905D95002F
REGION 5
Risk Assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI)
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Facility (East Liverpool, Ohio)
DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Volume VI:
SCREENING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (SERA)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agffteif
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th
Chicago. IL 60604-3590
Prepared with the assistance of:
AT. Kearney, Inc. (Prime Contractor: Chicago, IL);
with Subcontract support from: ENVIRON Corp. (Arlington, VA), Midwest Research Institute (Kansas City, MO)
and EARTH TECH, Inc. (Concord, MA) under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0006
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT.
It has not been formally released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as
a final document, and should not be construed to represent Agency policy.
It is being circulated for comment on its technical content.
-------
Hut**
-------
VOLUME VI:
Screening Ecological Risk Assessment (SERA)
CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
A. Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment 1-1
B. Purpose and Scope of the SERA 1-3
C. SERA Methodology 1-4
1. Selection of ECOCs 1-4
2. Exposure Estimation 1-4
3. Risk Analysis 1-6
D. Report Organization 1-6
II. PROCESS OVERVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL DEVELOPMENT . II-l
A. Problem Formulation II-l
1. Stressors II-2
2. Ecological Components II-3
3. Endpoint Selection II-4
B. Analysis II-5
1. Characterization of Exposure II-5
a. Emission Rate Estimates and Exposure Scenarios II-5
b. Potential Exposure Pathways II-7
c. Potential Exposure Routes II-8
d. Exposure Point Concentrations II-8
e. Indicator Species II-9
2. Characterization of Ecological Effects 11-10
a. Analysis Component 11-10
b. ECOC Selection 11-12
C. Risk Characterization 11-13
III. SITE CHARACTERIZATION III-l
A. Physiographic Features of the Assessment Area III-2
B. Land Use and Habitat Types Within the Assessment Area III-3
C. State Parks, Wildlife Areas, and Other Ecological Habitats ni-6
D. Fauna and Flora Present Within the Assessment Area III-6
1. Birds ffl-7
2. Mammals III-8
External Review Draft
Volume VI Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
3. Reptiles and Amphibians UI-8
4. Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms III-9
5. Assessment Area Flora III-9
6. Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species Ill-10
7. Significant Habitats/Resources III-ll
E. Summary and Analysis III-ll
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ECOLOGICAL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN . . IV-1
A. Substances of Potential Concern in Stack Emissions IV-2
B. Development of Chemical-Specific Stack Emission Rates IV-4
1. Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans (PCDDs/PCDFs) IV-4
2. Other PICs and Organic Residues IV-5
3. Metals IV-6
4. Summary of Stack Emission Rate Estimates Used in Exposure
Scenarios IV-8
C. Stack Emission ECOC Selection IV-8
1. Detailed Screening of Organic Chemicals FV-9
a. Exposure Analysis IV-12
b. Chemical Group Analysis IV-15
c. Evaluation Using Professional Judgement IV-18
2. Summary of Stack ECOCs IV-20
D. Substances of Potential Concern in Fugitive Emissions IV-20
1. Organic Vapor Fugitive Emission IV-21
2. Fugitive Ash Emission IV-21
E. Fugitive Emission ECOC Selection IV-22
1. . Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions IV-22
a. Exposure Analysis . . : IV-24
b. Evaluation Using Professional Judgement IV-26
2. Fugitive Ash Emission IV-27
3. Summary of Fugitive ECOCs IV-28
F. Development of Chemical-Specific Fugitive Emission Rates IV-28
1. Organic Vapor Fugitive Emission Rates IV-28
2. Fugitive Ash Emission Rates IV-29
3. Summary of Fugitive Emission Rate Estimates Used in Exposure
Scenarios IV-30
G. Uncertainties in the ECOC Selection Process IV-31
1. Uncertainties Associated with Emission Rate Estimates IV-31
2. Uncertainties Associated with Dispersion Modeling IV-31
3. Other Uncertainties Associated with ECOC Selection IV-32
External Review Draft
Volume VI Do Not Cite Or Quote
ii
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
V. CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURE .................. . ..... V-1
A. Exposure Scenarios ................................ V-1
B. Fate and Transport Mechanisms of the ECOCs , ............... V-2
C. Generalized Exposure Pathways ......................... V-4
D. Exposure Routes ................ .................. V-6
E. Indicator Species Selection ............................ V-6
1. General Considerations in Indicator Species Selection ...... V-10
2. Avian Indicator Species ........................ V-ll
3. Mammalian Indicator Species ..................... V-12
4. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ............. V-14
F. Specific Exposure Pathways .......................... V-14
G. Estimation of Environmental Concentrations ................ V-1 5
1. Air Concentrations ........................... V-15
a. Stack Emissions ......................... V-15
b. Fugitive Emissions ....................... V-16
c. Cumulative Concentrations .................. V-16
2. Soil Concentrations ........................... V-16
3. Surface Water and Sediment Concentrations ............ V-17
4. Tissue Concentrations .......................... V-19
a. Earthworms ........................... V-19
b. Terrestrial Plants ........................ V-22
c. Fish ................................ V-25
d. Small Mammals ......................... V-25
5. Dietary Intakes .............................. V-28
H. Uncertainties in the Characterization of Exposure .............. V-29
1. Uncertainties Associated with Fate and Transport Modeling ... V-30
2. Uncertainties Associated with Exposure Modeling ......... V-30
VI. CHARACTERIZATION OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS .............. VI-1
A. Uncertainty Factors ............................... VI-2
B. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ground-Level Air .......... VI-5
C. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Surface Soil .............. VI-5
D. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Surface Water ............ VI-6
E. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Sediment ............... VI-7
F. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion of Tissues (Food Chain
Effects) ....................................... VI-9
G. Summary of Toxicological Benchmark Values ............... VI- 11
H. Uncertainties in the Characterization of Ecological Effects ........ VI- 11
External Review Draft
Volume VI iii Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
VH. RISK CHARACTERIZATION VH-1
A. Air VH-2
1. Stack Emissions VII-2
2. Fugitive Ash Emissions VII-3
. 3. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions VII-3
4. Combined Emissions VII-4
B. Soil VII-5
1. Stack Emissions VII-5
2. Fugitive Ash Emissions VII-6
3. Combined Emissions VII-6
C. Surface Water VII-6
1. Stack Emissions VII-7
a. Ohio River VII-7
b. Tomlinson Run Lake VII-7
c. Little Beaver Creek VII-7
2. Fugitive Ash Emissions VII-8
3. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions VII-8
4. Combined Emissions VII-8
D. Sediment VII-8
1. Stack Emissions VII-9
a. Ohio River VII-9
b. Tomlinson Run Lake VII-9
c. Little Beaver Creek VII-10
2. Fugitive Ash Emissions VII-10
3. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions VII-10
4. Combined Emissions VII-10
E. Food Chain VII-11
1. Stack Metal Scenarios VII-12
a. Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario VII-12
b. Stack Expected Metal Scenario VII-13
2. Stack High-End Organic Scenario VII-13
3. Fugitive Ash Emissions VII-14
4. Combined Emissions VII-14
F. Summary of Hazard Quotients by Exposure Scenario VII-15
1. Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario VII-15
2. Stack Expected Metal Scenario VII-16
3. Stack High-End Organic Scenario VII-16
4. Fugitive Inorganic Scenario VII-17
5. Fugitive Organic Scenario VII-17
External Review Draft
Volume VI iv Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
G. Evaluation of Assessment Endpoints VII-17
1. Reproduction, Growth, and Survival of Birds and Mammals . VII-18
2. Reproduction, Growth and Survival of Terrestrial Plant Species VII-19
3. Intact and Productive Aquatic and Terrestrial Food Chains . . VII-20
4. Maintaining a Healthy Aquatic Community VII-21
5. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats VII-22
6. Summary of Assessment Endpoint Evaluation VII-23
H. Risk Analysis VII-23
I. Uncertainties in the Risk Characterization VII-26
VIII. UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS VIII-1
IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS IX-1
X. REFERENCES X-l
External Review Draft
Volume VI Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Table II-l
Table H-2
Table III-l
Table III-2
Table III-3
Table III-4
Table III-5
Table IH-6
Table III-7
Table III-8
Table III-9
Table III-10
Table IV-1
Table IV-2
Table IV-3
Volume VI
TABLES
Assessment and Measurement Endpoints Selected
for the WTI SERA
11-15
Comparison of Toxicological Data Used in ECOC
Selection and Characterization of Effects 11-16
Land Use Statistics for Counties Within the
Assessment Area 111-15
Forest Lands Within the Assessment Area Ill-16
Forest Ownership Within the Assessment Area Ill-17
Forest Types Within the Assessment Area Ill-18
Wetland Areas Within the Assessment Area
Greater than 10 Acres By Distance From the
WTI Incinerator 111-19
Wetland Areas Within the Assessment Area
Less than 10 Acres By Distance From the
WTI Incinerator
State Parks and Major Wildlife Areas Within
the Assessment Area
111-20
111-21
Other Ecological Habitats/Areas 111-23
Summary of Threatened, Endangered, and Special
Concern Species Within the Assessment Area 111-24
Significant Habitats/Resources Within the
Assessment Area 111-26
Chemicals Anticipated to be Emitted in Very
Low Quantities For Which Stack Emission Rates
Were Not Estimated
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening -
Stack Emissions
IV-33
IV-34
Detailed Chemical Screening - Exposure Analysis -
External Review-Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
VI
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table IV-4
Table IV-5
Table IV-6
Table IV-7
Table IV-8
Table IV-9
Table IV-10
Table IV-11
Table IV-12
Table IV-13
Table IV-14
Table IV-15
Table V-l
Volume VI
Stack Emissions ........................... IV-40
Detailed Chemical Screening - Chemical Group
Analysis - Stack Emissions .................... IV-41
Log K<,w and Persistence Values for the
Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions ............. IV-44
Chemicals to be Evaluated hi the SERA - Stack
Emissions - Selection Method Summary ............ IV-52
Media to be Evaluated for Each Selected ECOC -
Stack Emissions ........................... IV-54
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions -
Inhalation ............................... IV-56
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions -
Aquatic ................................. IV-62
Log KOW and Persistence Values for the
Chemicals Evaluated - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions . . IV-68
Chemicals to be Evaluated hi the SERA - Fugitive
Emissions - Selection Method Summary ............ IV-72
Media to be Evaluated for Each Selected ECOC -
Fugitive Emissions ......................... IV-73
Estimated Emission Rates for Each Selected ECOC -
Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions ................ IV-74
Estimated Concentrations of Metals and Total Cyanide
in Fugitive Fly Ash and Estimated High-End Emission Rates IV-75
Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification
of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern ............ IV-76
Key Components of the Exposure Scenarios
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
VII
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table V-2
Table V-3
Table V-4
Table V-5
Table V-6
Table V-7
Table V-8
Table V-9
Table V-10
Table V-ll
Used in the SERA V-32
Physical, Chemical, and Fate Characteristics
of the ECOCs V-33
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level
Air Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals V-37
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level
Air Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Organics V-39
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level
Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions -
Ash Handling Facility V-40
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level
Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions -
Carbon Absorption Bed V-41
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level
Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions -
Tank Farm V-42
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level
Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions -
Open Waste Water Tank V-43
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level
Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions -
Truck Wash V-44
Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations -
Stack Emissions - Metals V-45
Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations -
Stack Emissions - Organics V-47
Table V-12
Volume VI
Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations -
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
vm
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table V-13
Table V-14
Table V-15
Table V-16
Table V-17
Table V-18
Table V-19
Table V-20
Table V-21
Table V-22
Table V-23
Table V-24
Volume VI
Fugitive Ash Emissions V-48
Maximum Modeled Surface Water Concentrations -.
Stack Emissions - Metals V-49
Maximum Modeled Surface Water Concentrations -
Stack Emissions - Organics V-51
Modeled Surface Water Concentrations - Fugitive
Emissions V-52
Maximum Modeled Sediment Concentrations -
Stack Emissions - Metals V-53
Maximum Modeled Sediment Concentrations -
Stack Emissions - Organics V-55
Modeled Sediment Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions .... V-56
Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For
Plants and Earthworms V-57
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-
Weight) For Plants and Earthworms - Stack Emissions -
Metals V-59
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-
Weight) For Plants and Earthworms - Stack Emissions -
Organics V-61
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-
Weight) For Plants and Earthworms - Fugitive Ash
Emissions V-62
Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For Fish .... V-63
Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight)
For Fish - Stack Emissions - Metals V-65
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
ix
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table V-25
Table V-26
Table V-27
Table V-28
Table V-29
Table V-30
Table V-31
Table VI-1
Table VI-2
Table VI-3
Table VI-4
Table VI-5
Table VI-6
Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight)
For Fish - Stack Emissions - Organics V-67
Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight)
For Fish - Fugitive Ash Emissions V-68
Food Chain Model Input Variables V-69
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-
Weight) For Small Mammals - Stack Emissions - Metals . . . V-70
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-
Weight) For Small Mammals - Stack Emissions - Organics
V-72
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-
Weight) For Small Mammals - Fugitive Ash Emissions .... V-73
Key Assumptions for Chapter V - Characterization
of Exposure V-74
Summary of Uncertainty Factors Used in the SERA VI-12
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for
Plants and Animals - Ground-Level Ambient
Air Concentrations VI-13
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Plants and Soil Fauna in Surface Soils VI-16
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Surface Water VI-18
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Sediment VI-20
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Ingestion VI-23
Volume VI
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Table VI-7
Table VI-8
Table VIM
Table VII-2
Table VH-3
Table VII-4
Table VII-5
Table VII-6
Table VII-7
Volume VI
Summary of Effects for Toxicological
Benchmark Values
Key Assumptions for Chapter VI - Characterization
of Ecological Effects
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Plants and Animals - Stack Emissions - Metals . .
VI-25
VI-33
VII-27
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Plants and Animals - Stack Emissions - Organics .
. . VII-29
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Plants and Animals - Fugitive Fly Ash Emissions -
Ash Handling Facility VII-30
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Plants and Animals - Fugitive Emissions -
Carbon Absorption Bed VII-31
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Plants and Animals - Fugitive Emissions -
Tank Farm VII-32
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Plants and Animals - Fugitive Emissions -
Open Waste Water Tank VII-33
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Plants and Animals - Fugitive Emissions -
Truck Wash VII-34
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
xi
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table VII-8
Table VII-9
Table VII-10
Table VII-11
Table VII-12
Table VII-13
Table VII-14
Table VII-15
Table VII-16
Table VII-17
Slimmed Animal Inhalation Hazard Quotients -
All Organic ECOC Air Sources VII-35
Summed Animal Inhalation Hazard Quotients -
All Metal ECOC Air Sources VII-36
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and
Soil Fauna - Stack Emissions - Metals VII-37
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and
Soil Fauna - Stack Emissions - Organics VII-39
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and
Soil Fauna - Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility . . VII-40
Summed Plant and Soil Fauna Hazard Quotients - All
Metal ECOC Sources ! VII-41
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Surface Water
Concentrations With Chronic Toxicological
Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals VII-42
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Surface Water
Concentrations With Chronic Toxicological
Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics VII-44
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Surface
Water Concentrations With Chronic Toxicological
Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals VII-45
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Surface
Water Concentrations With Chronic Toxicological
Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics . VII-47
Volume VI
External Review-Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
XII
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table VII-18
Table VII-19
Table VTI-20
Table VII-21
Table VII-22
Table VII-23
Table VII-24
Table VII-25
Table VTI-26
Table VII-27
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Surface
Water Concentrations With Chronic Toxicological
Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals ......... VII-48
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Surface
Water Concentrations With Chronic Toxicological
Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics VII-50
Comparison of Modeled Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility VII-51
Comparison of Modeled Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions VII-52
Summed Surface Water Hazard Quotients - All Metal
ECOC Sources VII-53
Summed Surface Water Hazard Quotients - All Organic
ECOC Sources VII-55
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Sediment
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark
Values - Stack Emissions - Metals VII-56
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Sediment
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark
Values - Stack Emissions - Organics VII-58
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake
Sediment Concentrations With Toxicological
Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals VII-59
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake
Sediment Concentrations With Toxicological
Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics VII-61
Volume VI
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
xm
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table VH-28
Table VII-29
Table VII-30
Table VII-31
Table VH-32
Table VII-33
Table VH-34
Table VII-35
Table VH-36
Table VH-37
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek
Sediment Concentrations With Toxicological
Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals VII-62
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek
Sediment Concentrations With Toxicological
Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics VII-64
Comparison of Modeled Sediment Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility VII-65
Comparison of Modeled Sediment Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions VII-66
Summed Sediment Hazard Quotients - All Metal
ECOC Sources VII-67
Summed Sediment Hazard Quotients - All Organic
ECOC Sources VII-69
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Metals With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Meadow Vole VII-70
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Organic ECOCs With Toxicological Benchmark
Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Meadow Vole . . . VII-72
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Metals With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Short-tailed Shrew VII-73
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Organic ECOCs With Toxicological Benchmark
Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Short-tailed
Shrew VII-75
Volume VI
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
xiv
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table VH-38
Table VII-39
Table VII-40
Table VII-41
Table VII-42
Table VII-43
Table VTI-44
Table VII-45
Table VH-46
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Metals With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red Fox . VII-76
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Organic ECOCs With Toxicological Benchmark
Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red Fox VT1-78
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Metals With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Mink VII-79
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Organic ECOCs With Toxicological Benchmark
Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Mink VII-81
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Metals With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - American Robin VII-82
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Organic ECOCs With Toxicological Benchmark
Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - American
Robin VII-84
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Metals With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Belted Kingfisher VII-85
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Organic ECOCs With Toxicological Benchmark
Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Belted
Kingfisher VII-87
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Metals With Toxicological Benchmark Values
for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red-tailed Hawk VII-88
Volume VI
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
xv
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table VII-47
Table VIMS
Table VH-49
Table VII-50
Table VII-51
Table VH-52
Table VII-53
Table VII-54
Table VII-55
Table VH-56
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes
of Organic ECOCs With Toxicological Benchmark
Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red-tailed
Hawk VII-90
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion -
Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility VII-91
Summed Ingestion Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC
Sources - Maximum Impact Point/Ohio River VII-95
Summed Ingestion Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC
Sources - Tomlinson Run Lake VII-96
Summed Ingestion Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC
Sources - Little Beaver Creek VII-97
Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One for
all Exposure Scenarios - Abiotic Media VII-98
Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One
for all Exposure Scenarios - Bird and
Mammal Indicator Species VII-100
Summary of Hazard Quotients Between 0.1 and 1.0
for all Exposure Scenarios VII-102
Comparison of Hazard Quotients - Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal and Stack Expected Metal Scenarios
For Hazard Quotients Exceeding One Under the Stack
Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario VII-103
Comparison of Hazard Quotients - Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal and Stack Expected Metal Scenarios
For Hazard Quotients Between 0.1 and 1.0 Under the
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario VII-107
Volume VI
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
xvi
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table VII-57 Summary of the Estimated Conservatism of Key Input
Parameters Used in the Exposure and Effects
. Characterizations For Each Exposure Scenario VII-110
Table VII-58 Key Assumptions for Chapter VII - Risk Characterization . VII-112
External Review Draft
Volume VI Do Not Cite Or Quote
xvii
-------
FIGURES
Page
Figure 1-1 Location of the WTI Facility 1-9
Figure II-1 Structure of Analysis for the WTI SERA H-17
Figure II-2 Diagrammatic Conceptual Site Model for the WTI SERA -
Stack Emissions ! 11-18
Figure II-3 Diagrammatic Conceptual Site Model for the WTI SERA -
Fugitive Emissions 11-19
Figure III-l Physiographic Regions in the Vicinity of the
WTI Incinerator 111-27
Figure III-2 Land Use Within the WTI Assessment Area 111-28
Figure III-3 Location of Ecologically-Relevant Areas Within the WTI
Assessment Area 111-29
Figure III-4 Location of Special Category Rivers and Creeks 111-30
Figure V-l Location of Emission Sources, Maximum Deposition
Pouits, and Maximum Air Concentration Points V-78
Figure V-2 Specific Exposure Pathways for Stack Exposure Scenarios . . V-79
Figure V-3 Specific Exposure Pathways for Fugitive Exposure
Scenarios V-80
External Review Draft
Volume VI Do Not Cite Or Quote
xviii
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix VI-1
Appendix VI-2
Appendix VI-3
Appendix VI-4
Appendix VI-5
Appendix VI-6
Appendix VI-7
Appendix VI-8
Appendix VI-9
Appendix VI-10
Appendix VI-11
Appendix VI-12
Appendix VI-13
Appendix VI-14
Appendix VI-15
Appendix VI-16
Wetland Areas Greater Than 10 Acres Within the Assessment Area
Non-Intermittent Lotic Water Bodies Within the Assessment Area
Descriptions of State Parks and Major Wildlife Management Areas
Within the WTI Assessment Area
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment
Area
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
Summary of Avian Abundance in the Assessment Area Based on
Christmas Bird Count Data
Mammals Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment
Area
Amphibians and Reptiles Known or Likely to be Present Within the
Assessment Area
Fish Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Within the Assessment
Area
Organic Stack Emission Rates
Stack High-End Emission Rates for PCB Homologs and Dioxin/
Furan Congeners
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical Scores - Ingestion - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Kow-based) - Stack Emission Chemical
Screening
Volume VI
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
xix
-------
Appendix VI-17
Appendix VI-18
Appendix VI-19
Appendix VI-20
Appendix VI-21
Appendix VI-22
Appendix VI-23
Appendix VI-24
Appendix VI-25
Appendix VI-26
APPENDICES
(Continued)
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-based) - Stack
Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical Profiles for the ECOCs
Toxicological Data Summaries - Inhalation
Toxicological Data Summaries - Plants - Soil Exposures
Toxicological Data Summaries - Soil Fauna - Soil Exposures
Toxicological Data Summaries - Aquatic (Surface Water)
Toxicological Data Summaries - Aquatic (Sediment)
Toxicological Data Summaries - Ingestion
Allometric Scaling of Toxicological Benchmarks
Risk Analysis Calculations
Volume VI
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
xx
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) operates a hazardous waste incinerator in East
Liverpool, Ohio (Figure 1-1). Although this facility is equipped with an air emissions control
system, various potentially hazardous substances are emitted to the atmosphere and deposited
in the surrounding environment. Similarly, fugitive emissions from waste and ash handling
may also occur. Exposures to specific constituents hi the stack and fugitive emissions will
depend upon factors including: (1) the composition of the waste and combustion products,
(2) the dispersion pattern of the emissions, which is dependent upon prevailing local
atmospheric conditions, and (3) partitioning and fate of the chemical constituents in the
atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic environmental compartments. The characterization of
stack and fugitive emissions is presented in Volume HI of this report. Atmospheric
dispersion of emissions is discussed hi Volume IV. Transport of chemicals hi the
environment after deposition is discussed hi Volume V along with an evaluation of potential
human health risks. Following both the U.S. EPA's mandate to "protect human health and
the environment" and the specific recommendations from the U.S. EPA's External Peer
Review Panel (U.S. EPA 1993b) review of the project plan for the WTI facility risk
assessment (U.S. EPA 1993a), the potential for ecological risks as a result of the operation
of the WTI facility is evaluated and detailed hi this volume (Volume VI).
A. Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological risk assessment is defined as a science-based process that evaluates the
likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur, or are occurring, as a result of exposure
to one or more stressors. Ecological risk assessments can help identify environmental
problems (or help to avert them), establish priorities for dealing with problems, and provide
a scientific basis for regulatory actions (U.S. EPA 1992b).
Ecological risk assessment generally follows the same paradigm as human health risk
assessment. The paradigm, established in 1983 by the National Research Council (NRC
1983), integrates exposure and toxicity, the two fundamental factors hi assessing risk.
However, the "state-of-the-science" differs between human and ecological risk assessment, as
do some of the methodologies and terminologies. The focus of human health risk assessment
is characterization of risks to humans, whereas the principal focus of ecological risk
assessment is characterization of risks to ecological receptors, which may include individuals,
populations, communities, and ecosystems. Special focus is also placed on evaluating
potential exposures of rare, threatened, and endangered species, both as individual organisms
External Review Draft
Volume VI 1-1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
and as populations, to site-related stressors. There is, therefore, an overall greater degree of
complexity hi assessing ecological risks. Numerous species, with different habitats, potential
exposures, and toxicological susceptibilities, must be evaluated both individually and
collectively. Relatively few species have been extensively studied, however, and
ecotoxicological data are generally quite limited. Because of this complexity, and the often
limited knowledge and information available, ecological risk assessments generally have
more uncertainty associated with them relative to human health risk assessments.
Following the U.S. EPA's Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA
1992b), there are three components to an ecological risk assessment (ERA). The first
component is "problem formulation", which is a systematic planning component that includes
the: (1) definition of the purpose and scope of the ERA, including a site-specific conceptual
model of the conditions in proximity to the site, (2) characterization of the ecological
resources in the surrounding area, and (3) preliminary identification of stressors of potential
ecological concern. The second component of an ERA is "analysis", which characterizes the
exposure to, and the potential adverse ecological effects from, the stressors or ecological
chemicals of concern (ECOCs). The third component is "risk characterization", which uses
the results of the exposure and effects analyses to evaluate the likelihood of adverse
ecological effects associated with exposure to the ECOCs. It includes a summary of the
assumptions used and the scientific uncertainties of the risk analysis, along with conclusions.
The objective of the risk characterization is to provide the risk manager with a complete
picture of the analyses, results, conclusions, and limitations (uncertainties) of the assessment.
Ecological risk assessments are typically conducted using an iterative process,
beginning with a screening-level assessment and advancing to more complex tiers as deemed
appropriate. According to the U.S. EPA's Framework document (U.S. EPA 1992b), an
ecological risk assessment at the screening level "may be performed using readily available
data and conservative assumptions; depending upon the results, more data then may be
collected to support a more rigorous assessment". U.S. EPA Region 5 has issued draft
ecological risk assessment guidance for RCRA (U.S. EPA 1994f) which is consistent with
the principles outlined hi U.S. EPA's Framework document. Region 5 divides the ecological
risk assessment process into three tiers: (1) the screening ecological risk assessment
(SERA), (2) the preliminary ecological risk assessment (PERA), and (3) the detailed
ecological risk assessment (DERA). The tiered process provides for a progressive
refinement of the scope and focus of the assessment, if it is warranted, using more site-
specific data, hi place of conservative assumptions, to characterize risk. The assessment
conducted for the WTI facility presented hi this volume is a SERA, that is, a screening-level
ecological risk assessment.
External Review Draft
Volume VI 1-2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
B. Purpose and Scope of the SERA
The SERA provides an initial evaluation of potential risks to ecological receptors that
may be directly exposed to, or indirectly affected by, stack and fugitive emissions from the
WTI facility. It is largely prospective or predictive in that it is intended to forecast the
outcome of current and future, rather than past, operations. The SERA relies on published,
modeled, or other readily available information regarding: (1) the likely distribution and
level of the stressors/chemicals in environmental media, (2) the ecological receptors present
in the vicinity of the facility, and (3) the likely exposure pathways and inherent toxicities of
the ECOCs. It uses generally conservative (protective) assumptions to screen the chemicals.
exposure pathways, and receptors to determine whether risks are likely under any of the
relevant combinations of these components. The conservative assumptions are intended to
ensure that risks, even to highly exposed or highly susceptible receptors, will not be
underestimated.
The SERA includes the following specific goals:
• To identify ECOCs, exposure pathways, and receptors that are clearly not
indicating significant risks and eliminate them from further consideration.
• Where potential risks are identified, to provide direction and focus for
choosing those components of the exposure and effects analyses that are
amenable to confirmation or further refinement, as well as for identifying
those ECOCs indicating the highest relative risks.
• To evaluate the presence of Federal- and State-listed rare, threatened, and
endangered species in the vicinity of the facility, and the likelihood that they
would be significantly exposed to ECOCs.
Regarding spatial scope, the SERA encompasses those habitats and biota in the
vicinity of the WTI facility having the greatest potential for exposure to stack and/or fugitive
emissions. The 1,260 km2 area within a 20-km radial distance of the facility boundary, as
shown on Figure 1-1, is designated as the assessment area (see Chapter III). Because of
differences hi goals and approaches, the SERA assessment area, which is intended to
incorporate the habitats and species potentially present at the projected locations of maximum
facility impacts, is larger than the "study area" used for the human health risk assessment
(HHRA), which incorporates exposures accounting for at least 90 percent of the total health
risk. The types of species that inhabit the assessment area are identified and considered for
use as potential receptors (indicator species) hi the risk characterization portion of the SERA.
External Review Draft
Volume VI 1-3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
C. SERA Methodology
The methodology used in the SERA follows the published general guidance from U.S.
EPA Headquarters (U.S. EPA 1992b) and Region 5 (U.S. EPA 1994f) described above. In
the absence of specific guidance on methodologies for a screening-level ecological risk
assessment, professional judgement plays a central role in the choice of methods for this
assessment. Three central aspects of the methodology applied to this SERA are introduced
below.
1. Selection of ECOCs
To focus the risk analysis on those chemicals most likely to contribute to
ecological risk, ECOCs are selected from the list of potentially hazardous chemical
constituents expected in the WTI facility stack and fugitive emissions, as described in
Volume III. Separate lists of ECOCs are developed for stack and fugitive emissions.
All of the metals anticipated in stack emissions, and those identified in fugitive ash
emissions, are selected as ECOCs. This decision is based on a secondary objective of
the SERA, which is to estimate the levels of ecological risk associated with the
facility's current operating permit limits for metal stack emissions.
Risk-based algorithms are used to score and rank (first by type of exposure
and then by chemical group) those organic constituents anticipated in stack and/or
fugitive emissions. The highest ranking chemicals, supplemented with others
identified on the basis of professional judgement, are selected as ECOCs. The
algorithms are adapted from U.S. EPA risk assessment implementation guidance
(U.S. EPA 1994a) and reflect current practice in ecological risk assessment (Davis et
al. 1994). In addition, they are comparable to those algorithms used in the HHRA
for non-carcinogenic effects (algorithms used hi the HHRA for carcinogenic effects
are not considered applicable since ecological risk assessments are not normally
concerned with carcinogenic endpoints).
2. Exposure Estimation
Three sets of stack emission rate estimates and two sets of fugitive emission
rate estimates are used as components of exposure estimates (scenarios) in the SERA
as follows:
• Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Emission Rates - the first of two
stack metal emission rate estimates used in the SERA. These emission
rates are derived from the maximum hourly limits on stack metal
emissions, defined in the facility's existing RCRA permit, and
External Review Draft
Volume VI 1-4 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
extrapolated to annual average emission rate estimates. These emission
rates are used in the analysis of "upper-bound" exposures for stack
metals.
• Stack Expected Metal Emission Rates - the second of two stack metal
emission rate estimates used in the SERA. These emission rates are
annual average estimates at full facility capacity, as described in
Volume HI. These emission rates are used in the analysis of
"expected" exposures for stack metals under current operating
conditions.
• Stack High-End Organic Emission Rates - these emission rates are
"high-end" estimates, as described hi Volume HI. They are used in the
analysis of exposures for stack organic constituents.
• Fugitive Inorganic Emission Rates - these emission rates are "high-
end" estimates from the ash handling facility for inorganic chemical
constituents, as described hi Chapter IV of the SERA.
• Fugitive Organic Emission Rates - these emission rates are "best
estimates" based on available data, as described in Volume V. They
are used in the analysis of exposures to volatile organic constituents
from each of the four identified fugitive organic vapor sources.
The emission rate estimates outlined above are described more fully in Chapter
IV. These emission rate estimates are included, along with estimated deposition rates,
contact rates, and/or uptake rates, in the development of exposure scenarios used to
predict exposures for selected ecological receptors. These exposure scenarios are
outlined in the conceptual site model (Chapter n) and are described hi detail hi
Chapter V. Each set of emission rate estimates has a corresponding exposure
scenario. The same methodologies and models for establishing stack and fugitive
emission rates, chemical dispersion, deposition and fate, and calculated media
concentrations are generally used in both the SERA and the HHRA (exceptions are
noted). For conservatism, maximum predicted concentrations of the ECOCs in air,
surface soil, surface water, sediment, and/or biota (for food chain transfer) are used
for each of the exposure scenarios. Maximum concentrations are determined by
modeling chemical concentrations in media at the projected points of maximum air
External Review Draft
Volume VI 1-5 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
concentrations and maximum deposition in the assessment area. Chemical
concentrations in media are also estimated at other selected locations within the
assessment area, as described in Chapter V, to more fully characterize potential
exposures. In addition, all exposure scenarios that consider persistent chemicals
assume a 30-year accumulation of these chemicals in soils and sediments (adjusted, as
appropriate, using chemical-specific loss functions such as degradation) in deriving
the maximum media concentrations.
3. Risk Analysis
For each identified exposure pathway and ecological receptor, the potential
risks for each exposure scenario are evaluated using the hazard quotient method, an
accepted screening-level technique (Suter 1993). The maximum predicted media-
specific concentrations (or doses) for each ECOC are compared to published
criteria/guideline values or to derived toxicological benchmark values based on No
Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs) for ecologically important endpoints.
Each ECOC-pathway-receptor combination is evaluated using the hazard quotient
method. If predicted exposures exceed toxicological criteria or benchmarks, that is
the hazard quotient exceeds one, then potential risk is indicated. Because of the
conservative assumptions that are used in the derivation of both the exposure
estimates and the toxicological criteria or benchmark values, a hazard quotient
exceeding one is not confirmation that adverse effects would occur to ecological
receptors, but it does indicate where further evaluation is warranted, for example
through a PERA or DERA. Those ECOCs, pathways, and receptors that do not
exceed a hazard quotient of one are screened from further assessment.
D. Report Organization
The SERA is divided into nine chapters and follows the structure recommended in
U.S EPA's Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA 1992b). Chapters I
through IV comprise the Problem Formulation component of the ecological risk assessment,
as follows:
Chapter I. Introduction - which describes the purpose and scope, introduces the
approach and methodologies, and outlines the report organization.
Chapter EL Process Overview and Conceptual Site Model Development - which
describes the overall approach of the assessment, including the conceptual site model.
External Review Draft
Volume VI 1-6 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Chapter EQ. Site Characterization - which qualitatively describes the ecological
resources present in the assessment area based on the results of a literature search,
consultation with local environmental agencies, and a field visit.
Chapter IV. Identification of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern - which
identifies the chemical constituents with the highest potential for contributing to
ecological risk from among the chemical constituents anticipated to be present in stack
and fugitive emissions.
Chapters V and VI comprise the Analysis component of the assessment, as follows:
Chapter V. Characterization of Exposure - in which exposure pathways are
described, indicator species are selected, and the concentrations of stack and fugitive
constituents in air, soil, water, sediment, and biota are estimated based on predicted
emission rates, air dispersion and deposition modeling, and fate and transport
considerations.
Chapter VI. Characterization of Ecological Effects - in which published
ecotoxicological criteria or guidance values, or derived chronic toxicological
benchmarks, are established for all relevant ECOC-pathway-receptor combinations for
each exposure scenario.
Chapters VII, VIII and IX comprise the Risk Characterization component of the assessment,
as follows:
Chapter VII. Risk Characterization - in which media-specific exposure estimates
for each indicator species are compared to the appropriate criteria value or
toxicological benchmark to determine the potential for adverse impacts and the
magnitude of potential risks.
Chapter VDI. Uncertainty Analysis - in which the uncertainties associated with the
exposure and toxicological parameter values, the models, and the other assumptions
used hi the SERA are summarized and the potential effects on the analysis described.
Chapter IX. Summary and Conclusions - hi which the major findings of the risk
characterization are briefly summarized and conclusions are drawn.
External Review Draft
Volume VI 1-7 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Details regarding the methodologies and data used in the assessment are provided in
technical appendices. Highlighted values in these appendices represent data values (e.g.,
toxicity values) selected for use hi the SERA.
External Review Draft
Volume VI 1-8 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
.\ocad\0140UUA 14000ABii
ASSESSMENT
AREA BOUNDARY
-Jf-
0 20 40 0
Scale in Kilometers
12 4 24,8
Scale in Miles
Volume VI
LOCATION OF THE WTI FACILITY
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite or Quote
i g u r
1-1
-------
-------
H. PROCESS OVERVIEW AND
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The U.S. EPA document entitled Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S.
EPA 1992b) describes a process for evaluating potential risks to ecological resources. This
framework document, which is consistent with draft U.S. EPA Region 5 ecological risk
assessment guidance (U.S. EPA 1994f), outlines a process that includes three distinct
components: (1) problem formulation, (2) analysis, and (3) risk characterization. As part of
the first component, problem formulation, a conceptual site model is constructed that
describes the stressors associated with a site and the ecological receptors potentially affected
by these stressors. The conceptual site model also includes the selection of ecological
endpoints that are used to evaluate the possible effects of the stressors on the ecological
receptors. The framework document also outlines the approach and methodology used to
analyze exposure and effects (second component) and to characterize potential risks to the
identified ecological receptors for specific exposure scenarios (third component).
This section describes the framework-based process as it applies to the WTI
hazardous waste incinerator SERA. The structure of the analysis for the WTI SERA is
described below and is depicted in Figure II-1. This structure follows the format used in the
ecological risk assessment case studies published by U.S. EPA (1993c, 1994g). These case
studies provide a general cross-section of previously-conducted ecological risk assessments
which represent the "state-of-the-practice". The structure of these case studies, which is
consistent with U.S. EPA's Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, is considered a
suitable model for use in the WTI SERA.
