.43
25
2
8%
0.2
0.43
0.259
0.115
2.064
0.048
0.3
0.5
2
No
0
No
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
-
-
-
3.9
25
13
52%
0.3
5.42
1.111
1.375
2.064
0.568
1.7
3.7
20
No
0
No
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
-
-
-
4.5
25
16
64%
0.3
14
2.507
3.715
2.064
1.534
4.0
9.4
10
Yes
1
Yes
Pyrene
mg/kg
-
-
-
4.4
25
16
64%
0.4
15
2.326
3.601
2.064
1.486
3.8
8.6
20
No
0
No
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
-
-
-
1.1
25
11
44%
0.4
3.01
0.814
0.906
2.064
0.374
1.2
2.8
3
Yes
1
Yes
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
-
-
-
2.1
25
12
48%
0.613
8.1
2.741
2.447
2.064
1.010
3.8
5.9
9
No
0
No
Chrysene
mg/kg
-
-
-
2.2
25
15
60%
0.3
8.7
1.706
2.346
2.064
0.968
2.7
6.8
7
Yes
2
Yes
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
-
-
-
2.4
25
14
56%
0.2
12
2.136
3.161
2.064
1.305
3.4
8.8
8
Yes
2
Yes
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
-
-
-
0.88
25
14
56%
0.36
4.61
1.205
1.432
2.064
0.591
1.8
4.2
4
Yes
2
Yes
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
-
-
-
1.9
25
12
48%
0.2
6.7
1.287
1.801
2.064
0.743
2.0
5.1
7
No
0
No
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
mg/kg
-
-
-
1.3
25
11
44%
0.5
4
0.956
1.140
2.064
0.471
1.4
3.0
3
Yes
1
Yes
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
-
-
-
0.3
25
7
28%
0.2
1.14
0.375
0.304
2.064
0.125
0.5
1.1
1
Yes
2
Yes
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Total PCBs
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 3
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 4
RISK AREA 4 - Exclusion Zone
Statistical Summary - Subsurface Soil (>3 feet) - ALL DATA
Metals, EPH Parameters and PAHs
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
WSE, 2002 PHASE II
HB/GP-14/S-3/8-12 EZ/GP-43/4-8 EZ/GP-8/S-3/8-12 EZ/GP-9/S-2/4-8 SW/GP-11/S-4/12-13
Units
24-JUL-02
Antimony
mg/kg
1.2
Arsenic
mg/kg
3.2
Barium
mg/kg
70
18
Chromium
mg/kg
15
7
43
Cobalt
mg/kg
6.6
5.5
5.1
Copper
mg/kg
13
24
44
Lead
mg/kg
-
-
-
Parameters
26-JUL-02
SW/GP-12/S-2/4-5
23-JUL-02
23-JUL-02
24-JUL-02
24-JUL-02
1
1
5.6
1.05
2.3
1.8
3.4
3.6
65
51
22
34
85
23
4.6
3.4
66
-
EZ/GP-1/S-2/4-8 EZ/GP-1/S-4/12-16 EZ/GP-2/S-4/12-16 EZ/GP-3/S-3/8-12 EZ/GP-3/S-5/16-20 EZ/GP-4/S-4/12-16
EZ/GP-5/S-2/4-8
EZ/GP-5/S-4/12-16
23-JUL-02
23-JUL-02
1.2
1
1.05
2.6
2.4
2
32
25
20
7.3
11
7.8
7
6.9
5.5
4.1
3.4
14
19
10
19
12
-
-
-
-
-
5.2
22-JUL-02
22-JUL-02
22-JUL-02
22-JUL-02
22-JUL-02
22-JUL-02
1
1
1.25
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.6
2.3
2.1
1.7
2.7
5.7
20
15
36
22
29
3.6
9
7.2
7
7.6
3.2
5.6
4.2
3.5
4
15
4.6
18
8.3
11
-
-
-
-
-
Metals
EPH
C9-C18 Alipahtics
mg/kg
6
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.25
5.2
5.2
6.3
5.2
64.7
5.3
6.15
5.15
C19-C36 Aliphatics
mg/kg
6
5.15
93.4
5.15
5.25
5.2
5.2
6.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
6.15
5.15
5.2
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
mg/kg
6
5.15
31.8
5.15
5.25
5.2
5.2
6.3
5.2
37
5.3
6.15
5.15
5.2
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
6
5.15
31.8
5.15
5.25
5.2
5.2
6.3
5.2
37
5.3
6.15
5.15
5.2
Naphthalene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
2-Methylnaphthalene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Anthracene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Fluorene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Pyrene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Chrysene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
0.301
0.258
0.258
0.258
0.263
0.261
0.261
0.317
0.261
0.261
0.266
0.309
0.258
0.261
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 4
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 4
RISK AREA 4 - Exclusion Zone
Statistical Summary - Subsurface Soil (>3 feet) - ALL DATA
Metals, EPH Parameters and PAHs
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
WSE, 2002 PHASE II
AECOM, June & July 2008
LFR, December 2005
EZ/GP-6/S-2/4-8'
HB/GP-13/S-2/4-5
HB/GP-14/S-3/8-12
EZ/MW104D/10-12'
EZ/MW104D/14-16'
P/MW-106/10-12'
P/MW-107/15-17'
Units
23-Jul-02
24-JUL-02
24-JUL-02
22-Jul-02
22-Jul-02
23-Jul-02
23-Jul-02
Antimony
mg/kg
35
1
1.2
160
1.15
1
1.05
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Arsenic
mg/kg
23
2.2
3.2
32
2.3
1.7
3.9
1.8
2.6
2.7
2.6
3.0
4.6
2.6
4.14
5.21
Barium
mg/kg
510
21
70
460
16
26
26
19
16.9
52.4
20.3
73.5
87.0
38.1
-
-
Chromium
mg/kg
87
13
15
64
5.3
8.1
8.6
4.8
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
-
-
Cobalt
mg/kg
7.6
5.2
6.6
10
3.4
4.1
3.4
3.3
9.85
2.245
10.0
11.6
17.5
13.0
-
-
Copper
mg/kg
460
33
13
2300
23
16
10
7.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lead
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
EPH
C9-C18 Alipahtics
mg/kg
53.7
5.1
6.25
72.8
5.8
5.1
5.3
11.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.45
15.4
C19-C36 Aliphatics
mg/kg
5.4
5.1
6.25
178
5.8
12.4
24
11.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.45
15.4
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
mg/kg
76
5.1
6.25
182
5.8
5.1
5.3
5.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.45
15.4
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
65.5
5.1
6.25
175
5.8
5.1
5.3
5.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.45
15.4
0.1
Parameters
P/MW-108/18-20' 296-S1/3-5' 512-S1/3-5' 690-S1/11-13' 796-S1/13.5' 799-S1/10-15' 1075-S1/3-6'
24-Jul-02
30-Nov-05 2-Dec-05
7-Dec-05
8-Dec-05
12-Dec-05
8-Dec-05
410/3-6'
23-Jun-08
1078/3-6'
19-Jun-08
Metals
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
mg/kg
0.269
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
2-Methylnaphthalene
mg/kg
0.269
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
0.269
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.269
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Anthracene
mg/kg
0.269
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Fluorene
mg/kg
0.269
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
1.39
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
1.91
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Pyrene
mg/kg
1.62
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
0.544
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
0.863
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Chrysene
mg/kg
1.12
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.896
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
1.32
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
0.844
0.255
0.313
7.16
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
mg/kg
0.269
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
0.269
0.255
0.313
0.347
0.291
0.255
0.266
0.284
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 4
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT A-4
TABLE 4
RISK AREA 4 - Exclusion Zone
Statistical Summary - Subsurface Soil (>3 feet) - ALL DATA
Metals, EPH Parameters and PAHs
MBTA Readville Yard, Dedham, MA.
Summary Statistics
No. of
Parameters
Units
Samples
No. of Detects
Frequency of
Detection
Min
Max
Average
Standard
Deviation
t-value
95%
Upper
95th
Confidence 95% UCL
of Mean Percentile
Interval
MassDEP
Urban
Background
Concentration
(Fill Soil
Site Maximum
Number
Detected
Concentration Samples Above
Urban
Above
Retained
Background? Background As COC?
Metals
Antimony
mg/kg
22
3
14%
5.6
160.0
10.0
34
2.080
15
25
33.5
7
Yes
2
Yes
Arsenic
mg/kg
30
24
80%
1.6
32.0
4.5
6
2.045
2
7
15.2
20
Yes
2
Yes
Barium
mg/kg
28
28
100%
15
510.0
67.7
120
2.052
46
114
329.4
50
Yes
9
Yes
Chromium
mg/kg
28
21
75%
3.6
87.0
16.0
24
2.052
9
25.3
77.7
40
Yes
4
Yes
Cobalt
mg/kg
28
26
93%
3.2
17.5
6.2
4
2.052
1
7.6
12.5
4
Yes
19
Yes
Copper
mg/kg
22
22
100%
4.6
2300.0
142.8
491
2.080
218
360
440.3
200
Yes
2
Yes
Lead
mg/kg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
600
-
-
-
EPH
C9-C18 Alipahtics
mg/kg
24
4
17%
11.4
72.8
13.8
20
2.069
8
22
63.1
NA
-
-
Yes
C19-C36 Aliphatics
mg/kg
24
5
21%
11.4
178.0
18.5
38
2.069
16
35
83.0
NA
-
-
Yes
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
mg/kg
24
4
17%
31.8
182.0
19.0
38
2.069
16
35
70.1
NA
-
-
-
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
24
4
17%
31.8
175.0
18.3
36
2.069
15
34
61.2
NA
-
-
Yes
Naphthalene
mg/kg
24
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
0
ND
2-Methylnaphthalene
mg/kg
24
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
0
ND
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
24
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
0
ND
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
24
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
0
ND
Anthracene
mg/kg
24
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
0
ND
Fluorene
mg/kg
24
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
0
ND
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
24
1
4%
1.390
1.390
0.308
0.237
2.069
0.100
0.408
0.342
20
No
0
No
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
24
1
4%
1.910
1.910
0.329
0.341
2.069
0.144
0.474
0.342
10
No
0
No
Pyrene
mg/kg
24
1
4%
1.620
1.620
0.317
0.283
2.069
0.119
0.437
0.342
20
No
0
No
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
24
1
4%
0.544
0.544
0.273
0.080
2.069
0.034
0.306
0.342
3
No
0
No
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
24
1
4%
0.863
0.863
0.286
0.135
2.069
0.057
0.343
0.342
9
No
0
No
Chrysene
mg/kg
24
1
4%
1.120
1.120
0.297
0.184
2.069
0.078
0.374
0.342
7
No
0
No
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
24
1
4%
0.896
0.896
0.287
0.141
2.069
0.060
0.347
0.342
8
No
0
No
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
24
1
4%
1.320
1.320
0.305
0.223
2.069
0.094
0.399
0.342
4
No
0
No
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
24
2
8%
0.844
7.160
0.569
1.410
2.069
0.595
1.164
0.765
7
Yes
1
Yes
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
mg/kg
24
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
0
ND
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
24
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
0
ND
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
NOTES:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
EPH = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
PAHs = Polyclyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit. Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
A-4 Risk Area 4_4-26-12.xlsx/Table 4
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A-5
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS - HOT SPOTS 1,2
MBTA Readville Yard Site
Readville and Dedham, MA
Parameters
Units
Sample ID===>
Sample Depth (feet)===>
VPH Hot
Spot
MassDEP Urban
Maximum
(Area 3)
Background
Detected
SA/GP-44 Concentration Concentration
(Fill Soil
Above
Retained
9-11
Containing Ash) Background? As COC?
Metals
Arsenic
Lead
mg/kg
mg/kg
-
20
600
-
-
VPH
C5-C8 Aliphatics
C9-C12 Aliphatics
C9-C10 Aromatics
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
193
154
-
-
-
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics
C19-C36 Aliphatics
C11-C22 Aromatics
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
1,520
500
1,660
-
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Non C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.92
5.19
6.26
4.67
4.26
5.83
1.22
0.3245
1.24
0.3245
1
1
1
2
4
2
20
10
20
3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
C-PAHs (mg/kg):
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.3245
0.3245
0.3245
0.3245
0.3245
0.3245
0.3245
9
7
8
4
7
3
1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Notes:
1. EPH = Extractable petroleum hydrocarbons.
VPH = Volatile petroleum hydrocarbons.
COC= Chemical of Concern for the Site.
PAHs = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
C-PAHs = Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Non C-PAHs = Non-carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
mg/Kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
NE = Not established.
Italics indicate that analyte was not detected above laboratory detection limit.
Value shown is one-half the reportable detection limit.
(-) = Indicates not analyzed for.