A. Problem Formulation
As indicated above, the first component of the SERA process, problem formulation,
involves the development of a conceptual site model. Figures II-2 and II-3 depict the
conceptual site model for the WTI SERA. The development of this model follows the
general procedures outlined in U.S. EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment Issue Papers (U.S.
EPA 1994e). It depicts how the stressors, which hi the SERA are the ecological chemicals
of concern (ECOCs), would reach the receptors, and is presented at a level of detail
consistent with a screening-level assessment. The conceptual site model identifies: (1) the
External Review Draft
Volume VI E-l Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
principal sources of stressors emitted from the WTI facility into the environment1, (2) the
principal pathways (dispersion and deposition) by which the ECOCs are transported to
environmental media, (3) the principal routes of exposure for receptors, and (4) the receptors
that are considered to have complete exposure pathways and for which potential risks can be
evaluated given the general availability of ecotoxicological data.
The fate and transport models used to predict concentrations of the ECOCs in the
environmental media account for the behavior of individual chemicals (e.g., volatility,
solubility, partitioning, degradability) as they move, for example, from air to surface water
(via deposition), from surface water to sediment (via partitioning), from surface water and/or
sediment to fish tissue (via bioaccumulation), and finally from fish tissue to a piscivorous
bird (via dietary ingestion). Indicator species or species groups are chosen to represent biota
that inhabit the assessment area. Each of the receptors shown hi the conceptual site model
diagram (Figures H-2 and II-3) has a corresponding indicator species or species group. For
example, aquatic biota are selected as the indicator species group potentially exposed to
ECOCs hi surface water and sediments, and the short-tailed shrew is selected as an indicator
species to represent an insectivore that would ingest earthworms that had bioaccumulated
ECOCs deposited onto soils. More detail is provided below for key components of the
conceptual site model.
1. Stressors
A stressor is defined as any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can
induce an adverse response (U.S. EPA 1992b). The stressors associated with the
stack and fugitive emissions from the WTI facility that are evaluated in the SERA are
organic and inorganic chemicals which are released to the air, dispersed from their
sources, and remain in the air and/or are deposited onto surrounding terrestrial,
wetland, and aquatic habitats through wet and dry deposition processes. Chemicals
likely to be released from the WTI stack, or released as fugitive emissions, and their
emission rates, are described in more detail in Chapter IV of the SERA as well as in
Volume IE of the Risk Assessment. Chapter IV also describes the screening process
used to select the ECOCs from the chemicals expected to be present hi the stack and
fugitive emissions.
1 Direct emissions to air, from both stack and fugitive releases, are considered the
principal sources of emissions from the WTI facility. Waste water discharges and
emissions from spills (e.g., to the Ohio River) are outside the scope of the SERA.
External Review Draft
Volume VI II-2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2. Ecological Components
U.S. EPA (1992b) defines an ecological component as any part of an
ecological system, including individuals, populations, and communities. Chapter IE
describes the major ecological components present within the WTI assessment area,
the 1,260 km2 (450 mi2) area within a 20-km radial distance of the WTI facility. The
boundary of the assessment area is defined based on U.S. EPA combustion source
guidance (U.S. EPA 1990b, 1993f) and on site-specific dispersion modeling data
(summarized in Volume IV). U.S. EPA's combustion source guidance recommends
that an area within a 20 to 50-km radial distance of a combustion source be
considered as the first step in defining an assessment area for risk assessment
purposes. Since dispersion modeling (Volume IV) indicates that the projected
locations of maximum air concentrations and deposition from both stack and fugitive
sources are within a few kilometers of the WTI facility (see Chapter V), the smaller
(20-km) radius recommended hi U.S. EPA's combustion source guidance is selected
to define the assessment area for the SERA. The assessment area includes parts of
five counties in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia.
The area delineated by this procedure, referred to as the "assessment area"
throughout the SERA, is not the same as the study area used hi the HHRA. The size
and shape of the HHRA study area are based on the goal of that assessment (the
evaluation of risks to human receptors) and its focus on central tendency exposure and
quantitative risk analysis. The assessment area selected for use hi the SERA is
considered of appropriate size to identify representative species and habitats that might
be exposed to emissions from the WTI facility. Further details on the rationale for
delineating the SERA assessment area are provided hi Chapter IE.
The assessment area is composed of a mixture of terrestrial, wetland, and
aquatic communities. The terrestrial component consists of (mostly deciduous) forests
and woodlots, woody scrub, agricultural areas, and rural residential or urban areas.
Due to its size and the diversity of habitat types present, the assessment area supports
large and diverse plant and animal communities, as well as some rare, threatened, and
endangered species (see Chapter III). Potential ecological receptor populations within
the assessment area include aquatic (fish and invertebrates) and semi-aquatic
(amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) fauna found hi rivers, streams, ponds,
reservoirs, and wetlands; terrestrial fauna (mammals, birds, and reptiles) present
within forested and non-forested upland habitats; and aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial
plant species.
External Review Draft
Volume VI H-3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
3. Endpoint Selection
Two types of ecological endpoints, assessment endpoints and measurement
endpoints, are defined as part of the ecological risk assessment process (U.S. EPA
1992b), although they have not been specifically characterized for screening-level
assessments. An assessment endpoint is an explicit expression of the environmental
component or value that is to be protected. An example of an assessment endpoint is
"intact and productive aquatic communities", which although fairly generic in nature,
is consistent with the overall scope and type of data applicable to a screening-level
assessment. A measurement endpoint is a measurable ecological characteristic that is
related to the component or value chosen as the assessment endpoint. An example of
a corollary measurement endpoint is an evaluation of chronic aquatic toxicity using
chronic criteria/guideline values or derived lexicological benchmarks for sensitive
aquatic species, both of which are intended to protect the health of aquatic
communities. The considerations for selecting assessment and measurement endpoints
are summarized in U.S. EPA (1992b) and discussed in detail hi Suter (1989, 1993).
Assessment and measurement endpoints may involve ecological components
from any level of biological organization, from individual organisms to the ecosystem
itself (U.S. EPA 1992b). Effects on individuals are important for some receptors,
such as rare and endangered species; population- and community-level effects are
typically more relevant to ecosystems. Population- and community-level effects are
usually difficult to evaluate directly without long-term and extensive study, and are
therefore generally beyond the scope of a screening-level assessment. However,
measurement endpoint evaluations at the individual level (e.g., chronic toxicity
benchmarks for fish) can be used to predict effects on an assessment endpoint at the
population or community level (e.g., healthy aquatic communities). In addition,
criteria or benchmark values designed to protect the vast majority (i.e., 95 percent) of
the components of a community (e.g., Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Life) are applicable to the evaluation of potential effects to
aquatic communities.
The selection of particular endpoints for the SERA considers the qualitative
nature of a screening-level assessment and the fact that only modeled (not measured)
exposure concentrations are available. The assessment and measurement endpoints
selected for the SERA are listed in Table II-l.
External Review Draft
Volume VI H-4 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
B. Analysis
The analysis, or second, component of the SERA consists of two parts,
characterization of exposure and characterization of ecological effects. These are described
below.
1. Characterization of Exposure
U.S. EPA (1992b) defines characterization of exposure as an evaluation of the
interaction of the stressors with one or more ecological components. This is
accomplished in the SERA through an evaluation of potential exposure pathways and
exposure routes for selected indicator species or species groups for defined exposure
scenarios relevant to WTI incinerator stack and fugitive emissions. Five separate
exposure scenarios are developed and include, respectively, the three sets of stack
emission rate estimates and the two sets of fugitive emission rate estimates
summarized below.
a. Emission Rate Estimates and Exposure Scenarios
The following five sets of emission rate estimates are used in the SERA
as components of the exposure scenarios to calculate potential exposures for
the stack and fugitive ECOCs:
• Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Emission Rates - the first
of two stack metal emission rate estimates used in the SERA.
These emission rates are derived from the maximum hourly
limits on stack metal emissions, defined in the facility's existing
RCRA permit, and extrapolated to annual average emission rate
estimates. While it is not anticipated that long-term operations
would approach these limits, these emission rates are used hi the
analysis of conservative (upper-bound) exposures to stack metals
from the (continuous) operation of the incinerator.
• Stack Expected Metal Emission Rates - the second of two
stack metal emission rate estimates used in the SERA. These
emission rates are annual average estimates at full facility
capacity derived from trial burn efficiency results, waste feed
data from the initial nine months of operation (prorated to
account for the maximum heat input of the incinerator), and
thermodynamic modeling, as described hi Volume III. These
External Review Draft
Volume VI H-5 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
emission rates are used in the analysis of "expected" exposures
to stack metals under current operating conditions and assume
continuous operation of the facility.
• Stack High-End Organic Emission Rates - these emission rates
are "high-end" estimates calculated using the 95 percent upper
confidence limit (UCL) on the arithmetic mean of measured or
predicted emission rates for organic stack constituents from
facility tests (or on the maximum detected concentrations, if
lower), as described hi Volume HI2. For the SERA, these
emission rate estimates are used as annual average emission
rates and assume continuous operation of the facility. They are
used hi the analysis of conservative (upper-bound) exposures to
stack organic ECOCs.
• Fugitive Inorganic Emission Rates - these emission rates are
"high-end" estimates for fugitive emissions of inorganic
chemical constituents from the ash handling facility. These
emission rate estimates, described in Volume V, are developed
using an empirically determined ash emissions factor from field
tests at a coal-fired power plant. It is assumed that the fly ash
from coal burning and hazardous waste incineration are similar.
Chemical-specific emission rate estimates are based on the 95
percent UCL on the arithmetic mean (or on the maximum
detected concentration, if lower) of measured chemical
concentrations in 12 site-specific fly ash samples collected
monthly over a one-year period. For the SERA, these emission
rate estimates are used as annual average emission rates and
assume continuous operation of the facility. They are used in
the analysis of conservative (upper-bound) exposures to fugitive
inorganic ECOCs.
2 The HHRA primarily uses arithmetic mean emission rate estimates for organics. The
high-end rates are applied hi the HHRA sensitivity analysis for those chemicals for which
risks are predicted. The added conservatism of the SERA (use of only the high-end
rates) is consistent with a screening-level assessment.
External Review Draft
Volume VI H-6 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
• Fugitive Organic Emission Rates - these emission rates are
"best estimates" developed using models, data on chemical
properties, and site-specific data on, or estimates of, such
factors as waste stream quantity and composition, as described
in Volume V. For the SERA, these emission rate estimates are
used as annual average emission rates and assume continuous
operation of the facility. They are used hi the analysis of
"expected" exposures to volatile organic chemicals from the four
fugitive organic vapor sources, considered both singly and as a
group (total exposure to all four sources).
The emission rate estimates outlined above are described more fully
(e.g., the tune frames of emission measurements, sample sizes, etc.) in
Chapter IV. These emission rate estimates are included, along with estimated
deposition rates, contact rates (which incorporate the fate and transport
properties of the ECOCs), and/or uptake rates, in the development of exposure
scenarios used to predict exposures for selected ecological receptors (indicator
species). These exposure scenarios are outlined in the conceptual site model
(Figures II-2 and II-3) and are described in detail in Chapter V. Each set of
emission rate estimates has a corresponding exposure scenario. The same
methodologies and models for establishing stack and fugitive emission rates,
chemical dispersion, deposition and fate, and calculated media concentrations
are generally used hi both the SERA and the HHRA (exceptions are noted in
Chapter V).
b. Potential Exposure Pathways
As depicted in Figures II-2 and II-3, a number of complete exposure
pathways exist which link stack and fugitive emissions from the WTI facility
to ecological receptors. Inorganic and organic chemicals released directly into
the air from the stack, or from fugitive sources, may be dispersed from their
source(s) and transported to surrounding areas. They may ultimately end up in
ground-level air or be deposited onto surrounding aquatic, wetland, and
terrestrial habitats via wet and dry deposition processes. They can in turn
become incorporated directly into surface water and surface soil, indirectly
into sediments via partitioning from the water column, and indirectly into the
tissues of plants and animals via uptake and bioaccumulation.
External Review Draft
Volume VI II-7 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
c. Potential Exposure Routes
Terrestrial and emergent wetland plants may be exposed to airborne
chemicals via absorption of gaseous chemicals through leaf surfaces or
absorption of chemicals deposited by air or water on leaf surfaces. In
addition, plants may be exposed through their root surfaces during water and
nutrient uptake to chemicals deposited onto soil or sediment. Unrooted,
floating aquatic plants, and submerged vascular aquatic plants and algae, may
be exposed to chemicals directly from the water.
Animals may be exposed to chemicals through any of four major
routes: (1) direct inhalation of gaseous chemicals or of chemicals adhered to
paniculate matter, (2) direct ingestion of contaminated abiotic media (e.g., soil
and sediment), (3) consumption of contaminated plant and/or animal tissues for
chemicals which have entered the food chain, and (4) dermal contact with
contaminated abiotic media. These routes are depicted hi the conceptual site
model diagrams (Figures n-2 and n-3).
d. Exposure Point Concentrations
Maximum predicted concentrations of the ECOCs hi air, surface soil,
surface water, sediment, and/or plant and animal tissues are used as exposure
point concentrations for each of the stack and fugitive exposure scenarios.
Exposure point concentrations are estimated by modeling chemical
concentrations hi these media at the projected points of maximum air
concentrations (one point for each stack and fugitive source) and at the
projected points of maximum deposition (one point for the stack and a separate
point for each of the five fugitive sources). Cumulative exposure point
concentrations, obtained by summing the contributions from the stack and all
applicable fugitive sources, are also evaluated. In addition, media
concentrations (including soils within the watershed) are estimated at two
representative water bodies located beyond the maximum deposition points, but
within 10-km of the facility, to more fully characterize potential exposures.
The selection of these two water bodies is discussed hi Chapter V. All
exposure scenarios assume a 30-year accumulation of persistent chemicals hi
soils and sediments (adjusted, as appropriate, using chemical-specific loss
functions, such as degradation) in deriving the maximum media concentrations.
The use of maximum predicted media concentrations to estimate direct
exposures and to model exposures via the food chain contributes to a
conservative (protective) screening-level assessment. Also for conservatism,
External Review Draft
Volume VI E-8 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
the emissions for a particular chemical constituent are summed for all fugitive
sources and the stack source for ECOCs common to two or more sources.
This provides a conservative estimate of potential exposure because the
modeled points of maximum air concentrations or deposition are not colocated
for any of the sources (see Figure V-l).
e. Indicator Species
The habitats present within the assessment area, especially at the
locations of maximum air concentrations and maximum deposition, are
important considerations when selecting representative ecological receptors for
risk analysis. Because of the complexity of ecosystems, it is rarely, if ever,
possible to assess potential impacts to all ecological receptors present within an
area. Therefore, particularly in screening-level assessments, "indicator"
species .are used to evaluate potential risks to the broader ecological
community (U.S. EPA 1988a). The goal of indicator species selection is to
choose species which: (1) are known to occur, or are likely to occur, within
the assessment area, (2) represent a reasonable range of taxonomic groups or
life history traits in the habitats present, and (3) have sufficient lexicological
information available on which to base an evaluation.
Based on the potential exposure routes discussed in subsection II.B.l.c
and the habitats present within the assessment area in general (and at the
locations of highest potential impact hi particular), the following indicator
species or species groups are chosen for the SERA (see Chapter V):
• Terrestrial plants
• Terrestrial soil fauna (primarily earthworms)
• Meadow vole (a terrestrial herbivore)
• Northern short-tailed shrew (a terrestrial mammalian insectivore)
• American robin (a terrestrial avian insectivore)
• Red fox (a terrestrial mammalian carnivore)
• Red-tailed hawk (a terrestrial avian carnivore)
• Mink (a semi-aquatic mammalian carnivore/piscivore)
• Belted kingfisher (an aquatic avian piscivore)
• Aquatic biota (see below)
These species or species groups represent the range of taxonomic
groups, life history traits, and trophic levels of the species most likely to
External Review Draft
Volume VI H-9 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
inhabit the assessment area, particularly the areas of maximum estimated
ECOC concentrations. They also represent taxonomic groups for which
sufficient ecotoxicological data exist for most of the ECOCs. While other
taxonomic groups, such as amphibians, are present in the assessment area, and
are therefore potential receptors, there are insufficient lexicological data
available to directly evaluate potential risks to these groups.
Rare, threatened, and endangered species are special receptors that need
to be evaluated both on an individual and on a population level. Many of
these species possess specialized life history traits or requirements which may
not be adequately addressed in an indicator species type of approach.
Therefore, if a federally-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species is
known to be present in the vicinity of the projected areas of maximum impact,
then a separate, species-specific "biological assessment" (as referred to in the
Endangered Species Act) may be warranted to determine whether or not the
species in question is in jeopardy from site-related exposures. If a state-listed
rare, threatened, or endangered species is known to be present, then the
species-specific "biological assessment" would also need to address the specific
requirements of the applicable state's endangered species laws and regulations.
The potential presence of rare, threatened, and endangered species in the WTI
assessment area, and their proximity to areas of maximum chemical
concentrations, is determined (Chapter HI) and evaluated (Chapter VII) in the
SERA. Species-specific biological assessments are beyond the scope of the
SERA.
2. Characterization of Ecological Effects
Ecological effects are characterized in both the Problem Formulation
, (as part of ECOC selection) and Analysis components of the SERA. Each of
the approaches used is described below; a discussion of how the two
approaches differ is also included.
a. Analysis Component
U.S. EPA (1992b) defines characterization of ecological effects as the
portion of the analysis component of the ecological risk assessment that
evaluates the ability of a stressor to cause adverse effects under a particular set
of circumstances. U.S. EPA (1992b) distinguishes between direct effects and
External Review Draft
Volume VI H-10 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
indirect effects3. A direct effect occurs when a stressor acts on an ecological
component itself, and not through effects on other components of the system.
Indirect effects occur when a stressor acts on supporting components of the
ecosystem, which in turn have an effect on the ecological component of
interest. Examples of indirect effects are where a phytotoxic effect on
sensitive plants results in the loss of habitat for animals, or where toxicity to a
food resource (prey species) results in adverse effects to a predator species that
can no longer obtain sufficient food. The SERA focuses on direct effects;
indirect effects are only discussed qualitatively (as part of the evaluation of
assessment endpoints) since they are very difficult to quantify due to the
complexity of ecosystems (see Chapter VII).
Measurement endpoints (as described above) provide the means to
assess the potential effects of the ECQCs on ecological receptors. At the
screening level, the measurement endpoint evaluations are based on published
criteria/guideline values or on toxicological benchmark values derived from the
literature.
Chronic toxicological benchmark values are obtained from the literature
for each terrestrial and semi-aquatic indicator species and applicable exposure
pathway. No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs) based on growth
and reproduction endpoints are utilized, where available. Growth and
reproduction are emphasized as toxicological endpoints since they are the most
relevant, ecologically, to maintaining viable populations and because they are
generally the best studied chronic exposure endpoints for ecological receptors.
When chronic NOAEL values are unavailable, estimates are derived from
chronic Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAELs) or acute
toxicological data using appropriate uncertainty factors (see Chapter VI).
For aquatic biota in surface water, U.S. EPA Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC) for the Protection of Aquatic Life (or
comparable Ohio, West Virginia, or Pennsylvania water quality criteria
for the protection of aquatic life) are used to evaluate the potential for
3 Human health risk assessments also distinguish between direct and indirect exposures.
Direct exposures in a human health risk assessment would result from direct contact with
contaminated media (e.g., groundwater) while indirect exposures would result from, for
example, exposure via consumption of contaminated food items. Since ecological risk
assessments normally consider food chain exposures as direct exposures, this distinction
between direct and indirect exposures is irrelevant for the SERA.
External Review Draft
Volume VI H-ll Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
adverse effects. AWQC values are commonly used hi screening-level
assessments (U.S. EPA 1993c). Similarly, ecologically-based sediment
criteria, guideline, or benchmark values are used to evaluate the
potential adverse effects of sediment exposures for aquatic biota.
b. ECOC Selection
Consistent with a screening-level assessment, the toxicological
benchmarks used to select the stack and fugitive ECOCs differ somewhat from
those used in the characterization of ecological effects (Table II-2). This
difference is a function of the different objectives of these two analyses. The
purpose of the ECOC selection process is to choose the most appropriate
chemicals for risk characterization from among the hundreds of chemical
constituents potentially present hi stack and fugitive emissions. As such, the
relative toxicity of chemicals is more important for ECOC selection than is
their inherent toxicity. The availability of toxicological data for hundreds of
chemicals across many chemical classes is an important consideration as is the
uniformity of study endpoints. This limits the number and type of receptors,
and the exposure routes and media, that can be practically evaluated.
ECOC selection focuses on inhalation and ingestion exposures for
terrestrial receptors and surface water exposures for aquatic receptors (Table
II-2). Chronic effects data for reproduction or growth (NOAELs, where
available) from inhalation or ingestion exposures of laboratory animals
(generally rats and mice) are used to express the relative toxicity of chemicals
(to one another) based on exposures to terrestrial animals. These data provide
the most extensive and readily available data set for the relatively large
number of organic chemicals that are evaluated. Acute effects data are used to
express the relative toxicity of chemicals (to one another) based on exposures
to aquatic organisms. Acute data are available for the majority of chemicals,
and the endpoints (e.g., mortality) and study durations evaluated in acute
studies are more uniform among chemicals and therefore introduce less
subjectivity to the ECOC selection process. Professional judgement (the
qualitative consideration of data, such as persistence data, not included in the
formal selection algorithms; see Chapter IV) is also used to add (not to screen
out) chemicals to the list of ECOCs. Professional judgement is used to ensure
that a potentially important chemical is not overlooked using the screening
algorithms.
External Review Draft
Volume VI 11-12 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Once the ECOCs are selected, it is practical to conduct a more
extensive literature review on this smaller number of chemicals. This allows
lexicological benchmarks to be refined, additional taxonomic groups to be
considered, and additional exposure routes and media to be evaluated for the
characterization of effects and risk characterization. Wildlife (birds and
mammals) data are available for a much greater percentage of the ECOCs
relative to the initial list of chemicals, since there are generally more available
data for the more hazardous chemicals.
Although acute aquatic toxicity data are used as a practical
consideration in ECOC selection, chronic aquatic toxicity data (or estimates of
chronic toxicity if data are unavailable) are used in the characterization of
ecological effects. The inherent chronic toxicity for ecologically relevant
endpoints is more important at this stage of the assessment than during ECOC
selection.
Toxicity to plants is not formally used in the ECOC selection process
since data on toxic effects to terrestrial plants, from both soil and air
exposures, are available for less than half of the chemicals evaluated.
However, chemicals known to be particularly phytotoxic (e.g., herbicides) are
considered for inclusion as ECOCs on a professional judgement basis (see
Chapter IV). A similar approach is used for terrestrial soil fauna. During the
characterization of ecological effects, a much higher percentage of chemicals
have available data for terrestrial plants and soil fauna, which makes their
inclusion in the evaluation feasible at this stage of the assessment.
C. Risk Characterization
Risk characterization is the third and final component of an ecological risk
assessment. It integrates the results of the exposure and ecological effects analyses to
evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects associated with exposure to a stressor
(U.S. EPA 1992b). As part of this component, the uncertainties in the ecological risk
assessment are also identified and discussed.
In the SERA, risk is characterized using the quotient method (Suter 1993) in which a
hazard quotient is calculated by dividing an exposure concentration or dose by an appropriate
toxicological benchmark value. In the SERA, hazard quotients which exceed one are
considered indicative of the potential for risk, and hazard quotients of one or less are
considered indicative of low to negligible risks. For the SERA, the lowest available criteria/
guideline value or toxicological benchmark value (based on no-effect levels) is selected along
with a generally conservative exposure estimate. This approach is intended to provide a
External Review Draft
Volume VI 11-13 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
conservative, screening-level assessment of risk to ensure that risks are not likely to be
underestimated. It should be noted, however, that the degree of conservatism of the selected
toxicological benchmark values is difficult to evaluate for chemicals with limited data (i.e.,
only a few species have been tested and/or the most sensitive or relevant endpoints have not
been evaluated) and is considered an uncertainty of the SERA. Uncertainty factors are used
to compensate for these uncertainties (see Chapter VI).
External Review Draft
Volume VI 11-14 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE II-l
Assessment and Measurement Endpoints Selected for the VVT1 SERA
Assessment Endpoint
Reproduction, growth, and survival of birds and
mammals within the WTI assessment area
Reproduction, growth, and survival of terrestrial plant
species and communities within the WTI assessment area
Intact and productive aquatic and terrestrial
food chains within the WTI assessment area
Reproduction, growth, and survival of aquatic plant,
invertebrate, and fish species (i.e., maintaining a healthy
aquatic community) in representative water bodies within
the WTT assessment area
Presence of, and potential for exposure to, threatened
and endangered species within the WTI assessment area
Corresponding Measurement Endpoint
Evaluation of chronic dietary toxicity (affecting reproduction, growth, and survival) for
selected avian and mammalian indicator species
Evaluation of chronic toxicity (affecting reproduction, growth, and survival) for terrestrial
plant species via foliar (air) and root (soil) exposures
Evaluation of chronic toxicity (affecting reproduction, growth, and survival) for selected
lower and mid-trophic level plant and animal indicator species (terrestrial plants, soil
invertebrates, aquatic invertebrates, fish, and small mammals) important in maintaining
functional and productive aquatic and terrestrial food chains
Evaluation of chronic toxicity (affecting reproduction, growth, and survival) for the
majority (i.e., 95 percent) of species (including aquatic plants, aquatic invertebrates, and
fish) in representative aquatic ecosystems within the assessment area
Evaluation of the potential presence of threatened and endangered species in the WTI
assessment area based on published records
Evaluation of their potential for significant exposure to WTI emissions based on a
correlation of sightings with proximity to areas of estimated maximum ECOC deposition
nliinui VI
External Review Draft
-------
TABLE II-2
Comparison of lexicological Data Used in ECOC Selection and Characterization of Effects
Type of Exposure
Inhalation
Ingestion
Aquatic - Surface Water
Aquatic - Sediment
Foliar - Air
Direct Contact • Soil
Direct Contact/Ingestion - Soil
ECOC Selection
Chronic data from studies of laboratory mammals using
growth and reproductive endpoints
Chronic data from studies of laboratory mammals using
growth and reproductive endpoints
Acute ambient water quality criteria or acute toxicity data
for fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants
Not used in screening
Not used in screening
Not used in screening
Not used in screening
Characterization of Effects
Chronic data from wildlife studies of birds and
mammals, and studies of laboratory mammals, using
growth and reproductive endpoints
Chronic data from wildlife studies of birds and
mammals, and studies of laboratory mammals, using
growth and reproductive endpoints
Chronic ambient water quality criteria or chronic
toxicity data for fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants
Chronic benchmarks or chronic effect data for fish and
invertebrates
Chronic effect data for terrestrial plants
Chronic effect data for terrestrial plants
Chronic effect data, primarily for earthworms
Vr'
VI
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or ite
-------
•SP^flK,
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Stressors: Inorganic and organic chemicals emitted from the WTI incinerator stack (or emitted to
the air as fugitive emissions) and which: (1) are present in ground-level ambient air; (2) are
deposited to surface water, sediment, and/or soil in terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats; and/or
(3) are incorporated into aquatic and/or terrestrial food chains.
Ecological Receptors: In general, aquatic (fish and invertebrates) and semi-aquatic (amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals) fauna found in rivers, streams, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands within
the assessment area; terrestrial (birds, mammals, and reptiles) fauna present within forested and
non-forested upland habitats; aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial plant species; rare, threatened, and
endangered plant and animal species; and plant and animal communities. Specifically, aquatic and
semi-aquatic biota present in the Ohio River and terrestrial biota present in developed and forested
habitat along the banks of the Ohio River (the point of maximum deposition and air concentrations).
Assessment Endpoints : The protection of: (1) reproducing populations of birds and mammals,
(2) healthy vegetative habitat, (3) intact and productive aquatic and terrestrial food chains,
(4) healthy aquatic communities, (5) threatened and endangered species and their habitats.
ANALYSIS
Characterization of Exposure
Three sets of stack and two sets of fugitive
emission rate estimates are developed and
included, along with estimated deposition rates,
contact rates, and/or uptake rates, in the
development of exposure scenarios. Each
stack and fugitive exposure scenario uses
maximum predicted concentrations of the
ecological chemicals of concern (ECOCs) in
air, surface soil, surface water, sediment, or
tissues as exposure point concentrations
(EPCs) for selected indicator species or
species groups.
Characterization of Ecological Effects
Chronic toxicologies! benchmarks are
obtained from the literature for each
selected indicator species and applicable
exposure pathway. When .chronic
toxicological benchmarks are unavailable,
estimates are derived from acute data using
uncertainty factors. Ecologically-based
surface water and sediment criteria or
guideline values are identified for the
ECOCs. Collectively, these benchmarks
result from the evaluation of the selected
measurement endpoints for the SERA.
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Risk is characterized using the quotient method. Toxicological benchmarks from the literature
and/or available criteria or guideline values are compared to calculated EPCs for each selected
indicator species and applicable exposure pathway.
STRUCTURE OF ANALYSIS FOR THE WTI SERA
Figure
11-1
Volume VI
E-17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite or Quote
-------
QUANTUM105MB PROJECTS.OMOOOA:CONCEPTUAL MODEL STACK EMISSION
SOURCES
Stack ECOCs
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Air
Dispersion
Deposition
Ground-
*. level
air
Sediment
^ROUTES*
^ Inhalation
Foliar uptake
RECEPTORS
Birds
Mammals
-^> Plants
Plants •
-^•Herbivores
Earthworms
Birds
Mammals
Aquatic
Plants
Aquatic
invertebratess>>v^
Zooplankton "~
Fish
->>Fish
Fish
Aquatic
Plants
Fish
Carnivores
Piscivores
Piscivores
DIAGRAMMATIC CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR THE WTI SERA - STACK EMISSIONS
Figure
l,_2
Arr.1i,,
i/T
FvtPrn oi/iotir Hroft
-------
QUANTUM 1
'ROJECTS:014000A:CONCEPTUAL MODEL FUGITIVE EMISS
SOURCES
Organic fugitive ECOCs
summed across
four sources
Fugitive ash ECOCs
Air
Air
EXPOSURE PA THWA YS
r:..,
•^ Dispersion
i
T
Deposition
r Dispersion
Deposition
N
EXPOSURE .
ROUTES I
I
Birds
Mammals
Plants
Aquatic biota
^ Surface
water
Sediment
RECEPTORS
ic biota
-^•Herbivores
Earthworms — Mnsectivores
Birds
Mammals
Aquatic
Carnivores
Piscivores
Piscivores
DIAGRAMMATIC CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR THE WTI SERA - FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Figure
11-3
-------
-------
ffl. SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The purpose of the site characterization is to identify sensitive ecological habitats and
receptors that may be impacted as a result of exposure to stack and/or fugitive emissions
from the WTI facility. The identification of receptors in the assessment area provides the
basis for selecting appropriate indicator species and water bodies for risk characterization. In
addition, the site characterization establishes the presence of special concern species and
habitats. Potential ecological receptors and ecologically important habitats in the vicinity of
the WTI facility are characterized through environmental resource trustee consultation,
literature review, and a site visit. A detailed characterization of the assessment area is
provided below; an overview, summary, and analysis is presented in Section III.E.
General site features, ecological receptors, and habitats are characterized within an
assessment area that consists of all lands located within a 20-km (12-mile) radial distance of
the WTI facility (Figure III-l). The boundary of the assessment area is defined based on
U.S. EPA combustion source guidance (U.S. EPA 1990b, 1993f) and dispersion modeling
data, as summarized hi Volume IV. U.S. EPA's combustion source guidance recommends
that an area within a 20 to 50-km radial distance of a combustion source be considered as the
first step in defining a study area for risk assessment purposes. Since a 50-km radial
distance encompasses a very large (7,850 km2) area for which to characterize ecological
habitats and potential receptors, site-specific dispersion modeling is used to refine the size of
the assessment area. Since dispersion modeling (Volume IV) indicates that the projected
locations of maximum air concentrations and deposition from both stack and fugitive sources
are within a few kilometers of the WTI facility (see Chapter V), the smaller (20-km) radial
distance recommended hi U.S. EPA's combustion source guidance is selected to define the
assessment area. The area defined by a 20-km radial distance (approximately 1,260 km2) is
considered of sufficient size to characterize the range of habitats and receptors present in the
vicinity of the WTI facility.
The area delineated by this procedure, referred to as the "assessment area" throughout
the SERA, encompasses part of two counties hi Pennsylvania (Beaver and Washington), two
counties hi Ohio (Columbiana and Jefferson), and one county hi West Virginia (Hancock).
The assessment area used in the SERA is not the same as the study area used in the
HHRA. The study area used hi the HHRA, which differs hi size from the SERA assessment
area, is delineated using a human health risk-based approach and chemical isopleths from
dispersion modeling. The HHRA study area encompasses the area within a 12-km radial
distance from the WTI facility and is considered sufficient to account for at least 90 percent
External Review Draft
Volume VI HI-1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
of the total health risk (see Volume V, Chapter VH). The assessment area selected for use in
the SERA is considered of sufficient size to identify representative species and habitats that
might be exposed considering the dispersion and deposition of air emissions from the WTI
facility. The larger size of the assessment area used in the SERA, relative to the HHRA
study area, is consistent with the more conservative approach used in a screening-level
assessment.
A. Physiographic Features of the Assessment Area
The assessment area lies within the Appalachian Plateau Province. The glacial
boundary from the last period of glaciation bisects this province as well as the assessment
area (Figure III-l). The Ohio and Pennsylvania portions of the assessment area north of the
glacial boundary fall within the Glaciated Plateau Section. Plateau Sections south of the
glacial boundary include the Pittsburgh Plateau Section (Pennsylvania), the Allegheny Plateau
Section (West Virginia), and the Unglaciated Plateau Section (Ohio), as depicted on Figure
III-l (Green and Pauley 1987; Peterjohn and Rice 1991; Brauning 1992).
The Appalachian Plateau Province, a broad plateau at the headwaters of the Allegheny
and Susquehanna Rivers, is the largest and most physiographically diverse province in
Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Some of the most undisturbed, but also some of the most
anthropogenically impacted, parts of Pennsylvania are found in this province. The Pittsburgh
Plateau Section is relatively low in elevation and contains substantial urban areas. The
Glaciated Plateau Section of Pennsylvania is notable primarily due to the extent of natural
wetlands found hi the depressions left by the glaciers. Although a large portion of the
emergent wetlands has been lost from this area, many small, scattered wetlands still remain
(Brauning 1992). The Allegheny Plateau Section of West Virginia is characterized by rolling
foothills (Green and Pauley 1987).
The Glaciated Plateau Section in Ohio is less hilly and lacks the rugged terrain that
characterizes the Unglaciated Plateau Section of Ohio. Much of this section was originally
covered by forest communities. Data compiled in 1982 indicate that approximately 37
percent of the section's acreage was in cropland (plus an additional 13 percent classified as
pasture land) (Peterjohn and Rice 1991). Almost 30 percent of all the urban acreage found
hi the State of Ohio is located hi this section; urban lands constitute approximately 17 percent
of this section's acreage. Approximately 26 percent of the total acres found hi the Glaciated
Plateau Section of Ohio can be characterized as forest lands (Peterjohn and Rice 1991). The
current forest communities are characterized by numerous isolated woodlands of varying size
rather than by the more extensive forests still characteristic of the Unglaciated Plateau
Section of Ohio. Past advances by the Wisconsin and Illinois glaciers have marked this
External Review Draft
Volume VI III-2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
section with an abundance of kames, terraces, kettle lakes, bogs, and wetlands (Peterjohn and
Rice 1991).
The Unglaciated Plateau Section of Ohio is characterized by rugged hills, narrow
gorges, and numerous high gradient streams. This section has the greatest relief of any hi
Ohio, with many hills reaching elevations of 365 to 430 meters (1,200 to 1,400 feet).
Wetlands in this section are few and widely scattered. In Ohio, this section is the least
affected by agriculture (only 17.5 percent cropland and 19 percent pasture land) and
urbanization (only 2.9 percent urban lands), but surface mining has dramatically altered the
natural habitats found over large areas of this region. In 1982, 52 percent of this section was
classified as forest land (Peterjohn and Rice 1991).
The topography in the immediate vicinity of the WTI facility is gently rolling, except
where the Ohio River, which is orientated hi a east-northeast direction, forms a steep river
valley. Due to the local and regional topographic elevations near the WTI facility, winds are
channelized along the valley, with the predominant wind direction to the east-northeast.
Elevations within the assessment area generally range between 750 feet (230 meters)
and 2,000 feet (600 meters). Mean annual precipitation is between 35 and 43 inches (88 and
108 cm); mean whiter snowfall varies between 30 and 50 inches (75 and 125 cm). The mean
annual average temperature is between 50° and 54°F (10° and 12°C) and the mean
maximum monthly temperature (July) is approximately 86°F (30°C) (Green and Pauley
1987; OHDNR 1991; Peterjohn and Rice 1991; Brauning 1992).
B. Land Use and Habitat Types Within the Assessment Area
General land use and habitat types within the assessment area are depicted on Figure
III-2. Since the data used to construct this figure are approximately 20 years old (from 1972
to 1978), it should be considered as only a rough estimate of existing land use; more recent
habitat mapping is unavailable for the region that includes the assessment area. However,
more recent land use statistics are available for Hancock County, West Virginia, and
Columbiana and Jefferson Counties, Ohio (Table III-l).