2. See laboratory reports for additional information.
A-5 Hot Spot Areas EPCs_2-3-12.xls/Hot Spots
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT A-6
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER DATA
MBTA Readville Yard Site
Readville and Dedham, MA
GW-1
GW-2
GW-3
Units
MW-2
Dec-01
MW-2
Aug-02
MW-2
Oct-02
MW-3
Dec-01
MW-3
Aug-02
MW-3
Oct-02
MW-4
Dec-01
MW-4
Aug-02
MW-4
Oct-02
10
2000
5000
NA
NA
NA
900
50,000
900
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
5
200
NA
5
30
50
5
20
50
8
80
NA
8
80
50
8
80
50
5
210
NA
5
210
50
5
210
50
70
70
50
50000
20000
50000
ug/l
ug/l
NA
2
NA
4
NA
4
NA
2
NA
4
NA
4
NA
2
NA
4
NA
4
10000
70
9000
50000
5000
50000
ug/l
ug/l
1
2
2
4
2
4
1
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
700
NE
200
5000
NE
50000
50000
NE
5000
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
110
110
110
118
118
118
118
118
118
520
590
3600
134
366
366
134
366
366
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
Target PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
20
30
60
30
140
40
NA
10000
NA
NA
1000
NA
6000
40
30
40
20000
10000
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
23
23
23
23
23
23
20
20
20
20
20
20
2.4
1.1
1.7
1.3
1
4.1
23
23
23
23
23
23
134
134
134
134
134
134
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
Parameter
Dissolved Metals
Arsenic, Dissolved
Barium, Dissolved
Zinc, Dissolved
VOCs by GC/MS 8260
Chloroform
Methyl-ter-butylether
Target VOCs
o-Xylene
Methyl-ter-butylether
NOTES:
GW-1, GW-2 and GW-3
EPH
NA
NS
PAHs
ug/l
VOCs
VPH
Italics
Italics/Shade
BOLD Shade
Massachusetts Contingency Plan Method 1 Risk Characterization
Standard for GW-1, GW-2 and GW-3 groundwater, MCP Effective
December 14, 2007
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Not Analyzed
No Standard
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
micrograms per liter, or parts per billion (ppb)
Volatile Organic Compounds
Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Compound was undetected
Compound was undetected but the laboratory detection limit was
above the applicable Method 1 Standard
Exceeds applicable Method 1 Standards
Attachment A‐6 new standards.xlsx
Page 1 of 4
ATTACHMENT A-6
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER DATA
MBTA Readville Yard Site
Readville and Dedham, MA
GW-1
GW-2
GW-3
Units
MW-49
Dec-01
MW‐49
Aug‐02
MW‐49 DUP
Aug‐02
MW‐49
Oct‐02
MW‐101
Dec‐01
MW‐101
Aug‐02
MW‐101
Oct‐02
P/MW‐106
Aug‐02
10
2000
5000
NA
NA
NA
900
50,000
900
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
5
10
NA
5
10
50
5
10
50
5
10
50
5
30
NA
5
30
50
5
30
50
5
30
50
70
70
50
50000
20000
50000
ug/l
ug/l
NA
2
NA
4
NA
4
NA
4
NA
2
NA
4
NA
4
NA
4
10000
70
9000
50000
5000
50000
ug/l
ug/l
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
700
NE
200
5000
NE
50000
50000
NE
5000
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
122
122
122
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
115
115
115
Target PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
20
30
60
30
140
40
NA
10000
NA
NA
1000
NA
6000
40
30
40
20000
10000
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
122
122
122
122
122
122
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
115
115
115
115
115
115
Parameter
Dissolved Metals
Arsenic, Dissolved
Barium, Dissolved
Zinc, Dissolved
VOCs by GC/MS 8260
Chloroform
Methyl-ter-butylether
Target VOCs
o-Xylene
Methyl-ter-butylether
NOTES:
GW-1, GW-2 and GW-3
EPH
NA
NS
PAHs
ug/l
VOCs
VPH
Italics
Italics/Shade
BOLD Shade
Massachusetts Contingency Plan Method 1 Risk Characterization
Standard for GW-1, GW-2 and GW-3 groundwater, MCP Effective
December 14, 2007
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Not Analyzed
No Standard
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
micrograms per liter, or parts per billion (ppb)
Volatile Organic Compounds
Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Compound was undetected
Compound was undetected but the laboratory detection limit was
above the applicable Method 1 Standard
Exceeds applicable Method 1 Standards
Attachment A‐6 new standards.xlsx
Page 2 of 4
ATTACHMENT A-6
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER DATA
MBTA Readville Yard Site
Readville and Dedham, MA
Parameter
Dissolved Metals
Arsenic, Dissolved
Barium, Dissolved
Zinc, Dissolved
P/MW‐106 P/MW‐107 P/MW‐107 P/MW‐108 P/MW‐108 P/MW‐109 P/MW‐109 P/MW‐110 P/MW‐110
Oct‐02
Aug‐02
Oct‐02
Aug‐02
Oct‐02
Aug‐02
Oct‐02
Aug‐02
Oct‐02
GW-1
GW-2
GW-3
Units
10
2000
5000
NA
NA
NA
900
50,000
900
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
5
30
50
5
70
50
5
70
60
5
30
50
5
30
60
5
20
50
5
20
50
5
40
50
5
40
50
70
70
50
50000
20000
50000
ug/l
ug/l
NA
4
NA
4
NA
4
NA
4
NA
4
NA
4
NA
4
NA
4
NA
4
10000
70
9000
50000
5000
50000
ug/l
ug/l
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2.55
4
2.55
4
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
700
NE
200
5000
NE
50000
50000
NE
5000
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
115
115
115
125
125
125
125
125
125
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
100
100
100
100
100
100
Target PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
20
30
60
30
140
40
NA
10000
NA
NA
1000
NA
6000
40
30
40
20000
10000
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
115
115
115
115
115
115
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
VOCs by GC/MS 8260
Chloroform
Methyl-ter-butylether
Target VOCs
o-Xylene
Methyl-ter-butylether
NOTES:
GW-1, GW-2 and GW-3
EPH
NA
NS
PAHs
ug/l
VOCs
VPH
Italics
Italics/Shade
BOLD Shade
Massachusetts Contingency Plan Method 1 Risk Characterization
Standard for GW-1, GW-2 and GW-3 groundwater, MCP Effective
December 14, 2007
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Not Analyzed
No Standard
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
micrograms per liter, or parts per billion (ppb)
Volatile Organic Compounds
Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Compound was undetected
Compound was undetected but the laboratory detection limit was
above the applicable Method 1 Standard
Exceeds applicable Method 1 Standards
Attachment A‐6 new standards.xlsx
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENT A-6
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER DATA
MBTA Readville Yard Site
Readville and Dedham, MA
Parameter
Dissolved Metals
Arsenic, Dissolved
Barium, Dissolved
Zinc, Dissolved
P/MW‐111 P/MW‐111
Aug‐02
Oct‐02
GW-1
GW-2
GW-3
Units
10
2000
5000
NA
NA
NA
900
50,000
900
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
5
40
50
5
40
50
70
70
50
50000
20000
50000
ug/l
ug/l
NA
4
NA
4
10000
70
9000
50000
5000
50000
ug/l
ug/l
2
4
2
4
EPH
C9-C18 Aliphatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
700
NE
200
5000
NE
50000
50000
NE
5000
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
125
125
125
125
125
125
Target PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
20
30
60
30
140
40
NA
10000
NA
NA
1000
NA
6000
40
30
40
20000
10000
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
VOCs by GC/MS 8260
Chloroform
Methyl-ter-butylether
Target VOCs
o-Xylene
Methyl-ter-butylether
NOTES:
GW-1, GW-2 and GW-3
EPH
NA
NS
PAHs
ug/l
VOCs
VPH
Italics
Italics/Shade
BOLD Shade
Massachusetts Contingency Plan Method 1 Risk Characterization
Standard for GW-1, GW-2 and GW-3 groundwater, MCP Effective
December 14, 2007
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Not Analyzed
No Standard
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
micrograms per liter, or parts per billion (ppb)
Volatile Organic Compounds
Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Compound was undetected
Compound was undetected but the laboratory detection limit was
above the applicable Method 1 Standard
Exceeds applicable Method 1 Standards
Attachment A‐6 new standards.xlsx
Page 4 of 4
AECOM
Environment
Attachment B
Risk Characterization Tables –
MassDEP Trespasser
ShortForms
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
Table B-1
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 1 (Orphan Line)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
ShortForm Version 6-06
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Trespasser Ages 11-18 (Cancer and Non-Cancer)
ELCR (all chemicals) = 1E-06
Chronic HI (all chemicals) = 7E-02
Subchronic HI (all chemicals) = 2E-01
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or
Hazardous Material
EPC
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
Lead
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Acenaphthylene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ZZZ Cobalt
36
363
26
95
0.6
5.3
3.8
1
4.8
Area 1 Trespasser (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/EPCs
ELCRingestion ELCRdermal
ELCRtotal
8.7E-07
2.2E-07
1.1E-06
1.3E-09
3.3E-08
7.4E-10
1.9E-08
2.0E-09
5.3E-08
Chronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
Subchronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
1.9E-02
3.9E-02
2.1E-06
1.8E-04
1.2E-06
7.7E-06
5.7E-06
1.5E-06
2.6E-03
2.4E-02
4.3E-02
3.8E-06
6.1E-04
3.8E-06
2.5E-05
9.1E-06
2.4E-06
6.4E-03
4.3E-02
8.6E-02
1.5E-06
4.0E-05
2.6E-07
1.7E-06
1.3E-06
3.3E-07
5.7E-03
5.1E-02
9.3E-02
2.6E-06
1.2E-04
7.5E-07
4.9E-06
1.9E-06
4.9E-07
1.3E-02
4.8E-03
3.9E-03
1.7E-06
4.2E-04
2.7E-06
1.8E-05
3.4E-06
8.9E-07
3.8E-03
8.8E-03
7.1E-03
1.1E-06
7.8E-05
4.9E-07
3.3E-06
6.2E-07
1.6E-07
7.1E-03
Table B-2
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 1 (Orphan Line)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-6
Chemical-Specific Data
Vlookup Version v0808
Chronic
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Arsenic
Lead
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Acenaphthylene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ZZZ Cobalt
Area 1 Trespasser (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm
(mg/kg-day)-1
1.5E+00
1.00
0.03
7.3E-02
7.3E+00
0.28
0.28
0.02
0.02
Subchronic Chronic
RfD
RfD
mg/kg-day
3.0E-04
7.5E-04
2.0E+00
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
4.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-04
mg/kg-day
3.0E-04
7.5E-04
6.0E+00
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
4.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-04
Chronic
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
1
0.5
1
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.28
0.28
1
0.03
0.006
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.02
0.18
Subchronic Subchronic
RAFnc-ing
RAFnc-derm
1
0.5
1
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.28
0.28
1
0.03
0.006
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.02
0.18
Table B-3
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 2 (Ashcroft Street Fence)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
ShortForm Version 6-06
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Trespasser Ages 11-18 (Cancer and Non-Cancer)
ELCR (all chemicals) = 1E-06
Chronic HI (all chemicals) = 2E-02
Subchronic HI (all chemicals) = 5E-02
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Arsenic
Area 2 Trespasser (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/EPCs
EPC
(mg/kg)
33
ELCRingestion ELCRdermal
8.0E-07
2.0E-07
ELCRtotal
1.0E-06
Chronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
Subchronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
1.8E-02
2.2E-02
3.9E-02
4.7E-02
4.4E-03
8.1E-03
Table B-4
Sumary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 2 (Ashcroft Street Fence)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-6
Chemical-Specific Data
Vlookup Version v0808
Chronic
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Arsenic
Area 2 Trespasser (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm
(mg/kg-day)-1
1.5E+00
1.00
0.03
Subchronic Chronic
RfD
RfD
mg/kg-day
3.0E-04
mg/kg-day
3.0E-04
/
Chronic
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
1
0.03
Subchronic Subchronic
RAFnc-ing
RAFnc-derm
1
0.03
/
Table B-5
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 3 (Main Rail Yard)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
ShortForm Version 6-06
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Trespasser Ages 11-18 (Cancer and Non-Cancer)
ELCR (all chemicals) = 7E-07
Chronic HI (all chemicals) = 2E-01
Subchronic HI (all chemicals) = 4E-01
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or
Hazardous Material
EPC
(mg/kg)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Methylnaphthalene, 2Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
28
23
237
31
1244
21
528
22
128
151
0.6
1.3
2.3
0.8
7
1207
Area 3 Trespasser (0-3)_4-27-12.xls
ELCRingestion ELCRdermal
ELCRtotal
5.6E-07
1.4E-07
7.0E-07
7.6E-10
2.6E-08
4.5E-10
1.6E-08
1.2E-09
4.2E-08
Chronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
Subchronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
1.1E-02
1.2E-02
1.9E-04
1.7E-03
1.3E-01
1.7E-04
2.9E-04
3.6E-05
1.0E-05
2.9E-04
8.7E-06
2.5E-06
3.5E-06
1.2E-06
3.8E-03
4.9E-03
2.1E-02
1.5E-02
2.7E-04
2.9E-03
1.5E-01
6.6E-04
3.3E-04
1.8E-04
1.9E-05
9.6E-04
2.9E-05
8.3E-06
5.5E-06
1.9E-06
9.4E-03
1.2E-02
2.5E-02
2.7E-02
1.2E-03
5.5E-04
2.9E-01
3.7E-04
6.2E-04
7.8E-06
7.6E-06
6.4E-05
1.9E-05
5.5E-07
7.6E-07
2.6E-07
8.3E-03
1.1E-02
4.2E-02
3.3E-02
1.6E-03
8.9E-04
3.2E-01
1.3E-03
7.1E-04
3.5E-05
1.3E-05
1.9E-04
5.6E-05
1.6E-06
1.1E-06
4.0E-07
1.9E-02
2.4E-02
9.3E-03
3.1E-03
7.9E-05
1.2E-03
1.3E-02
4.9E-04
4.7E-05
1.5E-04
8.5E-06
6.7E-04
2.0E-05
5.8E-06
2.0E-06
7.1E-07
5.6E-03
7.2E-03
1.7E-02
5.7E-03
4.2E-04
3.4E-04
2.4E-02
9.0E-04
8.7E-05
2.7E-05
5.2E-06
1.2E-04
3.7E-05
1.1E-06
3.8E-07
1.3E-07
1.0E-02
1.3E-02
Table B-6
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 3 (Main Rail Yard)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-6
Chemical-Specific Data
Vlookup Version v0808
Chronic
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Methylnaphthalene, 2Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 3 Trespasser (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm
(mg/kg-day)-1
1.5E+00
1.00
0.03
7.3E-02
7.3E+00
0.28
0.28
0.02
0.02
Subchronic Chronic
RfD
RfD
mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
2.0E-01
3.0E-03
7.5E-04
2.0E-02
3.0E-01
1.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-02
4.0E-03
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-04
4.0E-02
mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
2.0E-02
7.5E-04
2.0E-02
3.0E-01
1.0E+00
6.0E+00
3.0E-01
4.0E-03
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-04
4.0E-02
/
Chronic
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.28
0.28
1
1
0.1
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.006
0.35
0.02
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.02
0.18
0.18
Subchronic Subchronic
RAFnc-ing
RAFnc-derm
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.28
0.28
1
1
0.1
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.006
0.35
0.02
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.02
0.18
0.18
/
Table B-7
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 3 (Main Rail Yard)
Soil - >3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
ShortForm Version 6-06
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Trespasser Ages 11-18 (Cancer and Non-Cancer)
ELCR (all chemicals) = 2E-07
Chronic HI (all chemicals) = 2E-01
Subchronic HI (all chemicals) = 4E-01
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or
Hazardous Material
EPC
(mg/kg)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
10.8
6.4
86
16
1235
30.9
274.6
10
37
32
4.9
132
Area 3 Trespasser (3+)_4-27-12.xls/EPCs
ELCRingestion ELCRdermal
1.6E-07
3.8E-08
ELCRtotal
1.9E-07
Chronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
Subchronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
4.4E-03
3.5E-03
7.0E-05
8.6E-04
1.3E-01
2.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.6E-05
3.0E-06
6.2E-05
2.6E-03
5.3E-04
8.0E-03
4.3E-03
9.8E-05
1.5E-03
1.5E-01
9.7E-04
1.7E-04
8.3E-05
5.5E-06
2.0E-04
6.6E-03
1.3E-03
9.6E-03
7.6E-03
4.4E-04
2.8E-04
2.9E-01
5.5E-04
3.2E-04
3.5E-06
2.2E-06
1.4E-05
5.8E-03
1.2E-03
1.6E-02
9.1E-03
5.9E-04
4.6E-04
3.2E-01
1.9E-03
3.7E-04
1.6E-05
3.7E-06
4.0E-05
1.3E-02
2.6E-03
3.6E-03
8.5E-04
2.9E-05
6.4E-04
1.3E-02
7.2E-04
2.4E-05
6.7E-05
2.5E-06
1.4E-04
3.9E-03
7.9E-04
6.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-04
1.8E-04
2.4E-02
1.3E-03
4.5E-05
1.2E-05
1.5E-06
2.6E-05
7.2E-03
1.5E-03
Table B-8
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 3 (Main Rail Yard)
Soil - >3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-6
Chemical-Specific Data
Vlookup Version v0808
Chronic
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 3 Trespasser (3+)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm
(mg/kg-day)-1
1.5E+00
1.00
0.03
Subchronic Chronic
RfD
RfD
mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
2.0E-01
3.0E-03
7.5E-04
2.0E-02
3.0E-01
1.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-02
3.0E-04
4.0E-02
mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
2.0E-02
7.5E-04
2.0E-02
3.0E-01
1.0E+00
6.0E+00
3.0E-01
3.0E-04
4.0E-02
/
Chronic
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.36
1
1
0.1
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.006
0.35
0.02
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.18
0.18
Subchronic Subchronic
RAFnc-ing
RAFnc-derm
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.36
1
1
0.1
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.006
0.35
0.02
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.18
0.18
/
Table B-9
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
ShortForm Version 6-06
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Trespasser Ages 11-18 (Cancer and Non-Cancer)
ELCR (all chemicals) = 1E-06
Chronic HI (all chemicals) = 3E-01
Subchronic HI (all chemicals) = 6E-01
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Lead
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Acenaphthylene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methylnaphthalene, 2Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 4 Trespasser (0-3)_4-27-12.xls/EPCs
EPC
(mg/kg)
25
37
22.7
1666
19
69
103
0.5
3.8
1.2
2.3
2.7
0.5
4
1.4
0.5
3.7
6.3
194
ELCRingestion ELCRdermal
ELCRtotal
9.0E-07
2.2E-07
1.1E-06
1.3E-08
7.4E-09
2.0E-08
7.6E-10
8.9E-10
1.7E-08
4.5E-10
5.3E-10
9.7E-09
1.2E-09
1.4E-09
2.6E-08
4.6E-09
2.7E-09
7.4E-09
1.0E-07
1.6E-07
2.6E-07
Chronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
Subchronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.2E-03
1.8E-01
3.1E-05
5.6E-06
2.0E-04
9.7E-07
5.7E-06
2.3E-06
3.5E-06
4.1E-06
7.6E-07
5.8E-06
2.1E-06
7.3E-06
2.5E-02
3.4E-03
7.9E-04
1.8E-02
2.5E-02
2.1E-03
2.0E-01
1.6E-04
1.0E-05
6.6E-04
3.2E-06
9.1E-06
7.7E-06
5.5E-06
6.5E-06
1.2E-06
1.9E-05
3.4E-06
2.4E-05
6.5E-02
8.4E-03
2.0E-03
2.2E-02
4.4E-02
4.0E-04
3.9E-01
6.7E-06
4.1E-06
4.4E-05
2.1E-07
1.3E-06
5.1E-07
7.6E-07
8.9E-07
1.7E-07
1.3E-06
4.6E-07
1.6E-05
2.2E-02
7.4E-03
1.7E-03
3.8E-02
5.3E-02
6.5E-04
4.3E-01
3.0E-05
6.9E-06
1.3E-04
6.2E-07
1.9E-06
1.5E-06
1.1E-06
1.3E-06
2.5E-07
3.7E-06
6.9E-07
4.7E-05
5.1E-02
1.7E-02
3.9E-03
8.3E-03
4.9E-03
9.1E-04
1.8E-02
1.3E-04
4.6E-06
4.6E-04
2.2E-06
3.4E-06
5.3E-06
2.0E-06
2.4E-06
4.4E-07
1.3E-05
1.2E-06
1.7E-05
3.9E-02
5.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.5E-02
9.1E-03
2.5E-04
3.3E-02
2.3E-05
2.8E-06
8.4E-05
4.1E-07
6.2E-07
9.8E-07
3.8E-07
4.4E-07
8.2E-08
2.5E-06
2.3E-07
3.1E-05
2.9E-02
9.3E-03
2.1E-03
Table B-10
Sumary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-6
Chemical-Specific Data
Vlookup Version v0808
Chronic
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Lead
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Acenaphthylene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methylnaphthalene, 2Polychlorinated biphenyls (
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 4 Trespasser (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm
(mg/kg-day)-1
1.5E+00
1.00
0.03
7.3E-01
0.28
0.02
7.3E-02
7.3E-02
7.3E+00
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.02
0.02
0.02
7.3E-01
0.28
0.02
2.0E+00
0.85
0.16
Subchronic Chronic
RfD
RfD
mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
7.5E-04
1.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
4.0E-02
3.0E-02
4.0E-03
2.0E-05
3.0E-04
4.0E-02
mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
7.5E-04
1.0E+00
6.0E+00
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
4.0E-01
3.0E-01
4.0E-03
5.0E-05
3.0E-04
4.0E-02
/
Chronic
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.36
0.36
0.28
0.36
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.36
0.28
0.36
0.85
1
1
0.1
0.03
0.09
0.006
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.02
0.1
0.16
0.18
0.18
Subchronic Subchronic
RAFnc-ing
RAFnc-derm
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.36
0.36
0.28
0.36
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.36
0.28
0.36
0.85
1
1
0.1
0.03
0.09
0.006
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.02
0.1
0.16
0.18
0.18
/
Table B-11
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Soil - >3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
ShortForm Version 6-06
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Trespasser Ages 11-18 (Cancer and Non-Cancer)
ELCR (all chemicals) = 3E-07
Chronic HI (all chemicals) = 4E-01
Subchronic HI (all chemicals) = 8E-01
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or
Hazardous Material
EPC
(mg/kg)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Benzo(a)pyrene
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
25
7
114
25.3
2835
22
35
34
1.164
7.6
360
Area 4 Trespasser (3+)_2-10-12.xls/EPCs
ELCRingestion ELCRdermal
ELCRtotal
1.7E-07
4.2E-08
2.1E-07
3.9E-08
2.3E-08
6.1E-08
Chronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
Subchronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
1.0E-02
3.8E-03
9.2E-05
1.4E-03
3.1E-01
3.6E-05
2.8E-06
6.6E-05
1.8E-06
4.1E-03
1.5E-03
1.8E-02
4.7E-03
1.3E-04
2.4E-03
3.4E-01
1.8E-04
5.2E-06
2.2E-04
2.8E-06
1.0E-02
3.6E-03
2.2E-02
8.3E-03
5.8E-04
4.5E-04
6.7E-01
7.8E-06
2.1E-06
1.4E-05
3.9E-07
9.0E-03
3.2E-03
3.8E-02
1.0E-02
7.8E-04
7.3E-04
7.3E-01
3.5E-05
3.5E-06
4.2E-05
5.8E-07
2.0E-02
7.2E-03
8.3E-03
9.3E-04
3.8E-05
1.0E-03
3.0E-02
1.5E-04
2.3E-06
1.5E-04
1.0E-06
6.1E-03
2.2E-03
1.5E-02
1.7E-03
2.0E-04
2.8E-04
5.6E-02
2.7E-05
1.4E-06
2.8E-05
1.9E-07
1.1E-02
4.0E-03
Table B-12
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in Area 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Soil - >3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-6
Chemical-Specific Data
Vlookup Version v0808
Chronic
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Benzo(a)pyrene
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 4 Trespasser (3+)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm
(mg/kg-day)-1
1.5E+00
1.00
0.03
7.3E+00
0.28
0.02
Subchronic Chronic
RfD
RfD
mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
2.0E-01
3.0E-03
7.5E-04
1.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-04
4.0E-02
mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
2.0E-02
7.5E-04
1.0E+00
6.0E+00
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-04
4.0E-02
/
Chronic
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.36
0.28
1
1
0.1
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.006
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.18
0.18
Subchronic Subchronic
RAFnc-ing
RAFnc-derm
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.36
0.28
1
1
0.1
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.006
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.18
0.18
/
Table B-13
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in VPH Hot Spot (SA/GP-44)
Soil - 9-11 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
ShortForm Version 6-06
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Trespasser Ages 11-18 (Cancer and Non-Cancer)
ELCR (all chemicals) =
Chronic HI (all chemicals) = 3E-02
Subchronic HI (all chemicals) = 6E-03
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or
Hazardous Material
EPC
(mg/kg)
Aliphatics C9 to C12
Aromatics C9 to C10
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Naphthalene
Methylnaphthalene, 2Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
193
154
1520
500
1660
1.92
5.19
6.26
4.67
4.26
5.83
VPH Hotspot Trespasser (9-11)_2-10-12.xls/EPCs
ELCRingestion ELCRdermal
ELCRtotal
Chronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
Subchronic
HQing
HQderm
HQtotal
3.1E-04
8.3E-04
2.5E-03
4.1E-05
3.2E-03
5.6E-06
7.6E-05
1.2E-05
4.5E-06
8.3E-07
8.5E-06
1.6E-03
4.3E-03
1.3E-02
7.4E-05
1.1E-02
1.8E-05
2.5E-04
4.0E-05
1.5E-05
2.7E-06
2.8E-05
6.8E-05
1.8E-04
5.4E-04
3.0E-05
7.1E-04
1.2E-06
1.7E-04
2.7E-06
9.9E-07
1.8E-07
1.9E-06
3.1E-04
8.1E-04
2.4E-03
5.0E-05
2.1E-03
3.6E-06
4.8E-04
7.8E-06
2.9E-06
5.3E-07
5.4E-06
1.3E-03
3.4E-03
1.0E-02
3.3E-05
7.4E-03
1.3E-05
1.7E-04
2.8E-05
1.0E-05
1.9E-06
1.9E-05
2.4E-04
6.3E-04
1.9E-03
2.0E-05
1.4E-03
2.4E-06
3.2E-04
5.1E-06
1.9E-06
3.5E-07
3.6E-06
Table B-14
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Trespasser in VPH Hot Spot (SA/GP-44)
Soil - 9-11 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Trespasser - Soil: Table TS-6
Chemical-Specific Data
Vlookup Version v0808
Chronic
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Aliphatics C9 to C12
Aromatics C9 to C10
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Naphthalene
Methylnaphthalene, 2Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
VPH Hotspot Trespasser (9-11)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm
(mg/kg-day)-1
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
0.28
0.28
0.02
0.02
Subchronic Chronic
RfD
RfD
mg/kg-day
1.0E-01
3.0E-02
1.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-02
2.0E-02
4.0E-03
3.0E-02
6.0E-02
3.0E-01
4.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
mg/kg-day
1.0E+00
3.0E-01
1.0E+00
6.0E+00
3.0E-01
2.0E-01
4.0E-03
3.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E+00
4.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
Chronic
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
1
1
1
1
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.28
0.28
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.02
Subchronic Subchronic
RAFnc-ing
RAFnc-derm
1
1
1
1
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.28
0.28
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.02
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V1
Vlookup Version v0808
CHRONIC ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (OR
SUBSTITUTE)
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V1
CAS
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
SUBCHRONIC
Chronic
Subchronic
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (OR
SUBSTITUTE)
Inhalation
Reference
Concentration
(or substitute)
Inhalation
Reference
Concentration
(or substitute)
SUBCHRONIC
Oral
Cancer
Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/day)-1
Inhalation
Unit
Risk
INHALATION
REFERENCE
DOSE (OR
SUBSTITUTE)
Inhalation
Cancer
Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/day)-1 REF
mg/kg/day
REF
mg/kg/day
REF
mg/m3
REF
mg/m3
REF
CLASS
REF
(µg/m3)-1
REF
mg/kg/day
3.0E-04
49
3.0E-04
1d
6.0E-06
49
6.0E-06
40
B1
49
9.00E-03
49
5.7E-06
49, 40
4.0E-02
49
4.0E-02
1d
1.4E-01
39
1.4E-01
40
D
1
4.0E-02
45
REF
3.2E+01
46
46
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V2
Relative Absorption Factors (RAFs)
Chronic
Ingestion
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V2
Chronic
Dermal
Soil
Subchronic
Ingestion
Air1
Subchronic
Dermal
Cancer
Ingestion
Cancer
Dermal
Subchronic
Inhalation
Cancer
Inhalation
CAS
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
1
0.18
1
0.18
NC
NC
1
1
0.18
1
0.18
NC
NC
1
1
Default metal as per Guidance for Disposal Site RC.
Default metal as per Guidance for Disposal Site RC.
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V3
Oral
Relative Absorption Factors (RAFs)
Absorption
Water
Produce
Efficiency
Subchronic
Chronic
Cancer
Noncancer
Cancer
Tox Study
Ingestion
Ingestion Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion OAEnoncance
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V3
Oral
Absorption
Efficiency
Tox Study
OAEcancer
Outside
Effective
Fraction
Predictive
Absorbed1
Domain
FA
CAS
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
1
1
NC
1
1
1
NC
1
Assumed
Assumed
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V4
Molecular
Weight
g/mole
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V4
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
58.9
63.6
log
Kow
Permeability
Coefficient
Kp1
cm/hr
4.000E-04
1.000E-03
Henry's
Law
Constant
HLC
atm-m3/mol
Metal
yes
yes
Plant
Uptake
Factor
Ksp
mg-soil/mg-plant
Outside
Effective
Predictive
Domain
Diffusivity
in air,
Da
(cm2/s)
REF
Diffusivity
in water,
Dw
(cm2/s)
REF
50
50
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V5
References used in calculating Method 3 Risk
Reference #
Description
49
EPA Region 3 RSL Tables. November 2011.
50
Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS), Oak Ridge National Laboratories on-line database (http://rais.ornl.gov/).