This region of Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania is largely rural with scattered
beef, dairy, and agricultural farms. Relatively large tracts of land hi the assessment area
(approximately 10 percent of the total land area, based on the acreage of areas identified
below) are reserved for state parks, forests, game lands, and other protected categories.
Based on a field survey conducted as part of the SERA on 20-23 July 1994, the general
habitat types present within the assessment area consist of a mixture of (mostly deciduous)
forests and woodlots, woody scrub, open grassy areas (including pasture lands), agricultural
areas, rural residential, and small-to-medium sized urban areas. Observed agricultural
activities mostly involve hay harvesting and livestock (cows and horses, a few chicken
External Review Draft
Volume VI IH.-3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
farms); row crops are generally uncommon and only a few tree farms were observed. Major
industrial activities (e.g., steel mills, power plants) are common, especially along the Ohio
River and in the major towns.
Major forest communities in the Pennsylvania portion of the assessment area are
characterized as beech-maple and Appalachian oak forest (Brauning 1992). In Ohio, the
forests were originally characterized by oak-hickory hardwoods. With few exceptions, these
forests were cleared for agriculture and to feed iron and charcoal furnaces in the 19th
century. As many of the original farms were abandoned and furnaces shut down, much of
this land was allowed to revert to forest (Peterjohn and Rice 1991). On the drier ridgetops
and sandstone knobs, the forest communities are currently characterized by chestnut oak
along with black oak, black gum, and sourwood. The more northern and eastern facing
slopes support a mixed mesophytic community characterized by tulip poplar and, in some
case, hemlock. Lowland forest is characterized by sycamore, buckeye, willow, beech, elm,
and, in better drained sites, sugar maple (Peterjohn and Rice 1991).
Data on forested lands within the assessment area are presented in Tables III-2
through III-4. Total forested lands within this area equal approximately 160,000 acres
(55.7% of the total land area; Table III-2) (USDA 1994). The federal government does not
own any of this forested land. State/local government ownership totals approximately 2.4
percent, with the remaining timberlands in private ownership (Table III-3). Five main forest
types are present (USDA 1994): (1) oak-hickory, (2) maple-beech-birch (northern
hardwoods), (3) elm-ash-red maple, (4) white-red-jack pine, and (5) aspen-birch. Oak-
hickory (37.5%) and maple-beech-birch (49.7%) forest types are most common (Table III-4).
A total of 51 lacustrine (9) and palustrine (42) wetland areas4 greater than 10 acres (4
ha) have been identified within the assessment area (Table ni-5; Appendix VI-1), not
including two portions of the Ohio River (upstream of the Montgomery Dam and upstream of
the New Cumberland Lock and Dam) within the assessment area classified as lacustrine
wetlands. Lacustrine wetland types constitute approximately 20 percent of the total wetland
areas greater than 10 acres in size identified within the assessment area. Only one lacustrine
4 Lacustrine wetlands are generally defined as freshwater wetlands or deepwater habitats
situated in a topographic depression or dammed river channel, lacking woody or
herbaceous emergent vegetation, and with a total area exceeding 20 acres (8 ha). Similar
wetland and deepwater habitats less than 20 acres in size may be classified as lacustrine
if the water depth in the deepest part of the basin exceeds 6.6 feet (2 meters) at low
water (Cowardin et al. 1979). Palustrine wetlands generally encompass all freshwater
wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, or persistent emergent plants and unvegetated
freshwater wetlands less than 20 acres in size with a water depth in the deepest part of
the basin less than 6.6 feet at low water (Cowardin et al. 1979).
External Review Draft
Volume VI III-4 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
wetland greater than 10 acres (Blue Run Lake; see Figure ffl-3) occurs within a 5-km radius
of the WTI facility (Table ffl-5), although all of the Ohio River within 5-km of the WTI
facility is classified as lacustrine wetland.
Among palustrine wetlands greater than 10 acres in size, palustrine forested wetlands
are the most common wetland type, comprising 17 (40%) of the 42 total palustrine wetlands
within the assessment area (Table ffl-5). Other palustrine wetlands types present include
palustrine unconsolidated bottom (7%), palustrine emergent (10%), palustrine scrub-shrub
(2%), and palustrine open water (24%). The remaining palustrine wetlands greater than 10
acres hi size present within the assessment area consist of combinations of the previously
listed palustrine wetland types (Table ffl-5). No palustrine wetlands greater than 10 acres in
size occur within a 5-km radius of the WTI facility (Table ffl-5).
Nearly 1,500 palustrine wetlands less than 10 acres in size occur within the
assessment area based on National Wetland Inventory maps (Table ffl-6). Palustrine
unconsolidated bottom and palustrine open water wetland types are most common,
comprising 47 and 27 percent of the total, respectively (Table ffl-6). Many of these
unconsolidated bottom and open water wetlands are associated with abandoned strip mining
operations and are likely to provide limited habitat for many wildlife receptors. No wetlands
less than 10-acres hi size occur within 1-km of the WTI facility; 70 wetlands less than 10-
acres hi size occur within 5-km of the WTI facility (Table ffl-6).
Assuming an average wetland size of 20 acres for wetlands over 10 acres in size and
an average wetland size of 5 acres for wetlands less than 10 acres hi size, it is estimated that
palustrine and lacustrine wetlands comprise approximately 3 percent of the assessment area
(0.3% for wetlands over 10 acres and 2.6% for wetlands less than 10 acres) based on the
data hi Tables ffl-5 and III-6. If the Ohio River is included hi the total wetland acreage
(most of the Ohio River within the assessment area boundaries is classified as lacustrine
wetlands), the total wetland acreage for palustrine and lacustrine wetlands increases to
approximately five percent of the assessment area.
Eight major lakes or ponds (classified as lacustrine limnetic or palustrine open water
wetland types) more than 20 acres (8 ha) in size have been identified within the assessment
area (Tables ffl-7 and ffl-8). The Ohio River is the major lotic water body present in the
assessment area (Figure ffl-3), although portions of this river (associated with dams) are
classified as "lakes" (lacustrine wetlands). In addition, 88 other non-intermittent rivers and
streams are present within the assessment area (Appendix VI-2), including Little Beaver
Creek (Columbiana County, Ohio and Beaver County, Pennsylvania), an Ohio state wild and
scenic river which is classified as a high quality water (portions of the North Fork hi
Pennsylvania) and, hi Ohio, an exceptional warmwater habitat (OHDNR 1994b; OEPA 1993;
PADER 1994b). Other noteworthy streams include Service Creek (Beaver County,
External Review Draft
Volume VI ffl-5 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Pennsylvania) and Traverse Creek (Beaver County, Pennsylvania), classified as high quality
waters (PADER 1994b). The locations of these noteworthy rivers and creeks are shown on
Figure ffl-4.
C. State Parks, Wildlife Areas, and Other Ecological Habitats
Four state parks (two with lakes over 10 acres hi size), one state forest, three major
state wildlife management areas (one with lakes over 10 acres hi size), and a number of other
areas (e.g., state game lands) with ecological value are located completely or partially within
the assessment area (Figure IH-3; Tables IH-7 and ID-8). There are no National Parks (NPS
1994a, 1994b), National Forests (USDA 1994), or National Wildlife Refuges (USFWS
1994a, 1994b, 1994c) located within or near the assessment area. A 34-mile portion of
Little Beaver Creek located within the assessment area is classified as a National Scenic
River (OHDNR undated, 1993). This 34-mile stretch, plus an additional 2-mile stretch of
Little Beaver Creek, is classified as an Ohio state wild and scenic river (20 miles of which is
classified as wild and 16 miles as scenic). The 36-mile stretch includes portions of the main
stem, as well as portions of the west, middle, and north forks (Figure HI-4). No other
federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers are located within the assessment area. Both
proposed and certified segments of the North Country National Scenic Trail occur within the
assessment area (NPS undated). Certified segments are contained within Beaver Creek,
McConnells Mill, and Moraine State Parks (the latter two are outside of the assessment
area). Proposed segments connect these certified segments and cross the entire width of the
assessment area hi a southwest-to-northeast direction.
State parks and major wildlife management areas within the assessment area are
described in Appendix VI-3. Other identified ecological habitats present within or near the
assessment area are listed hi Table ni-8 and shown on Figure III-3. These include three
state game lands hi Pennsylvania, seven lakes and reservoirs (including the lake in Brady's
Run County Park), one state forest (Yellow Creek), two local/county parks, one conservation
area, and one nature preserve.
D. Fauna and Flora Present Within the Assessment Area
Information on the flora and fauna known or likely to occur within the assessment
area is compiled based primarily on agency consultation and literature review. This
information is summarized, by major taxonomic group, hi this section. In addition to a
description of the flora and fauna within the entire assessment area, the flora and fauna
within the specific ecological habitats discussed in the previous section are also described.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IH-6 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
1. Birds
A total of 241 species of birds (including accidentals5) are known to occur, or
are likely to occur, within the assessment area (Appendix VI-4; Buckelew and Hall
1994; Brauning 1992; Peterjohn and Rice 1991; Cmzan 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992,
1993, 1994; Kerr 1989; Meredith 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994; Smith 1989, 1990,
1991, 1992, 1993, 1994; Pennsylvania Game Commission 1995; and PADER 1992).
This includes 142 bird species known or likely to breed within the assessment area
(Buckelew and Hall 1994; Brauning 1992; Peterjohn and Rice 1991).
The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania (Brauning 1992) lists 129 bird
species known or suspected of breeding in Beaver and Washington Counties
combined, including 115 species listed as confirmed breeders, 10 species listed as
probable breeders, and 4 species listed as possible breeders (Appendix VI-5). The
Ohio Breeding Bird Atlas (Peterjohn and Rice 1991) lists 136 bird species known or
suspected of breeding hi Columbiana and Jefferson Counties combined, including 116
species listed as confirmed breeders, 15 species listed as probable breeders, and 5
species listed as possible breeders (Appendix VI-5). The West Virginia Breeding Bird
Atlas (Buckelew and Hall 1994) lists 103 bird species known or suspected of breeding
hi Hancock County, including 40 species listed as confirmed breeders, 41 species
listed as probable breeders, and 22 species listed as possible breeders (Appendix VI-
5). Combining the results of the Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania atlas projects
for the five counties considered, 142 bird species are known or suspected of breeding
in this region, including 125 species listed as confirmed breeders, 12 species listed as
probable breeders, and 5 species listed as possible breeders.
To characterize whiter bird usage of the assessment area, Christmas Bird
Count data from 1989 to 1994 were used (Cruzan 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,
1994; Kerr 1989; Meredith 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994; and Smith 1989, 1990,
1991, 1992, 1993, 1994). Christmas Bird Counts are one day counts conducted
annually during the months of December or January within a circle with a diameter of
15 miles (25 km). Birds seen or heard are enumerated during these counts.
Three Christmas Bird Count plots (Beaver Creek, Ohio; Beaver and Raccoon
Creek State Park, Pennsylvania) lie partly or entirely within the assessment area
(Figure III-3). A total of 100 species are identified as occurring within the
assessment area during the winter period (Appendix VI-6). Based upon six-year mean
values, the average number of species observed per year varied from 45 (Raccoon
5 An accidental is a species observed outside of its normal geographic range and/or
migration corridors.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IE-? Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Creek State Park) to 59 (Beaver Creek) and the average number of individual birds
per year varied from approximately 1,325 (Raccoon Creek State Park) to about 5,625
(Beaver Creek). The ten most common bird species observed during the winter were:
(1) European starling, (2) rock dove (domestic pigeon), (3) Canada goose, (4)
mallard, (5) mourning dove, (6) dark-eyed junco, (7) house finch, (8) American
crow, (9) house sparrow, and (10) northern cardinal (Appendix VI-6).
Information on migratory flyways is limited to shorebirds and waterfowl.
Major shorebird flyways generally do not pass through the assessment area (Myers et
al. 1987). Major waterfowl migratory flyways also do not generally pass through the
assessment area, except for canvasback, although moderate numbers of other diving
ducks, and small numbers of dabbling ducks and Canada geese, are thought to pass
through the area during spring and fall migrations (Bellrose 1980).
Some information is available on the bird species present at one of the state
parks within the assessment area. At Raccoon Creek State Park, 191 species of birds
have been observed (Appendix VI-4). Common game birds present at wildlife
management areas and state game lands within the assessment area are listed in Tables
III-7 and III-8.
2. Mammals
A total of 49 species of mammals are known to occur, or are likely to occur,
within the assessment area (Appendix VI-7; Gottschang 1981; Pennsylvania Game
Commission 1995; Merritt 1987; PADER 1992). Confirmed records of 39 species of
mammals are known from Columbiana and Jefferson Counties, Ohio (Gottschang
1981). A total of 47 species of mammals are thought to occur in the two counties
composing the Pennsylvania portion of the assessment area (Appendix VI-7; PADER
1992; Pennsylvania Game Commission 1995; Merritt 1987). No state-specific data
are available for West Virginia.
Information was available on the mammalian species present at one of the state
parks within the assessment area. At Raccoon Creek State Park, 26 species of
mammals have been observed (Appendix VI-7; PADER 1992). Common mammalian
game species present at wildlife management areas and state game lands within the
assessment area are listed in Tables III-7 and IH-8.
3. Reptiles and Amphibians
A total of 59 species of reptiles and amphibians are known to occur, or are
likely to occur, within the assessment area (Appendix VI-8; Shaffer 1991; Conant and
Collins .1991; Pennsylvania Game Commission 1995; PADER 1992; Green and
External Review Draft
Volume VI ffl-8 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Pauley 1987), including 18 species of salamanders, 11 species of frogs and toads, 9
^ species of turtles, 2 species of lizards, and 19 species of snakes. A total of 57 species
of reptiles and amphibians are thought to occur in the two counties composing the
Pennsylvania portion of the assessment area (Pennsylvania Game Commission 1995;
PADER 1992; Shaffer 1991) and 19 species are thought to occur in Hancock County,
West Virginia (Green and Pauley 1987) (Appendix VI-8). No state-specific data are
available for Ohio.
Some information is available on the reptiles and amphibians present at one of
the state parks within the assessment area. At Raccoon Creek State Park, 33 species
of reptiles and amphibians have been observed (PADER 1992) (Appendix VI-8).
4. Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms
A total of 124 species of fish are known to occur, or are likely to occur,
within the assessment area (Appendix VI-9), including over 100 species of fish known
to occur in the Ohio River (Pennsylvania Game Commission 1995; PADER 1992;
Page and Burr 1991; Pearson and Pearson 1989; WVDNR 1994; ORSANCO 1994;
OEPA 1994). Some information is available on the fish species present at one of the
state parks within the assessment area. At Raccoon Creek State Park, 18 species of
/^ fish have been observed (PADER 1992) (Appendix VI-9). Common sport fish species
v present at specific wildlife management areas and lakes/reservoirs within the
assessment area are listed in Tables lH-7 and ffl-8.
Freshwater mussels are currently rare in the upper Ohio River in the vicinity
of the WTI facility. A 1980 survey of New Cumberland Pool, a section of the Ohio
River within 0.5 miles of the WTI facility, revealed no mussels (Taylor 1980);
occurrences of freshwater mussels in'this portion of the Ohio River are mainly
historical, dating from between 1899 and 1919 (USFWS 1994a).
Some data on the benthic invertebrate populations hi some assessment area
water bodies are available. Fisher and McCoy (1983) summarize data from 1975-
1981 for the Ohio River at East Liverpool, Ohio. Total number of taxa varied
between 75 and 100 during this period, with oligochaetes, caddisfiies (Cymellus), and
chironomids (Nanocladius and Cricotopus) most abundant. More recent data are not
available.
5. Assessment Area Flora
A total of 984 species of plants are known to occur, or are likely to occur,
^ within the assessment area (Appendix VI-10), including 158 woody plant species, 768
( herbaceous plant species, 47 ferns/mosses, and 11 mushrooms/fungi (Rhoads and
External Review Draft
Volume VI ffl-9 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Klein 1993; PADER 1992; OHDNR 1994b; WPAC 1994). At Raccoon Creek State
Park, 540 species of plants have been observed (PADER 1992) (Appendix VI-10).
6. Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species
Based on searches of the Natural Heritage Databases for Ohio (OHDNR
1994b), Pennsylvania (WPAC 1994), and West Virginia (WVDNR 1994), a search of
the Pennsylvania Fish and Wildlife Database (Pennsylvania Game Commission 1994),
and consultations with the USFWS field offices in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia (USFWS 1994a, 1994b, 1994c), a total of 46 species of flora and fauna
known to occur hi the assessment area within the last 25 years are listed as federal or
state threatened, endangered, or "special concern". This includes 26 plants, 2
mammals, 5 birds, 1 amphibian, 10 fish, and 2 "other fauna" (freshwater crustaceans)
(Table III-9; Appendix VI-11). Due to the sensitive nature of the information and at
the request of the regulatory agencies providing these data, specific locations of
sightings have not been included in Appendix VI-11 to a finer resolution than general
distance categories (0-1; 1-5; 5-10; and 10-20 km) from the WTI facility.
In addition, a comparison of state lists of threatened and endangered species
with the biota lists generated for this assessment is presented. Footnotes have been
added to the biota tables (see Appendices VI-4 and VI-7 through VI-10) where
matches occur. Any additional species identified, however, are not discussed in this
section because, with few exceptions, specific information on sightings (e.g., location
and date of last sighting) is lacking.
One federally listed endangered bird species, the peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus), and one federally listed threatened species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), are known to occur within the assessment area but are considered to
be occasional, transient species in the counties comprising the assessment area
(USFWS 1994a, 1994b, 1994c). The federal listing status of the bald eagle was
recently changed from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 states (Federal
Register 36000, 12 July 1995) although this species is still listed as state endangered
hi Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In addition to the bald eagle and peregrine
falcon, two other bird species (both in Ohio) are listed as state endangered and one
bird species (hi Pennsylvania) is listed as state threatened (Table III-9; Appendix VI-
11).
Although no specific sightings have been reported within the assessment area
or in immediately surrounding counties, it is possible (based on habitat preference)
that the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), a federally endangered mammal, could occur
within the assessment area (USFWS 1994b). The only other listed mammal thought
External Review Draft
Volume VI 111-10 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
to possibly occur within the assessment area is the least shrew (Cryptotis parva), a
state endangered species in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Game Commission 1994)
(Appendix VI-11). One state endangered amphibian (Ohio) is known to occur within
the assessment area (Pennsylvania Game Commission 1994; WPAC 1994; WVDNR
1994; OHDNR 1994b) (Appendix VI-11).
One state (West Virginia) endangered fish, the mooneye (Hiodon tergisus), is
known to occur within the assessment area (WVDNR 1994). Two fish species (one
in Pennsylvania and one hi West Virginia) are listed as state threatened and seven fish
species (six in Pennsylvania and one hi both Ohio and Pennsylvania) are listed as state
"special interest" (Pennsylvania Game Commission 1994; WPAC 1994; WVDNR
1994; OHDNR 1994b) (Appendix VI-11). Two additional aquatic organisms, the
watermeal (Wolffia papulifera) (West Virginia endangered) and the wavy-rayed
lampmussel (Lampsilis fasiola) (Ohio special interest), are also known to occur within
the assessment area (OHDNR 1994b; WVDNR 1994) (Appendix VI-11).
One state (Pennsylvania) endangered plant species and 10 state threatened plant
species (9 hi Ohio and one hi Pennsylvania) are known to occur within the assessment
area (Table III-9; Appendix VI-11). In addition, 14 Ohio "potentially threatened"
(not a legal designation) plant species, and one Pennsylvania "rare" plant species are
known to occur within the assessment area (Pennsylvania Game Commission 1994;
WPAC 1994; WVDNR 1994; OHDNR 1994b) (Appendix VI-11).
7. Significant Habitats/Resources
Based on Natural Heritage Database records for Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia, and records hi the Pennsylvania Fish and Wildlife Database (Pennsylvania
Game Commission 1994; WPAC 1994; WVDNR 1994; OHDNR 1994b), a number
of "significant" habitats and other "sensitive" ecological resources are known to occur
within the assessment area (Table III-10). These include a total of seven occurrences
of five specific vegetative communities and seven occurrences of five distinct physical
features (e.g., waterfalls and creeks). Portions of Little Beaver Creek are listed as a
National Scenic River and as an Ohio Wild and Scenic River.
E. Summary and Analysis
The 1,260 km2 assessment area, defined as the area within a 20-km radial distance of
the WTI facility, is composed of a mixture of terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic communities
(Figure III-2). The terrestrial component accounts for approximately 95 percent of the total
land area and consists of second-growth deciduous forests and woodlots, agricultural areas
(mostly pasture land), rural residential or urban areas, and barren lands associated with
External Review Draft
Volume VI HI-11 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
current or past strip mining for coal. The wetland and aquatic components account for the
remaining five percent of the assessment area.
Approximately 56 percent of the assessment area is forested; coniferous forest types
account for less than five percent of the forested land. The dominant forest communities are
oak-hickory and northern hardwoods which account for nearly 90 percent of the total forested
area. The oak-hickory forest type is dominated by various species of oaks, with hickories a
small but consistent component. Other hardwood species, such as ash, basswood, sugar
maple, and elm may also occur within this forest type (USDA 1989). Since oaks and
hickories produce nuts, they provide an important food source for wildlife species such as
squirrels, wild turkeys, and other mast-eating (i.e., consume nuts) wildlife. The northern
hardwood forest type is dominated by sugar maple, American beech, and yellow birch.
Other species of maples (such as red maple) and other hardwood species (such as basswood)
may also be important components of this forest type (USDA 1989). Seven "significant"
habitat areas, all forest types, have been identified within the assessment area (Table 111-10).
Approximately 25 percent of the assessment area is agricultural land use types,
predominantly pasture and hayfields. These areas provide habitat for grassland-type wildlife
species such as grasshopper sparrows, ring-necked pheasants, horned larks, various species
of raptors, meadow voles, rabbits, and snakes. Urban and residential areas account for about
10 percent of the assessment area and occur largely along the Ohio River and major
highways (Figure ni-2). Various wildlife species, such as European starlings, house
sparrows, American robins, northern cardinals, raccoons, and garter snakes have adapted to
these habitats and are abundant in this habitat type. Barren lands associated with current or
past strip mining for coal occupy approximately four percent of the assessment area. These
areas generally support low-diversity plant and wildlife communities.
Wetland and aquatic habitats occupy the remaining five percent of the assessment
area. Approximately 50 wetland areas greater than iO acres in size and 1,500 wetland areas
less than 10 acres in size occur within the assessment area (Tables III-5 and HI-6). Of these,
eight are lakes or ponds exceeding 20 acres in size; these lakes are generally associated with
state parks or wildlife areas or are impounded areas used for recreation and water supply.
The Ohio River is the major water body present in the assessment area. Approximately 90
non-intermittent streams also occur with the assessment area. Significant streams include
Little Beaver Creek (an Ohio state wild and scenic river), Service Creek (high quality water;
PADER 1994b), and Traverse Creek (high quality water; PADER 1994b) (Figure IH-4).
The terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats, and the plant and wildlife communities
they support, are interspersed throughout the assessment area (Figure III-2). The highest
quality habitats are generally associated with state parks and other protected areas, which
comprise approximately 10 percent of the assessment area's acreage. These areas include
External Review Draft
Volume VI IE-12 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Raccoon Creek, Beaver Creek, Hillman, and Tomlinson Run State Parks, Brush Creek and
Highlandtown Wildlife Areas, and Hillcrest Wildlife Management Area (Figure III-3).
The habitat types, and habitat quality, hi the immediate vicinity of the WTI facility
differ from those more distant from the facility. The Ohio River, adjacent to the facility, has
"been impacted by development along its banks, the construction of dams, and current and
past discharges from a variety of industrial facilities which have reduced its habitat value to
many fish and wildlife species. Only one wetland area greater than 10 acres, Blue Run
Lake, occurs within 5-km of the WTI facility. Blue Run Lake is an artificial impoundment
currently used for the disposal of fly ash from a power plant along the Ohio River and is,
therefore, not expected to provide high quality habitat for fish and wildlife species. No
wetland areas less than 10 acres occur within 1-km of the WTI facility and 70 wetland areas
less than 10 acres occur within 5-km of the facility. Of these 70 wetland areas, 66 are
palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetland types, which are normally associated with
artificially-excavated or anthropogenically-impacted wetlands. With the exception of Little
Beaver Creek, no "significant" habitats or features, as identified by state natural resource
agencies (Pennsylvania Game Commission 1994; WPAC 1994; WVDNR 1994; OHDNR
1994b) occur within 5-km of the facility (Table HMO). The majority of upland habitats
within 1-km of the facility consist of developed areas (residential and industrial land uses)
and are thus of limited quality for most wildlife species. In addition, no unique or
uncommon upland habitats occur within 1-km of the facility.
Due to its large size and the diversity of habitat types present, the assessment area as
a whole supports large and relatively diverse plant and animal communities, composed of
large numbers of plant, mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and fish species (plus other taxa,
such as invertebrates), some of them rare, threatened, or endangered. Approximately 240
species of birds may occur within the assessment area, with 142 species known to breed; 49
species of mammals, 30 species of reptiles, and 29 species of amphibians may also occur
within the assessment area. The diversity and abundance of plant and wildlife species, in
relation to distance from the WTI facility, would be expected to vary in relation to the type,
abundance, and quality of the available habitat.
Among aquatic fauna, 124 species of fish may occur within the assessment area, with
over 100 of these species known to occur within the Ohio River. Many of the reservoirs and
larger lakes within the assessment area are stocked periodically with various species of game
fish. Within the reach of the Ohio River adjacent to the WTI facility, freshwater mussels are
uncommon to absent although they were abundant historically. The benthic invertebrate
community within this reach of the Ohio River is dominated by taxa, such as oligochaetes
and chironomids, that are tolerant of polluted conditions.
External Review Draft
Volume VI HI-13 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Nearly 1,000 species of terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic plants are known to occur
within the assessment area. This plant species total is based on limited data and many more
species are likely to occur within the assessment area.
Forty-six species listed as endangered, threatened, or "special-concern" are known to
occur within the assessment area (based on records from the past 25 years), including 26
plant, two mammalian, five avian, one amphibian, 10 fish, and two aquatic invertebrate
species. Only two of these species are known to occur within 5-km of the WTI facility.
These two species, both fish, have been observed in the Ohio River.
Because of the complexity of ecosystems, such as those found in the WTI assessment
area, it is rarely, if ever, possible to assess potential impacts to all identified ecological
receptors. Therefore, in most ecological assessments, and particularly hi screening-level
assessments such as the WTI SERA, "indicator" species are used to evaluate potential risks
to the broader ecological community (U.S. EPA 1988a). In the WTI SERA, the site
characterization data are used to identify and describe the habitats and ecological resources
present, particularly hi areas determined (based on dispersion modeling) to be at the points of
maximum air concentration and maximum deposition for fugitive and stack emissions
(derived hi Chapter V). These habitats are hi turn used to identify indicator species for risk
characterization and to determine whether or not rare, threatened, or endangered species and
special habitats are known to be at, or near, the locations of significant exposure from WTI
facility emissions.
External Review Draft
Volume VI HI-14 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE m-1
Land Use Statistics For Counties Within the Assessment Area*
Land Use Category
Urban or Built-Up Land
Agricultural Land
Rangeland
Forest Land
Water Areas
Wetlands
Barren Land
Percentage
Columbiana
County, OH"
12.2
54.6
0.0
30.6
0.3
0.2
2.1
Jefferson County,
OH"
9.9
30.9
0.0
54.3
0.7
<0.1
4.2
Hancock County,
WVC
11.0
24.3
0.0
57.9
6.3
<0.1
0.6
" No tabular data were found for the Pennsylvania Counties.
b From OHDNR (1994a).
From McColloch and Lessing (1980).
Volume VI
m-is
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE m-2
Forest Lands Within the Assessment Area
County
Total Forest Lands
(acres)
Pennsylvania
Beaver
Washington
61,350
2,250
Total Lands
(acres)
Percentage
Forested*
99,100
3,000
61.9
.75.0
Ohio
Columbiana
Jefferson
51,700
_ 24,300
100,200
43,700
West Virginia
Hancock
ALL COUNTIES
21,750
161,350
43,500
289,500
51.6
55.6
50.0
55.7
* These percentages may not agree with those in Table ffl-1 for forest land since the data in Table
ffl-1 are for the entire county while the data in this table are for only the portion of each county
that is within the assessment area.
Source: USDA (1994).
Volume VI
m-16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE m-3
Forest Ownership Within the Assessment Area
County
Percentage
Federal
Government
State/Local
Government
Private
Pennsylvania
Beaver
Washington
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
Ohio
Columbiana
Jefferson
West Virginia
Hancock
ALL COUNTIES
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
96.8
100.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
2.4
90.0
97.6
Source: USDA (1994).
Volume VI
ffl-17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE m-4
Forest Types Within the Assessment Area
County
Percentage
Oak-Hickory
Maple-
Beech-Birch
Elm-Ash-Red
Maple
White-Red-
Jack Pine
Aspen-Birch
Pennsylvania
Beaver
Washington
30.8
0.0
53.8
100
Ohio
Columbiana
Jefferson
37.5
20.0
50.0
60.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
20.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.5
0.0
West Virginia
Hancock
All Counties
80.0
37.5
20.0
49.7
0.0
5.9
0.0
2.9
0.0
4.0
Source: USDA (1994).
Volume VI
m-18
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE III-5
Wetland Areas Within the Assessment Area Greater than 10 Acres By Distance From the WTI Incinerator
Wetland Type1
Number of Wetlands
0-1 km
1-5 km
5-10 km
10-20 km
Total
Lacustrine Wetland Types
Lacustrine Limnetic (LI)
Lacustrine Littoral (L2)
Total Lacustrine Wetlands
0"
0
0"
1"
0
lb
0"
0
0"
6"
2
8"
Palustine Wetland Types
Palustrine Forested (PFO)
Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (PUB)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM)
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (PSS)
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
PFO/PSS
PSS/PEM
PFO/PEM
Total Palustine Wetlands
TOTAL WETLANDS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
17
3
4
1
9
3
3
1
41
49
7"
2
9"
17
3
4
1
10
3
3
1
42
51
* Includes lacustrine and palustine wetlands only. See Appendix VI-2 for a listing of riverine wetlands within the assessment area.
b Portions of the Ohio River are classified as lacustrine; these areas, associated with dams, are not included in this table.
Source: National Wetland Inventory maps.
Volume VI
HI-19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE III-6
Wetland Areas Within the Assessment Area Less than 10 Acres By Distance From the WTl Incinerator
Wetland Type?
Palustrine Forested (PFO)
Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (PUB)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM)
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (PSS)
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
PFO/PSS
PSS/PEM
PEM/POW
TOTAL WETLANDS
Number of Wetlands
0-1 km
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-5 km
1
66
3
0
0
0
0
0
70
5-10 km
10
169
53
9
15
0
3
0
259
10-20 km
88
473
158
37
388
5
15
1
1165
Total
99
708
214
46
403
5
18
1
1494
' Includes palustine wetlands only. See Appendix VI-2 for a listing of riverine wetlands within the assessment area.
Source: National Wetland Inventory maps.
? VI
IH-20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE III-7
State Parks and Major Wildlife Areas Within the Assessment Area
Area
Raccoon Creek State Park
Hillman State Park/State
Game Lands 43 2b
Highlandtown Wildlife
Area"
Beaver Creek State Park
Brush Creek Wildlife Areak
Hillcrest Wildlife
Management Area
Approximate
Size (acres)
7,323
3,654
2,105
3,038
2,546
1,519
County, State
Beaver, PA
Washington, PA
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Hancock, WV
Longitude"
80° 23' 00"
80° 25' 00"
80° 44' 55"
80° 40' 00"
80° 47' 00"
80° 33' 00"
Latitude"
40° 31' 00"
40° 27' 00"
40° 38' 16"
40° 44' 00"
40° 33' 00"
40° 34' 30"
Comments
Hunting and fishing. 191 species of birds
are known to reside in the park.
Wildflower reserve. Frankfort Mineral
Springs. 101 -acre Raccoon Creek Lake.
Administered by the Pennsylvania Game
Commission along with adjacent State
Game Lands 432. Undeveloped: hunting
and off-road vehicle trails.
Fishing for at least 9 species of fish that
are known to reside in Highlandtown
Lake (170 acres). Hunting for squirrel,
rabbit, raccoon, woodcock, waterfowl,
grouse, quail, wild turkey, and deer.
Hunting. Fishing for smallmouth bass
and rock bass. Little Beaver Creek, a
state wild and scenic river, flows through
the park. A portion of the North Country
National Scenic Trail crosses through the
park.
Hunting for gray squirrel, rabbit, quail,
red fox, woodchuck, grouse, deer, and
raccoon. Fishing for largemouth bass
and bluegill.
Hunting for pheasant, rabbit, mourning
dove, deer. Habitat primarily old field
and cropland, with scattered woodlots.
Volume VI
111-21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE III-7
State Parks and Major Wildlife Areas Within the Assessment Area
Area
Tomlinson Run State Park
Approximate
Size (acres)
1,401
County, State
Hancock, WV
Longitude"
80° 35' 00"
Latitude*
40° 32' 30"
Comments
Hunting and fishing. A small wilderness
area. Tomlinson Run Lake (29 acres).
* To nearest 30 seconds (from county road maps or USGS quadrangle maps), unless more exact data are available.
b Only partly within the assessment area.
le VI
111-22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE III-8
Other Ecological Habitats/ Areas
Area
State Game Lands 173
State Game Lands 189
State Game Lands 285
Ambridge Reservoir
Blue Run Lake
Brady's Run County Parkb
Yellow Creek State Forestb
Scenic Vista Parkb
Lake Tomahawk
Lake Cha-Vel
Wellsville Reservoir
Lake Bibbee
Little Beaver Creek State
Nature Preserve
Little Beaver Creek
Conservation Easement
Approximate
Size (acres)
1,063
415
2,149
-350
-600
-1,400
756
-150
115
10
25
12.5
-385
-700
County, State
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Columbians, OH
Columbians, OH
Columbians, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Longitude"
80° 27' 30"
80° 22' 00"
80° 30' 30"
80° 21' 30"
80° 30' 30"
80° 21 '00"
80° 45' 00"
80° 45' 00"
80° 35' 10"
80° 41' 04"
80° 41' 35"
80° 38' 24"
80° 32' 30"
80° 32' 30"
Latitude"
40° 40' 30"
40° 31' 00"
40° 47' 30"
40° 35' 00"
40° 29' 30"
40° 44' 00"
40° 38' 00"
40° 45' 00"
40° 45' 36"
40° 39' 58"
40° 37' 16"
40° 40' 50"
40° 44' 30"
40° 44' 00"
Comments
Hunting: rabbit, squirrel, and pheasant
Hunting: rabbit, squirrel, and grouse
Hunting: rabbit, duck, and woodcock
Artificial impoundment used for the
disposal of fly ash from a coal-fired
power plant along the Ohio River
Fishing: Brady's Run Lake (28 acres)
Fishing and hunting
Picnicing, hiking, nest box trail
Private lake
Private lake
Water supply/recreation
Private lake
Two parcels
Three parcels - private land
" To nearest 30 seconds (from county road maps or USGS quadrangle maps), except where more exact data are available.
b Only partly within the assessment area.
Volume VI
HI-23
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE III-9
Summary of Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species Within the Assessment Area
Distance From
the WTI
Incinerator (km)
0- 1
1 -5
5- 10
10-20
Status*
Endangered
Threatened
Special Concern0
TOTAL
Endangered
Threatened
Special Concern
TOTAL
Endangered
Threatened
Special Concern
TOTAL
Endangered
Threatened
Special Concern
TOTAL
Taxonomic Group1*
Plants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
1
8
15
24
Mammals
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Birds
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Reptiles/
Amphibians
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Fish
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
8
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
Total
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
5
4
11
4
9
23
36
VI
111-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE III-9
Summary of Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species Within the Assessment Area
Distance From
the WTI
Incinerator (km)
TOTAL"
Status*
Endangered
Threatened
Special Concern
TOTAL
Taxonomic Group1*
Plants
1
10
15
26
Mammals
2
0
0
2
Birds
4
1
0
5
Reptiles/
Amphibians
.1
0
0
1
Fish
1
2
7
10
Other
1
0
1
2
Total
10
13
23
46
' For species listed in different categories by different jurisdictions, the higher listing is used (e.g., endangered is selected over threatened).
b See Appendix VI- 1 1 for a listing of individual species.
0 Includes Federal Category 2, Pennsylvania Candidate and Rare, and Ohio Special Concern and Potentially Threatened designations.
* Totals for all distances may exceed sums from all distance categories since data on the exact locations of sightings are not available for some
species; these species are included in the totals but not in individual distance categories.
Source: USFWS (1994a; 1994b; 1994c), WPAC (1994), OHDNR (1994b), WVDNR (1994), Pennsylvania Game Commission (1994), and PADER
(1994a).