See: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/dws/dwspubs.htm for the current list of Massachusetts Drinking Water Standards & Guidelines
v0808.xls/V5
AECOM
Environment
Attachment C
Risk Characterization Tables –
MassDEP Construction Worker
ShortForms
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
Table C-1
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 1 (Orphan Line)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) and Risk
ShortForm Version 08-08
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Construction Worker 18-25 years of age
ELCR (all chemicals) =
HI (all chemicals) =
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or Hazardous
EPC
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
7E-07
1E+00
Subchronic
inhalation
Material (OHM)
Arsenic
Lead
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Acenaphthylene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ZZZ Cobalt
Area 1 Construction Worker (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/EPCs
(mg/kg)
36
363
26
95
0.6
5.3
3.8
1
4.8
ingestion
dermal
inhalation GI
pulmonary
ELCRtotal
HQing
HQderm
HQinh-GI
HQinh
HQtotal
4.7E-07
1.4E-07
1.2E-08
4.1E-08
6.7E-07
1.5E-01
3.0E-01
5.3E-06
1.4E-04
8.9E-07
5.9E-06
4.4E-06
1.1E-06
2.0E-02
4.5E-02
3.6E-02
5.4E-06
3.9E-04
2.5E-06
1.6E-05
3.1E-06
8.3E-07
3.6E-02
3.8E-03
7.7E-03
1.4E-07
3.6E-06
2.3E-08
1.5E-07
1.1E-07
3.0E-08
5.1E-04
5.4E-01
1.4E-02
7.3E-01
3.6E-01
1.1E-05
5.4E-04
3.4E-06
2.3E-05
7.9E-06
2.1E-06
6.5E-02
6.8E-10
1.8E-08
4.9E-10
1.3E-08
1.8E-11
4.6E-10
2.1E-11
5.5E-10
1.1E-08
1.2E-09
3.2E-08
1.1E-08
7.1E-06
4.5E-08
3.9E-07
2.8E-07
7.4E-08
9.0E-03
Table C-2
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 1 (Orphan Line)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-5
Chemical-Specific Data
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Arsenic
Lead
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Acenaphthylene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ZZZ Cobalt
Area 1 Construction Worker (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
Vlookup Version v0808
Oral
Inhalation Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic
CSF
Oral RfD
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
RAFnc-inh
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm RAFc-inh
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)-1 mg/kg-day
1.5E+00
1
0.03
1
1.5E+01
3.0E-04
1
0.03
1
7.5E-04
0.5
0.006
1
6.0E+00
1
0.1
3.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
3.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
4.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
7.3E-02
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E-02
3.0E-01
0.28
0.02
1
7.300E+00
0.28
0.02
1.00
7.3E+00
3.0E-01
0.28
0.02
1
3.2E+01
3.0E-04
1
0.18
1
/
Subchronic
Inhalation RfD
7.1E-07
2.9E-04
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
5.7E-06
/
Table C-3
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 2 (Ashcroft Street Fence)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) and Risk
ShortForm Version 08-08
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Construction Worker 18-25 years of age
ELCR (all chemicals) =
HI (all chemicals) =
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or Hazardous
EPC
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
6E-07
7E-01
Subchronic
inhalation
Material (OHM)
Arsenic
Area 2 Construction Worker (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/EPCs
(mg/kg)
ingestion
dermal
inhalation GI
pulmonary
ELCRtotal
HQing
HQderm
HQinh-GI
HQinh
HQtotal
33
4.3E-07
1.3E-07
1.1E-08
3.8E-08
6.1E-07
1.4E-01
4.1E-02
3.5E-03
4.9E-01
6.7E-01
Table C-4
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 2 (Ashcroft Street Fence)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-5
Chemical-Specific Data
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Arsenic
Area 2 Construction Worker (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
Vlookup Version v0808
Oral
Inhalation Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic
CSF
Oral RfD
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
RAFnc-inh
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm RAFc-inh
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)-1 mg/kg-day
1.5E+00
1
0.03
1
1.5E+01
3.0E-04
1
0.03
1
Subchronic
Inhalation RfD
7.1E-07
Table C-5
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 3 (Main Rail Yard)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) and Risk
ShortForm Version 08-08
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Construction Worker 18-25 years of age
ELCR (all chemicals) =
HI (all chemicals) =
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or Hazardous
EPC
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
6E-07
2E+00
Subchronic
inhalation
Material (OHM)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Methylnaphthalene, 2Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 3 Construction Worker (0-3)_4-27-12.xls/EPCs
(mg/kg)
28
23
237
31
1244
21
528
22
128
151
0.6
1.3
2.3
0.8
7
1207
ingestion
3.0E-07
4.1E-10
1.4E-08
dermal
9.1E-08
3.0E-10
1.0E-08
inhalation GI
7.8E-09
1.1E-11
3.7E-10
pulmonary
ELCRtotal
2.6E-08
4.3E-07
9.9E-08
9.9E-08
2.7E-09
2.7E-09
1.3E-11
4.4E-10
1.7E-08
7.3E-10
2.5E-08
1.7E-08
HQing
HQderm
HQinh-GI
HQinh
HQtotal
8.6E-02
9.4E-02
4.2E-03
1.9E-03
1.0E+00
1.3E-03
2.2E-03
2.7E-05
2.6E-05
2.2E-04
6.7E-05
1.9E-06
2.6E-06
9.2E-07
2.9E-02
3.7E-02
8.7E-02
2.9E-02
2.1E-03
1.7E-03
1.2E-01
4.6E-03
4.4E-04
1.4E-04
2.6E-05
6.2E-04
1.9E-04
5.4E-06
1.9E-06
6.6E-07
5.2E-02
6.7E-02
2.2E-03
2.4E-03
1.1E-04
4.9E-05
2.6E-02
3.4E-05
5.6E-05
7.0E-07
6.8E-07
5.8E-06
1.7E-06
5.0E-08
6.9E-08
2.4E-08
7.4E-04
9.6E-04
1.0E-04
3.4E-01
1.8E-03
3.8E-03
4.6E-02
7.8E-04
1.4E-02
1.4E-06
1.8E-01
4.7E-01
8.1E-03
7.5E-03
1.2E+00
6.7E-03
1.7E-02
1.7E-04
5.3E-05
8.6E-04
2.5E-04
7.4E-06
4.8E-06
1.7E-06
9.5E-02
1.1E-01
1.1E-05
4.5E-08
9.7E-08
1.7E-07
6.0E-08
1.3E-02
3.2E-04
Table C-6
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 3 (Main Rail Yard)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-5
Chemical-Specific Data
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Methylnaphthalene, 2Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 3 Construction Worker (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
Vlookup Version v0808
Oral
Inhalation Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic
CSF
Oral RfD
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
RAFnc-inh
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm RAFc-inh
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)-1 mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
1
0.1
1
1.5E+00
1
0.03
1
1.5E+01
3.0E-04
1
0.03
1
7.0E-02
1
0.05
1
4.2E+01
2.0E-02
1
0.09
1
7.5E-04
0.5
0.006
1
1.7E+00
2.0E-02
1
0.35
1
3.0E-01
1
0.02
1
1.0E+00
1
0.5
1
6.0E+00
1
0.1
3.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
4.0E-03
0.36
0.1
1
3.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
7.3E-02
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E-02
3.0E-01
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E+00
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E+00
3.0E-01
0.28
0.02
1
3.2E+01
3.0E-04
1
0.18
1
4.0E-02
1
0.18
1
/
Subchronic
Inhalation RfD
2.9E-03
7.1E-07
1.4E-03
8.6E-05
2.9E-04
2.9E-04
4.0E-04
1.7E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
5.7E-06
4.0E-02
/
Table C-7
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 3 (Main Rail Yard)
Soil - >3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) and Risk
ShortForm Version 08-08
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Construction Worker 18-25 years of age
ELCR (all chemicals) =
HI (all chemicals) =
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or Hazardous
EPC
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
2E-07
2E+00
Subchronic
inhalation
Material (OHM)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 3 Construction Worker (+3)_4-27-12.xls/EPCs
(mg/kg)
10.8
6.4
86
16
1235
30.9
274.6
10
37
32
4.9
132
ingestion
8.4E-08
dermal
2.5E-08
inhalation GI
2.2E-09
pulmonary
ELCRtotal
7.3E-09
1.2E-07
5.1E-08
5.1E-08
3.9E-09
3.9E-09
1.2E-08
1.2E-08
HQing
HQderm
HQinh-GI
HQinh
HQtotal
3.3E-02
2.6E-02
1.5E-03
9.9E-04
1.0E+00
1.9E-03
1.1E-03
1.2E-05
7.6E-06
4.7E-05
2.0E-02
4.1E-03
3.3E-02
7.9E-03
7.6E-04
8.9E-04
1.2E-01
6.7E-03
2.3E-04
6.2E-05
7.6E-06
1.3E-04
3.6E-02
7.4E-03
8.6E-04
6.8E-04
3.9E-05
2.6E-05
2.6E-02
4.9E-05
2.9E-05
3.2E-07
2.0E-07
1.2E-06
5.2E-04
1.1E-04
4.0E-05
9.5E-02
6.4E-04
2.0E-03
4.6E-02
1.2E-03
7.3E-03
6.2E-07
6.8E-02
1.3E-01
3.0E-03
3.9E-03
1.2E+00
9.8E-03
8.7E-03
7.5E-05
1.5E-05
1.8E-04
6.6E-02
1.2E-02
2.4E-06
9.1E-03
3.5E-05
Table C-8
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 3 (Main Rail Yard)
Soil - >3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-5
Chemical-Specific Data
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 3 Construction Worker (+3)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
Vlookup Version v0808
Oral
Inhalation Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic
CSF
Oral RfD
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
RAFnc-inh
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm RAFc-inh
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)-1 mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
1
0.1
1
1.5E+00
1
0.03
1
1.5E+01
3.0E-04
1
0.03
1
7.0E-02
1
0.05
1
4.2E+01
2.0E-02
1
0.09
1
7.5E-04
0.5
0.006
1
1.7E+00
2.0E-02
1
0.35
1
3.0E-01
1
0.02
1
1.0E+00
1
0.5
1
6.0E+00
1
0.1
3.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
3.2E+01
3.0E-04
1
0.18
1
4.0E-02
1
0.18
1
Subchronic
Inhalation RfD
2.9E-03
7.1E-07
1.4E-03
8.6E-05
2.9E-04
2.9E-04
4.0E-04
1.7E-01
1.4E-01
5.7E-06
4.0E-02
Table C-9
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) and Risk
ShortForm Version 08-08
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Construction Worker 18-25 years of age
ELCR (all chemicals) =
HI (all chemicals) =
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or Hazardous
EPC
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
1E-06
3E+00
Subchronic
inhalation
Material (OHM)
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Lead
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Acenaphthylene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methylnaphthalene, 2Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 4 Construction Worker (0-3)_4-27-12.xls/EPCs
(mg/kg)
25
37
22.7
1666
19
69
103
0.5
3.4
1.2
2.3
2.7
0.5
4
1.4
0.5
3.7
6.3
194
ingestion
4.9E-07
dermal
1.5E-07
inhalation GI
1.3E-08
pulmonary
4.2E-08
7.2E-08
ELCRtotal
6.9E-07
7.2E-08
6.1E-09
4.4E-09
1.6E-10
1.9E-10
1.1E-08
4.1E-10
4.8E-10
9.0E-09
3.0E-10
3.5E-10
6.5E-09
1.1E-11
1.3E-11
2.3E-10
1.3E-11
1.5E-11
2.8E-10
7.3E-10
8.6E-10
1.6E-08
2.5E-09
1.8E-09
6.5E-11
7.7E-11
4.5E-09
5.5E-08
1.0E-07
1.4E-09
9.8E-11
1.5E-08
1.6E-07
1.5E-08
HQing
HQderm
HQinh-GI
HQinh
HQtotal
7.7E-02
1.5E-01
1.4E-03
1.4E+00
2.3E-05
1.4E-05
1.5E-04
7.4E-07
3.9E-06
1.8E-06
2.6E-06
3.1E-06
5.7E-07
4.4E-06
1.6E-06
5.5E-05
7.7E-02
2.6E-02
6.0E-03
7.8E-02
4.6E-02
1.3E-03
1.7E-01
1.2E-04
1.4E-05
4.3E-04
2.1E-06
2.8E-06
5.0E-06
1.9E-06
2.2E-06
4.1E-07
1.2E-05
1.2E-06
1.6E-04
1.5E-01
4.7E-02
1.1E-02
2.0E-03
3.9E-03
3.6E-05
3.5E-02
6.1E-07
3.7E-07
3.9E-06
1.9E-08
1.0E-07
4.6E-08
6.9E-08
8.0E-08
1.5E-08
1.1E-07
4.2E-08
1.4E-06
2.0E-03
6.7E-04
1.5E-04
9.3E-05
5.5E-01
2.8E-03
6.2E-02
1.2E-06
1.6E-01
7.5E-01
5.5E-03
1.6E+00
1.4E-04
2.9E-05
5.9E-04
2.9E-06
7.1E-06
6.9E-06
4.8E-06
5.6E-06
1.0E-06
1.7E-05
2.9E-06
2.1E-04
2.3E-01
8.5E-02
1.7E-02
7.7E-06
3.7E-08
2.5E-07
8.9E-08
1.7E-07
2.0E-07
3.7E-08
3.0E-07
1.0E-07
3.7E-08
6.9E-03
1.2E-02
5.2E-05
Table C-10
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-5
Chemical-Specific Data
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Acenaphthylene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methylnaphthalene, 2Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 4 Construction Worker (0-3)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
Vlookup Version v0808
Oral
Inhalation Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic
CSF
Oral RfD
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
RAFnc-inh
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm RAFc-inh
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)-1 mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
1
0.1
1
1.5E+00
1
0.03
1
1.5E+01
3.0E-04
1
0.03
1
7.0E-02
1
0.05
1
4.2E+01
2.0E-02
1
0.09
1
7.5E-04
0.5
0.006
1
1.0E+00
1
0.5
1
6.0E+00
1
0.1
3.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
3.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
7.3E-01
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E-01
3.0E-01
0.28
0.02
1
3.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
7.3E-02
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E-02
3.0E-01
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E-02
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E-02
3.0E-01
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E+00
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E+00
3.0E-01
0.28
0.02
1
4.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
7.3E-01
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E-01
3.0E-01
0.28
0.02
1
4.0E-03
0.36
0.1
1
2.0E+00
0.85
0.16
1
3.5E-01
5.0E-05
0.85
0.16
1
3.2E+01
3.0E-04
1
0.18
1
4.0E-02
1
0.18
1
/
Subchronic
Inhalation RfD
2.9E-03
7.1E-07
1.4E-03
8.6E-05
2.9E-04
1.7E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
5.7E-06
5.7E-06
4.0E-02
/
Table C-11
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Soil - >3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) and Risk
ShortForm Version 08-08
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Construction Worker 18-25 years of age
ELCR (all chemicals) =
HI (all chemicals) =
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or Hazardous
EPC
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
3E-07
3E+00
Subchronic
inhalation
Material (OHM)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Benzo(a)pyrene
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 4 Construction Worker (+3)_2-10-12.xls/EPCs
(mg/kg)
25
7
114
25.3
2835
22
35
34
1.164
7.6
360
ingestion
9.2E-08
2.1E-08
dermal
2.8E-08
1.5E-08
inhalation GI
2.4E-09
5.4E-10
pulmonary
ELCRtotal
8.0E-09
1.3E-07
8.1E-08
8.1E-08
6.4E-10
1.8E-08
3.7E-08
1.8E-08
HQing
HQderm
HQinh-GI
HQinh
HQtotal
7.7E-02
2.9E-02
2.0E-03
1.6E-03
2.3E+00
2.7E-05
7.2E-06
5.0E-05
1.3E-06
3.1E-02
1.1E-02
7.8E-02
8.7E-03
1.0E-03
1.4E-03
2.8E-01
1.4E-04
7.2E-06
1.4E-04
9.6E-07
5.7E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-03
7.4E-04
5.2E-05
4.0E-05
6.0E-02
7.0E-07
1.9E-07
1.3E-06
3.5E-08
8.1E-04
2.9E-04
9.3E-05
1.0E-01
8.5E-04
3.1E-03
1.1E-01
1.4E-06
1.6E-01
1.4E-01
3.9E-03
6.2E-03
2.8E+00
1.7E-04
1.5E-05
1.9E-04
2.4E-06
1.0E-01
3.2E-02
2.5E-06
8.7E-08
1.4E-02
9.6E-05
Table C-12
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in Area 4 (Exclusion Zone)
Soil - >3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-5
Chemical-Specific Data
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Benzo(a)pyrene
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Area 4 Construction Worker (+3)_2-10-12.xls/Chem
Vlookup Version v0808
Oral
Inhalation Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic
CSF
Oral RfD
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
RAFnc-inh
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm RAFc-inh
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)-1 mg/kg-day
4.0E-04
1
0.1
1
1.5E+00
1
0.03
1
1.5E+01
3.0E-04
1
0.03
1
7.0E-02
1
0.05
1
4.2E+01
2.0E-02
1
0.09
1
7.5E-04
0.5
0.006
1
1.0E+00
1
0.5
1
6.0E+00
1
0.1
3.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
7.3E+00
0.28
0.02
1
7.3E+00
3.0E-01
0.28
0.02
1
3.2E+01
3.0E-04
1
0.18
1
4.0E-02
1
0.18
1
/
Subchronic
Inhalation RfD
2.9E-03
7.1E-07
1.4E-03
8.6E-05
2.9E-04
1.7E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
5.7E-06
4.0E-02
/
Table C-13
Potential Health Risks for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in VPH Hot Spot (SA/GP-44)
Soil - 9-11 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-1
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) and Risk
ShortForm Version 08-08
Vlookup Version v0808
Based on Construction Worker 18-25 years of age
ELCR (all chemicals) =
HI (all chemicals) =
**Do not insert or delete any rows**
Click on empty cell below and select OHM using arrow.