Volume VI
111-25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
I
TABLE HMO
Significant Habitats/Resources Within the Assessment Area
Habitat/Resource
Status*
County, State
Distance
From WTI
(km)
Number of
Records
Source1*
Vegetative Communities
Beech-sugar maple forest
Beech-sugar maple forest
Hemlock-white pine-hardwood forest
Mixed mesophytic forest
Oak-maple forest
Oak-maple-tuliptree forest
LS
RS
RS
LS
LS
RS
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Physical Features
Fossil deposit
Little Beaver Creek
Mollusk bed
Natural bridge or arch
Waterfall
-
SWSR
—
-
-
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
10-20
5- 10
1 -5
10-20
10-20
5 - 10
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 LS - Locally Significant; RS - Regionally Significant; SWSR - State Wild and Scenic River.
" Source: 1 - OHDNR (1994b).
M5 VI
111-26
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
c \ocad\014CIUOA >l
-------
'T
-------
c. \ocod\FILE_SPECIFICATION
SOURCE USGS (1977a, 1977b, 1980)
EXPLANATION
^1^Urban or Built-Up Land
I Agriculture/Rangeland
| Forested Land
[Water/Wetlands
Barren Land
0
10
Scale in Miles
0
10
Scale in Kilometers
Volume VI
LAND USE WITHIN THE WTI ASSESSMENT AREA
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite or Quote
Figure
111-2
-------
-------
c \acod ,OI40l)OA \MOOOAB8
, I,A WRENTE
— ASSESSMENT '
AREA BOUNDARY
COLUMBIAN A
EXPLANATION
APPENDIX VI-3 FOR A DESCRIPTION
OF THESE AREAS
A CHRISTMAS BIRO COUNT PLOT CENTERS
KEY TO NUMBERED AREAS
WTI
Facility
West Fork
Little Beaver
Creek
BEAVER
MIDLAND
1 AMBRIDGE RESERVOIR
2 BEAVER CREEK STATE PARK
3 BLUE RUN LAKE
4 BRADY'S RUN COUNTY PARK
5 BRUSH CREEK WILDLIFE AREA
6 HIGHLANDTOWN WILDLIFE AREA
7 HILLCREST WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA
B HILLMAN STATE PARK
9 LAKE BIBBEE
10 LAKE CHA-VEL
11 LAKE TOMAHAWK
12 LITTLE BEAVER CREEK CONSERVATION EASEMENT
13 LITTLE BEAVER CREEK STATE NATURE PRESERVE
14 RACCOON CREEK STATE PARK
15 SCENIC VISTA PARK
16 STATE GAME LANDS 173
17 STATE GAME LANDS 189
16 STATE GAME LANDS 285
19 STATE GAME LANDS 432
20 TOMLINSON RUN STATE PARK
21 WELLSVILLE RESERVOIR
22 YELLOW CREEK STATE FOREST
EAST
LIVERPOOL
SHIPPINGPORT
/
ALLEGHENY
JEFFERSON
WASHINGTON
>.ale in Kilomel
LOCATION OF ECOLOGICALLY-RELEVANT AREAS WITHIN THE WTI ASSESSMENT ARFA
I ir (UK
III-3
External Review Draft
-------
O
O
o
2
00
-a
n
o
O
O
O
;u
m
00
z
o
o
m
o s1
0 8
?3
Q ^
& <
s i
o 3
5 53
a
a
a.
O
z
00 |
n
o_
0)
rv
1 -N
00
-------
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF THE
ECOLOGICAL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
In this final chapter of the Problem Formulation component of the SERA, ecological
chemicals of concern (ECOCs) are identified from the list of chemical constituents potentially
present in stack and fugitive emissions (see Volume HI). The purpose of this selection
process is to identify the chemical constituents likely to contribute most significantly to
potential risk to ecological receptors present hi the WTI assessment area. The process is also
designed to ensure that risks are not underestimated by excluding potentially important
chemicals.
For organic chemicals, a tiered selection process based on estimated emission rates,
environmental fate properties, and inherent toxicity is used to select the most potentially
significant stack and fugitive organic chemicals from among over 200 stack and 300 fugitive
chemical constituents. To evaluate potential ecological risks associated with existing permit
limits for the emission of metals from the stack (a secondary objective of the SERA), all 12
identified metals for which projected permit limits have been developed6 are selected as
stack ECOCs. Three (aluminum, copper, and zinc) of the 15 metals are not currently
regulated under RCRA for air emissions. These three metals without projected permit limits
are also included as ECOCs since they are considered to be of potential concern in the
SERA. Copper and aluminum were added based on the recommendation of the External
Peer Review Panal (U.S. EPA 1993b) and zinc was added since it is considered to be a
"priority pollutant" by U.S. EPA. In addition, all metals detected in fly ash, along with
cyanide, are selected as fugitive ECOCs for the evaluation of the ash handling facility.
This section identifies, for both stack and fugitive emissions, the initial list of
potential chemicals considered, describes the tiered selection process, and provides a list of
the ECOCs along with the rationale for then- selection. Only those chemicals selected as
ECOCs are evaluated hi later sections of the SERA. By focusing on the potential risk from
the selected ECOCs, the SERA provides a thorough screening-level evaluation for the WTI
6 At present, the RCRA permit for the WTI incinerator imposes hourly limits on the
emissions of ten metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, silver, and thallium). It is presently anticipated that two additional metals
(nickel and selenium) will be regulated when the final operating conditions are added to
the permit since, hi addition to the ten metals normally limited under 40 CFR 266.106,
the U.S. EPA now routinely limits emissions of nickel and selenium.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
facility. If the risks identified for these ECOCs are considered to be significant, further
consideration of additional chemicals may be warranted.
There is currently no single, established approach for ranking or pre-selecting
chemicals in ecological risk assessments. A number of approaches have been described and
compared in the literature and discussed at professional workshops (e.g., U.S. EPA 1980b,
1994h; Davis et al. 1994; SETAC 1995). These approaches include: (1) selection based
solely on professional judgement, (2) selection using threshold effects data or toxicological
benchmarks without consideration of exposure, (3) selection based on ordinal (categorical)
assignments of fate, exposure, and toxicity data compiled in an algorithm that weights
components, and (4) selection using a risk-based approach that addresses both exposure and
potential effects. In general, each of these approaches includes exposure concentration,
inherent toxicity, bioaccumulation potential (using either bioconcentration factors or octanol-
water partitioning coefficients), and, to a lesser extent, persistence, as ranking or scoring
criteria to select "priority chemicals" for evaluation. The differences among the approaches
are mainly hi the scoring algorithm used and whether actual values, or weighted categorical
rankings, are used as algorithm inputs. Professional judgement is an acknowledged key
component of any ranking/scoring approach, as well as in ecological risk assessments in
general (Davis et al. 1994; U.S. EPA 1992b). Confirmation of the selection process can be
achieved by comparing the outcomes from more than one approach (U.S. EPA 1994h).
Organic ECOC selection hi the SERA is based on the approach and scoring algorithm
used hi the HHRA for noncarcinogenic effects (see Volume V, Chapter IV) and is described
in detail below. This approach, which is adapted from U.S. EPA risk assessment
implementation guidance (U.S. EPA 1994a), is risk-based and uses unweighted parameter
values as inputs to the scoring algorithm. The parameters used hi the algorithm (exposure
concentrations, partitioning, and toxicity) are the same parameters that are central to the risk
characterization component of the SERA (Chapter VII). However, ecotoxicological values
are used hi place of human health toxicological values for the SERA.
A. Substances of Potential Concern in Stack Emissions
U.S. EPA RCRA combustion facility guidance (U.S. EPA 1994a), recommendations
by the External Peer Review Panal (U.S. EPA 1993b), analytical results from stack sampling
during trial burns at the WTI incinerator, and analytical results from stack sampling for
organic products of incomplete combustion (PICs) during WTI performance tests are used to
provide an initial list of over 200 substances hi stack emissions for consideration hi the risk
assessment (see Volume El, Chapter III). For the purposes of the risk assessment, these
chemicals are separated into five major groups: (1) polychlorinated dioxins and furans
(PCDD/PCDF), (2) PICs other than PCDD/PCDF and residues of organic chemicals, (3)
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
metals, (4) acid gases, and (5) participate matter. PICs are organic chemicals that are not
present at appreciable concentrations in the waste stream but are created as part of the
combustion process. Dioxins and furans are one type of PIC and were the focus of testing at
WTI due to their extremely high toxicity. Uncombusted organic residues are chemicals
present in the waste stream that are not completely destroyed during combustion, and are
emitted in a chemically unaltered form from the incinerator stack. Pesticides are examples
of uncombusted organic residues.
In the SERA, acid gases and paniculate matter are not included as ECOCs because
they are judged to pose a much lower potential for direct toxic effects to ecological receptors
than organic chemicals and metals since all acid gas and paniculate matter concentration
estimates (Volume V, Chapter VIE) were below ambient air quality standards. Although
these ambient air quality standards are human-health based, they suggest that risks to
ecological receptors are not likely to be significant, especially given the relatively small
volume of material to be burned annually by the WTI incinerator (and thus the production of
relatively low amounts of acid gases and paniculate matter).
The process outlined above identifies 191 organic residues and PICs (including 9 PCB
homologs, 3 xylene isomers, and 17 dioxin/furan congeners), and 15 metals as possible WTI
stack constituents under normal operating conditions. In the SERA, the nine PCB homologs
identified as possible organic residues or PICs are summed and evaluated as total PCBs
(Appendix VI-13), since most available ecotoxicological data are for either total PCBs or
standard mixtures (Aroclors). For similar reasons, m-, o-, and p-xylenes are summed and
evaluated as total xylenes. These summations assume that the toxicity of the resulting
mixtures are equivalent to the toxicity of the PCB and xylene mixtures utilized in the studies
on which lexicological benchmarks for these chemicals are based.
In addition, the 17 dioxin/furan congeners are evaluated as total dioxins/furans.
Emission rates for the 17 dioxin/furan congeners are weighted using toxicity equivalency
factors (TEFs) relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the most toxic congener (see Appendix VI-13).
Since no standardized, accepted set of TEFs exist for ecological risk assessments,
international TEFs used in human health assessments (U.S. EPA 1989a) are utilized in the
SERA. These TEFs are derived using animal data (targeted mostly towards cancer
endpoints) and are commonly used in ecological evaluations (e.g., White and Seginak 1994).
Use of the TEF approach, which is common in ecotoxicology, is necessary due to the general
lack of ecotoxicological data for most dioxin and furan congeners. This approach assumes
that the TEFs used are representative for non-mammalian taxa and for endpoints other than
cancer.
Total xylenes, total PCBs, and total dioxin/furans are treated as if they were
individual chemicals in all subsequent SERA analyses. The screening of chemicals in the
External Review Draft
Volume VI FV-3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
SERA to identify ECOCs for subsequent risk characterization starts with the list of 165
organic chemicals (162 residues and PICs + total xylenes + total PCBs + total dioxin/
furans) plus the 15 metals.
B'. Development of Chemical-Specific Stack Emission Rates
Due to the different sources of information and data used to characterize stack
emissions, and because of the different mechanisms associated with the generation of
different categories of chemicals, different approaches are utilized hi the derivation of stack
emission rates. Statistical approaches are used in these derivations whenever possible, as
described in Volume HI. The more conservative approaches used to derive stack emission
rates in Volume III are applied to the SERA, as described below. Because of this
conservatism, which is considered appropriate for a screening-level assessment, the emission
rates used in the SERA differ in some cases from those used in the HHRA.
The specific approaches used to develop stack emission rate estimates for the WTI
facility are discussed below for PCDDs/PCDFs, other PICs and organic residues, and
metals. The resulting emission rate estimates are used to develop exposure scenarios for the
SERA (see Chapter V).
1. Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans (PCDDs/PCDFs)
Emission rate estimates for the 17 dioxin and furan congeners are based on 26
post-Enhanced Carbon Injection System (ECIS) installation performance test runs
conducted at the WTI incinerator. The first performance test was conducted over a
three-day period in early August 1993 after installation of the ECIS. During this test,
PCDD/PCDF measurements were collected under five sets of operating conditions,
each at least four hours hi duration. Additional performance tests were conducted in
February (nine runs), April (five runs), and August (seven runs) 1994.
The high-end emission rates used hi the SERA are estimated based on the 95
percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the arithmetic mean of the 26 post-ECIS
installation performance test runs (assuming a normal distribution) or the maximum
detected value, whichever is smaller. The UCL is defined as:
UCL = mean + t . — (IV-1)
where: t = Student-t statistic
s = sample standard deviation
n = number of samples
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-4 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
This procedure is in accordance with U.S. EPA guidance for calculating the
likely upper-bound on mean data (U.S. EPA 1992a). In estimating high-end emission
rates, PCDD/PCDF congeners that were not detected in a specific run are
conservatively assumed to be present at the detection limit for the congener in that
run7.
2. Other PICs and Organic Residues
The primary source of PIC emission rate estimates for the risk assessment was
the extensive sampling of organics conducted during the August 1994 performance
tests. This program consisted of collecting samples during seven runs conducted
during routine operation of the facility. Samples collected during each of the seven
runs were analyzed for a total of 93 organic stack gas constituents in addition to
individual congeners of PCDD/PCDF.
For the 93 stack constituents analyzed for in the August 1994 tests, the high-
end emission rates of the PICs and organic residues used hi the SERA8 are estimated
based on the 95 percent UCL of the arithmetic mean of the measured PIC emission
rates, or the maximum detected concentration, whichever is lower. In estimating
high-end emission rates, compounds that were not detected are assumed to be present
at the detection limit. Nineteen PICs or organic residues were detected hi measurable
quantities hi at least one of the seven runs during the August 1994 performance test.
Seven compounds (methylene chloride, carbon disulfide, chloroform, carbon
tetrachloride, bromodichloromethane, toluene, and bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate) were
detected in measurable quantities hi all seven runs.
For organics of potential concern that were not analyzed for during the August
1994 testing, emission rates are estimated based on: (1) measured emission rates for
7 Average emission rates for the 17 PCDD/PCDF congeners, used hi the HHRA, are
calculated as the arithmetic mean of the emission rates measured hi the 26 post-ECIS
installation test runs. Individual PCDD/PCDF congeners not detected during a specific
run are assumed to be present at one-half of the detection limit for the congener during
that run. The SERA utilizes the high-end emission estimates, not the average emission
estimates, for conservatism.
8 Average emission rates for other PICs and organic residues (i.e., not PCDD/PCDF) used
in the HHRA are estimated as the arithmetic mean of the seven runs from the August
1994 sampling. Compounds that were analyzed for but not detected are assumed to exist
at one-half the detection limit in the stack gas. The SERA utilizes the high-end
/""^ estimates, not the average estimates, for conservatism. Appendix VI-12 lists both the
V average and high-end emission rates for these organic PICs and organic residues.
External Review Draft
Volume VI FV-5 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
chemicals detected during March 1993 and February 1994 trial burns, (2) the
detection limit for chemicals analyzed for but not detected in the March 1993 and
February 1994 trial burns, or (3) application of a calculated worst-case destruction/
removal efficiency (based on March 1993 trial burn data) to a typical waste profile
(based on projections from WTI's first year of operation). The maximum emission
rate estimated using these three methods is selected for each of the PICs and residual
organic compounds not analyzed for in the August 1994 performance tests to
approximate a high-end emission rate. The maximum value is used because the
available data for these chemicals are insufficient for calculating a 95 percent UCL.
For some chemicals (see Section IV.C), emission rates can not be estimated using any
of the approaches listed above due to lack of data. These compounds are anticipated
to be emitted in only very low quantities and are not quantitatively evaluated in the
SERA (see Volume HI); these chemicals are listed in Table IV-1.
3. Metals
Emission rates are developed for the ten metals currently regulated at the WTI
facility (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
silver, and thallium), the two metals (nickel and selenium) likely to be regulated when
the final operating conditions are added to the permit, two metals (aluminum and
copper) recommended by the External Peer Review Panal for the risk assessment as a
whole, and zinc (a "priority pollutant"). Emission rates for these metals are estimated
based primarily on system removal efficiency (SRE) data compiled from the trial
burns and projected waste feed data for the WTI facility. Thennodynamic modeling
was also performed to supplement the SRE data generated during the trial burns (see
Volume HI).
The general equation used to calculate metal emission rates for the incinerator
stack was the following (from Volume HI):
£,. = (l-SRE)(Ft) (IV-2)
where: Ej = annual average stack emission rate for metal i, Ib/yr
Fj = annual feed rate for metal i, Ib/yr
SREj = system removal efficiency for metal i, percent/100
The trial bum conducted at the facility in March 1993 prior to installation of
the ECIS provided SREs for seven metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, and mercury). Trial burn data are not available, however, to
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-6 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
estimate SREs for the remaining eight metals evaluated in the SERA (aluminum,
barium, copper, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc). For metals where
direct SRE measurements were made during the trial burns, the average SRE value
from the various sampling runs is used. For metals not analyzed in the March 1993
trial burn, SRE values are extrapolated from the trial burn data for the metals that
were tested, using thermodynamic modeling.
Waste feed data for the 15 metals of potential concern are developed based on
waste profile sheets and feed rates provided by WTI for the first nine months of
operation at the facility, as discussed in Chapter H/Appendix III-l of Volume III.
Because data from the first nine months of operation may not represent the maximum
operating capacity of the system, the estimated metal feed rates are prorated to
account for the maximum heat input of the incinerator. Therefore, to develop
maximum predicted metal feed rates, the metal feed rates are multiplied by the ratio
of the maximum heat input rate based on the design of the kiln to the heat input rate
derived from the waste profile data sheets. Corresponding metal emission rates are
calculated using the measured or estimated SRE values along with the maximum
predicted metal feed rates.
Unlike organic PICs, stack emissions of metals are directly related to
estimated input feed. Because these emissions vary with the feed material, estimates
of the quantities of metals in the feed material are essential to the calculation of
emissions. However, since these feed estimates are based on conservative single-
value summations of projected quantities over the first year of WTI's operation, a
statistical approach that estimates both high-end and average metal emission rates can
not be applied. However, the approach used, and the resulting metal emission rates,
is deemed to be conservative, that is, it is expected that actual emissions of metals
would be less than the calculated emission rates (see Volume HI).
In addition to the metal stack emission rates calculated above, the SERA also
uses the current projected metal permit limits for the WTI incinerator (U.S. EPA
1994b) as emission rates for the ten metals currently regulated at the WTI facility
(antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, silver,
and thallium) plus nickel and selenium (which are likely to be regulated at the WTI
facility in the future). These projected permit limits, which are based on maximum
hourly emissions and not annual averages, represent "peak" or "worst-case" emission
rates since they are used in the SERA as if they are actual annual average emission
rates. It is not anticipated that long-term operations of the WTI facility would
approach these limits. Emission rates based on permit limits are used in the SERA to
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-7 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
estimate the levels of ecological risk associated with the facility's current operating
permit limits for the emission of metals from the stack.
4. Summary of Stack Emission Rate Estimates Used in Exposure Scenarios
Based on the discussion in the previous sections, three sets of stack emission
rate estimates (one for organics and two for metals) are used as components of
exposure estimates (scenarios) in the SERA as follows:
• Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Emission Rates - these emission
rate estimates are based on the current projected metal permit limits for
the WTI incinerator for 12 metals, as described hi Section IV.B.3.
While it is not anticipated that long-term operations would approach
these limits, these emission rates are used in the analysis of
conservative (upper-bound) exposures to stack metals.
• Stack Expected Metal Emission Rates - these emission rates are based
on the estimates for 15 metals calculated as described in Section
IV.B.3. These emission rates are used hi the analysis of "expected"
exposures to stack metals under current operating conditions.
• Stack High-End Organic Emission Rates - these emission rates are
based on high-end estimates for organic stack constituents calculated as
described in Sections FV.B.l and FV.B.2. They are used in the analysis
of conservative (upper-bound) exposures to stack organic ECOCs.
The emission rate estimates described above are projected to represent annual
average emission rates based on continuous operation of the facility.
C. Stack Emission ECOC Selection
The initial list of organic chemicals (developed as described in Section IV.A and
Volume III), is screened, using a two-step process, to select the ECOCs for evaluation hi the
SERA. In the first step (initial screening), chemicals for which emission rates can not be
estimated (see Volume HI) are eliminated9. This results hi 31 organic chemicals being
9 These chemicals are screened out as a practical matter, since they can not be evaluated
without emission rate estimates. This issue is addressed further in Section IV.G
(uncertainties).
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-8 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
screened out of the SERA (Table FV-1). The organic chemicals remaining after the initial
screening, along with the 15 metals evaluated in the SERA (no metals are screened out), are
listed in Table IV-2. In the second step (detailed screening), the remaining organic
chemicals are screened using emission rate, environmental fate, and toxicity criteria, as
described below.
1. Detailed Screening of Organic Chemicals
The detailed screening of organic chemicals is conducted in three parts: (1)
exposure analysis, (2) chemical group analysis, and (3) evaluation by professional
judgement. Each of these parts is described below. The exposure analysis and the
chemical group analysis utilize scoring algorithms as described below. Each of three
input parameters is used in one or more of these scoring algorithms (not all of these
input parameters are used in all algorithms) as follows:
• Emission Rate. The quantity of the chemical expected to be emitted
from the WTI incinerator stack under normal operations, based on
estimated high-end emission rates.
• Bioaccumulation Potential. The octanol/water partition coefficient
(KoJ is used as a measure of bioaccumulation/bioconcentration
potential because this coefficient has been shown to correlate well with
bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in aquatic organisms and with
adsorption of chemicals to soils or sediments (Howard 1993).
K^ values are generally obtained from U.S. EPA (1995a),
except for PCBs and dioxin/furans, whose values are obtained from
U.S. EPA (1994d). If K^ values are not available from U.S. EPA
(1995a), the highest reported value from U.S. EPA (1990a), Howard
(1989, 1990, 1991, 1993), Montgomery and Welkom (1990), the
Hazardous Substances Databank (HSDB), and Verschueren (1983) is
used. The highest value is selected to be conservative since
bioaccumulation potential increases with increasing values of K^.
KOW values are used hi the scoring algorithms since they are
readily available for the large number of chemicals evaluated.
However, actual BCF values are used, where available, hi the
characterization of exposure portion of the SERA (Chapter V).
Although not formally listed as a screening criterion, biomagnification
potential (i.e., a progressive increase in chemical concentration with
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-9 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
each step up the food chain) is also considered, qualitatively, in the
ECOC selection process.
• Toxicity. Relative toxicity to terrestrial animals and/or aquatic
organisms10, depending upon the exposure or chemical group
evaluated, is used as a screening criterion. The lack of available
ecotoxicological data on which to base a scientifically valid evaluation
is a limiting factor hi evaluating some chemicals. Ecotoxicological data
are lacking for some chemicals because they are believed to be
relatively non-toxic and have therefore not been tested or studied. Data
for aquatic and ingestion exposures are available for all but a few
chemicals for which there are emission rate estimates; there are fewer
inhalation data but this exposure route is generally less well studied for
non-human receptors. The lack of a complete toxicological data set is
not considered to be a significant problem.
Chronic effects data for reproduction or growth (No Observed
Adverse Effect Levels [NOAELs], where available) from inhalation or
ingestion exposures of laboratory animals, generally rats and mice, are
used to express the relative toxicity of chemicals to terrestrial animals.
These data represent the most extensive and readily available data set
for the organic chemicals that are evaluated. Primary data sources are
the HSDB and Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances
(RTECS) databases, and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) chemical-specific toxicity profiles. Volatile organics
are evaluated using inhalation toxicity data; other organic chemicals are
evaluated using toxicity data based on both inhalation and ingestion
exposures. Although data from laboratory mammals are used as a
practical consideration in this chemical screening, these data are
supplemented with more pertinent ecotoxicological data (from studies of
bird and mammal wildlife species) during the analysis and risk
characterization components of the SERA.
10 Since data on toxic effects to terrestrial plants are available for less than half of the
chemicals evaluated, toxicity to plants is not formally used hi the screening process.
However, chemicals known to be particularly phytotoxic (e.g., herbicides) are considered
for inclusion as ECOCs later in the screening process.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-10 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Acute effects data are used to express the relative toxicity of
chemicals to aquatic organisms. Acute data are available for the
majority of chemicals, and the endpoints (e.g., mortality) and study
durations evaluated in acute studies are more uniform among chemicals
and therefore introduce less subjectivity to the screening process than
would, for example, chronic effects data based on many endpoints.
Acute toxicity values are derived from acute Ambient Water Quality
Criteria or the lowest available UCX value for appropriate freshwater
fish, invertebrate, or algal species from the literature. Primary data
sources for aquatic toxicity data are the Oil and Hazardous Materials/
Technical Assistance Data System (OHM/TADS) and the Aquatic
Information and Retrieval (AQUIRE) database. Although acute toxicity
data are used as a practical consideration in this chemical screening,
chronic effects data (or estimates of chronic toxicity if data are
unavailable) are used in the risk characterization component of the
SERA, where inherent toxicity is more important than relative toxicity.
The general scoring algorithm used in the SERA combines the three input
parameters described above. It is consistent with the approach and algorithm used in
the HHRA for noncarcinogenic effects, which is in turn hi general agreement with the
most recent U.S. EPA guidance for conducting risk assessments at RCRA hazardous
waste combustion units (U.S. EPA 1994a). However, the HHRA approach deviates
slightly from U.S. EPA guidance, as follows (the SERA followed the HHRA
approach). K^ is used in the selection process instead of log K^, to be consistent
with the bioaccumulation equations in the fate and transport modeling (see Volume
V). The use of K^ will put greater emphasis on chemicals that are more likely to
bioaccumulate and are, therefore, of greater potential significance. The general
scoring algorithm used in the SERA is:
Score .
TV
where: ER = Emission rate
KW = Octanol/water partitioning coefficient
TV = Toxicity value
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-11 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Each organic chemical is scored using chemical-specific input values for each
parameter included in the algorithm. Most chemicals have multiple scores because a
different toxicity value is applicable for each type of exposure. For example, an
ECOC can have one score based on exposure of aquatic biota in surface water and
another for exposure of mgrntnals through ingestion. Calculated scores for each
chemical are used to rank chemicals (highest to lowest score) for each type of
exposure or chemical group, as described below. Modifications to the scoring
algorithm are also made, as appropriate, for two parts of the exposure analysis
(described below).
a. Exposure Analysis
The exposure analysis is the first of three parts of the detailed screening
process used to select organic stack ECOCs. Based on the types of habitats
present in the assessment area and the likely mechanisms by which ecological
receptors could be exposed to chemicals emitted from the WTI incinerator
stack, four "exposure types" are selected for separate evaluation. These
exposure types are: (1) inhalation, (2) ingestion (terrestrial habitats), (3)
aquatic (based on K,,w [bioaccumulation potential]), and (4) aquatic (based on
water solubility [direct exposure]).
For each of the four exposure types, the chemicals are ranked by score
and ECOCs are identified as those chemicals comprising a high percentage
(95% or more) of the cumulative score for all chemicals within a given
exposure type. The 95th percentile is used since chemicals contributing to the
remaining five percent of the total score account for only very small
increments (generally less than one percent) of the total score. The selection
of ECOCs based on the four exposure types is discussed hi the following
subsections.
(1) Inhalation. Inhalation is a potential exposure route to ecological
receptors since chemicals emitted from the WTI incinerator stack are
introduced directly into the air. Since partitioning is not a factor in inhalation
exposures, the K,,w term is dropped from the general scoring algorithm
(Equation IV-3) to yield:
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-12 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Volume VI
c ER
Score = —
TV
(IV-4)
Toxicity values used for inhalation are derived from laboratory tests of
inhalation exposures hi small mammals (as described above); this assumes that
birds (or plants) are not significantly more sensitive to chemical exposure via
this route. Inputs to the scoring algorithm, calculated scores for each
chemical, and rankings ai"e contained hi Appendix VI-14. Chemicals
accounting for the top 95
percent of the cumulative score for all chemicals are
listed hi Table IV-3 undet "Inhalation".
Based on this analysis, one chemical (formaldehyde) is selected as an
ECOC. Formaldehyde accounts for 96.8% of the total score for inhalation
(Table IV-3).
(2) Ingestion. Some chemicals emitted from the WTI incinerator
stack are deposited hi terrestrial habitats and may become incorporated into
food items (e.g., plants snd soil invertebrates). A potential exposure route to
ecological receptors is in»estion of these food items. Since K^, is correlated
with the partitioning of chemicals between water, soil, and biota, it is a
relevant parameter for in»estion exposure. Thus, the general scoring
algorithm (Equation IV-3) is used without modification.
Toxicity values used for ingestion are derived from laboratory tests of
ingestion exposures in small mammals (as described above); this assumes that
birds and other non-mammalian taxa are not significantly more sensitive to
chemical exposure via this route. Inputs to the scoring algorithm, calculated
scores for each chemical, and rankings are contained hi Appendix VI-15.
Chemicals accounting fof the top 95 percent of the cumulative score for
ingestion are listed in Table IV-3 under "Ingestion".
Based on this analysis, two chemicals (dioxin/furan and
hexachlorophene) are selected as ECOCs. Dioxin/furan and hexachlorophene
account for 92.5% and 6l.4% of the cumulative score for ingestion,
respectively, for a combined score of 98.9% (Table IV-3).
(3) Aquatic
incinerator stack are
(Kow-based). Some chemicals emitted from the WTI
directly deposited onto aquatic habitats and indirectly
IV-13
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
deposited via runoff from surrounding terrestrial habitats. Some portion of the
emitted chemicals may subsequently partition into sediments or bioaccumulate
into food items (e.g., aquatic plants, invertebrates, and fish). A potential
exposure route to aquatic ecological receptors is via sediment exposure and/or
ingestion of food items. Since K^ is correlated with the partitioning of
chemicals between water, sediment, and biota, it is a relevant parameter for
identifying chemicals that will partition to other media from water. Thus, the
general scoring algorithm (Equation IV-3) is used without modification.
Toxicity values used for comparison to K^-based aquatic exposures are
based on acute ambient water quality criteria or the lowest available LC50
value for appropriate freshwater species, as described above. Inputs to the
scoring algorithm, calculated scores for each chemical, and rankings are
contained in Appendix VI-16. Chemicals accounting for the top 95 percent of
the cumulative score for all chemicals under this exposure type are listed in
Table IV-3 under "Aquatic (K^-based)".
Based on this analysis, eight chemicals (hexachlorophene, 4,4'-DDE,
heptachlor, benzo[a]pyrene, bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate, dioxin/furan,
hexachlorobenzene, and di(n)octylphthalate) are selected as ECOCs; note that
hexachlorophene and dioxin/furan are also selected for ingestion exposures.
These eight chemicals accounted for 69.3, 7.6, 5.0, 3.8, 3.4, 3.2, 1.9, and
1.8 percent of the cumulative score for K^-based aquatic exposures,
respectively, for a combined score of 96.0% (Table IV-3).
(4) Aquatic (Water Solubility-based). Some chemicals emitted from
the WTI incinerator stack are directly deposited onto aquatic habitats and
indirectly deposited via runoff from surrounding terrestrial habitats. A
potential exposure route to ecological receptors is direct contact with water
soluble chemicals present in the surface waters of surrounding water bodies.
Since K^ is inversely proportional to water solubility (see Equation IV-6
below), the K,,w-based aquatic analysis does not account for these potential
exposures. Thus, the general scoring algorithm (Equation IV-3) is modified
for the water solubility-based aquatic exposure analysis by substituting water
solubility for K^ as follows:
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-14 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Score = (IV-5)
TV
where: ER = Emission rate
WS = Water Solubility
TV = Toxicity value
Water solubilities (S) are. estimated from log K^, values using the
following equation from Lyman et al. (1990)11:
log - = -Cl^MXtogJ^ - 0.850
ij
Toxicity values used for the water solubility-based aquatic exposure
analysis are based on acute ambient water quality criteria or the lowest
available LC50 value for appropriate freshwater fish, invertebrate, or algal
species, as described above. Inputs to the scoring algorithm, calculated scores
for each chemical, and rankings are contained hi Appendix VI-17. Chemicals
accounting for the top 95 percent of the cumulative score for all chemicals are
listed in Table IV-3 under "Aquatic (Water Solubility-based)".
Based on this analysis, four chemicals (formaldehyde, acrylonitrile,
1,4-dioxane, and acetone) are selected as ECOCs; note that formaldehyde is
also selected during the inhalation analysis. These four chemicals account for
43.7, 29.8, 20.0, and 1.7 percent of the cumulative score for the water
solubility-based aquatic analysis, respectively, for a combined score of 95.2%
(Table IV-3).
b. Chemical Group Analysis
Evaluation by chemical group is the second of three parts of the
detailed screening process used to select organic stack ECOCs. The purpose
11 This equation provides a reasonable estimate of water solubility, particularly considering
that relative solubility among chemicals is the objective of the screening. Estimates from
KO,, are used hi place of measured water solubility values as a practical matter.
values are available for all of the chemicals; water solubilities are not. This use of
derived estimates is not considered a significant source of uncertainty hi the analysis.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-15 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
of this second evaluation method is two-fold: (1) to ensure that the full range
of major chemical groups (or at least those for which there are representative
ecotoxicological data) is represented among the ECOCs, and (2) to confirm the
results of the exposure analysis, that is, to evaluate if variations in the ranking
approach would influence the ECOCs selected.
Organic chemicals are subdivided into six chemical groups (higher
molecular-weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], lower molecular-
weight PAHs, phthalates, pesticides, volatile organics, and semivolatile
organics12) based on general differences in physicochemical characteristics
that influence their behavior in the environment.
The same scores calculated in the previous subsection, where all
chemicals are considered together by exposure type, are used but rankings are
done within each chemical group. The top 10 percent of the chemicals (when
ranked from highest to lowest scores) within each chemical group are selected
as ECOCs. Specifically, if there are between one and ten chemicals in a
group, one ECOC is selected; if there are up to twenty chemicals in a group,
two ECOCs are selected; etc. This "lO-percent" criterion is intended to
provide additional assurance that a chemical potentially contributing
significantly to ecological risk is not overlooked due to a subtle chemical-
specific characteristic that reduces its score relative to the top-ranked chemical
hi the group. At the same time, the 10-percent criterion is considered
adequate to initially evaluate the potential risks of the entire group. If
ecological risks predicted for the ECOCs within a group are considered
significant, then additional chemicals in that group (i.e., beyond the top 10
percent) could be evaluated as part of subsequent assessments.
Depending upon the most relevant and most likely exposures to a
chemical group, the ranking is based on scores from ingestion, inhalation,
aquatic (K^-based), or aquatic (water solubility-based) exposures. For all
chemical groups except volatile organics, the two scores from the ingestion
and aquatic (Kow-based) exposures are used to rank chemicals within groups.
12 PCBs and dioxin/furans are not included hi any of these chemical groups based on their
chemical, fate, and transport properties (e.g., highly lipophilic, highly chlorinated, highly
persistent, known to biomagnify in food chains, and highly toxic). Although many of
these properties are shared by members of the pesticide group, PCBs and dioxin/furans
do not fit well into this group since they are not used as pesticides. Dioxin/furans are
selected as ECOCs under the exposure analysis and PCBs are addressed under the third
step of the detailed screening process (professional judgement).
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-16 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
This approach is selected because these chemicals would likely present the
greatest ecological risk via these exposures based on their chemical properties.
Ingestion and aquatic (K^-based) exposures are not considered significant for
volatile organics relative to inhalation and aquatic (water solubility-based)
exposures based on the properties of these chemicals (i.e., low K^,, high water
solubility, and high volatility). Thus, the two scores from inhalation and
aquatic (water solubility-based) exposures are used to rank chemicals in the
volatile organic group.
(1) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs can be
evaluated for ecological risks as two groups, lower molecular-weight
compounds (3 or fewer rings) and higher molecular-weight compounds (4 or
more rings). Individual PAHs within these groups exhibit broadly similar fate
and transport mechanisms and ecotoxicological characteristics (Table IV-4).
Among the nine13 higher molecular-weight PAHs, benzo(a)pyrene has
the highest score. It is ranked first for both ingestion and aquatic exposures
(Table IV-4) and is selected as an ECOC on this basis. Among the nine lower
molecular-weight PAHs, anthracene has the highest overall score. Although
anthracene is the eighth ranked chemical for ingestion, it is ranked first for
aquatic exposures. Anthracene is selected as an ECOC based on its aquatic
score (Table IV-4).
(2) Phthalates. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is selected as an ECOC
based upon its having the highest score within this group of six chemicals. It
scores first for both ingestion and aquatic exposures (Table IV-4).
(3) Pesticides. Eleven pesticides (includes insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, acaricides, and germicides) have estimated emission rates (Table
FV-4). Hexachlorophene (a germicide) and 4,4'-DDE (an insecticide) have the
highest scores within this group and are selected as ECOCs. They are ranked
first and second, respectively, for both ingestion and aquatic exposures (Table
13 No ecotoxicological data are available for dibenzo(a,h)fluoranthene so this chemical is
not included in the screening.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-17 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
(4) Volatile Organics. A total of 49 volatile organic compounds are
evaluated (Table IV-4). The five chemicals with the highest scores within this
group (formaldehyde, acetone, crotonaldehyde, chloroform, and vinyl chloride)
are selected as ECOCs. Formaldehyde is the highest ranked chemical within
this group for both inhalation and aquatic exposures (Table IV-4). The other
four selected ECOCs from this group are ranked second, third, fourth, and
fifth for inhalation, and third, fourth, eighth, and 40th for aquatic exposures,
respectively (Table IV-4). Three of the five volatiles (formaldehyde,
chloroform, and acetone) were also selected from the evaluation of fugitive
emissions (see below).
(5) Semivolatile Organics. Forty-seven semivolatile organic
compounds are evaluated (Table IV-4). The five chemicals with the highest
scores within this group (hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene,
pentachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, and pentachlorophenol) are
selected as ECOCs. These chemicals represent the five highest ranked
chemicals hi this group for aquatic exposures and five of the six highest ranked
chemicals in this group for ingestion exposures (Table IV-4).
c. Evaluation Using Professional Judgement
The third and final part of the detailed screening process to select
organic stack ECOCs is an evaluation using professional judgement. The
purpose of this step is to identify any chemicals not already selected that might
pose a potentially significant ecological risk.
Ingestion and inhalation toxicity values for small mammals and aquatic
toxicity values for aquatic species exposed via water, sediments, or the food
chain are the only exposure-receptor combinations for which data are available
for a sufficient number of the organic chemicals under consideration to allow a
useful ranking. Other important ecological receptors, such as terrestrial
plants, soil invertebrates, and birds, for which there are insufficient
toxicological data among the organic chemicals considered, are evaluated using
professional judgement.
Since there are no herbicides selected as ECOCs in the previous two
parts of the selection process, a herbicide is added based on professional
judgement to fill this potential gap. 2,4-D, although only moderately
persistent hi the environment (Table IV-5) and of relatively low toxicity to
aquatic organisms, is the highest ranked herbicide evaluated (Table IV-4).
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-18 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Since this herbicide is highly toxic to a wide range of terrestrial plants, it is
added as an ECOC.
Toxicity data are very limited for soil-dwelling organisms exposed to
organic chemicals. However, phenols, which are known to be particularly
toxic to soil invertebrates such as earthworms (Neuhauser et al. 1985b), are
represented by pentachlorophenol, which was selected as an ECOC during the
analysis by chemical group.
Chlorinated bioaccumulative chemicals, with the exception of PCBs,
are well represented in the ECOCs already selected and therefore address
toxicity to birds, which are sensitive to these chemicals. Since PCBs have the
potential to biomagnify in food chains (Eisler 1986a) and score fourth for
ingestion exposures (Appendix VI-15), they are also added as an ECOC based
on professional judgement.
Persistence, an important factor in chemical risk assessment, is not
included as a direct input to the scoring algorithm because there is no one
factor that can be used to account for all applicable mechanisms (e.g.,
biodegradation, hydrolysis, volatilization) that can affect a chemical's overall
persistence. Persistence is therefore considered as a professional judgement
factor in the selection of ECOCs.
The persistence of a chemical in the environment is qualitatively
evaluated using media-specific data on the half-life of chemicals hi air, surface
water, and surface soil. Howard et al. (1991) and HSDB (1995) are the
primary sources of half-life data. Table IV-5 lists persistence values for each
of the organic chemicals evaluated in this section. With the exception of
several higher molecular-weight PAHs with long soil half-lives and several
volatile organics with long half-lives in air, the more highly persistent
chemicals are generally among those already selected as ECOCs. For the
PAHs, benzo(a)pyrene is already selected as an ECOC and is judged to
adequately represent the other highly persistent PAHs not selected as ECOCs.
The freon-type chemicals, although highly persistent, are not selected as
ECOCs. Their high volatility makes their quick transport to the upper
atmosphere likely, and the likelihood for significant exposure of ecological
receptors is thus limited. Thus, no additional ECOCs are added based on the
evaluation of persistence.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-19 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2. Summary of Stack ECOCs
Table IV-6 lists the 22 organic and 15 metal ECOCs selected to evaluate the
WTI incinerator stack emissions in the risk characterization component of the SERA
and the method used for their selection. Chemicals that are screened out of the
assessment in either the initial or detailed steps of the ECOC selection process are
dropped from further consideration in the SERA.
Twelve organic ECOCs are selected on the basis of the exposure analysis.
Seven (not including dioxin/furan, which is not included in a chemical group) of these
twelve chemicals are also selected by chemical group analysis. This increases the
confidence that these chemicals represent the greatest risk potential among the organic
chemicals in the WTI stack emissions. The addition of five ECOCs selected by the
exposure analysis only (including dioxin/furan), eight ECOCs selected by chemical
group analysis only, and two ECOCs selected based on professional judgement
provides additional assurance that a significant contributor to risk is not overlooked in
the SERA.
Table IV-7 shows the media that are evaluated for each of the selected ECOCs
in subsequent portions of the SERA. All media are evaluated for the 15 metals. For
organic chemicals selected as ECOCs based solely on the exposure analysis, only the
media for which they are selected are evaluated in subsequent sections of the SERA.
This applies to acrylonitrile, 1,4-dioxane, di(n)octylphthalate, and heptachlor, which
are selected based solely on aquatic exposures; these chemicals are only evaluated in
surface water and sediment (Table IV-7). This also applies to dioxin/furan, which is
selected based on ingestion and aquatic exposures; this chemical is evaluated in
surface water and sediment (aquatic) and in surface soils and tissues (ingestion).
Organic ECOCs selected as part of the chemical group and professional judgement
steps of the screening process are evaluated for all media, with the exception of the
volatile organic ECOCs, which are evaluated only hi surface water, sediment, and air.
Volatile organic ECOCs are not evaluated hi surface soil or tissues (food chain
effects) since they are not expected to accumulate hi these media based on their
chemical properties (high volatility and low bioaccumulation, respectively).
D. Substances of Potential Concern in Fugitive Emissions
Five primary sources of routine fugitive emissions have been identified at the WTI
facility. Of these, four are sources of fugitive organic vapor emissions: (1) seals, valves,
and flanges associated with tanks hi the organic waste tank farm building, (2) open waste
water tank, (3) truck wash, and (4) carbon adsorption bed system. The fifth source involves
routine fugitive ash emissions associated with the operation of the bag filter used to control
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-20 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
releases during the loading of fly ash from the electrostatic precipitator into trucks. The four
organic vapor emissions sources and the fugitive ash emissions source are discussed in more
detail in Volume in, Chapter IV.
1. Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions
In Volume IE, Chapter IV, a methodology for estimating the magnitude of
total chemical fugitive emissions from storage areas and process operations at the
WTI facility is described. Based on this methodology, more than 300 organic
chemicals have been identified as being in the pumpable feeds processed by the WTI
facility; these pumpable feeds are likely to be the most significant source of fugitive
emissions from the WTI facility. To facilitate the selection of specific chemicals for
evaluation of organic vapor fugitive emissions in both the HHRA and SERA, a list of
organic chemicals that accounts for 90 percent of the total pumpable feeds processed
on an annual basis at the WTI facility is developed. This list, which contains 96
chemicals (Table IV-8), serves as the starting point for organic vapor fugitive
chemical screening in the SERA.
2. Fugitive Ash Emissions
The combustion of waste materials typically results hi the production of solid
residues (ash). Fugitive paniculate matter emissions may result from the subsequent
collection, handling, and disposal of this ash. The solid incinerator residue of
greatest concern with respect to fugitive emissions is the fly ash, collected by the
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) in the air pollution control system. This fly ash is
produced hi relatively large quantities, generally has a very fine consistency (and is
thus subject to dispersal by winds), and contains potentially hazardous metals (see
Volume ffl).
Substances of potential concern associated with fugitive fly ash emissions are
identified based on chemical analyses conducted by WTI, as discussed hi Volume III.
In 1994, monthly samples of fly ash were collected from the ESP at the WTI facility.
These fly ash samples were analyzed for 80 volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds, total and amenable cyanide, and nine metals. None of the 80 organic
compounds were detected in any of the 12 fly ash samples and, thus, organic
compounds are not identified as substances of potential concern hi fugitive ash
emissions. The metals that were detected hi at least one sample of ash were identified
as substances of potential concern and are listed hi Table IV-14. Total cyanide was
also detected hi the fly ash samples and, thus, is also identified as a substance of
potential concern.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-21 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
E. Fugitive Emission ECOC Selection
Fugitive ECOCs are selected for the four organic vapor fugitive sources and for the
ash handling facility using methodology that is consistent with, although modified from, that
used in selecting stack ECOCs. This methodology, and the resulting ECOCs, are discussed
separately for organic vapor fugitive sources and the ash handling facility.
1. Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive organic chemicals of primary concern are volatile constituents present
hi the waste feed that are released during waste handling and processing prior to
incineration. These volatile constituents are released from locations close to ground
elevation and are likely to have a more localized impact than chemicals emitted from
the stack. Consequently, the ECOC selection procedure for organic vapor fugitive
emissions is directed towards identifying chemicals present in the waste feed that are
of potential concern as a result of direct inhalation exposures. However, to be
consistent with the manner in which volatile organics are treated in the ECOC
screening for stack emissions, potential exposures from direct contact with chemicals
in surface water is also considered as part of the fugitive organic screening process.
The list of 96 substances of potential concern, identified hi Section I V.D.I,
serves as the starting point for organic vapor fugitive chemical screening hi the
SERA. The screening of these organic chemicals is conducted hi two parts: (1)
exposure analysis, and (2) evaluation by professional judgement. Each of these parts
is described below. Chemical group analysis, used hi the ECOC stack screening, is
not used for fugitive organic ECOC screening since only volatile organic chemicals
are of potential concern. Although the pre-screening chemical list of 96 substances
contains chemicals other than volatile organics (approximately half of the 96
chemicals [46] have vapor pressures greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg and can thus
be considered "volatile"), these other, relatively non-volatile chemicals are not
expected to be released in appreciable quantities from the fugitive vapor sources.
This is because releases from these fugitive sources are primarily, dependent upon the
ability of the chemical to volatilize to air, unlike stack releases where the substances
are directly introduced to the air.
The exposure analysis utilizes scoring algorithms as described below; these
algorithms are functionally equivalent to the scoring algorithms used hi the SERA
screening of volatile organic stack ECOCs and are similar to the algorithms used in
the HHRA for noncarcinogenic effects. Each of three input parameters is used in
these scoring algorithms (not all of these input parameters are used in all algorithms)
as follows:
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-22 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Quantity Released. Quantity is estimated by dividing the estimated
chemical-specific total weight (in pounds) in the pumpable feeds (on an
annual basis) by the molecular weight, and then multiplying by the
vapor pressure (see Volume V, Chapter IV). This parameter is
functionally equivalent to the emission rate parameter used hi the
screening of stack ECOCs. Estimated emission rates are not used in
the fugitive screening since the methodology used to estimate organic
vapor fugitive emission rates could not address more than about 25
chemicals (see Volume HI). Thus, the quantity released parameter
served as a surrogate for the emission rate for screening purposes.
Following screening, a sufficiently small number of chemicals (ECOCs)
remain to allow direct estimation of emission rates.
Water Solubility. Water solubility is calculated from log K^ values, as
described in Section IV. C.I.
Toxicity. Relative toxicity to terrestrial animals and/or aquatic
organisms, depending upon the type of exposure evaluated, is used as a
screening criterion. The lack of available ecotoxicological data on
which to base a scientifically valid evaluation is a limiting factor in
evaluating some chemicals. Ecotoxicological data are lacking for some
chemicals because they are believed to be relatively non-toxic and have
therefore not been tested or studied. The lack of a complete
toxicological data set is not considered to be a significant problem.
Chronic effects data for reproduction or growth (No Observed
Adverse Effect Levels [NOAELs], where available) from inhalation
exposures of laboratory animals, generally rats and mice, are used to
express the relative toxicity of chemicals to terrestrial annuals. These
data represent the most extensive and readily available data set for the
organic chemicals that are evaluated. Primary data sources are the
HSDB and RTECS databases and ATSDR chemical-specific toxicity
profiles. Although data from laboratory mammals are used as a
practical consideration in this chemical screening, these data are
supplemented with more pertinent ecotoxicological data (from studies of
bird and mammal wildlife species) during the analysis and risk
characterization components of the SERA.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-23 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Acute effects data are used to express the relative toxicity of
chemicals to aquatic organisms. Acute data are available for the
majority of chemicals, and the endpoints (e.g., mortality) and study
durations evaluated in acute studies are more uniform among chemicals
and therefore introduce less subjectivity to the screening process than
would, for example, chronic data based on many endpoints. Acute
toxicity values are derived from acute ambient water quality criteria or
the lowest available LCso value for appropriate freshwater fish,
invertebrate, or algal species from the literature. Primary data sources
for aquatic toxicity data are the OHM/TADS and AQUIRE data bases.
Although acute toxicity data are used as a practical consideration in this
chemical screening, chronic toxicity data (or estimates of chronic
toxicity if data are unavailable) are used in the risk characterization
component of the SERA, where inherent toxicity is more important
than relative toxicity.
Persistence and bioaccumulation potential, parameters used qualitatively and
quantitatively, respectively, in the screening of stack emissions, are both considered
qualitatively hi the second portion (professional judgement) of the organic vapor
fugitive emissions screening process.
a. Exposure Analysis
The exposure analysis is the first of two parts of the screening process
used to select organic fugitive ECOCs. Consistent with the approach used in
the screening of stack ECOCs for volatile organics, two "exposure types" are
selected for separate evaluation: (1) inhalation, and (2) aquatic (based on
water solubility [direct exposure]).
For each exposure type, the chemicals are ranked by score (the output
of the scoring algorithms) and ECOCs are identified as those chemicals
comprising a high percentage (95 % or more) of the cumulative score for all
chemicals within a given exposure type. The 95th percentile is used since
chemicals contributing to the remaining five percent of the total score account
for only very small increments (generally less than one percent) of the total
score.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-24 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
(1) Inhalation. The screening algorithm used for organic vapor
fugitive inhalation exposures, which is functionally equivalent to the algorithm
used for inhalation exposures during stack ECOC selection, is:
Score =
OV-7)
TV
where:
WV
MW
VP
TV
Waste volume
Molecular weight
Vapor pressure
Toxicity value
Toxicity values used for inhalation are derived from laboratory tests of
inhalation exposures in small mammals; this assumes that birds (or plants) are
not significantly more sensitive to chemical exposure via this route. Inputs to
the scoring algorithm, calculated scores for each chemical, and rankings are
contained hi Table IV-8.
Based on this analysis, one chemical (formaldehyde) is selected as an
ECOC. Formaldehyde accounts for over 99% of the total score for inhalation
(Table IV-8).
(2) Aquatic (Water Solubility-based). The screening algorithm used
for organic vapor fugitive aquatic exposures, which is functionally equivalent
to the algorithm used for aquatic (water solubility-based) exposures during
stack ECOC selection, is:
Score =
TV
(IV-8)
where:
WV
MW
VP
WS
TV
Waste volume
Molecular weight
Vapor pressure
Water solubility
Toxicity value
Volume VI
IV-25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Water solubilities are estimated from log K^ values as described
Section IV.C.l.a. Toxicity values used for the water solubility-based aquatic
exposure analysis are based on acute Ambient Water Quality Criteria or the
lowest available LCX value for appropriate freshwater fish, invertebrate, or
algal species, as described above. Inputs to the scoring algorithm, calculated
scores for each chemical, and rankings are contained in Table IV-9.
Based on this analysis, one chemical (formaldehyde) is selected as an
ECOC; note that formaldehyde is also selected during the inhalation analysis.
Formaldehyde accounts for 95.4 percent of the organic vapor fugitive
cumulative score for the water solubility-based aquatic analysis (Table IV-9).
b. Evaluation Using Professional Judgement
The second and final part of the detailed screening process to select
organic fugitive ECOCs is an evaluation using professional judgement. The
purpose of this step is to identify any chemicals not already selected that might
pose a potentially significant ecological risk. Since only a single chemical
(formaldehyde) was selected during the first step of the screening, additional
chemicals are selected in this second step to provide a more representative
cross-section of organic chemical types for further evaluation in the SERA.
This is done in two parts, as described below.
In the first part, a modification of the chemical group analysis
methodology used to select organic stack ECOCs is implemented. This
approach uses the results of the first step of the fugitive organic screening
(exposure analysis) but instead of limiting the selection to the chemicals
accounting for 95 percent of the total score, the chemicals were ranked based
on highest to lowest scores and the top 10 percent (by number) are selected as
ECOCs. Since there are 46 fugitive "volatile" chemicals in the evaluation
(defined as chemicals with a vapor pressure greater than or equal to 10 mm
Hg, as discussed above), the five chemicals with the highest scores from each
exposure type (inhalation and aquatic) are selected as fugitive organic ECOCs.
Table IV-8 presents the results of the fugitive organic screening process
for inhalation exposures. The five chemicals with the highest scores
(excluding dichlorodifluoromethane) were formaldehyde, hydrazine, acetone,
dimethylamine, and chloroform; these chemicals are selected as ECOCs.
Dichlorodifluoromethane (ranked fourth) is not selected as an ECOC because
an accurate emission rate can not be calculated due to the extremely high
volatility of this chemical (see Section I V.F.I).
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-26 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Table IV-9 presents the results of the fugitive organic screening process
for aquatic exposures. The five chemicals with the highest scores are
formaldehyde, acrylonitrile, dimethylhydrazine, dimethylamine, and hydrazine.
Acrylonitrile and dimethylhydrazine, the two chemicals that did not overlap
those already selected based on inhalation exposures, are added as ECOCs.
In the second portion of the selection process based on professional
judgement, persistence and bioaccumulative potential are considered, on a
qualitative basis, to determine if any additional chemicals warrant inclusion as
fugitive organic ECOCs. Table TV-10 lists persistence and log K<,w values for
each of the organic chemicals evaluated in this section. Only persistence half-
lives in water and air are considered since these are the media considered most
relevant in the fugitive organic screening.
Several volatile organics not already selected as ECOCs have long half-
lives in air. These include carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, acetonitrile, and a number of freon-type chemicals. The
freon-type chemicals, although highly persistent, are not selected as ECOCs.
Their high volatility makes their quick transport to the upper atmosphere
likely, and the likelihood for significant exposure of ecological receptors is
thus limited. Carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane are not selected as ECOCs due to their relatively low toxicity
(they score 39th, 44th, and 60th, respectively, in the inhalation screening).
Acetonitrile, however, which scored llth in the inhalation screening, is added
as an ECOC.
Chemicals with relatively high half-lives in water and/or high log K,,w
values (generally PAHs) also have low vapor pressures and are not likely to be
released in appreciable quantities from the fugitive organic vapor sources.
Thus, no additional chemicals are added as ECOCs based on surface water
half-lives or bioaccumulative potential.
2. Fugitive Ash Emissions
Since only seven metals/ plus cyanide, were detected in fly ash samples, no
screening is conducted. Instead, all eight of these chemicals (arsenic, barium,
cadmium, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, and total cyanide) are selected as fugitive ash
ECOCs.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-27 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
3. Summary of Fugitive ECOCs
Table FV-11 lists the eight organic and eight inorganic ECOCs selected to
evaluate fugitive emissions in the risk characterization component of the SERA and
the method used for then* selection. Chemicals that are screened out of the
assessment during the fugitive ECOC selection process are dropped from further
consideration in the SERA.
Table IV-12 shows the media that are evaluated for each of the selected
fugitive ECOCs in subsequent portions of the SERA. All media are evaluated for the
seven metal ECOCs. Since cyanide is readily metabolized (Eisler 1991), and thus
does not readily bioaccumulate, cyanide is not evaluated in tissues (food chain effects)
but is evaluated hi the remaining media. For organic chemicals selected as fugitive
ECOCs, only the media for which they were selected are evaluated in subsequent
sections of the SERA. For example, acrylonitrile was selected based only on aquatic
exposures and is thus evaluated only in surface water and sediment (Table IV-12).
Fugitive organic ECOCs, being volatile organic chemicals, are not evaluated in
surface soil or tissues since they are not expected to accumulate hi these media based
on their chemical properties (high volatility and low bioaccumulation, respectively).
The eight chemicals selected as organic fugitive ECOCs represent a broad
range of chemical types. Four of these chemicals (chloroform, acrylonitrile,
formaldehyde, and acetone) are also selected as ECOCs for stack emissions. All of
the fugitive metal ECOCs are also evaluated in stack emissions.
F. Development of Chemical-Specific Fugitive Emission Rates
For each organic vapor fugitive ECOC, chemical-specific emission rate estimates are
developed for each of the four identified fugitive vapor emission sources, as described below.
In addition, chemical-specific emission rates are developed for each inorganic ECOC selected
for evaluation at the ash handling facility.
1. Organic Vapor Fugitive Emission Rates
Total fugitive emission rates are estimated for the four organic vapor sources
based on fugitive emissions models, waste feed throughput, and U.S. EPA-derived
emission factors, as summarized in Volumes in and V. Chemical-specific emission
rates from one of these sources, tanks that are vented to the carbon adsorption bed
(CAB) system, are estimated using U.S. EPA's tank calculation program known as
TANKS2. The TANKS2 program uses molecular weight, vapor pressure (over a
range of temperatures), and chemical-specific feed rates (the three variables used to
estimate quantity released during ECOC screening), along with several other
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-28 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
parameters, in deriving emission rates. The program requires chemical-specific
information on the selected organic ECOCs, as well as data on the physical properties
of the remainder of the waste feed. The remainder of the waste feed is assumed to be
primarily composed of the 12 constituents present in the highest volume, as
determined from the waste profile for the first nine months of facility operation14.
The waste feed throughput to these tanks is based on the maximum heat input rate and
on the design of the incinerator. The resulting total tank farm-related emissions from
the CAB system are estimated to be 212.2 Ibs/year (see Volume III). The TANKS2
program also provides an estimate of the emissions, represented by each of the organic
ECOCs (see Chapter V for these emission rates) for this source. It should be noted
that the vapor pressure for dichlorodifluoromethane is beyond the acceptable range
permitted by the TANKS2 program, so an emission rate can not be developed for this
compound.
The results of the tank farm/CAB modeling are extrapolated to the other three
fugitive organic vapor emission sources by assuming that the chemical composition of
fugitive emissions (expressed as a weight fraction) is the same for all of the identified
fugitive emission sources. Thus, weight fractions of individual constituents (ECOCs)
derived from the above analysis of tank farm emissions are multiplied individually by
the total estimated fugitive emission rates (all chemicals) for each of the sources of
fugitive organic emissions to determine chemical-specific and source-specific emission
rates. The chemical-specific emission rates estimated by this process for each of the
four fugitive organic vapor sources are presented in Table IV-13. It should be noted
that since the waste water tank contains highly diluted wastes, use of this procedure of
deriving chemical-specific emission rates will significantly overstate actual emissions
from the waste water tanks. Total fugitive emissions, however, should not be
significantly overestimated because fugitive emissions from the waste water tank
account for only a small fraction (less than 10 percent) of the total fugitive emissions
from the facility (see Volume V).
2. Fugitive Ash Emission Rates
Emissions of specific metals and cyanide contained within the fugitive ash are
estimated based on available data on ash composition from monthly sampling of ash
from the ESP during 1994. High-end metal and cyanide concentrations associated
14 Waste feed properties are assumed to be reflective of the 12 constituents that comprise
approximately 60 percent of the waste feed. The ECOC emission rates are not expected
to be very sensitive to the overall waste feed properties, as discussed hi Volume V.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-29 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
with the fly ash are estimated based on these monthly sampling results. For the eight
inorganic ECOCs, the high-end concentrations used hi the SERA15 are estimated
based on the 95 percent UCL of the arithmetic mean of the measured ash
concentrations, or the maximum detected concentration, whichever is lower (see
Volume in). In estimating these high-end concentrations, it is conservatively assumed
that metals (and cyanide) detected on at least one occasion are present hi the ash at
the detection limit on other occasions when the concentrations were below the
detection limits.
To estimate chemical-specific emission rates, the high-end concentration of
each metal ECOC (plus cyanide) hi the ash is multiplied by the estimated fugitive ash
emission rate of 4.03 x 10"* g/sec (estimated in Volume IE). The resulting chemical-
specific emission rates due to fugitive ash releases are summarized hi Table IV-14.
3. Summary of Fugitive Emission Rate Estimates Used in Exposure Scenarios
Based on the emission rate discussion hi the previous sections, two sets of
fugitive emission rate estimates (one for organic fugitive vapor emission sources and
one for inorganic emissions from the ash handling facility) are used as components of
exposure estimates (scenarios) hi the SERA as follows:
• Fugitive Inorganic Emission Rates - these emission rates are based on
high-end estimates for fugitive emissions from the ash handling facility
of inorganic chemical constituents associated with the residual ash from
the incinerator. These emission rates are developed as described hi
Section IV.F.2. They are used hi the analysis of conservative (upper-
bound) exposures to fugitive inorganic ECOCs.
• Fugitive Organic Emission Rates - these emission rates are estimated
for each of the four identified sources of fugitive emissions of volatile
organic constituents and are developed as described hi Section I V.F.I
and hi Volume V. They are used hi the analysis of "expected"
exposures to volatile organic chemicals from the four fugitive organic
15 Average (arithmetic mean) chemical concentrations hi ash are used hi the HHRA;
compounds that were analyzed for but not detected are assumed to exist at one-half the
detection limit. The SERA utilizes the high-end concentrations, not the average
concentrations, for conservatism and to be consistent with the methodology used for stack
emissions hi the SERA.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-30 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
vapor sources, considered both singly and as a group (total exposure to
all four sources).
The emission rate estimates described above are all assumed to represent
annual average emission rates based on continuous operation of the facility.
G. Uncertainties in the ECOC Selection Process
In selecting chemicals for this screening-level risk assessment, it is possible that some
substances will be eliminated from consideration (because of the selection criteria or because
of a lack of toxicity values) that may pose a potential ecological risk. The process described
in this chapter is developed to minimize the uncertainty associated with the selection process
and to ensure that a chemical posing a potentially significant risk is not overlooked and/or
that risks are not underestimated. The following sections, and Table IV-15, provide a
summary of the key uncertainties associated with the ECOC selection process presented in
this chapter.
1. Uncertainties Associated with Emission Rate Estimates
Emission rates are a central component of the ECOC selection algorithms for
stack emissions; chemicals with higher emission rates are given a greater relative
weight hi the selection process. Despite the tests performed at the WTI incinerator,
there are limitations hi the available data for predicting emission rates. The type,
quantity, and quality of the available data require that some extrapolations and
assumptions be made in order to estimate stack and fugitive emission rates for both
the organics and metals.
Long-term data are not available because the facility has had only limited
operation. Therefore, a review of information on facility design and operation and
the predicted waste characteristics is combined with data from trial burns and
performance tests to derive best estimates. Where data are available, 95 percent UCL
values are used to provide high-end estimates of emission rates and thereby reduce the
likelihood that emissions are underestimated.
2. Uncertainties Associated with Dispersion Modeling
While state-of-the-science models and best available data are used in the
dispersion modeling to reduce the uncertainties as much as possible, important output
variables used hi the SERA, such as dispersion factors and the locations of maximum
impact points, must be considered best estimates. The key assumptions in the
dispersion modeling are described further hi Volume IV. A qualitative assessment
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-31 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
suggests that the dispersion modeling assumptions are unlikely to have a significant
effect on the outcome of the SERA.
3. Other Uncertainties Associated with ECOC Selection
It is assumed that all significant sources and chemical substances are accounted
for in the selection of ECOCs. While there may be some chemical substances that
would be part of the stack and/or fugitive emissions but that are not included in the
emission rate estimates (e.g., a minor fugitive source that is not identified, or
components of the unidentified fraction of the trial burn mass), these potential
underestimates in emissions are considered to have a low magnitude of effect on the
outcome of the SERA. Thus, it is unlikely that risks are underestimated to any
significant degree.
Algorithms are developed and used to screen the large initial lists of stack and
fugitive chemicals in order to select those chemicals considered to pose the greatest
potential risks to ecological receptors. While there is currently no single, accepted
process for such screening for chemical selection in ecological risk assessment, the
approach used in the SERA incorporates the guidance available in the scientific and
regulatory literature, and consists of three independent "screens" as a way to
minimize the possibility of overlooking a chemical that could pose a potentially
significant risk.
An incomplete toxicity data set is a factor in many ecological risk assessments
including this SERA. The biggest data gaps are for amphibians and reptiles, followed
by terrestrial plants, soil fauna, and birds. There are generally adequate data for
mammals and aquatic species. Uncertainty factors, which provide lower toxicological
benchmark values where data sets are limited, are used to compensate for this source
of uncertainty. Those chemicals that have no toxicological data are eliminated as a
practical matter, and it is assumed that the chemicals that are characterized account
for a significant majority of the potential risks.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IV-32 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-1
Chemicals Anticipated to be Emitted in Very Low Quantities
For Which Stack Emission Rates Were Not Estimated
Acrolein
Benzaldehyde
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(j)fluoranthene
Benzyl chloride
Biphenyl
Bromochloromethane
Bromoethene
1 ,3-Butadiene
2-Chloroacetophenone
2-Chloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
cis-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
trans-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Dichlorofluoromethane
1 ,2-Dinitrobenzene
1 ,3-Dinitrobenzene
1 ,4-Dinitrobenzene
a-Hexachlorocyclohexane
b-Hexachlorocyclohexane
n-Hexane
3-Hexanone
Methylene bromide
Phosgene
Propionaldehyde
Quinoline
Quinone
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
o-Toluidine
p-Toluidine
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Volume VI
IV-33
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
CAS Number
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)*
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)*
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
7429-90-5
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-66-6
—
1.6 x 10"
1.1 x 10"
5.5 x 10'
3.6 x 10-6
1.9 x 10"
1.5 x 10"
—
1.2 x lO"3
8.8 x lO'2
2.2 x 10'
4.4 x 10°
3.3 x 10°
5.5 x 10-'
—
2.4 x 10"
4.2 x 10*
3.7 x 10-5
1.5 x 10"
3.3 x 10*
1.6 x 10-5
7.1 x lO'7
9.4 x ID'5
4.3 x 10-5
1.4 x 10-3
5.0 x 10-6
4.7 x 10"
1.5 x 10-5
3.4 x 10-5
1.2 x 10"
Organics
Acenaphthene1*
Acenaphthylene1"
Acetaldehydee
Acetone0
Acetophenone*
Acrylonitrilee
Anthracenebf
Benzenef
Benzoic acid"
Benzotrichloride'
Benzo(a)anthracenebf
83-32-9
208-96-8
75-07-0
67-64-1
98-86-2
107-13-1
120-12-7
71-43-2
65-85-0
98-07-7
56-55-3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
3.01 x 10"
2.90 x lO'3
2.93 x 10"
2.02 x 10"
l.lOx 10-5
2.63 x lO"5
1.13x 10-5
3.20 x 10-5
l.lOx 10s
Volume VI
IV-34
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Benzo(a)pyrenekf
Benzo(b)fluorantheneM
Benzo(g,h,i)perylenew
Benzo(k)fluoranthenebf
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methanete
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ethei*
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)etherbc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatef
Bromodichloromethanef
Bromofonnkf
Bromomethanebf
Bromophenyl phenyl ether*0
2-Butanonef
Butylbenzylphthalatebf
Carbon disulfidef
Carbon tetrachloride'
Chlordanebf
4-Chloro-3-methylphenolbc
p-Chloroaniline1*
ChlorobenzeneM
Chlorobenzilate*
Chloroethane"'
Chloroform'
Chloromethanebf
2-Chloronaphthalenebe
2-Chlorophenolbf
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether1"
Chrysenebf
CAS Number
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
111-91-1
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
75-25-2
74-83-9
101-55-3
78-93-3
85-68-7
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
59-50-7
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
75-00-3
67^66-3
74-87-3
91-58-7
95-57-8
7005-72-3
218-01-9
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)'
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)'
l.lOx ID"5
l.lOx 10"5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx lO'5
6.69 x 10"6
1.33 x 10-5
6.69 x 1O*
5.23 x ID'5
1.53 x 10"4
l.lOx 10-5
9.80 x 1O4
6.69 x 10*
7.40 x 10'5
l.lOx 10"5
9.46 x 10-5
2.75 x 10"4
l.lOx 10-*
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10"s
3.68 x 10s
9.80 x 10*
4.07 x 1O4
4.90 x 10-4
6.69 x 1O*
l.lOx 10"5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
Volume VI
IV-35
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
m-Cresolbf
o-Cresolbf
p-Cresolbf
Crotonaldehyde*
Cumenebf
2,4-D°
4,4'-DDEbf
Dibenz(a, h)anthracenebf
Dibenzo(a,h)fluoranthenebf
Dibromochloromethanee
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzenebf
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzenebf
1 ,4-DichlorobenzeneM
3 ,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine"
Dichlorodifluoromethanebf
l,l-Dichloroethanebf
1 ,2-Dichloroethanebf
l,l-Dichloroethenebf
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethenebf
2,4-Dichlorophenolbf
1 ,2-Dichloropropanebf
cis-1 ,3-DichloropropeneM
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropenebf
Diethyl phthalatef
3 ,3 '-Dimethoxybenzidine"
2,4-Dimethylphenolbf
Dimethyl phthalate*
Di-n-butyl phthalatef
CAS Number
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
4170-30-3
98-82-8
94-75-7
72-55-9
53-70-3
—
124-48-1
95-50-1
541-73-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-60-5
120-83-2
78-87-5
542-75-6
54Z-75-6
84-66-2
119-90-4
105-67-9
131-11-3
84-74-2
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)'
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)*
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10"3
l.lOxlO-5
1.39x lO"
l.lOx 10-5
3.88 x 10"3
l.lOx 10*
l.lOx ID"3
l.lOx lO'5
2.63 x 10"5
l.lOx 10"5
l.lOx 10'3
l.lOx 10"5
. 3.33 x lO"3
4.90 x 10-1
2.50 x lO"3
2.50 x 10-3
2.50 x 10-5
2.50 x 10-5
l.lOx ID"3
2.50 x 10-3
2.50 x 10"5
2.50 x 10-3
3.60 x 10"5
1.15x 104
l.lOx 10-3
l.lOx ia3
2.04 x 10-3
Volume VI
IV-36
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenolbf
2,4-Dinitrophenolw
2,4rDinitrotoluenebf
2,6-Dinitrotoluenebf
l,4-Dioxanec
Di(n)octyl phthalatebf
Ethyl methacrylate"
Ethylbenzenef
Ethylene dibromide0
Ethylene oxide6
Ethylene thiourea"
FluorantheneM
Fluorene1"
Formaldehyde"
Furfural"
Heptechlorbf
Hexachlorobenzene^
Hexachlorobutadiene'
Hexachlorocyclopentadienew
HexachloroethaneM
Hexachlorophene'
2-Hexanonete
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrenebf
Isophorone1*
Lindane0
Maleic hydrazide'
Methoxychlorkf
Methyl t-butyl ether1"5
CAS Number
534-52-1
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
123-91-1
117-84-0
97-63-2
100-41-4
106-93-4
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
86-73-7
50-00-0
98-01-1
76-44-8
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47-4
67-72-1
70-30-4
591-78-6
193-39-5
78-59-1
58-89-9
123-33-1
72-43-5
1634-04-4
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)*
—
—
. —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)*
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOxlO:5
l.lOx ID'5
4.94 x 10-4
l.lOx 10"5
4.90 x 10-*
7.53 x 10"
1.15 x 1C"4
3.05 x 10"5
1.46x 10-'°
1.10 x 10"5
6.69 x 10*
6.07 x 1O4
l.lOx lO'5
l.lOx 10"6
l.lOx 10'5
1.01 x KT4
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
3.20 x 10-5
6.43 x 10"5
l.lOx 10-5
6.69 x 10-6
5.48 x 10-5
1.15x 104
l.lOx 10-6
2.50 x 10-3
Volume VI
IV-37
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
4-Methyl-2-Pentanonew
Methylene chloride'
2-Methylnaphthalene*
Naphthalene1*
2-Nitroanilinehe
3-Nitroanilinebe
4-NitroanilinelK
Nitrobenzene1"'
2-Nitrophenol1*
4-Nitrophenolbf
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine"
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylaminete
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine1*
Total PCBsc
PCDD/PCDF TEQ (2,3,7,8-
TCDD)d
Pentachlorobenzenee
Pentachloronitrobenzene*
Peniachlorophenolkf
Phenanthrenete
Phenol"
PyreneM
Safrole"
Styrenef
1,1,1 ,2-TetrachloroethaneM
1 , 1 ,2,2-TetrachloroethaneM
Tetrachloroethenef
2,3 ,4,6-Tetrachlorophenole
CAS Number
108-10-1
75-09-2
91-57-6
91-20-3
88-74-4
99-09-2
100-01-6
98-95-3
88-75-5
100-02-7
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
—
(1746-01-6)
608-93-5
82-68-8
87-86-5
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
94-59-7
100-42-5
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)*
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)*
2.50 x 10-s
6.19 x 10-
4.18x 10-5
l.lOx lO'5
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10s
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx ia3
1.21 x 1O4
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 1O6
3.38 x 10-7
1.26 x 10-9
4.76 x lO'5
3.37 x 10-'
l.lOx lO"5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx ID"5
l.lOx ID'5
1.15x 10-
4.04 x 10"5
l.lOx 10'5
'l.lOx 10'5
8.02 x 10-5
6.80 x 10*
Volume VI
IV-38
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Toluene'
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-
trifluoroethane'
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzenebf
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane"
1 , 1 ,2-TrichloroethaneM
Trichloroethene'
Trichlorofluoromethanebf
2 ,4 ,5-Trichlorophenolbf
2,4,6-TrichlorophenolM
Vinyl acetate1"
Vinyl chloride"
Total xylenesf
CAS Number
108-88-3
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79^01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
—
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)m
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)*
1.03 x 1
-------
TABLE IV-3
Detailed Chemical Screening - Exposure Analysis - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Score
Cumulative Percentage
of Total Score
Inhalation
Formaldehyde
6.07 x ID"2
0.968
Ingestion
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorophene
Aquatic (K^-Based)
Hexachlorophene
4,4'-DDE
Heptachlor
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Di(n)octylphthalate
3.24 x 103
2.22 x 102
0.925
0.989
-
5.28 x 10'
5.75 x 10°
3.85 x 10°
2.83 x 10°
2.61 x 10°
2.49 x 10°
1.42x 10°
1.34x 10°
Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based)
Formaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1 ,4-Dioxane
Acetone
2.27 x 10-6.