Oil or Hazardous
EPC
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
ELCR
3E-02
Subchronic
inhalation
Material (OHM)
Aliphatics C9 to C12
Aromatics C9 to C10
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Naphthalene
Methylnaphthalene, 2Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
VPH Hotspot Construction Worker (9-11)_2-10-13.xls/EPCs
(mg/kg)
193
154
1520
500
1660
1.92
5.19
6.26
4.67
4.26
5.83
ingestion
dermal
inhalation GI
pulmonary
ELCRtotal
HQing
HQderm
HQinh-GI
HQinh
HQtotal
2.4E-04
6.3E-04
1.9E-03
1.0E-04
2.5E-03
4.3E-06
5.8E-04
9.3E-06
3.5E-06
6.3E-07
6.5E-06
1.2E-03
3.2E-03
9.4E-03
1.0E-04
6.9E-03
1.2E-05
1.6E-03
2.6E-05
9.7E-06
1.8E-06
1.8E-05
6.2E-06
1.6E-05
4.9E-05
2.7E-06
6.4E-05
1.1E-07
1.5E-05
2.4E-07
8.9E-08
1.6E-08
1.7E-07
1.2E-05
1.1E-05
9.4E-05
1.5E-03
3.8E-03
1.1E-02
2.1E-04
9.5E-03
4.0E-05
2.2E-03
3.6E-05
1.4E-05
2.7E-06
2.5E-05
1.2E-04
2.4E-05
3.9E-07
4.7E-07
3.5E-07
3.2E-07
4.3E-07
Table C-14
Summary of Chemical-Specific Data for Soil Exposure by Construction Worker in VPH Hot Spot (SA/GP-44)
Soil - 9-11 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham and Readville, MA
Construction Worker - Soil: Table CW-5
Chemical-Specific Data
Oil or
Hazardous Material
Aliphatics C9 to C12
Aromatics C9 to C10
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Naphthalene
Methylnaphthalene, 2Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
VPH Hotspot Construction Worker (9-11)_2-10-13.xls/Chem
Vlookup Version v0808
Oral
Inhalation Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic
CSF
Oral RfD
RAFnc-ing RAFnc-derm
RAFnc-inh
CSF
RAFc-ing RAFc-derm RAFc-inh
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)-1 mg/kg-day
1.0E+00
1
0.5
1
3.0E-01
1
0.5
1
1.0E+00
1
0.5
1
6.0E+00
1
0.1
3.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
2.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
4.0E-03
0.36
0.1
1
3.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
6.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
3.0E+00
0.36
0.1
1
4.0E-01
0.36
0.1
1
/
Subchronic
Inhalation RfD
1.7E-01
1.4E-01
1.7E-01
1.4E-01
8.6E-04
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
/
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V1
Vlookup Version v0808
CHRONIC ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (OR
SUBSTITUTE)
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V1
CAS
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
SUBCHRONIC
Chronic
Subchronic
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (OR
SUBSTITUTE)
Inhalation
Reference
Concentration
(or substitute)
Inhalation
Reference
Concentration
(or substitute)
SUBCHRONIC
Oral
Cancer
Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/day)-1
Inhalation
Unit
Risk
INHALATION
REFERENCE
DOSE (OR
SUBSTITUTE)
Inhalation
Cancer
Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/day)-1 REF
mg/kg/day
REF
mg/kg/day
REF
mg/m3
REF
mg/m3
REF
CLASS
REF
(µg/m3)-1
REF
mg/kg/day
3.0E-04
49
3.0E-04
1d
6.0E-06
49
6.0E-06
40
B1
49
9.00E-03
49
5.7E-06
49, 40
4.0E-02
49
4.0E-02
1d
1.4E-01
39
1.4E-01
40
D
1
4.0E-02
45
REF
3.2E+01
46
46
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V2
Relative Absorption Factors (RAFs)
Chronic
Ingestion
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V2
Chronic
Dermal
Soil
Subchronic
Ingestion
Air1
Subchronic
Dermal
Cancer
Ingestion
Cancer
Dermal
Subchronic
Inhalation
Cancer
Inhalation
CAS
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
1
0.18
1
0.18
NC
NC
1
1
0.18
1
0.18
NC
NC
1
1
Default metal as per Guidance for Disposal Site RC.
Default metal as per Guidance for Disposal Site RC.
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V3
Oral
Relative Absorption Factors (RAFs)
Absorption
Water
Produce
Efficiency
Subchronic
Chronic
Cancer
Noncancer
Cancer
Tox Study
Ingestion
Ingestion Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion OAEnoncance
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V3
Oral
Absorption
Efficiency
Tox Study
OAEcancer
Outside
Effective
Fraction
Predictive
Absorbed1
Domain
FA
CAS
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
1
1
NC
1
1
1
NC
1
Assumed
Assumed
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V4
Molecular
Weight
g/mole
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V4
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
58.9
63.6
log
Kow
Permeability
Coefficient
Kp1
cm/hr
4.000E-04
1.000E-03
Henry's
Law
Constant
HLC
atm-m3/mol
Metal
yes
yes
Plant
Uptake
Factor
Ksp
mg-soil/mg-plant
Outside
Effective
Predictive
Domain
Diffusivity
in air,
Da
(cm2/s)
REF
Diffusivity
in water,
Dw
(cm2/s)
REF
50
50
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V5
References used in calculating Method 3 Risk
Reference #
Description
49
EPA Region 3 RSL Tables. November 2011.
50
Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS), Oak Ridge National Laboratories on-line database (http://rais.ornl.gov/).
See: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/dws/dwspubs.htm for the current list of Massachusetts Drinking Water Standards & Guidelines
v0808.xls/V5
AECOM
Environment
Attachment D
Risk Characterization Tables –
AECOM Spreadsheets for
Commercial/Industrial Worker
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Appendices\Appendix D - Risk
Characterization\Readville Yard Method 3_Final_4-12013.docx
April 2013
Table D-1
Exposure Assumptions for Soil Exposure by Future On-Site Worker
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham annd Readville, MA
Receptors Evaluated:
Receptor 1:
On-Site Worker
CARCINOGENIC AND NONCARCINOGENIC
ASSUMPTIONS FOR ON-SITE WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT AND INGESTION OF SOIL
Assumed
Value
Units
Calculated
Value
Soil Ingestion Rate
On-Site Worker
50
Adherence Factor
On-Site Worker
0.03
2
(mg/cm )
Skin Exposed
On-Site Worker
3473
(cm2)
Body Weight
On-Site Worker
61.1
(kg)
Exposure Frequency
On-Site Worker
120
(days)/365(days) =
3.29E-01
Exposure Duration (cancer)
On-Site Worker
27
(years)/70(years) =
3.86E-01
Exposure Duration (noncancer)
On-Site Worker
27
(years)/27(years) =
1.00E+00
70
(years)
1.00E-06
(kg/mg)
Lifetime
Unit Conversion Factor
On-Site Worker Oral-Dermal Soil_2-14-12.xls/assum
(mg soil/day)
Table D-2
NONCARCINOGENIC ASSESSMENT
DERMAL CONTACT
AND INGESTION OF SOIL
FOR ON-SITE WORKER
Vlookup Version v0808
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham annd Readville, MA
Constituent
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Lead
Mercury
Methylnaphthalene, 2Naphthalene
Nickel
Aliphatics C9 to C12
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C9 to C10
Aromatics C11 to C22
Phenanthrene
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Unit
Relative Absorption Factor
Oral
Concentration
Soil
Soil
Reference
In Soil
Chronic
Chronic
Dose
(mg/kg-soil)
Ingestion
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
On-Site Worker Oral-Dermal Soil_2-14-12.xls/SOILnc
0.36
0.36
0.36
1
1
1
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.36
0.28
1
1
0.28
0.28
0.36
0.36
0.28
0.5
1
0.36
0.36
1
1
1
1
1
0.36
0.36
0.85
0.36
1
1
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.02
0.14
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.006
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.35
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.16
0.1
0.12
0.12
0.18
0.18
6.00E-02
3.00E-02
3.00E-01
4.00E-04
3.00E-04
2.00E-01
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
5.00E-04
3.00E-03
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
3.00E-02
7.50E-04
3.00E-04
4.00E-03
2.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
2.00E+00
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
2.00E-05
3.00E-02
8.00E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E-04
4.00E-02
Dermal
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
6.00E-02
3.00E-02
3.00E-01
4.00E-04
3.00E-04
2.00E-01
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
5.00E-04
3.00E-03
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
3.00E-02
7.50E-04
3.00E-04
4.00E-03
2.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
2.00E+00
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
3.00E-02
2.00E-05
3.00E-02
8.00E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E-04
4.00E-02
Chronic
ADDing
Average
ADDder
On-Site Worker Daily Dose-Ing. On-Site Worker
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
9.69E-08
9.69E-08
9.69E-08
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
7.53E-08
7.53E-08
7.53E-08
9.69E-08
7.53E-08
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
7.53E-08
7.53E-08
9.69E-08
9.69E-08
7.53E-08
1.35E-07
2.69E-07
9.69E-08
9.69E-08
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
9.69E-08
9.69E-08
2.29E-07
9.69E-08
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
9.69E-08
9.69E-08
9.69E-08
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
7.53E-08
7.53E-08
7.53E-08
9.69E-08
7.53E-08
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
7.53E-08
7.53E-08
9.69E-08
9.69E-08
7.53E-08
1.35E-07
2.69E-07
9.69E-08
9.69E-08
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
9.69E-08
9.69E-08
2.29E-07
9.69E-08
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
2.69E-07
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
1.68E-08
2.80E-08
1.12E-08
1.12E-08
1.12E-08
5.61E-08
1.12E-08
7.85E-08
5.05E-08
1.12E-08
1.12E-08
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
1.12E-08
3.36E-09
2.80E-08
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
1.96E-07
2.80E-07
2.80E-07
5.61E-08
2.80E-07
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
8.97E-08
5.61E-08
6.73E-08
6.73E-08
1.01E-07
1.01E-07
Chronic
Potential Hazard Index
Average
Per Unit Concentration
Daily Dose-Der.