1.55x 10*
1.04 x 10*
9.00 x IO*
0.693
0.769
0.819
0.857
0.891
0.923
0.942
0.960
0.437
0.735
0.935
0.952
Volume VI
IV-40
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Chemical
High-
End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
Kow
Detailed Chemical Screening
ingestion
.
Toxicity
Value Score
Higher Molecular-Weight PAHs
3enzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
ndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
3«nzo(b)fluorantnone
3enzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Pyrene
3enzo(g,h,i)perylene
.10E-05
.10E-05
.10E-05
.IDE-OS
.IDE-OS
.IDE-OS
.10E-05
.10E-OS
.10E-05
1.29E+06
4.90E+06
4.47E+06
1.58E+06
1.58E+06
5.01 E+05
5.01 E+05
1.29E+05
5.01 E+06
10
38
72
40
72
. 500
99
80
NC
1.42E+00
1.42E+00
6.82E-01
436E-01
2 42E-01
1.10E-02
5.57E-02
1.77E-02
O.OOE+00
Group
Rank]
1
2
3
4
5
8
6
7
9
Chem
All
Rank
TABLE IV-4
ical Group ,
..
Analysis - Stack Emissions
nhalation
Toxicity
Value Score I
Group
Rank
All
Rank
Aquatic (Kow)
Toxicity
Value
Score
Qroup
Rank
All
Rank
Water
Sol
(mol/U
Vquatic (Water Solubility)
Score
Qroup
Rank
All
Rank
9
10
13
15
17
27
22
25
82
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
2.1
NC
OOOE+00
O.OOE+00
0 OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
5.24E-06
O.OOE+00
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
26
95
5
1000
NC
NC
NC
61
1000
250
NC
2.83E+00
539E-02
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
9.04E-02
5.51 E-03
5.67E-03
O.OOE+00
1
3
6
6
6
2
5
4
6
4
16
112
112
112
14
24
23
112
2.71 E-07
5.35E-08
5.98E-08
2.10E-07
2.10E-07
8.52E-07
8.52E-07
4.43E-06
5.20E-08
5.96E-13
5.88E-16
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.54E-13
9.37E-15
1.95E-13
O.OOE+00
1
5
6
6
6
3
4
2
6
92
110
112
112
112
100
106
99
112
Lower Molecular-Weight PAHs
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Acenaphthylene
Naphthalene
1.10E-05
6.69E-06
1.10E-05
4.1BE-05
6.69E-06
669E-06
669E-06
6 69E-06
1.10E-05
3.55E+04
3.55E+04
.32E+05
.29E+04
32E+04
B.32E+03
.62E+04
.17E+04
2.29E+03
3300
70
250
163
89
200
200
176
533
1.18E-04
3.39E-03
5.80E-03
3.30E-03
9.91 E-04
2.78E-04
5.42E-04
4.47E-04
4.73E-05
8
2
1
3
4
7
5
6
9
56
31
29
33
38
47
40
44
66
1.5
NO
NC
NC
NC
1.9
NC
NC
6.1
7.33E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
3.52E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.80E-06
1
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
3
18
95
95
95
95
31
95
95
42
11.9
30
200
1100
1600
85
500
NC
135
3.28E-02
7.91 E-03
7.25E-03
4.90E-04
5.51 E-05
6.5SE-04
2.17E-04
O.OOE+00
1.87E-04
1
2
3
S
8
4
6
9
7
18
20
22
36
49
33
42
112
43
2.12E-05
2.12E-05
4.31 E-06
7.25E-05
7.05E-05
1.23E-04
5.48E-05
8.11 E-05
S.OOE-04
1.96E-11
4.73E-12
2.37E-13
2.76E-12
2.95E-13
9.71E-12
7.34E-13
O.OOE+00
4.81 E-11
2
4
8
5
7
3
6
9
1
70
80
98
85
97
76
91
112
63
Phthalates
9ls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)ocryl phthalate
CN-n-Butylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
5 23E-05
1.10E-05
2.04E-05
1.10E-05
3.60E-05
1.10E-05
2.00E+07
1.15E+08
4.07E+04
6.92E+04
3.16E+02
3.72E+01
200
260
250
490
185
338
5.22E+00
4.86E+00
3.32E-03
1.55E-03
6.15E-05
1.21E-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
5
6
32
37
62
77
63
NC
4.4
62
80
117
8.30E-07
O.OOE+00
4.63E-06
1.77E-07
4.49E-07
9.40E-08
2
6
1
4
3
5
49
95!
30
/3
63
80
400
940
105
140
940
940
2.61 E+00
1.34E+00
7.90E-03
5.44E-03
1.21 E-05
4.35E-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
5
8
21
2b
55
81
9.72E-09
1.16E-09
1.79E-05
9.42E-06
6.53E-03
8.79E-02
1.27E-15
1.36E-17
3.48E-12
7.40E-13
2.50E-10
1.03E-09
Pesticides 1
Hexachlorophene (Q)
4,4' -ODE (I)
Heptachlor (I)
Chlordane (I)
Llndane (I)
Pentachloronltrobenzene (H/F)
Chlorobenzilate (A)
2,4-D (H)
Methoxychlor (I)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol (F)
Maleic hydrazide (H)
3.20E-05
1.10E-06
1.10E-06
1.10E-O6
5.48E-05
3.37E-05
3.68E-05
3.88E-05
1.10E-06
6.80E-06
1.15E-04
3.47E+07
5.75E+06
1.82E+06
2.09E+06
5.37E+03
4.37E+04
2.40E+04
5.01 E+02
1.20E+05
1.26E+04
4.79E-01
5.0
2.4
6.0
3.0
4.4
11
7.0
0.2
25
14
38
2.22E+02
2.64E+00
3.34E-01
7.66E-01
6.69E-02
1.34E-01
1.26E-01
9.72E-02
5.29E-03
6.11E-03
1.45E-06
1
2
4
3
8
5
6
7
10
9
11
2
8
16
11
21
18
19
20
30
28
75
0.2
NC
0.1
0.6
0.06
1.2
ND
ND
2.6
ND
436
1.60E-04
O.OOE+00
1.10E-05
1.83E-06
9.13E-04
2.81 E-05
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
4.23E-07
O.OOE+00
2.64E-07
2
8
4
5
1
3
8
8
6
8
7
5
95
15
41
2
11
95
95
65
95
69
21
1.1
0.52
2.4
2.6
1000
1450
1000
7.2
140
26000
5.28E+81
5.75E+00
3.85E+00
958E-01
1.47E-01
1.47E-03
609E-04
1 94E-05
1.84E-02
6. 11 E-04
212E-09
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
10
6
8
11
1
2
3
9
13
28
35
52
19
34
108
4.97E-09
440E-08
1.78E-07
1.50E-07
2.10E-04
1.65E-05
3.41 E-05
3.73E-03
4.82E-06
7.46E-05
1.73E+01
7.57E-15
4.40E-14
3.76E-13
6.90E-14
5.75E-09
5.55E-13
865E-13
1.45E-10
7.36E-13
3.62E-12
7.66E-08
5
6
3
4
2
1
11
10
8
9
2
7
5
3
6
4
1
108
111
83
89
38
22
107
103
95
102
13
93
88
42
90
82
Volatile Organics
Formaldehyde
Acetone
Crotonaldehyde
Chloroform
Vinyl chloride
Benzotrichloride
Acrylonitrile
6.07E-04
2.90E-03
1.39E-04
4.07E-04
4.90E-04
3.20E-05
2.02E-04
891E-01
S.75E-01
4.27E+00
8.32E+01
3.16E+01
8.32E+02
1.78E+00
0.01
13.3
2
6.9
10
0.8
20
6.07E-02
2 18E-04
6.95E-05
5.89E-05
4.90E-05
4.00E-05
1.01 E-05
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
4
6
7
8
10
16
2180
446000
3500
1800
NC
NC
460
2 48E-07
3.74E-09
1 69E-07
1 88E-05
0 OOE+00
O.OOE+00
781E-07
28
38
30
10
40
40
24
86
107
91
53
112
112
77
8.14E+00
1.38E+01
1.22E+00
3.30E-02
1.07E-01
2.02E-03
3.52E+00
2.27E-06
9.00E-06
4.83E-08
7.47E-09
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.55E-06
1
3
4
8
40
40
2
•
4
6
12
112
112
2
Volume VI
IV-41
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Detailed Chemical Sere
Chemical
Bromomethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylata
Chloromethane
Carbon disulfide
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Ethylene dibromide
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Vinyl acetate
Benzene
Xylenes
Carbon tetrachloride
Styrene
2-Hexanone
Trlchloroethene
Ethylene oxide
1,1.1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
1.1-Dichloroethene
1 ,3-Dichloropropene (cis)
1 ,3-Dichloropropene (trans)
1,1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloro-l ,2,2-trifluoroethane
Acetaldehyde
1.1.2-Trichloroethane
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
2-Butanone
1.1-Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1.1,1-Trlchloroethane
1.2-Dichloroethylene (trans)
Bromoform
1 ,3-Oichlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
High-
End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
9.80E-04
250E-05
4.90E-04
4.90E-04
4.90E-04
9.46E-05
1.03E-03
6.19E-04
1.15E-04
8.02E-05
7.53E-04
643E-05
2.63E-05
5.75E-04
2.75E-04
4.04E-05
6.43E-05
3 09E-05
3.05E-05
1.10E-05
4.90E-04
2.50E-05
2.50E-05
2.50E-05
1.10E-05
3.30E-04
3.01 E-04
2.50E-05
2.50E-05
7.40E-05
2.50E-05
9.80E-04
2.50E-05
1.10E-05
1.10E-05
1.10E-05
2.50E-05
2.50E-05
1.10E-05
1.10E-05
2.63E-05
1.53E-04
Kow
1.55E+01
2.95E+01
1.45E+02
3.89E+01
8.13E+00
1.00E+02
5.62E+02
1.78E+01
5.62E+01
4.68E+02
1.38E+03
5.37E+00
1.35E+02
1.5BE+03
5.37E+02
871E+02
2 40E+01
5.13E+02
6.03E-01
4.27E+02
3.39E+02
1.35E+02
1.00E+02
1.00E+02
2.45E+02
1.45E+03
2.69E+00
1.12E+02
1.55E+01
1.91E+00
6.17E+01
3.47E+01
9.33E+01
2.69E+03
7.24E+02
2.63E+03
3.02E+02
1.17E+02
2.24E+02
5.25E+03
1.74E+02
1.26E+02
Ingestion
Toxicity
Value
Score
ening - Chen
Group
Rank
All
Rank
TABLE IV-4
nical Group
Toxicity
Value
120
4
81
83
100
20
300
200
39
38.6
400
40
20
500
300
60
100
50
50
21
1000
55
90
90
57.6
2000
2217
200
300
1000
380
15000
400
200
450
600
1500
6000
2900
NO
NO
ND
.
Analysis • Stack Emissions
Inhalation
Score
8.17E-06
6.25E-06
6.05E-06
5.90E-06
4.90E-06
4.73E-06
3.43E-06
3.10E-06
2.95E-06
2.08E-06
1.88E-06
1.61E-06
1.31E-06
1 15E-06
9.18E-07
6.73E-07
6.43E-07
6.18E-07
6.10E-07
5.24E-07
490E-07
4.55E-07
2.78E-07
2.78E-07
1.91E-07
1.65E-07
1.36E-07
1.25E-07
8.33E-08
7.40E-08
6.58E-08
6.53E-08
6.25E-08
5.50E-08
2.44E-08
183E-08
1.67E-08
4.17E-09
3.79E-09
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
Group
Rank
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
47
47
All
Rank
17
20
21
22
27
29
32
33
34
38
39
43
45
46
48
52
53
54
55
57
58
62
68
67
72
74
76
77
81
82
83
84
85
86
88
89
91
92
93
95
95
95
Semivolatile Organics
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
1.10E-05
1.01 E-04
4.76E-05
1.10E-05
7.76E+05
6.46E+04
1.82E+05
2.45E+05
1
2.0
12
98
8 54E+00
3.26E+00
7.22E-01
2.76E-02
1
2
3
6
3
7
12
24
1.6
5
ND
0.05
688E-06
2.02E-OS
O.OOE+00
2.20E-04
6
4
32
1
19
13
95
3
Toxicity
Value
11000
12000
NC
NC
550000
35000
1650
9700
15000
540
1400
18000
640
1055
1800
1300
21400
1700
NC
1000
NC
1500
305
305
1000
NC
53000
2000
26000
160000
12000
ND
10825
160
590
110
2000
6750
1500
250
ND
ND]
6.0
10
250
5
Aquatic (Kov
Score
1.38E-06
6.15E-08
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
7.24E-09
2.70E-07
3.51 E-04
1.14E-06
4.31 E-07
6.95E-05
7.43E-04
1.92E-08
5.54E-06
8.64E-04
8.22E-05
2.71 E-05
7.21 E-08
9.32E-06
O.OOE+00
4.69E-06
O.OOE+00
2.25E-06
8.20E-06
8.20E-06
2.70E-06
O.OOE+00
1.53E-08
1.40E-06
1.49E-08
8.81 E-10
1.28E-07
O.OOE+00
2.16E-07
~T.85T04
1.35E-05
2.63E-04
3.77E-06
4.35E-07
1.64E-06
2.31 E-04
OOOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.42E+00
6.52E-01
3 46E-02
5 40E-01
v)
Group
Rank
22
33
40
40
37
27
3
23
26
8
2
34
15
1
7
9
32
12
40
16
40
19
14
13
18
40
35
21
36
39
31
40
29
6
11
4
17
25
20
5
40
40
1
2
5
3
All
Rank
/4
95
112
112
103
84
37
75
82
48
32
100
60
31
47
51
94
56
112
62
112
70
57
58
69
112
101
73
102
110
92
112
88
44
54
40
64
80
72
41
112
117
7
10
17
ii
Water
Sol
(mol/L)
2.54E-01
1.16E-01
1.69E-02
8.31 E-02
5.56E-01
2.64E-02
3.25E-03
2.15E-01
5.31 E-02
4.06E-03
1.09E-03
9.20E-01
1.64E-02
9.23E-04
3.43E-03
1.91E-03
1.50E-01
3.63E-03
1.31E+01
4.54E-03
6.01 E-03
1.84E-02
2.64E-02
2.64E-02
8.88E-03
1.03E-03
2.13E+00
2.30E-02
2.54E-01
3.24E+00
4.75E-02
9.56E-02
2.87E-02
4.85E-04
2.39E-03
4.99E-04
6.91 E-03
2.17E-02
9.93E-03
2.16E-04
1.35E-02
2.00E-02
ToiE^bT
1.02E-05
291E-06
2.03E-06
\quatic (Water Solubility)
Score
2.27E-08
2.42E-10
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
4.96E-10
7.14E-11
2.03E-09
1.37E-08
4.07E-10
6.03E-10
5.87E-10
3.29E-09
7.54E-10
5.03E-10
5.25E-10
5.93E-11
4.49E-10
6.60E-11
O.OOE+00
5.00E-11
O.OOE+00
3.06E-10
2.17E-09
2.17E-09
9.77E-11
O.OOE+00
121E-08
287E-10
2.45E-10
150E-09
9.90E-11
O.OOE+00
6.64E-11
334E-11
4.45E-11
499E-11
863E-11
8.05E-11
7.28E-11
9.49E-12
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
918E-13
1.04E-10
555E-13
4.46E-12
Group
Rank
5
25
40
40
19
31
12
6
21
15
16
9
14
16
17
34
20
33
40
35
40
22
11
10
27
40
7
23
24
13
26
•40
32
38
37
36
28
29
30
39
40
40
r 36
18
37
33
All
Rank
7
40
112
112
29
57
17
9
32
25
26
14
24
28
27
60
30
59
112
61
112
35
15
16
51
112
11
36
39
19
50
112
58
67
64
62
52
54
56
77
112
112
87
48
94
81
Volume VI
'42
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Chemical
Pentachlorophenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Safrole
v|-Nittoso-di-n-butylamine
Bromophenyl phenylether
Hexachloroethane
Acetophenone
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
4-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Nttrophenol
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluena
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
3is(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Cumene
2.4-Dinitrophenol
2-Nrtrophenol
2.6-Dinttritoluene
Mttrobenzene
Cresol, o-
2,4-Dimethylphenol
3is(2-chloro«thyl)ether
Cresol, p-
Benzoic acid
Chloroaniline, p-
Cresol. m-
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nttroaniline
4-NHroaniline
Phenol
Furfural
Isophorona
Methyl t-butyl ether
1 ,4-Dioxane
Ethylene thiourea
4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether
High-
End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
'1.10E-05
1 10E-05
3.33E-05
1.15E-04
1.21E-04
6.69E-06
1. IDE-OS
2.93E-04
1.10E-05
1.10E-05
669E-06
1.10E-05
669E-06
1.15E-04
1.10E-05
1.10E-05
6.69E-06
669E-06
1.10E-05
1.10E-05
6.69E-06
1.10E-05
1. IDE-OS
1. IDE-OS
1.10E-05
1.33E-05
1.10E-05
1.13E-05
6.69E-06
1.10E-05
6.69E-06
1.1 DE-OS
1.10E-05
6.69E-06
6.69E-06
6.69E-06
1. IDE-OS
1.10E-05
6.69E-06
2.50E-05
4.94E-04
1.46E-1C
6.69E-06
Kow
1.23E+05
7.08E+02
3.24E+03
4.57E+02
2.57E+02
1.00E+05
1.00E+04
4.37E+01
7.94E+03
1.02E+04
1.45E+03
1.10E+02
1.26E+03
6.46E+01
5.01 E+03
1.02E+02
3 80E+02
1.82E+01
3.80E+03
3.55E+01
6.17E+01
7.41 E+01
6.92E+01
9.77E+01
2.29E+02
1.62E+01
8.91 E+01
7.24E+01
7.08E+01
9.33E+01
2.51 E+01
1.41E+02
1.20E+03
7.08E+01
2.34E+01
2.45E+01
3.02E+01
2.57E+OC
5.01 E+01
1.74E+01
4.07E-01
2.19E-01
8.91 E+04
Detailed Ch
Toxicity
Value
3
025
8
19.5
12
NC
550
8.1
400
180
16
25
18.3
19.2
500
3.9
13
065
290
30
3.3
6.7
78
, 13.5
' 32
2.8
18
17
10.0
24
4.8
SO
440
16
54
7.5
523
1C
25G
400
100C
10
NC
TABLE IV-4
emical Screening - Chemical Group Analysis - Stack Emissions
Ingestion
Score
451E-01
311E-02
1.35E-02
2.70E-03
2.59E-03
O.OOE+00
2.00E-04
1.56E-03
2.18E-04
6 25E-04
5.37E-04
4.82E-04
460E-04
3.87E-04
1 10E-04
289E-04
1.96E-04
1.87E-04
144E-04
1.30E-04
1.25E-04
1.22E-04
9.76E-05
7.96E-05
7.87E-05
7.70E-05
5.45E-05
4.82E-05
4.74E-05
4.28E-05
3.50E-05
3.11E-05
301E-05
2.96E-05
2.90E-05
219E-05
635E-07
2.83E-06
1.34E-06
1.09E-06
2.01 E-07
3.19E-12
O.OOE+00
Group
Rank
4
5
7
8
9
46
18
10
17
11
12
13
14
15
25
16
19
70
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
?fl
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3S
39
43
40
41
42
44
45
46
All
Rank
14
23
26
34
35
82
49
36
48
39
41
42
43
45
57
46
50
51
52
53
54
55
58
59
60
61
63
64
65
67
66
6£
7f
71
72
73
79
74
76
78
80
81
82
Inhalation
Toxicity
Value
2.1
049
NC
NC
NC
NC
26
24
NC
30
NC
377
NC
NC
NC
NC
70
6.2
20
4
377
NC
0.25
4.1
6
69
16
52
4.6
16
ND
NC
Nl
14
14
14
1.S
2
46
236
103
6.5
NC
Score
524E-06
2.24E-05
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
4.23E-07
1.22E-05
O.OOE+00
3.67E-07
O.OOE+00
2.92E-08
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
9.56E-08
1.08E-06
5.50E-07
2.75E-06
1.77E-08
O.OOE+00
4.40E-05
268E-06
1.83E-06
1.93E-07
6.88E-07
2.17E-07
1.39E-OC
6.88E-07
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+OC
O.OOE+OC
4.78E-07
4.78E-07
4.78E-07
5.79E-W
5.50E-06
1.45E-07
1.06E-07
4.80E-06
2.25E-11
O.OOE+00
Group
Rank
9
3
32
32
32
32
22
5
32
23
32
29
32
32
32
32
28
15
18
11
30
32
2
12
13
25
16
24
14
17
32
32
32
20
21
U
7
a
2b
27
10
31
32
All
Rank
25
12
95
95
95
95
64
14
95
66
95
87
95
95
95
95
79
47
56
36
90
95
9
37
40
71
51
7C
41
5C
95
95
95
60
61
5!
2:
24
/b
78
28
94
95
Aquatic (Kow)
Toxicity
Value
20
80
596
NC
10000
270
60
155000
100
130
295
230
30
NC
180
330
NC
NC
110000
655
230
990
4040
2300
660
30000
4000
146000
2400
400C
Nl
560
1685
19500
82000
2400C
100
1200
10400
N
10000
18000
N
Score
6.77E-02
9.73E-05
1.81E-04
O.OOE+00
3.11E-06
2.48E-03
1.83E-03
8.25E-08
8.74E-04
8.66E-04
3.28E-05
524E-06
2.81 E-04
O.OOE+00
3.06E-04
3.41 E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
3.80E-07
5.96E-07
1.79E-06
8.24E-07
1 88E-07
4.67E-07
3.82E-06
7.19E-09
2.45E-07
5.61 E-09
1.97E-07
2.57E-07
O.OOE+OC
2.77E-06
7.85E-0(
243E-08
1.91 E-09
684E-09
332E-06
2.36E-OI
3.22E-08
O.OOE+00
201E-08
1.77E-15
OOOE+00
Dioxin/PCB-
Dioxin/furan
PCBs
1.26E-09
3.38E-07
2.57E+07
2.45E+06
0.00001
0.1
3.24E+03
8.30E+00
1
4
NC
0.12
O.OOE+00
2.82E-06
I 95 1 0013
] 35] 20
2.49E+00
4 15E-Oi
1 1 - Insecticide; G - Germicide; H - Herbicide; F- Fungicide; A - Acaricide (mites)
Sroup
Rank
4
13
12
41
20
6
7
31
8
9
14
16
11
41
10
18
41
41
26
24
22
22
30
25
17
36
28
38
29
27
41
21
15
33
39
37
19
34
32
' 41
— 35
40
4
All
Rank
15
46
45
112
67
26
27
93
29
30
50
61
39
112
38
65
112
112
83
to
71
76
90
79
63
104
87
106
89
85
112
68
59
97
109
105
66
98
96
112
99
111
112
f ::;?
1 12
Water
Sol
(mol/L)
4.69E-06
2.46E-03
3.88E-04
4.18E-03
8.40E-03
6.03E-06
9.86E-05
7.23E-02
1.30E-04
9.59E-05
1.03E-03
2.36E-02
1.22E-03
4.49E-02
2.28E-04
2.57E-02
5.22E-03
2.09E-01
3.19E-04
9.30E-02
4.75E-02
3.80E-02
4.13E-02
2.72E-02
9.66E-03
2.40E-01
3.04E-02
3.91 E-02
4.02E-02
2.87E-02
1.41E-01
1.74E-02
1.29E-03
4.02E-02
1.54E-01
1.45E-01
1.13E-01
2.25E+00
6. 11 E-02
2.21 E-01
2.11 E+01
4.48E+01
6.93E-06
I 7.15E-09
I 1.24E-07
quatic (Water Solubility)
Score
2.58E-12
3.38E-10
2.17E-11
O.OOE+00
1.02E-10
1.49E-13
1.81E-11
1.37E-10
1.43E-11
8.12E-12
2.34E-11
1.13E-09
2.72E-10
O.OOE+00
1.39E-11
8.57E-10
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
3.19E-14
1.56E-09
1.38E-09
4.22E-10
1.13E-10
1.30E-10
1.61E-10
1.07E-10
8.36E-11
3.02E-12
1.12E-10
7.90E-11
O.OOE+00
3.41 E-10
8.43E-12
1.3BE-11
1.25E-11
4.05E-11
1 24E-08
2.06E-08
3.93E-11
O.OOE+00
1.04E-06
3.63E-13
O.OOE+00
Sroup
Rank
35
10
25
41
19
39
26
13
27
32
24
6
11
41
28
7
41
41
40
4
8
15
14
12
17
20
34
16
21
41
9
31
29
30
22
3
2
23
41
38
4
6.93E-16
2.09E-14
__
All
Rank
86
34
69
112
49
101
71
43
72
79
68
21
37
112
73
23
112
112
104
18
20
31
45
44
41
47
53
84
48
55
112
33
78
74
75
65
10
8
66
112
96
112
I 109
| lUb
. ...._
Volume VI
IV-43
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-5
Log K^, and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetaldehyde
Acetone"
Acetophenone
Acrylonitrile1
Anthracene'
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene'
Benzo(a)pyreneu
Benzo(b)fluoranthene'
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene'
Benzo(k)fluoranthene'
Benzoic acid
Benzotrichloride
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-EthylhexyI)phthalateu
loEK^'
3.92
4.07°
0.43°
-0.24
1.64
0.25
4.55
2.13
5.70
6.11
6.20
6.70
6.20
1.86
2.92°
1.26°
1.21
2.58
7.30
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
3-300
1020-1440
9s
24-168
91-192f
30-552
1-2
120-384
1-3
<1-1
9-720
14160-15600
4-499
5-86f
<1
4380-17520f
672-4320
432-4320
120-550
Surface Soil
295-2448
1020-1440
9s
24-168
No data
30-552
1200-11040
120-384
2448-16320
1368-12720
8640-14640
14160-15600
21840-51360
<168f
<1
No data
672-4320
432-4320
120-550
Air
1-9
<1-1
2-3"
279-2790
528f
13-189
1-2
50-501
1-3
<1-1
1-14
-------
TABLE IV-5
Log K^, and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
BromodichJoromethane"1
Bromoform
Bromomethanem
Bromophenyl phenyl ether
2-Butanone
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroethane
Chloroform'
Chloromethane
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
logKJ1
2.10
2.35
1.19
5.00
0.28
4.84
2.00
2.73
6.32
3.10°
1.85
2.86
4.38
1.54C
1.92
0.91
4.12°
2.15
4.95
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
35"
672-4320
480-64 le
17-185e
24-168
24-168 i
y
4320-8640
5712-33264
No data
-------
TABLE IV-5
Log !(„, and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Chrysene'
m-Cresol
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Crotonaldehyde"
Cumene
2,4-D*
4,4'-DDE«
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene'
Dibromochloromethane"1
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Oichlorobenzene
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
Dichlorodifluoromethane"1
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
logK^'
5.70
1.97
1.99
1.95
0.63°
3.58
2.70
6.76
6.69
2.24C
3.43
3.72°
3.42
3.51
2.16
1.79
1.47
2.13
2.07
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
4-13
48-696
24-168
1-16
24-168
48-192 i
48-96
15-146
6-782
672-4320
672-4320
672-4320
672-4320
<1
672-4320
768-36%
2400-4320
672-4320
672-4320
Surface Soil
8904-24000
48-696
24-168
1-16
24-168
48-192
240-1200
17520-140000
8664-22560
672-4320
672-4320
672-4320
672-4320
672-4320
672-4320
768-3696
2400-4320
672-4320
672-4320
Air
1-8
1-11
2-16
1-15
2-18
10-97
2-18
18-177
-------
TABLE IV-5
Log K,^ and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Diethyl phthalate
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine .
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate1
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1 ,4-Dioxane'
Dioxin/ruran'
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide
logKj1
3.08
1.97
2.00
2.00
2.50
1.81
1.57
2.36
4.61
8.06
2.85C
1.55
2.01
1.87
-0.39
7.41dh
1.59
3.14
1.75
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
1-3
4008-30936
133-271
133-271
72-1344
31-1740
24-168
24-168
24-336
168-672
77-504
77-3840
3-33
2-17
672-4320
10032-14160
6-72'
72-240
672-4320
Surface Soil
176-1680
4008-30936
133-271
133-271
72-1344
672-4320
24-168
24-168
48-552
168-672
168-504
1622-6312
672-4320
672-4320
672-4320
10032-14160
No data
72-240
672-4320
Air
21-212
65-646
5-80
5-80
21-212
-------
TABLE IV-5
Log Kg* and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene'
Fluorene
Formaldehyde"
Furfural
Heptachlor1
Hexachlorobenzene"
Hexacnlorobutadiene*
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene'
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene"
2-Hexanone
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene'
Isophorone
Lindane
Maleic hydrazide
Methoxychlor
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
logK..'
-0.22°
-0.66
5.12
4.21
-0.05
0.41°
6.26
5.89
4.81
5.39
4.00
7.54
1.38°
6.65
1.70
3.73
-0.32°
5.08
1.19
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
251-285
168-672
21-63
768-1440
24-168
238f
23-129
23256-50136
672-4320
< 1-173
672-4320
6000-7872
12-135f
3000-6000
168-672
330-5765
<48f
2-5
24-168
Surface Soil
251-285
168-672
3360-10560
768-1440
24-168
No data
23-129
23256-50136
672-4320
168-672
672-4320
6000-7872
No data
14400-17520
168:672
330-5765
days-weeks'
4320-8760
24-168
Air
917-9167
1-5
2-20
7-68
1-6
llf
1-10
3753-37530
2865-28650
1-9
60000-600000
3-336
42f
1-6
-------
TABLE IV-5
Log K^ and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Methyl t-butyl ether
Methylene chloride
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorobenzene1
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol'
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Polychlorinated biphenylsk
loglC-'
1.24°
1.25
4.11C
3.36
2.41
1.40
3.16
1.85°
1.37°
1.39°
1.84
1.79°
2.04°
5.26
4.64
5.09
4.55
1.48
6.39"1'
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
672-4320
No data
6-1865e
12-480
No data
<1-1
240-816
No data
24°
91e
322-4728
168-672
18-168
4656-8280 .
5112-16776
1-110
3-25
5-57
years'
Surface Soil
672-4320
No data
No data
398-1152
No data
504-4320
240-816
No data
No data
No data
322-4728
168-672
17-29
4656-8280
5112:16776
552-4272
384-4800
24-240
years'
Air
21-265
1440°
178-689=
3-30
67"
<1-1
1-7
11°
14°
14°
1-5
7-71
3-145
1088-10877
8791-87912
139-1392
2-20
3-23
310-11475'
Volume VI
IV-49
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-5
Log K^, and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Pyrene1
Safrole
Styrene
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Toluene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro- 1 ,2,2-trifluoroethane"1
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane™
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride'
Xylenes
logK^'
5.11
2.66
2.94
2.63
2.39
2.67
4.10°
2.75
3.16
4.01
2.48
2.05
2.71
2.53
3.90
3.70
0.73
1.50
3.20
Hair-life (hours)"
Surface Water
1-2
168-672
336-672
16-1604
10-1056
4320-8640
1-336
96-528
4320-8640
672-4320
3360-6552
3263-8760
4320-8640
4320-8640 .
1-336
2-96
4-175f
672-4320
168-672
Surface Soil
5040-45600
168-672
336-672
16-1604
10-1056
4320-8640
672-4320
96-528
4320-8640
672-4320
3360-6552
3263-8760
4320-8640
4320-8640
552-16560
168-1680
175'
672-4320
168-672
Air
1-2
1-6
1-7
2236-22361
213-2131
384-3843
364-3644
10-104
350000-8800000
128-1284
5393-53929
196-1956
27-272
130000-1300000
30-301
123-1234
12f
10-97
3-44
V e VI
IV-50
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Log
TABLE IV-5
and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
Surface Soil
Air
From U.S. EPA (1995a) unless otherwise noted.
From Howard et al. (1991) unless otherwise noted.
Maximum value from Howard (1989; 1990; 1991; 1993), HSDB (1995), Montgomery and Welkom (1990), U.S. EPA (1990a), and
Verschueren (1983).
U.S. EPA (1994d).
HSDB (1995).
Howard (1989; 1990; 1991; 1993).
Mean value for nine homologs.
Mean value for 17 congeners.
Selected as an ECOC based on exposure analysis.
Selected as an ECOC based on chemical group analysis.
Selected as an ECOC based on professional judgement.
Represented by benzo(a)pyrene (see text).
Freon-type chemical.
Volume VI
IV-51
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-6
Chemicals to be Evaluated in the SERA - Stack Emissions
Selection Method Summary
Chemical
Method of Selection
Exposure Analysis*
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Organics
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
-
Chemical Group
Analysis
Aquatic (WS)C
Aquatic (WS)
Aquatic (K)
Aquatic (K)
Aquatic (K)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Professional
Judgement
X"
Xb
xb
xb
xb
X"
X"
xb
xb
xb
X"
xb
X"
X"
X"
X
Volume VI
IV-52
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-6
Chemicals to be Evaluated in the SERA - Stack Emissions
Selection Method Summary
Chemical
Di(n)octylphthalate
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
Method of Selection
Exposure Analysis*
Aquatic (K)
Aquatic (WS)
Inhalation
Aquatic (WS)
Aquatic (K)
Aquatic (K)
Ingestion
Aquatic (K)
Ingestion
Aquatic (K)
Chemical Group
Analysis
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Professional
Judgement
X
• Based on chemicals composing 95 percent of the total score for each exposure type; the exposure
used to select the chemical is specified.
b Metals are not screened; all 15 metals are selected as ECOCs (see text).
WS - Water Solubility; K - K^.
Volume VI
IV-53
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-7
Media to be Evaluated for Each Selected ECOC - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Projected
Permit Limit
(g/sec)
—
1.6 x 10"
1.1 x 10"
5.5 x 10l
3.6 x 10*
1.9 x 10"
1.5 x 10"
—
1.2 x 10°
8.8 x ID'2
2.2 x 10'
4.4 x 10°
3.3 x 10°
5.5 x 10"'
—
Estimated
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
Media to be Evaluated*
AA
ws
ss
T
2.4 x 10-4 .
4.2 x 10*
3.7 x lO'5
1.5 x 10"
3.3 x 10-8
1.6 x lO'5
7.1 x 10-7
9.4 x 10-5
4.3 x lO'3
1.4 x 10'3
5.0 x 10-*
4.7 x 10"
1.5 x 10 3
3.4 x lO'3
1.2 x 10"
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Organ! cs
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Di(n)octylphthalate
—
...
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.90 x lO"3
2.02 x 10"
l.lOx Itf3
l.lOx 10-3
5.23 x 10-3
4.07 x 10"
1.39 x 10"
3.88 x 10-5
l.lOx 10*
l.lOxlO-3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Volume VI
IV-54
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-7
Media to be Evaluated for Each Selected ECOC - Stack Emissions
Chemical
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorbbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
Projected
Permit Limit
(g/sec)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Estimated
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
4.94 x 1O4
6.07 x 1O4
l.lOx 1O6
l.lOx 10-s
1.01 x lO4
l.lOx lO"5
3.20 x 10-s
4.76 x 10-s
l.lOx 10"5
3.38 x 10-7
1.26 x 10*
4.90 x 1O4
Media to be Evaluated"
AA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ws
X
X
X .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ss
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
AA = Ambient Air; WS = Surface Water/Sediment; SS = Surface Soil; T = Tissue.
Volume VI
IV-55
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-8
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Inhalation
Waste Stream Constituent
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Acetone
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dimethylamine
Chloroform
2-Nitropropane
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Oimethylhydrazine
Acetonitrile
Ethyl acrylate
1 -Methy Ibutadiene
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Crotonaldehyde
Epichlorohydrin
Methyl methacrylate
2-Ethoxyethanol
Estimated Waste
Volume (Ib/yr)
100,677
38,412
555,858
58,810
44,654
90,589
321,555
174,406
45,647
34,261
78,284
466,761
32,012
54,259
49,317
37,304
52,628
71,012
351,715
Molecular
Weight
30.0
32.1
58.1
103
45.1
119
89.1
78.1
76.1
60.1
41.1
100
68.0
53.1
97.0
70.1
92.5
100
90.1
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
3.88 x 101
1.44 x 101
2.31 x 10*
5.01 x 103
1.52 x 105
2.46 x 102
2.00 x 10'
9.52 x 10'
2.97 x 102
2.09 x 10'
8.88 x 10'
2.93 x 10'
4.93 x 102
1.08x 102
5.91 x 102
1.90x 10'
1.64x 10'
3.84 x 10'
5.30 x 10°
Inhalation
Toxicity
Value
1.00 x 10 2
1.00 x 10'
1.33 x 101
8.10x 10'
4.70 x UP
6.90 x 10*
4.00 x 10°
2.00 x 10'
2.00 x 10'
1.70x 10"
2.70 x 10'
2.20 x 10'
4.00 x 10'
2.00 x 10'
5.50 x 10'
2.00 x 10°
2.50 x 10°
1.30x 10'
l.OOx 10'
Score
1,303,095,970
172,316
166,168
35,371
32,021
27,049
18,045
10,630
8,907
7,019
6,264
6,210
5,802
5,508
5,463
5,055
3,741
2,095
2,069
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.99959
0.99972
0.99985
0.99987
0.99990
0.99992
0.99993
0.99994
0.99995
0.99995
0.99996
0.99996
0.99997
0.99997
0.99998
0.99998
0.99998
0.99998
0.99999
e VI
IV-56
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-8
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Inhalation
Waste Stream Constituent
Nitrobenzene
Formic acid
Tetrahydrofuran
Dibromoethane
Trichloroethene
Pyridine
Cyclohexanone
2-Butanone
Cyclohexane
Cresol
Toluene
Furfural
1,4-Dioxane
Isobutanol .
Cumene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Heptane
Butyl acetate
Methanol
Estimated Waste
Volume (Ib/yr)
382,090
69,352
125,396
33,724
100,350
354,015
482,451
676,259
144,739
1,177,104
770,291
57,915
107,045
238,633
99,450
69,874
178,323
39,330
586,938
Molecular
Weight
123
46.0
72.1
188
131
79.1
98.2
72.1
84.2
108
92.1
96.1
88.1
74.1
120
137
100
116
32.0
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
l.SOx 10'
3.50 x 10'
1.62x 102
1.40x 10'
6.90 x 10'
2.00 x 10'
4.80 x 10°
9.06 x 10'
9.76 x 10'
3.10x 10-'
2.84 x 10'
2.50 x 10°
3.80 x 10'
1.04x 10'
l.OOx 10'
8.03 x 102
4.58 x 10'
1.25x 10'
9.20 x 10'
Inhalation
Toxicity
Value
2.50 x 10 '
3.30 x 10'
2.10x 102
2.00 x 10°
5.00 x 10'
9.00 x 10'
2.60 x 10'
l.OOx 103
2.03 x 102
4.10x 10°
3.00 x 102
2.00 x 10°
1.03 x 102
8.00 x 10'
2.00 x 10'
l.OOx 103
2.51 x 102
1.30x 10'
6.40x 103
Score
1,862
1,599
1,344
1,256
1,054
995
907
850
826
823
792
753
448
419
414
408
325
325
264
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.99999
0.99999
0.99999
0.99999
0.99999
0.99999
0.99999
0.99999
0.99999
0.99999
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Volume VI
1V-57
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-8
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Inhalation
Waste Stream Constituent
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethene
Phenol
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
2-Methyl-4-Pentanone
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
Dimethyl sulfate
Aliphatic hydrocarbons (octane)
Resorcinol
Analine
Alcohols
2-Picoline
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro-l ,2,2-trifluoroethane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropanol
Butanol
Xylenes
Ethanol
Chlorobenzene
Estimated Waste
Volume (Ib/yr)
104,285
88,399
84,824
36,854
422,393
50,480
37,304
3,208,730
57,438
36,020
338,208
32,012
85,377
364,159
72,266
464,645
448,321
98,523
76,207
Molecular
Weight
154
166
94.1
99.0
100
168
126
114
110
93.1
53.9
93.1
187
106
60.1
74.1
106
46.7
113
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
l.I4x 102
1.85 x 10'
5.24 x 10-'
2.27 x 102
1.45x 10'
1.20x 10'
5.00 x Ifr1
1.41 x 10'
1.00 x 10°
4.89 x la1
3.00 x 10'
l.OOx 10'
3.63 x 102
9.53 x 10°
4.30 x 10'
7.00 x 10°
8.70 x 10°
5.90 x 10'
1.19x 10'
Inhalation
Toxicity
Value
3.00 x 102
3.86 x 10'
1.90 x 10°
3.80 x 102
3.00 x 102
2.'lO x 10'
9.00 x Ifr1
2.50 x 103
3.60 x 10°
l.SOx 10°
2.00 x 103
4.00 x 10'
2.00 x 103
4.00 x 102
7.00 x 102
6.00 x 102
5.00 x 102
2.00 x 101
4.50 x 102
Score
257
256
249
222
204
172
164
159
145
105
94
86
83
82
74
. 73
73
62
18
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
IV-58
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-8
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Inhalation
Waste Stream Constituent
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Acetophenone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Toluene diisocyanate
Phthalic anhydride
4-Nitrophenol
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Chrysene
2-Acetylaminefluorene
Carbon
Calcium chromate
Trichlorobenzene
Benzidine
para-Benzoquinone
1 ,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid
Estimated Waste
Volume (Ib/yr)
206,838
92,408
66,350
153,251
53,872
50,350
44,878
32,012
122,429
93,352
33,256
71,943
149,376
54,606
44,001
55,116
32,012
40,427
Molecular
Weight
147
128
120
133
122
174
148
139
222
194
228
223
12.0
156
182
184
108
166
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
2.30 x 10°
8.20 x 102
3.97 x la1
1.24x 102
9.80 x 102
1.00 x Ifr2
2.00 x 1Q~*
l.OOx 10 3
1.65 x 10 3
1.65x Ifr3
6.30 x lfr»
ND
l.OOx 10^
l.OOx 10-6
5.80 x Ifr'
8.30 x 10 '
l.OOx 10'
ND
Inhalation
Toxicity
Value
2.00 x 102
6.10x 10°
2.40 x 10'
1.50x 104
6.00 x 10°
l.OOx 10°
1.70x Ifr"
3.77 x 102
8.00 x 10'
1.17x 102
ND"
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Score
16
10
9
9
7
3
0
0
0
0
.
—
—
—
—
. —
• —
...
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Volume VI
IV-59
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-8
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Inhalation
Waste Stream Constituent
Benzo(a)pyrene
Diethyl stilbestrol
Maleic anhydride
2-Naphthylamine
1 -Naphthylamine
Creosote (coal tar)
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
Paraffin
N-Nitrosopyrolidine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
Isosafrole
Toluenediamine
Dichlorodifluoroethane
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Estimated Waste
Volume (Ib/yr)
33,257
31,397
59,443
38,548
36,583
110,180
51,860
33,339
141,435
38,548
32,482
32,012
32,012
35,777
51,594
49,180
32,012
32,012
32,012
Molecular
Weight
252
268
98.1
143
143
184
134
102
623
100
158
268
212
162
122
135
278
202
276
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
5.50 x 109
ND
4.10x la'
ND
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10*
5.00 x 104
8.60 x la1
1.00 x 10*
i.oox ia2
3.00 x ia2
ND
ND
9.30 x 10°
5.20 x la5
ND
l.OOx 10 10
5.00 x 10*
l.OOx 10 10
Inhalation
Toxicity
Value
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Score
—
—
—
—
—
—
'
—
—
—
—
—
.
.
—
—
—
—
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
>e VI
IV-60
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-8
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Inhalation
Waste Stream Constituent
Tetrachlorobenzene
Dinitrotoluene
Estimated Waste
Volume (Ib/yr)
410,043
79,191
Molecular
Weight
220
182
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
4.50 x 102
3.50 x lOr4
Inhalation
Toxicity
Value
ND
ND
Score
—
—
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.00000
1.00000
ND = No Data.
Volume VI
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-9
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Aquatic
Waste Stream Constituent
Formaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylhydrazine
Dimethylamine
Hydrazine
1,4-Dioxane
Acetone
2-Butanone
Formic acid
Alcohols
Cyclohexane
2-Nitropropane
Methanol
Benzene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Crotonaldehyde
Chloroform
Acetonitrile
Furfural
Estimated
Waste Volume
flb/yr)
100,677
54,259
34,261
44,654
38,412
107,045
555,858
676,259
69,352
338,208
144,739
321,555
586,938
174,406
49,317
37,304
90,589
78,284
57,915
Molecular
Weight
30.0
53.1
60.1
45.1
32.1
88.1.
58.1
72.1
46.0
53.9
84.2
89.1
32.0
78.1
97.0
70.1
119
41.1
96.1
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
3.88 x 10*
1.08 x 102
2.09 x 10'
1.52 x 10s
1.44 x 10'
3.80 x 10'
2.31 x 102
9.06 x 10'
3.50 x 10'
3.00 x 10'
9.76 x 10'
2.00 x 10'
9.20 x 10'
9.52 x 10'
5.91 x 102
1.90x 10'
2.46 x 102
8.88 x 10'
2.50 x 10°
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
8.14 x 10"
3.52 x 10°
1.66 x 10*
2.05 x 10'
1.02 x 102
2.11 x 10'
1.38x 10'
3.24 x 10°
3.20 x 10'
1.68 x 10"
1.75 x 10°
6.22 x lO'1
5.15x 10'
1.84x Ifr2
1.84 x Itf2
1.22 x 10°
3.30 x 102
1.83 x 10'
2.25 x 10°
Aquatic
Toxicity
Value
2.18 x 10*
4.60 x 102
3.40 x 10'
8.50 x 104
6.00 x 10s
1.00 x 104
4.46 x 105
1.60 x 10s
1.20x 10s
2.50 x 10s
3.00 x 104
4.71 x 103
1.37x 107
6.40 x 102
l.SOx 103
3.50 x 103
l.SOx 10'
l.OOx 106
1.20x 103
Score
48,665.356
842.827
582.538
362.601
292.936
97.238
68.616
17.190
14.085
12.680
9.786
9.532
6.355
6.103
3.680
3.515
3.427
3.097
2.825
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.954
0.971
0.982
0.989
0.995
0.997
0.998
0.998
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
1.000 .
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
V
VI
IV-62
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
\ /
TABLE IV-9
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Aquatic
Waste Stream Constituent
Ethyl acrylate
Epichlorohydrin
2-Methyl-4-Pentanone
Phenol
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Tetrahydrofuran
Analine
Ethanol
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
Dimethyl sulfate
Trichloroethene
Pyridine
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobeozene
Cyclohexanone
Xylenes
Estimated
Waste Volume
(Ib/yr)
466,761
52,628
422,393
84,824
153,251
770,291
36,854
125,396
36,020
98,523
104,285
45,647
37,304
100,350
354,015
88,399
76,207
482,451
448,321
Molecular
Weight
100
92.5
100
94.1
133
92.1
99.0
72.1
93.1
46.7
154
76.1
126
131
79.1
166
113
98.2
106
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
2.93 x 10'
1.64x 10'
1.45 x 10'
5.24 x 10 '
1.24x 102
2.84 x 10'
2.27 x 102
1.62x 102
4.89 x Iff1
5.90 x 10'
1.14 x 102
2.97 x 102
5.00 x la1
6.90 x 10'
2.00 x 10'
1.85x 10'
1.19x 10'
4.80 x 10°
8.70 x 10°
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
1.77 x 10'
3.52 x 10°
2.54 x Ifr'
1.13X 10r'
6.91 x 103
3.25 x Ifr3
4.75 x Ifr2
1.96x 10°
4.57 x 10 '
1.68 x 10'
3.43 x Ifr3
2.64 x Ifr2
6.51 x 10°
3.63 x la3
1.09x 10°
4.06 x 10 3
2.39 x 103
7.36 x 10 '
9.23 x 10*
Aquatic
Toxicity
Value
1.20x 104
3.50 x 104
2.60 x 104
1.00 x 102
2.00 x 103
1.165 x 103
1.20x 104
2.16x 10*
4.00 x 102
1.04 x 107
l.SOx 103
3.50 x 104
7.50 x 103
1.70x 103
1.30x 10<
5.40 x 102
5.90 x 102
5.27 x 1O'
1 .06 x 101
Score
2.013
0.941
0.598
0.534
0.491
0.467
0.335
0.256
0.216
0.202
0.147
0.134
0.128
0.113
0.075
0.074
0.033
0.033
0.032
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
IV-63
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-9
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Aquatic
Waste Stream Constituent
Isopropanol
Methyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Cresol
2-Ethoxyethanol
Butanol
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Isobutanol
Nitrobenzene
Dibromoethane
2-Picoline
Benzidine
2,4-Dimethylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Trichlorobenzene
1 -Naphthylamine
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Estimated
Waste Volume
(Ib/yr)
72,266
71,012
364,159
1,177,104
351,715
464,645
50,480
206,838
238,633
382,090
33,724
32,012
55,116
53,872
32,012
44,001
36,583
33,256
32,012
Molecular
Weight
60.1
100
106
108
90.1
74.1
168
147
74.1
123
188
93.1
184
122
139
182
143
228
278
Vapor
Pressure
(nun Hg)
4.30 x 10'
3.84 x 10'
9.53 x 10°
3.10x 10"'
5.30 x 10°
7.00 x 10°
1.20x 101
2.30 x 10°
1.04x 10'
1.50x 10-'
1.40x 10'
l.OOx 10'
8.30 x la1
9.80 x ia2
l.OOx 10°
5.80 x 10 '
l.OOx 10°
6.30 x 10»
l.OOx 10-'°
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
6.16x 10°
i.sox ia'
1.09x 10°
2.72 x 102
9.36 x 10°
6.58 x ia1
4.54 x Itf3
4.85 x 1O4
8.70 x 10 '
4.13x 10-2
1.84x Itf2
3.18x 10'
6.84 x 102
9.66 x Ifr3
2.36 x ia2
9.59 x 10s
1.35 x 10 2
8.52 x 107
5.35 x 10*
Aquatic
Toxicity
Value
1.11 x 107
1.50x 105
1.40 x 103
4.00 x 103
l.OOx 107
l.'Sl x 10«
l.OOx 103
1.60 x 102
4.68 x 10*
4.04 x 103
l.SOx 104
9.00 x 105
2.00 x 104
6.60 x 102
2.30 x 102
1.30x 102
7.00 x I03
l.OOx 103
l.OOx 103
Score
0.029
0.027
0.025
0.023
0.019
0.019
0.016
0.010
0.006
0.005
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
VI
IV-64
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-9
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Aquatic
Waste Stream Constituent
Cumene
Acetophenone
Fluoranthene
Heptane
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dinitrotoluene
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
3,3' -Dimethy Ibenzidine
Trichlorofluoromethane
Paraffin
para-Benzoquinone
3-Methylcholanthrene
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-
trifluoroethane
2-Naphthylamine
Phthalic anhydride
Estimated
Waste Volume
(Ib/yr)
99,450
66,350
32,012
178,323
93,352
122,429
79,191
92,408
33,257
32,482
32,012
69,874
141,435
32,012
32,012
85,377
38,548
44,878
Molecular
Weight
120
120
202
100
194
222
182
128
252
158
212
137
623
108
268
187
143
148
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
1.00 x 10'
3.97 x 10-'
5.00 x 1O*
4.58 x 10'
1.65x 10 3
1.65x Itf3
3.50 x 10*
8.20 x 1(T2
5.50 x IO9
3.00 x IO-2
ND
8.03 x IO2
1.00 x 10*
l.OOx la1
ND
3.63 x 102
ND
2.00 x IO4
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
3.19x 10^
7.23 x 10-2
4.31 x 10*
1.56x Ws
8.79 x IO2
6.53 x IO3
3.80 x Ifr2
5.90 x IO4
2.71 x IO-7
8.40 x 10°
3.95 x la3
6.01 x IO3
ND
4.05 x 10°
1.14x Iff7
1.03 x 10 3
1.21 x IO2
ND
Aquatic
Toxicity
Value
l.lOx IO5
1.55 x 10s
2.00 x IO2
4.92 x 10*
9.40 x IO2
9.40 x IO2
9.90 x IO2
1.35 x IO2
5.00 x 10°
l.OOx IO4
ND-
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.60 x IO4
Score
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000 .
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
IV-65
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-9
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Aquatic
Waste Stream Constituent
Toluenediamine
Toluene diisocyanate
1 ,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid
Tetrachlorobenzene
1 -Methy Ibutadiene
Resorcinol
2-Acetylaminefluorene
N-Nitrosopyrolidine
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dichlorodifluoroethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Diethyl stilbestrol
Creosote (coal tar)
Isosafrole
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
Aliphatic hydrocarbons (octane)
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
Maleic anhydride
Carbon
Estimated
Waste Volume
(Ib/yr)
51,594
50,350
40,427
410,043
32,012
57,438
71,943
38,548
32,012
49,180
58,810
31,397
110,180
35,777
33,339
3,208,730
51,860
59,443
149,376
Molecular
Weight
122
174
166
220
68.0
110
223
100
276
135
103
268
184
162
102
114
134
98.1
12.0
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
5.20 x 105
i.oox ia2
ND
4.50 x 10 2
4.93 x 102
1.00 x 10°
ND
l.OOx HT2
l.OOx 10 10
ND
5.01 x 103
ND
l.OOx UT*
9.30 x 10°
8.60 x la1
1.41 x 10'
5.00 x 10*
4.10x Ifr'
l.OOx 10*
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
2.31 x 10°
ND
ND
1.79x IOS
ND
ND
8.73 x 1O4
1.20 x 10'
5.98 x 10*
ND
1.69x 10*
4.95 x 10*
ND
3.25 x lO3
1.85x 10°
3.64 x 10*
5.86 x 102
ND
ND
Aquatic
Toxicity
Value
ND
ND
7.56 x 103
ND
ND
5.64 x 10*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.20 x 102
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.38x 10s
ND
Score
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
. —
—
—
—
.
—
. —
—
—
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
VI
IV-66
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-9
Chemical Screening - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions - Aquatic
Waste Stream Constituent
Butyl acetate
Calcium chromate
Estimated
Waste Volume
(Ib/yr)
39,330
54,606
Molecular
Weight
116
156
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
1.25x 10'
1.00 x 10*
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
ND
ND
Aquatic
Toxicity
Value
ND
2.80 x 104
Score
—
—
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
ND = No Data.
Volume VI
IV-67
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-10
Log K^ and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Acetone*
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminefluorene
Acrylonitrile*
Alcohols
Analine
Benzene
1 ,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzoquinone, para-
Benzidine
Butanol
2-Butanone
Butyl acetate
Calcium chromate
Carbon
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform*
Chrysene
Creosote (coal tar)
Cresol
Crotonaldehyde
Cumene
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanone
logK-'
-0.24
-0.34
1.64
3.22C
0.25
-0.31C
0.98
2.13
No data
6.11
0.20°
1.66
0.85
0.28
No data
—
—
2.00
2.73
2.86
1.92
5.70
—
1.99
0.63s
3.58
0.50°
0.81C
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
24-168
168-672
91-192f
672-4320
30-552
7-26
No data
120-384
No data
<1-1
1-120
31-191
24-168
24-168
No data
—
—
3e
4320-8640
1632-3600
672-4320
4-13
—
24-168
24-168
48-192
672-4320
No data
Air
279-2790
1299-12991
528f
1-7
13-189
12-122
No data
50-501
No data
<1-1
1-7
1-3
9-88
64-642
No data
—
—
144-216"
16000-160000
73-729
623-6231
1-8
—
2-16
2-18
10-97
9-87
No data
Volume VI
IV-68
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE rV-10
Log K«, and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoroethaneh
Dichlorodifluoromethaneh
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
Diethyl phthalate
Diethyl stilbestrol
Dimethylamine*
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
Dimethylhydrazine*
Dimethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dimethy Iphenol
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitrotoluene
1,4-Dioxane
Epichlorohydrin
Ethanol
2-Ethoxyethanol
Ethyl aciylate
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Formaldehyde*
Formic acid
Furfural
Heptane
Hydrazine*
logK»«
6.69
2.13°
3.43
No data
2.16
1.79
2.13
2.50
5.07
-0.38C
2.68
4.15C
1.57
2.36
0.03C
1.87
-0.39
0.25
-0.31°
-0.10
1.32C
3.14
5.12
-0.05
-0.54
0.41°
4.66C
1.69°
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
6-782
No data
672-4320
No data
672-4320
768-36%
672-4320
72-1344
66-3840
2-79
24-168
192-528
24-168
24-168
1-12
2-17
672-4320
168-672
7-26
168-672
24-168
72-240
21-63
24-168
24-168
238f
No data
24-168
Air
-------
TABLE IV-10
Log K^, and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Isosafrole
Maleic anhydride
Methanol
1 -Methy 1 butadiene
3-Methylcholanthrene
Methyl methacrylate
2-Methyl-4-Pentanone
Naphthalene
1 -Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitroso-di -n-buty lamine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
2-Nitropropane
Octane
Paraffin
Phthalic anhydride
Phenol
2-Picoline
Pyridine
Resorcinol
Tetrachlorobenzene
Io8K_'
6.65
0.75
0.05C
2.75"
No data
-0.71
No data
6.42
1.38
1.19
3.36
2.24
2,28
-1.58C
0.48
2.41
-0.19
1.84
2.04°
0.87
5.18C
—
No data
1.48
1.11"
0.67
No data
4.61
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
3000-6000
43-173
24-168
168-672
No data
24-168
No data
14616-33600
168-672
24-168
12-480
62-3480
62-3480
120-4320
4-8
No data
672-4320
322-4728
18-168
672-4320
No data
'
<1
5-57
No data
24-168
No data
672-4320
Air
1-6
10-100
6-72
1-3
No data
71-713
No data
1-3
1-10
5-46
3-30
1-3
1-3
2-22
4-8
67°
3-33
1-5
3-145
5-49
No data
—
485-4847
3-23
No data
128-1284
No data
763-7631
Volume VI
IV-70
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-10
Log KO. and Persistence Values for the Chemicals Evaluated - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Toluenediamine
Toluene diisocyanate
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro-l ,2,2-trifluoroethanek
Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethaneh
Xylenes
logK_'
2.63
2.67
0.46C
2.75
0.40
No data
3.16
4.01
2.48
2.71
2.53
3.20
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
16-1604
4320-8640
No data
96-528
No data
12-24
4320-8640
672-4320
3360-6552
4320-8640
4320-8640
168-672
Air
2236-22361
384-3843
No data
10-104
No data
1-3
350000-8800000
128-1284
5393-53929
27-272
130000-1300000
3-44
From U.S. EPA (1995a) unless otherwise noted.
b From Howard et al. (1991) unless otherwise noted.
Maximum value from Howard (1989; 1990; 1991; 1993), HSDB (1995), Montgomery and Welkom
(1990), U.S. EPA (1990a), and Verschueren (1983).
" U.S. EPA (1994d).
HSDB (1995).
f Howard (1989; 1990; 1991; 1993).
8 Selected as an ECOC based on exposure analysis.
h Freon-type chemical.
Volume VI
IV-71
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-11
Chemicals to be Evaluated in the SERA - Fugitive Emissions
Selection Method Summary
Chemical
Method of Selection
Exposure Analysis*
Professional Judgement
Modified Exposure
Analysis
Bioaccumulation/
Persistence
Inorganics
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Total Cyanide
X"
Xb
xb
xb
X"
xb
xb
xb
Xb
X"
xb
xb
X"
xk
xb
xb
Organics
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Inhalation
Aquatic (WS)
Inhalation
Aquatic (WS)C
Inhalation
Inhalation
Aquatic (WS)
Aquatic (WS)
Inhalation
Aquatic (WS)
X(Air)
* Based on chemicals composing 95 percent of the total score for each exposure type; the exposure
used to select the chemical is specified.
b Inorganics are not screened; all inorganics detected in ash samples are selected as ECOCs (see
text).
WS - Water Solubility.
Volume VI
IV-72
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-12
Media to be Evaluated for Each Selected ECOC - Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Inorganics
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Total Cyanide
Organics
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Media to be Evaluated
Ambient Air
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface Water/
Sediment
Surface Soil
Tissues
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Volume VI
IV-73
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-13
Estimated Emission Rates for Each Selected ECOC - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Emission Rate (g/sec)
Carbon
Absorption Bed
l.lSxia3
3.19x lO"5
2.71 x 10-3
7.94 x 10-5
3.00 x 10"
2.28 x lO"3
6.74 x 10"
1.72 x 10*
Tank Farm
1.12x 1(T2
3.03 x 10"
2.57 x 10"
7.52 x 10"
2.84 x 10"3
2.16x 10"
6.39 x 10"3
1.63 x lO"5
Open Wastewater
Tank
1.06 x 10-3
2.88 x 1CT5
2.44 x 10-5
7.15 x 10-5
2.70 x 10"
2.05 x 10-5
6.07 x 10"
1.55 x 10*
Truck Wash
5.19x 10-5
1.41 x 10*
1.19x 1O*
3.50 x 1O*
1.32x lO'5
1.01 x 10*
2.98 x 10-5
7.58 x 10"*
Volume VI
IV-74
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
y
V /
TABLE IV-14
Estimated Concentrations of Metals and Total Cyanide in Fugitive Fly Ash
and Estimated High-End Emission Rates
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Total Cyanide
Frequency of
Detection
1/12
9/12
11/12
11/12
9/12
5/12
6/12
2/12
Concentration
Range (mg/kg)*
<2.5 -27
<1 -4.1
<0.1 -640
<0.5 - 130
<0.15- 1.9
<0.1 - 1.0
<0.1 -2.1
<0.5- 1.1
Concentration in
Ash (mg/kg)b
8.2
2.3
160
54
1.0
0.37
0.58
0.65
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
3.31 x 10*
9.11 x 107
6.63 x 105
2.17x 10 5
4.22 x 107
1.48x la7
2.34 x la7
2.61 x 107
Compatible Stack Emission Rate (g/s)
Permit Limit
l.lOx 10*
5.50 x 10'
1.90x HTV
1.20x 10 3
2.20 x 10'
4.40 x 10°
3.30 x 10°
—
Estimated
3.70 x la5
1.50 x 1O4
i.eoxia5
4.30 x la5
5.00 x 10*
4.70 x 1O4
i.sox ia5
—
* Lower end of concentration range is the lowest detection limit from samples in which the analyte was not detected above detection limit.
b Based on the 95 percent UCL or maximum detected value, whichever is less. The detection limit is used during calculations for samples in
which the analyte was not detected.
Volume VI
IV-75
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV- 15
Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern
Assumption
Basis
Magnitude of
Effect
Emission Rate Estimates (see Volume III for more details)
Stack emission rates are estimated based on trial
burns and performance tests and not on long-term
emissions data.
Emission rates for dioxin and furan congeners are
based on the 95 percent UCL of 26 post-ECIS runs.
PIC emission rates are based on the 95 percent UCL
of seven runs from the August 1994 sampling.
Emission rates for PICs not analyzed for during the
August 1994 testing are estimated based on earlier
trial burns or calculated from the feed rate and worst
case DRE; the maximum value from these approaches
is used.
Non-detected organic chemicals are present at the
detection limit.
If no emission rate could be estimated for a chemical,
the chemical is dropped from consideration assuming
that it is not emitted at significant levels.
Metal emission rates from the stack could reach levels
as high as those in the projected permit limit.
Long-term data are not available because the facility
has had only limited operation. The trial burn data
were derived from subjecting the incinerator to
extreme conditions not encountered on a regular
basis.
The use of the 95 percent UCL from a data set
which has shown a trend of decreasing emissions
over time may overstate long-term emissions. '
Use of the 95 percent UCL more likely
overestimates rather than underestimates long-term
emissions.
The estimation method includes conservative
assumptions so emission rates are not likely to be
underestimated.
Use of the detection limit for undetected chemicals is
the most conservative estimate possible and is
appropriate for a screening-level assessment.
The chemicals that were dropped are not likely to be
emitted in significant quantities, if at all.
The permit limits are based on maximum hourly
emission rates that are not likely to be achieved on
an ongoing regular basis.
medium
medium
medium
low
low
low
high •
Direction of
Effect
unknown
overestimate
likely
overestimate
overestimate
overestimate
unknown
overestimate
VI
IV-76
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
V j
TABLE IV-15
Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern
Assumption
Emission rates for the stack expected metal scenario
are estimated from trial bums, 9 months of expected
waste feed data, and thermodynamic modeling.
The trial bum during which metal SREs were
calculated was conducted prior to installation of the
ECIS. These SREs are used to estimate metal
emission rates.
Metals (other than mercury) are emitted from the
stack in particle form only.
The metal feed rates are prorated to account for the
maximum heat input of the incinerator.
All fugitive emission sources have been identified and
evaluated.
The 12 monthly fly ash samples used to determine the
fugitive emission rates for the ash handling facility
are representative of the chemicals present and the
quantities emitted.
Chemicals with low vapor pressures are not likely to
exist in the vapor phase and thus will not be released
in significant quantities from fugitive vapor sources.
Basis
Best available data. Professional judgment based on
a review of information on facility design and
operation, and predicted waste characteristics.
The ECIS is not designed to appreciably reduce
metal emissions, so SREs measured pre-ECIS should
be similar to post-ECIS. An exception may be
mercury, for which removal may be enhanced by the
ECIS.
Metals are generally non-volatile and those that
volatilize in the high temperature of the rotary kiln
will condense to form aerosols in the cooler, later
stages of the incineration process.
Conservative assumption. Professional judgment
based on a review of information on facility design
and operation, and predicted waste characteristics.
A site inspection was conducted to identify all
significant sources of fugitive emissions.
Best available data.
Professional judgment based on reported vapor
pressures and a review of information on facility
design and operation, and predicted waste
characteristics.
Magnitude of
Effect
medium
low
low
low
low
low
low
Direction of
Effect
unknown
overestimate
variable
overestimate
underestimate
underestimate
underestimate
Volume VI
IV-77
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Ouote
-------
TABLE IV-15
Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern
Assumption
The same chemical composition is used for all
fugitive vapor sources.
Basis
Professional judgment based on a review of
information on facility design and operation, and
predicted waste characteristics.
Magnitude of
Effect
low
Direction of
Effect
unknown
Dispersion Modeling (see Volume IV for more details)
The air dispersion model accurately reflects reality
(including the derived dispersion factors).
Meteorological conditions are accurately characterized
for air dispersion modeling.
The wet-deposition algorithm overstates deposition in
the near field. Furthermore, concentrations outside
of the river valley are likely overstated because the
model does not entirely account for terrain influence.
Professional judgement based on the best available
data. One year of on-site meteorological data are
supplemented with data from several nearby
locations.
Selection of the ECOCs
All stack chemicals of potential concern have been
identified and included in the screening process.
The list of chemicals is developed from U.S. EPA
guidance documents and stack testing during trial
burns and performance tests. Additional chemicals
are added based on peer review recommendations.
However, there is approximately 60% of the material
mass from the trial burns that could not be
characterized and therefore represents either
additional chemicals and/or additional mass of those
chemicals already identified (Volume III, Chapter
V). If proportionately prorated the 60% across the
chemicals already identified, the exposure levels
would approximately double.
medium
low
medium
low
overestimate
unknown
unknown if
additional
chemicals
to
underestimate if
more of same
chemicals
Ne VI
IV-78
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE IV-15
Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern
Assumption
Basis
Magnitude of
Effect
Direction of
Effect
The screening algorithm used to select organic stack
ECOCs retains the chemicals that present the greatest
potential ecological risk.
Professional judgement. The screening process
consists of a three-tiered evaluation that is designed
to retain the chemicals that contribute most to
potential risk. Several chemicals with relatively low
scores are included on the list of ECOCs to ensure
that important chemicals or chemical classes are not
overlooked.
low
unknown
All fugitive chemicals of potential concern have been
identified and included in the screening process, even
though the list is limited to pumpable wastes (non-
pumpable waste may also be a source of fugitive
emissions).
Non-pumpable wastes are handled separately from
pumpable wastes and, because they are not generally
volatile, they are not likely to result in fugitive
emissions.
low
underestimate
The composite liquid waste stream list is truncated to
include only the chemicals in the top 90% by mass
(applies to the fugitive emission analysis).
Simplifying assumption designed to eliminate
chemicals not present at relatively high quantities in
the waste stream.
low
underestimate
The screening algorithm used to select fugitive vapor
ECOCs retains the chemicals of most potential
ecological concern.
Professional judgement. The top 10% of the
chemicals with the highest scores (chemical group
analysis) are selected to ensure that a chemical with
potential significant ecological risk is not overlooked.
low
unknown
Dichlorodifluoromethane, the fourth highest ranked
fugitive vapor organic chemical, is not selected as an
ECOC since an emission rate could not be estimated.
The model used to estimate emission rates for
fugitive vapor chemicals would not accept freon-like
chemicals due to their extreme volatility. The WTI
facility has restrictions on the acceptance of freon-
containing materials and these chemicals would not
likely present significant direct exposures to
ecological receptors based on their fate properties. •
low
underestimate
Volume VI
IV-79
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
V. CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURE
The characterization of exposure is the first of two parts of the analysis component of
an ecological risk assessment. U.S. EPA (1992b) defines the characterization of exposure as
the portion of the analysis component of an ecological risk assessment that evaluates the
interaction of the stressors with one or more ecological components. This is accomplished in
the SERA through an evaluation of how the ECOCs (the stressors) interact, via potential
exposure pathways, with selected indicator species for selected exposure scenarios.
The potential for adverse effects to ecological receptors from exposures to chemical
constituents released from the incinerator stack, or released as fugitive emissions, is a
function of: (1) the existence of complete exposure pathways, (2) the concentrations of the
chemicals hi the media to which the receptor is likely to be exposed, (3) the bioavailability of
the chemical to the receptor, (4) the extent and duration of the exposure, and (5) the inherent
toxicity of the chemical to the receptor. The first four of these aspects are parts of the
characterization of exposure and are addressed below; the fifth aspect is addressed in Chapter
VI.
In this section, the exposure scenarios are described, the environmental fate and
transport mechanisms of the ECOCs are summarized, potential exposure pathways and routes
are identified, indicator species are selected, and concentrations of the ECOCs are estimated
for the ah-, soil, surface water, sediment and dietary components.
\
A. Exposure Scenarios
The three sets of emission rate estimates for stack emissions (two for metals and one
for organics) and the two sets of emission rate estimates for fugitive emissions (one for the
organic vapor fugitive sources and one for the ash handling facility), described in Chapter
IV, serve as the starting point for the development of the exposure scenarios. One general
exposure scenario is developed for each set of emission rate estimates through the addition of
factors affecting rates of deposition, contact, and/or uptake. Although the contact and uptake
parameters differ to some degree for the different indicator species evaluated within these
exposure scenarios, the general approach is consistent among species within each exposure
scenario. The key parameters included in these general exposure scenarios are outlined in
Table V-l.
Since a screening-level assessment is intended to provide a conservative, "upper-
bound" estimate of risk, conservative exposure assumptions are consistently applied across all
of the exposure scenarios. The use of maximum predicted concentrations of the ECOCs hi
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-l Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
air, surface soil, surface water, sediment, and dietary components as part of food chain
transfer is considered conservative since few ecological receptors (plants are an exception),
particularly at the population level, are expected to be continually exposed to the maximum
predicted media concentrations (due to home range considerations, mobility, etc.)- The
summing of maximum air concentrations for ECOCs that are emitted from both stack and
fugitive sources is also considered conservative since it assumes that the point of maximum
air concentration or deposition is the same for all sources. In actuality, the maximum air
concentrations or total deposition associated with stack and fugitive emissions occur at
different locations, based on the results of the dispersion modeling (Figure V-l)16.
B. Fate and Transport Mechanisms of the ECOCs
The transport and partitioning of chemicals into particular environmental
compartments, and their ultimate fate in those compartments, can be predicted from key
physico-chemical characteristics. The physico-chemical characteristics that are most relevant
for the SERA include volatility, water solubility, adsorption to solids, octanol-water
partitioning, and degradability. These characteristics are defined below and the
corresponding numerical values for each ECOC are presented in Table V-2.
• Volatility describes how readily a compound will evaporate into the air from
water, soil, or sediment. Volatilization from water is typically expressed by
Henry's Law Constant, an air/water partitioning coefficient calculated by
dividing the vapor pressure (in atmospheres) by water solubility (in mole/m3).
Compounds with constants greater than 10"3 can be expected to volatilize
rapidly from water, while those with constants between 10'3 and 10"7 volatilize
less readily (Howard 1991). Compounds with constants less than 10'7
volatilize less readily than water, so concentrations can increase as the water
16 The SERA uses the term "maximum point" to describe the locations of projected
maximum air concentrations and maximum deposition. These "points" are, in actuality,
general areas around the locations shown on Figure V-l due to the uncertainties
associated with the dispersion modeling. In addition, although the maximum point of
stack deposition is projected to be within the facility boundaries, the Ohio River is also
considered to be at the point of maximum deposition since this point is within the
watershed of the modeled portion of the river. Further, the evaluations of Little Beaver
Creek and Tomlinson Run Lake consider the watersheds of these water bodies as well
as the water bodies themselves. Thus, terrestrial exposures of bird and mammal
indicator species are evaluated in addition to an evaluation of aquatic exposures.
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
evaporates (Howard 1991). Volatility from soil or sediment tends to be
expressed qualitatively (e.g., moderate, readily, or rapid) (Howard 1991).
The water solubility (often expressed as mg/L or parts per million) of a
compound influences its partitioning to aqueous media. Highly water soluble
chemicals have a tendency to remain dissolved in the water column rather than
partitioning to soil or sediment (Howard 1991). Compounds with high water
solubilities also generally exhibit lower tendencies to bioconcentrate in aquatic
organisms, a lower degree of volatility, and a greater likelihood of
biodegradation, at least over the short term (Howard 1991).