Dermal
(mg/kg-day) Ingestion
Contact
Total
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
1.68E-08
2.80E-08
1.12E-08
1.12E-08
1.12E-08
5.61E-08
1.12E-08
7.85E-08
5.05E-08
1.12E-08
1.12E-08
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
1.12E-08
3.36E-09
2.80E-08
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
1.96E-07
2.80E-07
2.80E-07
5.61E-08
2.80E-07
5.61E-08
5.61E-08
8.97E-08
5.61E-08
6.73E-08
6.73E-08
1.01E-07
1.01E-07
1.61E-06
3.23E-06
3.23E-07
6.73E-04
8.97E-04
1.35E-06
2.51E-06
2.51E-06
2.51E-06
3.23E-06
2.51E-06
5.38E-04
8.97E-05
2.51E-06
2.51E-06
2.42E-06
2.42E-06
2.51E-06
1.79E-04
8.97E-04
2.42E-05
4.84E-06
1.35E-05
2.69E-06
2.69E-06
1.35E-07
8.97E-06
3.23E-06
3.23E-06
1.14E-02
3.23E-06
3.36E-06
1.35E-06
8.97E-04
6.73E-06
9.34E-07
1.87E-06
1.87E-07
1.40E-04
5.61E-05
1.40E-07
3.74E-07
3.74E-07
3.74E-07
1.87E-06
3.74E-07
1.57E-04
1.68E-05
3.74E-07
3.74E-07
1.40E-06
1.40E-06
3.74E-07
4.49E-06
9.34E-05
1.40E-05
2.80E-06
9.81E-06
2.80E-06
2.80E-06
2.80E-08
9.34E-06
1.87E-06
1.87E-06
4.49E-03
1.87E-06
8.41E-07
3.36E-07
3.36E-04
2.52E-06
2.55E-06
5.10E-06
5.10E-07
8.13E-04
9.53E-04
1.49E-06
2.88E-06
2.88E-06
2.88E-06
5.10E-06
2.88E-06
6.95E-04
1.06E-04
2.88E-06
2.88E-06
3.82E-06
3.82E-06
2.88E-06
1.84E-04
9.90E-04
3.82E-05
7.65E-06
2.33E-05
5.49E-06
5.49E-06
1.63E-07
1.83E-05
5.10E-06
5.10E-06
1.59E-02
5.10E-06
4.20E-06
1.68E-06
1.23E-03
9.25E-06
Table D-3
POTENTIAL HAZARD INDEX
RISK BY DERMAL CONTACT WITH
AND INGESTION OF SOIL
FOR ON-SITE WORKER
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham annd Readville, MA
Constituent
Acenaphthylene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chromium (total)
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Lead
Methylnaphthalene, 2Nickel
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Zinc
Reference
HI (per mg/kg)
5.10E-06
8.13E-04
9.53E-04
1.49E-06
2.88E-06
5.10E-06
2.88E-06
1.06E-04
2.88E-06
2.88E-06
3.82E-06
2.88E-06
1.84E-04
3.82E-05
2.33E-05
5.49E-06
1.63E-07
5.10E-06
1.59E-02
1.23E-03
9.25E-06
9.34E-07
Total HI:
On-Site Worker Oral-Dermal Soil_4-27-12.xls/nc scale (0-3')
Area 1
EPC (mg/kg)
0.6
36
HQ
Area 2
EPC (mg/kg)
HQ
Area 3
EPC (mg/kg)
HQ
3.06E-06
3.43E-02
33
3.14E-02
28
23
237
2.28E-02
2.19E-02
3.52E-04
1.3
2.3
31
6.63E-06
6.64E-06
3.30E-03
3.8
1.10E-05
1
5.3
2.88E-06
2.03E-05
0.8
2.31E-06
363
6.67E-02
26
95
4.23E-06
4.84E-04
1244
0.6
21
22
128
151
2.29E-01
2.29E-05
4.89E-04
1.21E-04
2.08E-05
7.70E-04
4.8
5.92E-03
7
1207
528
8.63E-03
1.12E-02
4.93E-04
Area 4
EPC (mg/kg)
HQ
0.5
25
37
2.55E-06
2.03E-02
3.53E-02
3.4
1.2
1.8
22.7
2.7
0.5
4
1.4
1667
0.5
9.81E-06
6.12E-06
5.19E-06
2.42E-03
7.79E-06
1.44E-06
1.53E-05
4.04E-06
3.06E-01
1.91E-05
19
69
103
3.7
6.3
194
1.04E-04
1.12E-05
5.25E-04
5.89E-02
7.77E-03
1.79E-03
1.E-01
3.E-02
3.E-01
Notes:
* - Soil Stockpiles and Stockpile Hot Spots represents soil from all depths.
Blank EPC value indicates the analyte is not a Chemical of Concern for the Area/depth interval.
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration.
HI - Hazard Index.
HQ - Hazard Quotient.
NC - Not calculated, no dose-response value available.
4.E-01
VPH Hot Spot
EPC (mg/kg)
HQ
NC
Table D-4
POTENTIAL HAZARD INDEX
RISK BY DERMAL CONTACT WITH
AND INGESTION OF SOIL
FOR ON-SITE WORKER
Soil - >3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham annd Readville, MA
Constituent
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium (total)
Fluorene
Lead
Methylnaphthalene, 2Naphthalene
Nickel
Aliphatics C9 to C12
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C9 to C10
Aromatics C11 to C22
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Zinc
Reference
HI (per mg/kg)
2.55E-06
5.10E-06
8.13E-04
9.53E-04
1.49E-06
2.88E-06
1.06E-04
3.82E-06
1.84E-04
3.82E-05
7.65E-06
2.33E-05
5.49E-06
5.49E-06
1.63E-07
1.83E-05
5.10E-06
1.23E-03
9.25E-06
9.34E-07
Total HI:
On-Site Worker Oral-Dermal Soil_4-27-12.xls/nc scale (>3')
Area 1
EPC (mg/kg)
HQ
Area 2
EPC (mg/kg)
HQ
Area 3
EPC (mg/kg)
HQ
10.8
6.4
86
8.78E-03
6.10E-03
1.28E-04
16
1235
Area 4
EPC (mg/kg)
HQ
1.70E-03
25
7
114
1.164
25.3
2.03E-02
6.67E-03
1.69E-04
3.36E-06
2.69E-03
2.27E-01
2835
5.21E-01
30.9
7.19E-04
10
37
5.49E-05
6.01E-06
22
35
1.21E-04
5.69E-06
32
4.9
132
274.6
1.63E-04
6.04E-03
1.22E-03
2.57E-04
34
7.6
360
1.73E-04
9.37E-03
3.33E-03
NC
NC
3.E-01
Notes:
Blank EPC value indicates the analyte is not a Chemical of Concern for the Area/depth interval.
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration.
HI - Hazard Index.
HQ - Hazard Quotient.
NC - Not calculated, no dose-response value available.
6.E-01
VPH Hot Spot
EPC (mg/kg)
HQ
4.67
6.26
1.19E-05
3.19E-05
5.83
2.23E-05
5.19
1.92
1.98E-04
1.47E-05
193
1520
500
154
1660
1.06E-03
8.35E-03
8.13E-05
2.82E-03
8.46E-03
2.E-02
Table D-5
CARCINOGENIC ASSESSMENT
DERMAL CONTACT
AND INGESTION OF SOIL
FOR ON-SITE WORKER
Vlookup Version v0808
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham annd Readville, MA
Constituent
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Lead
Mercury
Methylnaphthalene, 2Naphthalene
Nickel
Aliphatics C9 to C12
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C9 to C10
Aromatics C11 to C22
Phenanthrene
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes (mixed isomers)
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Unit
Relative Absorption Factor
Oral
Dermal
Lifetime
Lifetime
Concentration
Soil
Soil
Cancer
Cancer
ADDing
Average
ADDder
Average
In Soil
Cancer
Cancer
Slope Factor Slope Factor On-Site Worker Daily Dose-Ing. On-Site Worker Daily Dose-Der.
(mg/kg-soil)
Ingestion
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
NC
NC
NC
NC
1
NC
0.28
0.28
0.28
NC
0.28
NC
NC
0.28
0.28
NC
NC
0.28
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.85
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
On-Site Worker Oral-Dermal Soil_2-14-12.xls/SOILc
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.03
NC
0.02
0.02
0.02
NC
0.02
NC
NC
0.02
0.02
NC
NC
0.02
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.16
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.50E+00
1.50E+00
7.30E-01
7.30E+00
7.30E-01
7.30E-01
7.30E+00
7.30E-01
7.30E-02
7.30E-02
7.30E-02
7.30E+00
7.30E-02
7.30E+00
7.30E-01
7.30E-01
2.00E+00
2.00E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.04E-07
NA
2.91E-08
2.91E-08
2.91E-08
NA
2.91E-08
NA
NA
2.91E-08
2.91E-08
NA
NA
2.91E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.82E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.04E-07
NA
2.91E-08
2.91E-08
2.91E-08
NA
2.91E-08
NA
NA
2.91E-08
2.91E-08
NA
NA
2.91E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.82E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.49E-09
NA
4.32E-09
4.32E-09
4.32E-09
NA
4.32E-09
NA
NA
4.32E-09
4.32E-09
NA
NA
4.32E-09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.46E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.49E-09
NA
4.32E-09
4.32E-09
4.32E-09
NA
4.32E-09
NA
NA
4.32E-09
4.32E-09
NA
NA
4.32E-09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.46E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Potential Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
Per Unit Concentration
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Total
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.56E-07
NC
2.12E-08
2.12E-07
2.12E-08
NC
2.12E-09
NC
NC
2.12E-09
2.12E-07
NC
NC
2.12E-08
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.76E-07
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
9.73E-09
NC
3.16E-09
3.16E-08
3.16E-09
NC
3.16E-10
NC
NC
3.16E-10
3.16E-08
NC
NC
3.16E-09
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
6.92E-08
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.65E-07
NC
2.44E-08
2.44E-07
2.44E-08
NC
2.44E-09
NC
NC
2.44E-09
2.44E-07
NC
NC
2.44E-08
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.46E-07
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
TABLE D-6
POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC RISK
RISK BY DERMAL CONTACT WITH
AND INGESTION OF SOIL
FOR ON-SITE WORKER
Soil - 0-3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham annd Readville, MA
Constituent
Acenaphthylene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chromium (total)
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Lead
Methylnaphthalene, 2Nickel
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C11 to C22
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Zinc
Reference
Risk (per mg/kg)
NC
NC
1.65E-07
NC
2.44E-08
NC
2.44E-09
NC
2.44E-09
2.44E-07
NC
2.44E-08
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.46E-07
NC
NC
NC
Total:
On-Site Worker Oral-Dermal Soil_4-27-12.xls/c scale (0-3')
Area 1
EPC (mg/kg)
Risk
0.6
36
3.8
NC
NC
5.95E-06
NC
NC
9.26E-09
NC
Area 2
EPC (mg/kg)
Risk
33
NC
NC
5.46E-06
NC
NC
NC
Area 3
EPC (mg/kg)
Risk
28
23
237
NC
NC
3.80E-06
NC
1.3
2.3
31
NC
5.60E-09
NC
0.8
1.95E-07
NC
1
5.3
2.44E-07
NC
NC
363
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1244
0.6
21
22
128
151
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
7
1207
528
NC
NC
NC
26
95
4.8
Area 4
EPC (mg/kg)
Risk
0.5
25
37
3.4
1.2
1.8
22.7
2.7
0.5
4
1.4
1667
0.5
19
69
103
3.7
6.3
194
6.E-06
5.E-06
4.E-06
Notes:
* - Soil Stockpiles and Stockpile Hot Spots represents soil from all depths.
Blank EPC value indicates the analyte is not a Chemical of Concern for the Area/depth interval.
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration.
NC - Not calculated, no dose-response value available.
NC
NC
6.12E-06
NC
8.29E-08
NC
4.39E-09
NC
6.58E-09
1.22E-07
NC
3.41E-08
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
9.09E-07
NC
NC
NC
7.E-06
VPH Hot Spot
EPC (mg/kg)
Risk
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
TABLE D-7
POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC RISK
RISK BY DERMAL CONTACT WITH
AND INGESTION OF SOIL
FOR ON-SITE WORKER
Soil - >3 Feet in Depth
MBTA Readville 5 Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Dedham annd Readville, MA
Constituent
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium (total)
Fluorene
Lead
Methylnaphthalene, 2Naphthalene
Nickel
Aliphatics C5 to C8
Aliphatics C9 to C12
Aliphatics C9 to C18
Aliphatics C19 to C36
Aromatics C9 to C10
Aromatics C11 to C22
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
Zinc
Reference
Risk (per mg/kg)
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.65E-07
NC
2.44E-07
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Total:
On-Site Worker Oral-Dermal Soil_4-27-12.xls/c scale (>3')
Area 1
EPC (mg/kg)
Risk
Area 2
EPC (mg/kg)
Risk
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Area 3
EPC (mg/kg)
Risk
10.8
6.4
86
16
1235
30.9
10
37
32
4.9
132
274.6
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.06E-06
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Area 4
EPC (mg/kg)
Risk
25
7
114
1.164
25.3
2835
22
35
34
7.6
360
NC
NC
1.E-06
Notes:
Blank EPC value indicates the analyte is not a Chemical of Concern for the Area/depth interval.
EPC - Exposure Point Concentration.
NC - Not calculated, no dose-response value available.
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.16E-06
NC
2.84E-07
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.E-06
VPH Hot Spot
EPC (mg/kg)
Risk
4.67
6.26
4.26
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
5.83
5.19
1.92
193
1520
500
154
1660
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V1
Vlookup Version v0808
CHRONIC ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (OR
SUBSTITUTE)
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V1
CAS
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
SUBCHRONIC
Chronic
Subchronic
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (OR
SUBSTITUTE)
Inhalation
Reference
Concentration
(or substitute)
Inhalation
Reference
Concentration
(or substitute)
SUBCHRONIC
Oral
Cancer
Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/day)-1
Inhalation
Unit
Risk
INHALATION
REFERENCE
DOSE (OR
SUBSTITUTE)
Inhalation
Cancer
Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/day)-1 REF
mg/kg/day
REF
mg/kg/day
REF
mg/m3
REF
mg/m3
REF
CLASS
REF
(µg/m3)-1
REF
mg/kg/day
3.0E-04
49
3.0E-04
1d
6.0E-06
49
6.0E-06
40
B1
49
9.00E-03
49
5.7E-06
49, 40
4.0E-02
49
4.0E-02
1d
1.4E-01
39
1.4E-01
40
D
1
4.0E-02
45
REF
3.2E+01
46
46
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V2
Relative Absorption Factors (RAFs)
Chronic
Ingestion
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V2
Chronic
Dermal
Soil
Subchronic
Ingestion
Air1
Subchronic
Dermal
Cancer
Ingestion
Cancer
Dermal
Subchronic
Inhalation
Cancer
Inhalation
CAS
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
1
0.18
1
0.18
NC
NC
1
1
0.18
1
0.18
NC
NC
1
1
Default metal as per Guidance for Disposal Site RC.
Default metal as per Guidance for Disposal Site RC.
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V3
Oral
Relative Absorption Factors (RAFs)
Absorption
Water
Produce
Efficiency
Subchronic
Chronic
Cancer
Noncancer
Cancer
Tox Study
Ingestion
Ingestion Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion OAEnoncance
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V3
Oral
Absorption
Efficiency
Tox Study
OAEcancer
Outside
Effective
Fraction
Predictive
Absorbed1
Domain
FA
CAS
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
1
1
NC
1
1
1
NC
1
Assumed
Assumed
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V4
Molecular
Weight
g/mole
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
ZZZ Cobalt
ZZZ Copper
v0808.xls/V4
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
58.9
63.6
log
Kow
Permeability
Coefficient
Kp1
cm/hr
4.000E-04
1.000E-03
Henry's
Law
Constant
HLC
atm-m3/mol
Metal
yes
yes
Plant
Uptake
Factor
Ksp
mg-soil/mg-plant
Outside
Effective
Predictive
Domain
Diffusivity
in air,
Da
(cm2/s)
REF
Diffusivity
in water,
Dw
(cm2/s)
REF
50
50
MassDEP ShortForms VLookup Workbook Modifications
Worksheet - V5
References used in calculating Method 3 Risk
Reference #
Description
49
EPA Region 3 RSL Tables. November 2011.
50
Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS), Oak Ridge National Laboratories on-line database (http://rais.ornl.gov/).
See: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/dws/dwspubs.htm for the current list of Massachusetts Drinking Water Standards & Guidelines
v0808.xls/V5
AECOM
Report
Environment
Appendix E
Data Usability
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1
Readville\RAO\Report\Final\MBTA Readville Yard 5 RAOA FINAL April 2013.docx
April 2013
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 10824
978.905.2100
978.905.2101
tel
fax
Memorandum
To
Elissa Brown
Subject
Presumptive Certainty Review and Data Evaluation
MBTA – Readville Yard 5
Con-Test Analytical Laboratory – East Longmeadow
Lab Work Order Number: 11K0626
From
Timothy Markey
Date
April 5, 2012
Page 1
60133920.1
A data usability evaluation was performed on the data for soil samples collected on November 17,
2011 at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) site located on Industrial Drive in
Boston and Dedham, Massachusetts. The samples were submitted to Con-Test Analytical
Laboratory (Con-Test) for analysis. Con-Test performed the analyses and reported the samples
under Lab Work Order Number 11K0626.
The data usability evaluation was performed following the guidance of MADEP document WSCCAM-VII A, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines for the Acquisition and Reporting of
Analytical Data in Support of Response Actions Conducted Under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP), Revision 1, July 1, 2010, MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup; MADEP MCP
Representativeness Evaluations and Data Usability Assessments; Policy #WSC-07-350; September
19, 2007; and the applicable analytical methods.
Based on the evaluation, the data have met Presumptive Certainty requirements for all CAM
parameters. See below for a discussion of the quality control (QC) performance standards that were
not achieved which affect precision and accuracy of the data. EPA Region I Data Validation
Guidelines were used for assessing data usability.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1 Readville\RAO\QAQC\Data Usability\Area 2\Readville Yard 5 Lab Order 11K0626 Data Usability
Memo.doc
AECOM
2
Data for the following samples was assessed:
Sample ID
Analysis
AA-SW-B
AA-SW-WW
AA-SW-WSW
AA-SW-EW
AA-SW-ESW
AA-1-B
AA-1-WW
AA-1-EW
AA-2-B
AA-2-WW
AA-2-EW
AA-3-B
AA-3-22
Arsenic, Total
AA-3-EW
AA-4-B
AA-4-W
AA-5-B
AA-5-WW
AA-5-EW
AA-5-NW-B
A-MW-WW
AA-NW-WNW
AA-NW-EW
AA-NW-ENW
The following criteria were assessed.
Sample Collection
Element
Comment
Container
Sample Size
Holding Times
Preservation
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All CAM methods were performed within the required holding times.
All criteria were met.
AECOM
3
Sample Analysis
Element
Comment
Methodology
Requested Analytes
Laboratory QC
(required reporting
elements for each
method and others
narrated)
All criteria were met.
Analysis was for total arsenic, only, based on site knowledge.
Factors affecting precision: None.
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Factors affecting precision: None.
Sample QC (required
reporting elements for
each method and
others narrated)
Factors affecting accuracy: The sample to spike ratio in the matrix
spike (MS) was >4:1 due to spiked amount not representative of native
amount in sample. Could not calculate meaningful recovery. Only affects
sample used as MS (sample AA-5-B), which was not used to support the
RAO since soil represented by this sample was later excavated.
Qualification of data not required.
Data Reporting
Element
Comment
Sample Custody
Required QC Data
Reporting Elements
Reporting Limits
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
Certifications
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 10824
978.905.2100
978.905.2101
tel
fax
Memorandum
To
Elissa Brown
Subject
Presumptive Certainty Review and Data Evaluation
MBTA – Readville Yard 5
Con-Test Analytical Laboratory – East Longmeadow
Lab Work Order Number: 11K1001
From
Timothy Markey
Date
April 5, 2012
Page 1
60133920.1
A data usability evaluation was performed on the data for soil samples collected on November 30,
2011 at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) site located on Industrial Drive in
Boston and Dedham, Massachusetts. The samples were submitted to Con-Test Analytical
Laboratory (Con-Test) for analysis. Con-Test performed the analyses and reported the samples
under Lab Work Order Number 11K1001.
The data usability evaluation was performed following the guidance of MADEP document WSCCAM-VII A, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines for the Acquisition and Reporting of
Analytical Data in Support of Response Actions Conducted Under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP), Revision 1, July 1, 2010, MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup; MADEP MCP
Representativeness Evaluations and Data Usability Assessments; Policy #WSC-07-350; September
19, 2007; and the applicable analytical methods.
Based on the evaluation, the data have met Presumptive Certainty requirements for all CAM
parameters. See below for a discussion of the quality control (QC) performance standards that were
not achieved which affect precision and accuracy of the data. EPA Region I Data Validation
Guidelines were used for assessing data usability.
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1 Readville\RAO\QAQC\Data Usability\Area 3\Readville Yard 5 Lab Order 11K1001 Data Usability
Memo.doc
AECOM
2
Data for the following samples was assessed:
Sample ID
Analysis
RY5-692-NW
RY5-692-WW
RY5-692-SW
RY5-692-B
RY5-693-NW
RY5-693-B
RY5-694-NW
RY5-694-SW
RY5-694-EW
RY5-694-B
Arsenic and Lead (Total)
RY5-637-EW
RY5-637-SW
RY5-637-WW
RY5-637-B
RY5-639/S22-NW
RY5-639/S22-SW
RY5-639/S22-EW
RY5-639/S22-WW
RY5-639/S22-B
HBGP24-NW
HBGP24-EW
HBGP24-WW
EPH
HBGP24-B
RY5-SS1-NW
RY5SS1-SW
RY5-SS1-EW
RY5-SS1-WW
RY5-SS1-B
RY5-906-NW
RY5-906-SW
RY5-906-EW
RY5-906-WW
RY5-906-B
Lead (Total)
AECOM
3
The following criteria were assessed.
Sample Collection
Element
Comment
Container
Sample Size
Holding Times
Preservation
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All CAM methods were performed within the required holding times.
All criteria were met.
Sample Analysis
Element
Comment
Methodology
All criteria were met.
Analysis was for total arsenic and/or total lead, or EPH (fractions), only,
based on site knowledge.
Requested Analytes
Laboratory QC
(required reporting
elements for each
method and others
narrated)
Factors affecting precision: None.
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Factors affecting precision: None.
Sample QC (required
reporting elements for
each method and
others narrated)
Factors affecting accuracy: The sample to spike ratio for lead (total) in
the matrix spike (MS) was >4:1 due to spiked amount not representative
of native amount in sample. Could not calculate meaningful recovery.
Only affects sample used as MS (RY5-692-SW), which was not used to
support the RAO since soil represented by this sample was later
excavated. Qualification of data not required.
Data Reporting
Element
Comment
Sample Custody
Required QC Data
Reporting Elements
Reporting Limits
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
Certifications
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 10824
978.905.2100
978.905.2101
tel
fax
Memorandum
To
Elissa Brown
Page 1
Subject
Presumptive Certainty Review and Data Evaluation
MBTA– Readville Yard 5
Con-Test Analytical Laboratory– East Longmeadow
Lab Work Order Number: 11L0761
From
Timothy Markey
Date
April 6, 2012
60133920.1
A data usability evaluation was performed on the data for soil samples collected on December 20,
2011 at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) site located on Industrial Drive in
Boston and Dedham, Massachusetts. The samples were submitted to Con-Test Analytical
Laboratory (Con-Test) for analysis. Con-Test performed the analyses and reported the samples
under Lab Work Order Number 11L0761.
The data usability evaluation was performed following the guidance of MADEP document WSCCAM-VII A, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines for the Acquisition and Reporting of
Analytical Data in Support of Response Actions Conducted Under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP), Revision 1, July 1, 2010, MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup; MADEP MCP
Representativeness Evaluations and Data Usability Assessments; Policy #WSC-07-350; September
19, 2007; and the applicable analytical methods.
Based on the evaluation, the data have met Presumptive Certainty requirements for all CAM
parameters. See below for a discussion of the quality control (QC) performance standards that were
not achieved which affect precision and accuracy of the data. EPA Region I Data Validation
Guidelines were used for assessing data usability.
Data for the following samples was assessed:
Sample ID
Analysis
RY5—5-A/B-1
Arsenic (Total)
RY5—5-A/B-2
Arsenic (Total)
RY5—5-A/B-3
Arsenic (Total)
RY5—16-A-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total)
RY5—16-D-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total), PAHs
RY5—16-E-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total)
RY5—16-F-I
Arsenic (Total)
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1 Readville\RAO\QAQC\Data Usability\Area 4\Readville Yard 5 Lab Order 11L0761 Data Usability
Memo.doc
AECOM
2
It should be noted that samples RY5—5-A/B-1, RY5—5-A/B-2, and RY5—5-A/B-3 were labeled
incorrectly. These samples are associated with Stockpile 7 (not Stockpile 5) and should have been
labeled RY5—7-A/B-1, RY5—7-A/B-2, and RY5—7-A/B-3, respectively.
The following criteria were assessed.
Sample Collection
Element
Comment
Container
Sample Size
Holding Times
Preservation
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All CAM methods were performed within the required holding times.
All criteria were met.
Sample Analysis
Element
Comment
Methodology
All criteria were met.
Analysis was for total arsenic and total lead, only, based on site
knowledge.
Requested Analytes
Laboratory QC
(required reporting
elements for each
method and others
narrated)
Sample QC (required
reporting elements for
each method and
others narrated)
Factors affecting precision: None.
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Factors affecting precision: High RPD (>30) was noted for
dibenz(ah)anthracene (34.5) and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (38.0) in the
laboratory control sample/laboratory control sample duplicate
(LCS/LCSD). Results for these PAHs in sample RY5-16-D-1 may be
biased high.
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Matrix spike analyses were not performed on a sample in this
laboratory report.
AECOM
3
Data Reporting
Element
Comment
Sample Custody
Required QC Data
Reporting Elements
Reporting Limits
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
Certifications
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 10824
978.905.2100
978.905.2101
tel
fax
Memorandum
To
Elissa Brown
Page 1
Subject
Presumptive Certainty Review and Data Evaluation
MBTA – Readville Yard 5
Con-Test Analytical Laboratory – East Longmeadow
Lab Work Order Number: 11L0954
From
Timothy Markey
Date
April 6, 2012
60133920.1
A data usability evaluation was performed on the data for soil samples collected on December 27,
2011 at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) site located on Industrial Drive in
Boston and Dedham, Massachusetts. The samples were submitted to Con-Test Analytical
Laboratory (Con-Test) for analysis. Con-Test performed the analyses and reported the samples
under Lab Work Order Number 11L0954.
The data usability evaluation was performed following the guidance of MADEP document WSCCAM-VII A, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines for the Acquisition and Reporting of
Analytical Data in Support of Response Actions Conducted Under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP), Revision 1, July 1, 2010, MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup; MADEP MCP
Representativeness Evaluations and Data Usability Assessments; Policy #WSC-07-350; September
19, 2007; and the applicable analytical methods.
Based on the evaluation, the data have met Presumptive Certainty requirements for all CAM
parameters. See below for a discussion of the quality control (QC) performance standards that were
not achieved which affect precision and accuracy of the data. EPA Region I Data Validation
Guidelines were used for assessing data usability.
Data for the following samples was assessed:
Sample ID
Analysis
S4-A-1
Arsenic And Lead (Total), PCBs
S8-A-1
Arsenic And Lead (Total)
17-A-1
Arsenic And Lead (Total)
S6-A-1
Arsenic And Lead (Total)
S6-B-1
Arsenic And Lead (Total)
RS-1
Lead (Total)
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1 Readville\RAO\QAQC\Data Usability\Area 4\Readville Yard 5 Lab Order 11L0954 Data Usability
Memo.doc
AECOM
2
The following criteria were assessed.
Sample Collection
Element
Comment
Container
Sample Size
Holding Times
Preservation
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All CAM methods were performed within the required holding times.
All criteria were met.
Sample Analysis
Element
Comment
Methodology
All criteria were met.
Analysis was for total arsenic and/or total lead, or EPH (fractions), only,
based on site knowledge.
Requested Analytes
Laboratory QC
(required reporting
elements for each
method and others
narrated)
Factors affecting precision: None.
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Factors affecting precision: None.
Sample QC (required
reporting elements for
each method and
others narrated)
Factors affecting accuracy: The sample to spike ratio for lead (total) in
the matrix spike (MS) was >4:1 due to spiked amount not representative
of native amount in sample. Could not calculate meaningful recovery.
Only affects sample used as MS (S6-A-1). Qualification of data not
required.
Data Reporting
Element
Comment
Sample Custody
Required QC Data
Reporting Elements
Reporting Limits
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
Certifications
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 10824
978.905.2100
978.905.2101
tel
fax
Memorandum
To
Elissa Brown
Page 1
Subject
Presumptive Certainty Review and Data Evaluation
MBTA – Readville Yard 5
Con-Test Analytical Laboratory – East Longmeadow
Lab Work Order Number: 11L1023
From
Timothy Markey
Date
April 6, 2012
60133920.1
A data usability evaluation was performed on the data for soil samples collected on December 29,
2011 at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) site located on Industrial Drive in
Boston and Dedham, Massachusetts. The samples were submitted to Con-Test Analytical
Laboratory (Con-Test) for analysis. Con-Test performed the analyses and reported the samples
under Lab Work Order Number 11L1023.
The data usability evaluation was performed following the guidance of MADEP document WSCCAM-VII A, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines for the Acquisition and Reporting of
Analytical Data in Support of Response Actions Conducted Under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP), Revision 1, July 1, 2010, MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup; MADEP MCP
Representativeness Evaluations and Data Usability Assessments; Policy #WSC-07-350; September
19, 2007; and the applicable analytical methods.
Based on the evaluation, the data have met Presumptive Certainty requirements for all CAM
parameters. See below for a discussion of the quality control (QC) performance standards that were
not achieved which affect precision and accuracy of the data. EPA Region I Data Validation
Guidelines were used for assessing data usability.
Data for the following samples was assessed:
Sample ID
Analysis
S20-A-1-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total)
S20-A-2-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total)
S20-A-3-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total)
S20-A-4-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total)
S20-A-5-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total)
S20-A-6-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total)
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1 Readville\RAO\QAQC\Data Usability\Area 4\Readville Yard 5 Lab Order 11L1023 Data Usability
Memo.doc
AECOM
2
Sample ID
Analysis
S20-A-B-1-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total), PCBs
S20-B-2-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total), PCBs
S20-B-3-I
Arsenic and Lead (Total), PCBs
The following criteria were assessed.
Sample Collection
Element
Comment
Container
Sample Size
Holding Times
Preservation
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All CAM methods were performed within the required holding times.
All criteria were met.
Sample Analysis
Element
Comment
Methodology
All criteria were met.
Analysis was for total arsenic and total lead, only, based on site
knowledge.
Requested Analytes
Laboratory QC
(required reporting
elements for each
method and others
narrated)
Factors affecting precision: None.
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Factors affecting precision: None.
Sample QC (required
reporting elements for
each method and
others narrated)
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Matrix spike analyses were not performed on a sample in this
laboratory report.
Data Reporting
Element
Comment
Sample Custody
Required QC Data
Reporting Elements
Reporting Limits
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
Certifications
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 10824
978.905.2100
978.905.2101
tel
fax
Memorandum
To
Elissa Brown
Page 1
Subject
Presumptive Certainty Review and Data Evaluation
MBTA – Readville Yard 5
Con-Test Analytical Laboratory – East Longmeadow
Lab Work Order Number: 11L1064
From
Timothy Markey
Date
April 6, 2012
60133920.1
A data usability evaluation was performed on the data for soil samples collected on December 30,
2011 at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) site located on Industrial Drive in
Boston and Dedham, Massachusetts. The samples were submitted to Con-Test Analytical
Laboratory (Con-Test) for analysis. Con-Test performed the analyses and reported the samples
under Lab Work Order Number 11L1064.
The data usability evaluation was performed following the guidance of MADEP document WSCCAM-VII A, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines for the Acquisition and Reporting of
Analytical Data in Support of Response Actions Conducted Under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP), Revision 1, July 1, 2010, MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup; MADEP MCP
Representativeness Evaluations and Data Usability Assessments; Policy #WSC-07-350; September
19, 2007; and the applicable analytical methods.
Based on the evaluation, the data have met Presumptive Certainty requirements for all CAM
parameters. See below for a discussion of the quality control (QC) performance standards that were
not achieved which affect precision and accuracy of the data. EPA Region I Data Validation
Guidelines were used for assessing data usability.
Data for the following samples was assessed:
Sample ID
Analysis
S20-C-1-1
Lead (Total), PCBs
S20-C-2-1
Lead (Total), PCBs
S20-D-3-1
Lead (Total), PAHs
S20-D-2-1
Lead (Total), PAHs
S20-D-1-1
Lead (Total), PAHs
S18-A-1
Lead and Arsenic (Total)
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1 Readville\RAO\QAQC\Data Usability\Area 4\Readville Yard 5 Lab Order 11L1064 Data Usability
Memo.doc
AECOM
2
The following criteria were assessed.
Sample Collection
Element
Comment
Container
Sample Size
Holding Times
Preservation
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All CAM methods were performed within the required holding times.
All criteria were met.
Sample Analysis
Element
Comment
Methodology
All criteria were met.
Analysis was for total arsenic and total lead, only, based on site
knowledge.
Requested Analytes
Laboratory QC
(required reporting
elements for each
method and others
narrated)
Factors affecting precision: None.
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Factors affecting precision: None.
Sample QC (required
reporting elements for
each method and
others narrated)
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Matrix spike analyses were not performed on a sample in this
laboratory report.
Data Reporting
Element
Comment
Sample Custody
Required QC Data
Reporting Elements
Reporting Limits
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
Certifications
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 10824
978.905.2100
978.905.2101
tel
fax
Memorandum
To
Elissa Brown
Page 1
Subject
Presumptive Certainty Review and Data Evaluation
MBTA– Readville Yard 5
Con-Test Analytical Laboratory– East Longmeadow
Lab Work Order Number: 12A0109
From
Timothy Markey
Date
April 5, 2012
60133920.1
A data usability evaluation was performed on the data for soil samples collected on January 5, 2012
at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) site located on Industrial Drive in
Boston and Dedham, Massachusetts. The samples were submitted to Con-Test Analytical
Laboratory (Con-Test) for analysis. Con-Test performed the analyses and reported the samples
under Lab Work Order Number 12A0109.
The data usability evaluation was performed following the guidance of MADEP document WSCCAM-VII A, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines for the Acquisition and Reporting of
Analytical Data in Support of Response Actions Conducted Under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP), Revision 1, July 1, 2010, MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup; MADEP MCP
Representativeness Evaluations and Data Usability Assessments; Policy #WSC-07-350; September
19, 2007; and the applicable analytical methods.
Based on the evaluation, the data have met Presumptive Certainty requirements for all CAM
parameters. See below for a discussion of the quality control (QC) performance standards that were
not achieved which affect precision and accuracy of the data. EPA Region I Data Validation
Guidelines were used for assessing data usability.
Data for the following samples was assessed:
Sample ID
692-10
692-11
693-10
693-11
Analysis
Arsenic and Lead (Total)
Lead (Total)
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1 Readville\RAO\QAQC\Data Usability\Area 3\Readville Yard 5 Lab Order 12A0109 Data Usability
Memo.doc
AECOM
2
The following criteria were assessed.
Sample Collection
Element
Comment
Container
Sample Size
Holding Times
Preservation
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All CAM methods were performed within the required holding times.
All criteria were met.
Sample Analysis
Element
Comment
Methodology
All criteria were met.
Analysis was for total arsenic and/or total lead, or EPH (fractions), only,
based on site knowledge.
Requested Analytes
Laboratory QC
(required reporting
elements for each
method and others
narrated)
Factors affecting precision: None.
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Factors affecting precision: None.
Sample QC (required
reporting elements for
each method and
others narrated)
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Matrix spike analyses were not performed on a sample in this
laboratory report.
Data Reporting
Element
Comment
Sample Custody
Required QC Data
Reporting Elements
Reporting Limits
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
Certifications
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 10824
978.905.2100
978.905.2101
tel
fax
Memorandum
To
Elissa Brown
Page 1
Subject
Presumptive Certainty Review and Data Evaluation
MBTA – Readville Yard 5
Con-Test Analytical Laboratory – East Longmeadow
Lab Work Order Number: 12A0305
From
Timothy Markey
Date
April 5, 2012
60133920.1
A data usability evaluation was performed on the data for soil samples collected on January 11,
2012 at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) site located on Industrial Drive in
Boston and Dedham, Massachusetts. The samples were submitted to Con-Test Analytical
Laboratory (Con-Test) for analysis. Con-Test performed the analyses and reported the samples
under Lab Work Order Number 12A0305.
The data usability evaluation was performed following the guidance of MADEP document WSCCAM-VII A, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines for the Acquisition and Reporting of
Analytical Data in Support of Response Actions Conducted Under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP), Revision 1, July 1, 2010, MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup; MADEP MCP
Representativeness Evaluations and Data Usability Assessments; Policy #WSC-07-350; September
19, 2007; and the applicable analytical methods.
Based on the evaluation, the data have met Presumptive Certainty requirements for all CAM
parameters. See below for a discussion of the quality control (QC) performance standards that were
not achieved which affect precision and accuracy of the data. EPA Region I Data Validation
Guidelines were used for assessing data usability.
Data for the following samples was assessed:
Sample ID
Analysis
RY5-AA-1-2
RY5-AA-2-2
RY5-AA-3-2
Arsenic, Total
RY5-AA-4-2
RY5-AA-5-2
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1 Readville\RAO\QAQC\Data Usability\Area 2\Readville Yard 5 Lab Order 12A0305 Data Usability
Memo.doc
AECOM
2
It should be noted that the soil stockpile samples RY5-AA-SP-1 and RY5-AA-SP-2 were not
evaluated since these were analyzed for disposal characterization purposes, only, and were not
used to support the RAO. However, it should be noted that these samples also met Presumptive
Certainty.
The following criteria were assessed.
Sample Collection
Element
Comment
Container
Sample Size
Holding Times
Preservation
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All CAM methods were performed within the required holding times.
All criteria were met.
Sample Analysis
Element
Comment
Methodology
Requested Analytes
Laboratory QC
(required reporting
elements for each
method and others
narrated)
All criteria were met.
Analysis was for total arsenic, only, based on site knowledge.
Factors affecting precision: None.
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Factors affecting precision: None.
Sample QC (required
reporting elements for
each method and
others narrated)
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Matrix spike analyses were not performed on a sample in this
laboratory report.
Data Reporting
Element
Comment
Sample Custody
Required QC Data
Reporting Elements
Reporting Limits
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
Certifications
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 10824
978.905.2100
978.905.2101
tel
fax
Memorandum
To
Elissa Brown
Page 1
Subject
Presumptive Certainty Review and Data Evaluation
MBTA – Readville Yard 5
Con-Test Analytical Laboratory – East Longmeadow
Lab Work Order Number: 12A0782
From
Timothy Markey
Date
April 5, 2012
60133920.1
A data usability evaluation was performed on the data for soil samples collected on January 25,
2012 at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) site located on Industrial Drive in
Boston and Dedham, Massachusetts. The samples were submitted to Con-Test Analytical
Laboratory (Con-Test) for analysis. Con-Test performed the analyses and reported the samples
under Lab Work Order Number 12A0782.
The data usability evaluation was performed following the guidance of MADEP document WSCCAM-VII A, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines for the Acquisition and Reporting of
Analytical Data in Support of Response Actions Conducted Under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP), Revision 1, July 1, 2010, MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup; MADEP MCP
Representativeness Evaluations and Data Usability Assessments; Policy #WSC-07-350; September
19, 2007; and the applicable analytical methods.
Based on the evaluation, the data have met Presumptive Certainty requirements for all CAM
parameters. See below for a discussion of the quality control (QC) performance standards that were
not achieved which affect precision and accuracy of the data. EPA Region I Data Validation
Guidelines were used for assessing data usability.
Data for the following samples was assessed:
Sample ID
S10-A-1
S10-B-1
S10-C-1
Analysis
PAHs, Lead and Arsenic (Total)
Lead (Total)
AA-6-3
AA-7-3
AA-8-3
Arsenic (Total)
AA9-3
AA-10-3
J:\Concord\105627 - MBTA\PROJ\TO-1 Readville\RAO\QAQC\Data Usability\Area 2\Readville Yard 5 Lab Order 12A0782 Data Usability
Memo.doc
AECOM
2
The following criteria were assessed.
Sample Collection
Element
Comment
Container
Sample Size
Holding Times
Preservation
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All CAM methods were performed within the required holding times.
All criteria were met.
Sample Analysis
Element
Comment
Methodology
All criteria were met.
Analysis was for total arsenic, total lead and/or PAHs, only, based on site
knowledge.
Requested Analytes
Laboratory QC
(required reporting
elements for each
method and others
narrated)
Factors affecting precision: None.
Factors affecting accuracy: None.
Factors affecting precision: None.
Sample QC (required
reporting elements for
each method and
others narrated)
Factors affecting accuracy: Continuous calibration did not meet
method requirements; therefore results for benzo(g,h,i)perylene in sample
S10-A-1 re-analysis (RE) may be biased low.
High internal standard (>200%) in CCV for several PAHs in sample S10A-1 RE due to matrix interference.
Matrix spike analyses were not performed on a sample in this
laboratory report.
Data Reporting
Element
Comment
Sample Custody
Required QC Data
Reporting Elements
Reporting Limits
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
Certifications
All criteria were met.
All criteria were met.
Table E-1
Summary of Post-Excavation Confirmatory Soil Samples
Lead XRF Data and Laboratory Analytical Data
MBTA Readville Yard Site
Industrial Drive
Readville and Dedham, MA
Sample ID
692-B10
692-B11
693-B10
693-B11
694-B10
694-B11
Stockpile 18-A-6
Stockpile 16-A-1
Stockpile-16-D-1
Stockpile 16-E-1
Stockpile 4-A-1
Stockpile 8-A-1
Stockpile 17-A-1
Stockpile 6-A-1
Stockpile 6-B-1
RS-1-1
Stockpile 20-A-1-1
Stockpile 20-A-2-1
Stockpile 20-A-3-1
Stockpile 20-A-4-1
Stockpile 20-A-5-1
Stockpile 20-A-6-1
Stockpile 20-B-1-1
Stockpile 20-B-2-1
Stockpile 20-B-3-1
Stockpile 20-C-1-1
Stockpile 20-C-2-1
Stockpile 20-D-1-1
Stockpile 20-D-2-1
Stockpile 20-D-3-1
Stockpile 19-A-1
Stockpile 21-A-1-1
Stockpile 22-A-1
Stockpile 10-A-1
Stockpile 10-B-1
Stockpile 10-C-1
Minimum
Maximum
Average
XRF Result
Laboratory
Result
21
76
23
17
362
450
634
892
1854
2577
303
131
1152
569
559
267
1461
1753
1072
1560
2230
2816
2291
1880
1120
1071
983
4226
1881
1793
3122
2628
1409
9142
3709
1439
17.0
9,142.0
1,596.5
13
67
3
4.2
27
110
100
1200
2900
1200
36
92
160
180
260
1500
2600
2800
1800
3100
2300
8000
2000
3500
4800
2800
840
2400
3700
2600
4300
4300
4000
4900
4400
4000
3
8,000
2,139
Concentrations expressed in milligram/kilogram (mg/kg).
Summary of Lead XRF v Lab Data.xlsx/XRF v Lab