Adsorption is a measure of a compound's affinity for solids, such as soil or
sediment. Adsorption is expressed in terms of partitioning, either K,,
(adsorption coefficient; a unitless expression of the equilibrium concentration
hi the solid phase versus hi the water phase) or as K^. (K,, normalized to the
organic carbon content of the solid phase; again unitless) (Howard 1991). The
higher the K,,,. or K,, value, the higher the tendency for the chemical to adhere
strongly to soil or sediment particles. K^. values can be measured directly or
can be estimated from either water solubility or the octanol-water partitioning
coefficient using one of several available regression equations (Howard 1991).
Octanol-water partitioning indicates whether a compound is hydrophilic or
hydrophobic. The octanol-water partition coefficient (KoW) expresses the
relative partitioning of a compound between octanol and water. A high
affinity for water equates to a low K^, and vice versa. K,^ has been shown to
correlate well with bioconcentration factors hi aquatic organisms, adsorption to
soil or sediment particles, and the potential to bioaccumulate hi the food chain
(Howard 1991). Typically expressed as log K,,w, a log K^ of 3 or less
generally indicates that the chemical will not bioconcentrate to a significant
degree (Maki and Duthie 1978). A log K^ of 3 equates to an aquatic species
bioconcentration factor of about 100, using the equation: log BCF = (0.76)
(log K™) - 0.23 (Lyman et al. 1990).
• Degradability is an important factor hi determining whether there will be
significant loss of mass of a substance over time hi the environment. The
half-life (T^) of a compound is typically used to describe losses from either
degradation (biological or abiotic) or from transfer from one compartment to
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
another (e.g., volatilization from soil to air). The half-life is the time required
for one-half of the mass of a compound to undergo the loss or degradation
process.
Chemical profiles for each of the ECOCs are included in Appendix VI-18. In
general, the inorganic ECOCs are expected to adsorb to soils and sediments and thus be
relatively immobile in the environment. Several metals, most notably mercury but also
arsenic, cadmium, and selenium (a nonmetallic Group IV element, but included here as a
"metal"), may also be present hi the vapor phase in the environment (Galloway et al. 1982),
although only mercury was assumed to be hi the vapor phase in the risk assessment (see
Volume V). Arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc are
known to bioaccumulate hi plants, fish, or other biota. Mercury is the only inorganic ECOC
known to consistently biomagnify in aquatic and terrestrial food chains (Wren et al. 1983),
although cadmium and selenium may also biomagnify under certain conditions (see Appendix
VI-18).
Of the non-volatile organic ECOCs, all but 2,4-D and 1,4-dioxane are expected to
adsorb to soils and sediments (based on K^ values) and thus have relatively limited mobility
hi the environment. 2,4-D is more mobile but has limited persistence hi the environment.
All of the non-volatile organic ECOCs, except the two discussed above plus anthracene and
benzo(a)pyrene (which are readily metabolized by most higher organisms [Eisler 1987b]),
have the potential to bioaccumulate hi biota to varying degrees, based on their relatively high
(>3) log K<,w values. Dioxin/furan and PCBs are also known to biomagnify in food chains
(Eisler 1986a, 1986b) and 4,4'-DDE may also biomagnify to a limited extent under certain
conditions (IPCS 1989c).
The volatile organic ECOCs are not expected to adsorb significantly to soils or
sediments but would partition to varying degrees to air and/or water, depending upon their
vapor pressures, Henry's Law Constants, and water solubilities. The volatile organics also
tend not to be persistent and are not known to bioaccumulate significantly hi biota.
C. Generalized Exposure Pathways
Exposure pathways for ecological receptors are diagrammed below and were also
discussed as part of the conceptual site model (Chapter II; Figures II-2 and II-3). This
section describes the most relevant general exposure pathways hi aquatic and terrestrial
habitats from air emissions and deposition based on the types of habitats and ecological
receptors present hi the assessment area (see Chapter in), the fate and transport properties of
the ECOCs (discussed above), and the selected ecological endpoints (see Chapter II). More
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-4 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
specific exposure pathways are developed in Section V.F following the discussion of potential
exposure routes and the selection of indicator species.
Chemicals released from the incinerator stack, or released as fugitive emissions, may
remain in the air and be dispersed to surrounding areas. These chemicals may then be
inhaled by animals or taken up directly by plants as follows:
1. Air -» Dispersion •* Plants
2. Air -* Dispersion -* Terrestrial Birds and Mammals
Chemicals released from the incinerator stack, or released as fugitive emissions from
the ash handling facility, may also be deposited onto surrounding soils via wet or dry
deposition processes, or may be deposited directly onto plant foliage. Once present in the
soil, uptake into terrestrial plants or soil fauna may lead to food chain exposures of higher
trophic level animals as follows:
3. Air -* Dispersion -» Deposition -» Plant
4. Air -* Dispersion •* Deposition -» Soil -» Plant
5. Air -» Dispersion -» Deposition -» Soil -* Plant -* Herbivore
6. Air -» Dispersion -» Deposition -* Soil -» Plant -» Herbivore -» Carnivore
7. Air -* Dispersion -> Deposition -» Soil -» Soil Fauna (e.g. earthworm)
8. Air -» Dispersion -» Deposition -» Soil -* Soil Fauna -» Insectivore
9. Air -» Dispersion -» Deposition -* Soil -» Soil Fauna -* Insectivore -» Carnivore
Chemicals released from the incinerator stack, or released as fugitive emissions, may
also be deposited onto surrounding water bodies via wet and dry deposition. Chemicals
deposited onto soils may also run off into surface water bodies. Once they enter the water,
chemicals may go into solution and/or be adsorbed to sediments. The chemicals present in
the water and/or sediment may be taken up by aquatic plants, zooplankton, or aquatic
invertebrates and be passed via the food chain to higher trophic level animals (such as fish
and ultimately piscivores) as follows:
10. Air -» Dispersion -» Deposition -* Water/Sediment -» Plant
11. Air -* Dispersion -* Deposition -* Water/Sediment -* Plant -» Herbivore/Fish
12. Air -» Dispersion •* Deposition -* Water/Sediment -» Plant -» Herbivore/Fish -» Piscivore
13. Air -» Dispersion -*• Deposition -*• Water/Sediment -• Fish
14. Air -> Dispersion -» Deposition -» Water/Sediment -> Fish -» Piscivore
15. Air -» Dispersion -* Deposition -» Water/Sediment -» Aquatic Invertebrate/Plankton
16. Air -» Dispersion -» Deposition -» Water/Sediment -» Aquatic Invertebrate/Plankton -> Fish
17. Air -> Dispersion -» Deposition -* Water/Sediment -» Aquatic Invertebrate/Plankton -* Fish -* Piscivore
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-5 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
The general exposure pathways outlined above are utilized when selecting indicator
species, as described in Section V.E.
D. Exposure Routes
Terrestrial and emergent wetland plants may be exposed to airborne chemicals via
absorption of gaseous chemicals through leaf surfaces or absorption of chemicals deposited
by air (dry deposition) or water (wet deposition) onto leaf surfaces. In addition, plants may
be exposed, through their root surfaces, to chemicals deposited onto soil or sediment during
water and nutrient uptake. Aquatic plants may be exposed to chemicals by direct uptake
from the water.
Animals exposed through air, water, soil/sediment, and dietary pathways may contact
the chemicals through any of four major routes: (1) direct inhalation of gaseous chemicals or
chemicals adhered to paniculate matter (ventilation via the gills is analogous to inhalation for
aquatic species such as fish), (2) direct ingestion of contaminated abiotic media (e.g., soil),
(3) consumption of contaminated plant and/or animal tissues for chemicals which have
entered the food chain, and (4) dermal contact with contaminated abiotic media.
All of the exposure routes described above, with the exception of dermal contact for
birds and mammals, are evaluated for selected indicator species. While the dermal exposure
route is considered an important exposure route for some terrestrial organisms, such as
earthworms, it is not considered a major route of exposure for birds and mammals. This is
because birds and mammals are protected by feathers or fur and most of the persistent
ECOCs would tend to strongly adhere to soils or sediments. Ingestion and inhalation are
considered more significant exposure routes for birds and mammals; consequently, the
analysis for bird and mammal indicator species is limited to these exposure routes.
E. Indicator Species Selection
Because of the complexity of ecosystems, it is rarely, if ever, possible to assess
potential impacts to all ecological receptors present within an area, particularly for an area as
large as the WTI assessment area. Therefore, "indicator" species are typically used in
ecological risk assessments to evaluate potential risks to populations of the ecological
community (U.S. EPA 1988a). The choice of indicator species in the SERA includes those
which: (1) are known to occur, or are likely to occur, within the assessment area and are
likely to occupy the habitats present at the points of maximum air concentrations or
deposition (based on data hi Chapter III), (2) are representative of taxonomic groups, life
history traits, and/or trophic levels in the habitats present, and (3) have sufficient
ecotoxicological information available on which to base an evaluation. The following
indicator species or species groups are chosen based on the general exposure pathways
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-6 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
outlined in Section V.C, the assessment endpoints outlined in Chapter n, and the general
guidelines presented in U.S. EPA (1991b):
• Terrestrial Plants - includes herbaceous and woody species17. Plants are
exposed to chemicals present in the air and to chemicals deposited on their leaf
surfaces or to the soils on which they grow. As such, they are representative
of direct effects to primary producers, and indirect effects (e.g., habitat
alteration) to various animal groups. The selection of this indicator group is
linked to the selected assessment endpoints relating to healthy terrestrial plant
communities and intact and productive food chains (see Chapter II). This
indicator group is selected to evaluate general exposure pathways 1,3, and 4
(outlined in Section V.C) and is also included in pathways 5 and 6 as a dietary
component for higher trophic level species.
• Soil Fauna - the evaluation of this indicator group is based primarily on
earthworms, the species group for which the most toxicological information is
available (over 95 percent of the data used hi the SERA for soil fauna is for
earthworms; see Appendix VI-21). However, other soil macrofauna (e.g.,
nematodes; see Appendix VI-21) and soil microorganisms are also considered,
where data are available. Earthworms and other soil organisms are exposed to
chemicals present hi soils, by direct contact and/or ingestion, and thus serve as
good indicators of potential effects to detritivores present hi terrestrial systems.
In addition, earthworms serve as food for many other animals and are
therefore also important in terrestrial food chains. The selection of this
indicator group is linked to the selected assessment endpoints relating to intact
and productive food chains in terrestrial habitats (see Chapter II). This
indicator group is selected to evaluate general exposure pathway 7 (outlined in
Section V.C) and is also included in pathways 8 and 9 as a dietary component
for higher trophic level species.
17 The vast majority (over 90 percent) of the data on which toxicological benchmarks are
based for terrestrial plants (see Chapter VI) are from studies of annual crop species (e.g.,
soybean, wheat, tomato). The remaining data are from studies of wildflower species
(e.g., black-eyed susan) and woody species (e.g., pines, oaks, maples). It is assumed
that the derived benchmark values apply to all of these terrestrial plant types.
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-7 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
• Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) - a small herbivorous rodent which
represents small mammalian primary consumers (herbivores) present in
terrestrial systems. This species is also important in the terrestrial food chain
since it is consumed by many species of hawks and owls, as well as
mammalian predators such as foxes (U.S. EPA 1993d). The selection of this
indicator species is linked to the selected assessment endpoint relating to
reproduction, growth, and survival of birds and mammals, as well as to the
assessment endpoint related to intact and productive food chains (see Chapter
II). This indicator species is selected to evaluate general exposure pathways 2
and 5 (outlined hi Section V.C) and is also included in pathway 6 as a dietary
component for higher trophic level species.
• Northern Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicaudd) - a small insectivorous
mammal that has a high metabolic rate and can eat approximately its body
weight in food (primarily invertebrates) each day (U.S. EPA 1993d). This
species represents secondary consumers (insectivores) present in terrestrial
systems. It is also important in the terrestrial food chain since it is consumed
by many species of hawks and owls, as well as mammalian predators such as
foxes (U.S. EPA 1993d). The selection of this indicator species is linked to
the selected assessment endpoint relating to reproduction, growth, and survival
of birds and mammals, as well as to the assessment endpoint related to intact
and productive food chains (see Chapter n). This indicator species is selected
to evaluate general exposure pathways 2 and 8 (outlined in Section V.C) and is
also included in pathway 9 as a dietary component for higher trophic level
species.
• Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) - a medium-sized mammalian carnivore that inhabits
a variety of habitats, including woodlands, pastures, and agricultural areas
(U.S. EPA 1993d). This species preys extensively on small mammals,
particularly voles and mice, in terrestrial habitats and represents an upper
trophic level mammalian predator. The selection of this indicator species is
linked to the selected assessment endpoint relating to reproduction, growth,
and survival of birds and mammals (see Chapter II). This indicator species is
selected to evaluate general exposure pathways 2, 6, and 9 (outlined hi Section
V.C).
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-8 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
• Mink (Mustela visori).- the most abundant and widespread carnivorous
mammal in North America. This species is particularly sensitive to PCBs and
other chemicals present in the environment. Mink are primarily associated
with aquatic (e.g., streams and rivers) and wetland habitats but will also utilize
adjacent terrestrial habitats. Mink are opportunistic feeders, consuming
whatever prey is abundant; principal prey items include fish and small
mammals (U.S. EPA 1993d). This species represents an upper trophic level
mammalian predator in wetland and aquatic habitats. The selection of this
indicator species is linked to the selected assessment endpoint relating to
reproduction, growth, and survival of birds and mammals (see Chapter II).
This indicator species is selected to evaluate general exposure pathways 2, 6,
9, 12, 14, and 17 (outlined in Section V.C).
• American Robin (Turdus migratorius) - a small songbird that uses a variety of
forested habitats, including woodlots and suburban areas. This species forages
primarily on soil invertebrates during the breeding season and primarily on
fruits during the nonbreeding season (U.S. EPA 1993d). This species
represents a secondary avian consumer (insectivore) in terrestrial habitats
which is tolerant of man-dominated landscapes. The selection of this indicator
species is linked to the selected assessment endpoint relating to reproduction,
growth, and survival of birds and mammals (see Chapter II). This indicator
species is selected to evaluate general exposure pathways 2 and 8 (outlined in
Section V.C).
• Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyori) - a medium-sized bird typically found along
rivers and streams as well as along the edges of ponds and lakes (U.S. EPA
1993d). Kingfishers generally feed on small fish which they capture by diving
from the air or a perch which overhangs the water. This species represents an
upper trophic level piscivore. The selection of this indicator species is linked
to the selected assessment endpoint relating to reproduction, growth, and
survival of birds and marnmals (see Chapter II). This indicator species is
selected to evaluate general exposure pathways 2, 12, 14 and 17 (outlined in
Section V.C).
• Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) - a large hawk that inhabits woodlands,
pastures, and prairies (U.S. EPA 1993d). This species forages primarily on
small mammals present in terrestrial habitats and represents an upper trophic
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-9 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
level avian predator. The selection of this indicator species is linked to the
selected assessment endpoint relating to reproduction, growth, and survival of
birds and mammals (see Chapter n). This indicator species is selected to
evaluate general exposure pathways 2, 6, and 9 (outlined in Section V.C).
• Aquatic Biota - includes aquatic plants, benthic invertebrates, and fish.
Specific species are not selected (see below). Aquatic biota are used in the
evaluation of the selected assessment endpoints relating to healthy aquatic
. communities and to maintaining intact and productive aquatic food chains (see
Chapter n). Aquatic biota are used to evaluate general exposure pathways 10,
11, 13, 15, and 16 (outlined in Section V.C) and are also included in pathways
12, 14, and 17 as dietary components for higher trophic level species.
The following-subsections outline the rationale used to select each indicator species or
species group for evaluation in the SERA.
1. General Considerations in Indicator Species Selection
The selection of indicator species focuses on terrestrial systems, which
comprise the majority of the assessment area, but the selection process also includes
species which consume prey items from aquatic and wetland habitats. A number of
individual species of birds and mammals are selected as indicator species to represent
the exposure pathways (based on trophic level and dietary preferences) outlined
previously. It should be noted, however, that toxicity data are often limited for
individual bird and mammal species and a single ingestion benchmark value (used
only within a taxonomic class [bird or mammal] and adjusted for body weight) is
typically used for the range of bird or mammal indicator species selected. While the
toxicological benchmark used for one or more of these indicator species may have
been based on the same data value, the magnitude and pathway of exposure differ
among the indicator species; this is taken into account hi the exposure estimates for
each indicator species. Reptiles and amphibians, which may be exposed to chemicals
in aquatic and terrestrial systems, are not selected as potential indicator species
because of the general lack of ecotoxicological data for these groups.
Rather than selecting individual species of fish, aquatic plants, or benthic
invertebrates as indicator species, aquatic communities are evaluated as a whole. This
is because the most readily available and applicable screening-level ecotoxicological
data for surface water and sediment exposures are criteria and benchmark values
(e.g., Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life) designed to
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-10 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
protect aquatic communities. This approach is consistent with U.S. EPA guidance for
screening-level ecological risk assessments (e.g., U.S. EPA 1989d).
Based on the data collected during the site characterization (Chapter HI), all of
the selected bird and mammal indicator species are known to occur and breed within
the assessment area. In addition, the selected indicator species represent the specific
water bodies (Ohio River) and habitats (forested and developed) present at or near the
projected points of maximum above-ground air concentrations and points of estimated
maximum stack and fugitive deposition (within 1-km of the facility; Figure V-lj. The
indicator species each utilize one or more of these habitats and most are tolerant of at
least moderate levels of human activity associated with residential and developed
areas.
2. Avian Indicator Species
Based on the data compiled in Chapter ffl, 241 species of birds are known to,
or are likely to, occur within the assessment area. The three avian indicator species
selected, American robin (terrestrial insectivore), belted kingfisher (piscivore), and
red-tailed hawk (terrestrial carnivore), are selected from this list of 241 species based
on life history traits, habitat preferences, potential exposure pathways (identified in
Section V.C), and availability of information needed to complete the risk analysis.
Because reproductive endpoints are a key focus of the SERA, known breeding activity
within the assessment area is a consideration in the selection process.
Gamebirds, shorebirds, raptors, waterbirds/waterfowl and passerines/
woodpeckers are the major bird groups present in the assessment area. Gamebirds
are considered to have a relatively low exposure potential based on dietary habits.
Gamebirds are largely granivores. Seeds would be expected to have lower
concentrations of bioaccumulative chemicals (based on plant uptake mechanisms)
relative to food items such as earthworms. This is based on the much lower values of
Br (bioaccumulation into the reproductive parts of plants) for metals reported hi Baes
et al. (1984) relative to soil-to-earthworm BCFs/BAFs shown hi Table V-19. For
organics, earthworms are expected to have much higher lipid content than seeds and
thus would be expected to accumulate higher concentrations of lipophilic organic
chemicals as well. As such, the granivore exposure pathway is not identified hi
Section V.C. as critical to the SERA. Shorebirds generally utilize wetland habitats
which, except for portions of the Ohio River, are relatively uncommon within 1-km
of the facility (see Chapter III). The near shore areas of the Ohio River hi the
vicinity of the facility are generally steep-banked or developed and therefore provide
limited habitat for these species. The American robin (a passerine) is selected to
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-ll . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
represent a terrestrial avian insectivore over an upland shorebird species, such as the
American woodcock, based on the habitat types present within 1-km of the facility.
The American robin, which is more tolerant of man-dominated landscapes and is
ubiquitous within the assessment area, is more likely to be present in this area than is
the American woodcock. Both the robin and the woodcock consume earthworms as a
principal component of their diets during the breeding season.
. A terrestrial raptor species (top predator) is considered a key indicator species
(based on the identified exposure pathways) given the predominance of terrestrial
habitats in the assessment area and the high potential for exposure for such a species
(given its position atop the food chain) to the many ECOCs that are bioaccumulative
chemicals. The red-tailed hawk is selected as this top avian predator (terrestrial
carnivore) based on its food preferences (small mammals) and ubiquitous occurrence
within the assessment area. Other raptor species, such as the bald eagle, are much
less likely to utilize the habitats hi close proximity to the facility since they are rarer
in occurrence and are generally less tolerant of human activities.
A piscivorous species is considered the most appropriate indicator species
among waterfowl and waterbirds since many of the ECOCs would be expected to
bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic biota. Food chain exposures via consumption
of fish are expected to represent the highest potential exposures to these bird species,
based on the identified exposure pathways (Section V.C). The belted kingfisher is
selected as the avian piscivore since it utilizes small lakes and streams, as well as
larger water bodies and semi-urbanized areas, and is ubiquitous within the assessment
area. Among the other fish-eating birds, raptors such as the osprey are not selected
because they are less likely to utilize the habitats hi close proximity to the facility
since they are rarer hi occurrence and are generally less tolerant of human activities.
Herons and gulls (which also inhabit the assessment area) generally have lower
dietary intake rates (relative to body weight) than the kingfisher.
As noted above, the American robin, a member of the passerine/woodpecker
group, is selected to represent an avian terrestrial insectivore. Exposure to soil
contaminants via consumption of soil fauna (e.g., earthworms) is identified as the
primary exposure pathway for small terrestrial birds, and the robin is an ideal
representative among the passerines/woodpeckers for this pathway.
3. Mammalian Indicator Species
Forty-nine species of mammals are known, or are likely to, occur within the
assessment area (Chapter HI). The four mammalian indicator species selected,
meadow vole (terrestrial herbivore), northern short-tailed shrew (terrestrial
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-12 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
insectivore), mink (piscivore), and red fox (terrestrial carnivore), are selected from
the list of 49 species based on life history traits, habitat preferences, potential
exposure pathways (identified in Section V.C), and availability of information needed
to complete the risk analysis. Because reproductive endpoints are a key focus of the
SERA, known breeding activity within the assessment area is a consideration in the
selection process.
The mammalian species known or likely to occur within the assessment area
can be divided into several broad categories based on taxonomy and ecology: small
mammals (including bats), large carnivores/omnivores, and large herbivores. Small
mammals, such as mice, voles, moles, and shrews, are generally key species in
terrestrial and wetland ecosystems since they serve as principal food items for a wide
variety of upper trophic level predators. Many of these species also have direct
contact with soils through burrowing and foraging activities which makes them good
candidates as indicator species for exposure to soil contaminants.
The meadow vole and northern short-tailed shrew, members of the small
mammal group, are selected as indicator species to represent a herbivore and
carnivore, respectively. The meadow vole is selected since it is a common species
within the assessment area that is consumed by a large number of terrestrial
predators. The northern short-tailed shrew, also common in the assessment area, is
an insectivore which consumes large quantities of soil invertebrates (relative to its
body weight) and may also be consumed by higher trophic level predators.
Based on this high potential for exposure, the short-tailed shrew is considered
an adequate surrogate for an insectivorous bat species. There is a general paucity of
information to allow exposure modeling of the ECOCs hi water and soil being
transferred to flying insects which are then consumed by bats. In addition, for all of
the non-pesticide ECOCs, the same toxicity data as used for the shrew would have
been used for the bat (only the allometric scaling would differ). Also, the
toxicological sensitivity of bats to organochlorine pesticides is in the same range as
other small mammals and birds (Clark 1981). Thus, bats are not included as
indicator species. The northern short-tailed shrew, which consumes large quantities
of soil invertebrates (relative to its body weight), would be expected to represent the
"worst-case" for terrestrial food chain exposures via soil invertebrates.
Among large carnivores/omnivores, the red fox is selected to represent
exposures in terrestrial habitats and the mink is selected for wetland/aquatic habitats.
The red fox preys extensively on small mammals, particularly voles and mice, hi
terrestrial habitats and represents an upper trophic level mammalian predator. This
species is a habitat generalist and is thus ubiquitous within the assessment area. The
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-13 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
mink is known to be particularly sensitive to PCBs and other bioaccumulative
chemicals (U.S. EPA 1993d). Mink are primarily associated with aquatic (e.g.,
streams and rivers) and wetland habitats but will also utilize adjacent terrestrial
habitats. Although mink are opportunistic feeders, principal prey items include fish
and small mammals. Thus, based on sensitivity to chemical exposures, trophic level,
and potential for exposure, the mink is selected as an indicator species.
Indicator species from the last mammalian group, large herbivores, are not
selected. Large herbivores (e.g., deer) would not be expected to incur high exposures
relative to small herbivores (meadow vole) already selected as indicator species, based
on lower feeding rates (relative to body weight) and lower metabolic rates (also
related to body weight). In addition, large herbivores are not principal prey items for
large numbers of other species, thereby limiting their value in food chain modeling.
4. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
Rare, threatened, and endangered species are special receptors that need to be
evaluated both on an individual and on a population level. Many of these species
possess specialized life history traits or requirements which may not be adequately
addressed in an indicator species type of approach. Therefore, if a federally-listed
rare, threatened, or endangered species is known to be present hi the vicinity of the
projected areas of maximum impact, then a separate, species-specific "biological
assessment" (as referred to in the Endangered Species Act) may be warranted to
determine whether or not the species in question was in jeopardy from site-related
exposures. If a state-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species is known to be
present, then the species-specific "biological assessment" would need to address the
specific requirements of the applicable state's endangered species laws and
regulations. The potential presence of rare, threatened, and endangered species in the
WTI assessment area, and their proximity to areas of maximum chemical deposition,
was determined in Chapter III, and is evaluated hi Chapter VII as part of the
evaluation of assessment endpoints.
F. Specific Exposure Pathways
General exposure pathways relevant to the SERA analysis were outlined hi Section
V.C. In this section, specific exposure pathways are developed by integrating the general
exposure pathways with specific exposure routes (Section V.D), the selected indicator species
(Section V.E), and specific habitats to be evaluated (based on the exposure scenarios outlined
hi Section V.A). These specific exposure pathways (Figures V-2 and V-3) are used to more
fully define the exposure scenarios by identifying specific media for which chemical
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-14 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
concentrations are needed and by identifying specific species and pathways for food chain
modeling (see Section V.G). These specific exposure pathways also help identify the types
of lexicological benchmarks that are required to complete the risk characterization and, thus,
help to guide the development of toxicological benchmarks in Chapter VI.
G. Estimation of Environmental Concentrations
Concentrations in air, soil, sediment, and surface water are modeled at the predicted
points of maximum air concentrations and maximum total deposition, using the methodology
described in Volume V, Chapter VI and Appendix V-7, to provide conservative estimates of
exposure point concentrations. In addition, tissue concentrations are modeled for
representative plant and animal species (terrestrial plants, earthworms, small mammals, and
fish) in order to evaluate potential food chain effects for higher-trophic level indicator
species. In addition to the determination of exposure point concentrations at the points of
maximum impact, exposure point concentrations were estimated at two nearby water bodies,
Little Beaver Creek and Tomlinson Run Lake. Example calculations for environmental
concentrations in all media are provided in Appendix VI-26.
1. Air Concentrations
Ambient air concentrations for the ECOCs selected in Chapter IV for ambient
air are estimated based on the emission rates presented hi Chapter IV and using an air
dispersion model (Volume IV). Emissions are estimated separately for the stack and
for each fugitive emission source shown on Figure V-l.
a. Stack Emissions
Based on the dispersion modeling, the maximum annual dispersion
factor for stack vapor emissions is 0.91 fig/m3 per g/sec emission rate (see
Volume IV). Maximum chemical-specific concentrations can be developed
from the dispersion factor by multiplying the chemical-specific emission rates
(described La Volume III, Chapter HI) by the dispersion factor. Tables V-3
(metals, both exposure scenarios) and V-4 (organics) present the estimated
maximum ground-level ambient air concentrations from stack emissions for
each ambient air ECOC. Estimated air concentrations for specific locations
within the assessment area (other than the maximum point) can be calculated
based on the isopleth maps generated by the ah* dispersion model (as described
hi Volume IV).
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-15 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
b. Fugitive Emissions
Tables V-5, V-6, V-7, V-8, and V-9 present the estimated maximum
ground-level ambient air concentrations for each of the fugitive ECOCs for the
ash handling facility, carbon absorption bed, tank farm, open waste water
tank, and truck wash fugitive sources, respectively (see Figure V-l for the
locations of these sources and the corresponding locations of the maximum air
concentrations). These concentrations are determined by multiplying the
source-specific and chemical-specific emission rates by a source-specific
maximum dispersion factor, as described in Volume V, Chapter IV. It should
be noted that the truck wash is not currently being used on a regular basis.
The estimation of fugitive emissions from this source is performed to take into
account potential future use.
c. -Cumulative Concentrations
Emissions from the facility stack and from each fugitive emissions
source are evaluated together for those ECOCs common to these sources (see
Chapter VH). This is accomplished by conservatively assuming that the
maximum air concentrations (and the points of maximum total deposition) for
each source are colocated and summing the air concentration estimates (and the
soil, surface water, sediment, and tissue concentrations associated with the
stack, the ash handling facility, and/or the organic vapor fugitive sources)
associated with each source.
2. Soil Concentrations
Chemical constituents present hi the stack gas emissions, and hi fugitive ash
emissions from the ash handling facility, will be deposited onto surface soil by wet or
dry deposition processes, which may result in the accumulation of these chemicals hi
the soil. Because many of the semivolatile, pesticide, dioxin/furan, PCB, and metal
ECOCs are typically associated with paniculate matter (based on relatively high K,, or
KK values), it is expected that these compounds will be the major facility-related
chemicals deposited onto surface soils hi the area surrounding the facility. Volatile
organic compounds are expected to remain largely hi the vapor phase and the
deposition of these compounds onto surface soils is not expected to be significant
(Volume V, Chapter V). Therefore, volatile organic ECOCs are not evaluated hi
surface soils.
The soil concentration resulting from the deposition of airborne chemicals is
estimated based on the total deposition rate (which accounts for wet and dry .
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-16 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
deposition of particles), average soil density, the depth of soil affected, and the
duration of the emissions. The depth of soil mixing used is 0.01 meters, which is the
shallowest (most conservative) of the three default depths (0.01, 0.1, and 0.2 meters)
from U.S. EPA (1994d, 1993f). The emission duration (facility lifetime) of 30 years
is also a default value from U.S. EPA (1993f). The soil bulk density of 1.31 g/cm3 is
a site-specific average value obtained from data provided by the U.S. Natural
Resources Conservation Service (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Concentrations of chemicals in soils are conservatively estimated at the point
of maximum projected total deposition for the stack and for the ash handling facility
(these locations are shown on Figure V-l). These concentrations are adjusted by the
application of a soil loss constant, which considered losses due to leaching, soil
erosion, surface runoff, and degradation (abiotic and biotic). The model used to
estimate soil concentrations, and the rationale behind each of the input parameters, is
described in Volume V, Appendix V-7. The estimated maximum soil concentrations
are given hi Tables V-10 (metals; both exposure scenarios) and V-ll (organics) for
stack emissions and hi Table V-12 for fugitive emissions from the ash handling
facility.
3. Surface Water and Sediment Concentrations
Chemicals emitted from the facility stack, and from the five fugitive sources,
may also reach surrounding ponds, lakes, rivers, and wetlands through direct
deposition onto the surface water and from runoff of chemicals deposited within the
watershed of these water bodies. To estimate surface water and sediment
concentrations at the estimated points of maximum deposition for the stack and
fugitive sources, a 1.5 km2 portion of the Ohio River adjacent to the facility (with a
4,000 km2 watershed area) is modeled (as described in Volume V, Appendix V-7). A
site-specific volume/flow rate of 3.4 x 1013 L/yr is used to estimate dilution and
mixing (Volume V, Appendix V-7). This portion of the Ohio River is selected for
modeling since it is the nearest major water body to the actual estimated point of
maximum total deposition for stack emissions as well as for the fugitive sources
(Figure V-l).
Smaller water bodies, with lower flows, turnover rates, or volumes, could
exhibit higher surface water and sediment concentrations than the modeled portion of
the Ohio River, even though the total deposition of chemicals is less, because the
smaller watershed area would result in a lower volume of runoff and subsequent
lower dilution of chemicals. Surface water and sediment concentrations are therefore
estimated for two additional water bodies, Little Beaver Creek and Tomlinson Run
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-17 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Lake. Little Beaver Creek is selected based on its size and proximity to the point of
maximum stack deposition (within 3-km at its nearest point) and since portions are
classified as wild and scenic (see Chapter HI). A representative lentic water body
(i.e., lake, pond, or wetland) is also selected. Only three water bodies or wetlands
greater than 10 acres in size occur within a 10-km radius of the WTI facility: (1)
Blue Run Lake, which is approximately 600 acres in size and 2-km southeast of the
facility, (2) Lake Bibbee, which is 12.5 acres in size and 10-km northwest of the
facility, and (3) Tomlinson Run Lake, which is 29 acres in size and 10-km southwest
of the facility (see Figure ni-3). Blue Run Lake is an artificially constructed water
body currently used for the disposal of fly ash; it is deemed inappropriate for use in
the SERA based on its current utilization. Lake Bibbee and Tomlinson Run Lake are
equally distant from the facility but Tomlinson Run Lake has a higher dispersion
factor (0.040 versus 0.011 for Lake Bibbee). These two water bodies also differ in
their likely value to ecological receptors. Tomlinson Run Lake is selected based on
its higher dispersion factor and its location within Tomlinson Run State Park whose
environs, including a wilderness area, are more likely to attract wildlife receptors than
is Lake Bibbee, located within a suburban-type environment.
Watershed area estimates are 1,300 km2 for Little Beaver Creek and 61 km2
for Tomlinson Run Lake (as described hi Volume V, Appendix V-7). Site-specific
volume/flow rates of 4.7 x 10" and 2.4 x 10* L/yr are used to estimate dilution and
mixing for Little Beaver Creek and Tomlinson Run Lake, respectively (Volume V,
Appendix V-7). For comparative purposes, the maximum dispersion factors at the
locations of the three water bodies are 0.91, 0.14, and 0.04 for the Ohio River, Little
Beaver Creek, and Tomlinson Run Lake, respectively, for stack emissions.
Direct deposition onto the surface water and surface runoff from the watershed
are modeled for each of the three water bodies. The model estimates the balance
between the mass of contaminants entering the water body and the amount which
partitions as dissolved chemical, chemical sorbed to suspended particles, and chemical
sorbed to paniculate matter in bottom sediment. The model assumes a three percent
total organic carbon (TOC) content in bottom sediments and a five percent TOC
content in suspended solids; these are default values as specified hi U.S. EPA (1994d)
(see Volume V, Appendix V-7). Suspended solids are considered a component of the
water column but are not used in the estimation of surface water concentrations, that
is, surface water concentrations are estimated for the dissolved fraction only. This
approach is consistent with current theory that toxicity, particularly for metals, is due
principally to the soluble (freely dissolved) forms, since it is these forms that are most
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-18 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
directly bioavailable to aquatic organisms (Dobbs et al. 1994; Loux and Brown 1993;
U.S. EPA 1993e, 1989c).
Although the model does not specifically address existing baseline water and
sediment concentrations for the ECOCs, the model contains numerous conservative
assumptions, as outlined in U.S. EPA (1994d), and is considered an appropriate
screening-level method for evaluating potential risks (U.S. EPA 1994d). The issue of
background concentrations in surface water and sediment is discussed further in
Chapter Vm. The model used to estimate surface water and sediment concentrations,
and the rationale behind each of the input parameters, is described in Volume V,
Appendix V-7. The estimated surface water (dissolved fraction) and sediment
concentrations resulting from stack-emitted ECOCs are presented in Tables V-13 and
V-14 (surface water) and Tables V-16 and V-17 (sediment) for stack emissions. The
estimated surface water (dissolved fraction) and sediment concentrations for the
fugitive ECOCs are presented in Table V-15 (surface water) and Table V-18
(sediment) for fugitive emissions18.
4. Tissue Concentrations
Concentrations of all 15 metal stack ECOCs (for both exposure scenarios), 13
stack organic ECOCs (anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate, 2,4-D,
4,4'-DDE, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
hexachlorophene, pentachlorobenzene, pentachlorophenol, total PCBs, and
dioxin/furan), and all seven fugitive ash metal ECOCs are estimated in plant,
earthworm, and fish tissues from exposure to chemicals present hi soil, sediment, or
surface water. These values are used to model potential food chain exposures at
higher trophic levels. These chemicals are selected from among the ECOCs because
of their potential to bioaccumulate or biomagnify in terrestrial and aquatic food
chains19 (see Chapter IV).
a. Earthworms
Estimated earthworm tissue concentrations of the 28 ECOCs evaluated
for potential food chain effects are calculated by multiplying the estimated
18 Surface water and sediment concentrations can not be estimated for total cyanide since
chemical partitioning factors are not available.
19 Although not all of the selected metals are known to bioaccumulate to a significant
degree, all 15 stack metal ECOCs are evaluated for food chain transfer to estimate risks
associated with current projected permit limits (see Chapter IV).
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-19 , Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
maximum soil concentration (at the point of maximum deposition) by
chemical-specific bioconcentration factors (BCFs) or bioaccumulation factors
(BAFs), as presented in Table V-19. Bioconcentration factors are calculated
by dividing the concentration of a chemical in the tissues of an organism by
the concentration of that chemical in the surrounding environmental medium
(e.g., soil) without accounting for chemical uptake via the diet.
Bioaccumulation factors consider both exposure to the environmental medium
and exposure via the diet. Since earthworms consume soil, BAFs are more
appropriate values and are used hi the models when available from the
literature; BAFs based on undepurated analyses (i.e., soil was not purged from
the earthworm's gut prior to analysis) are given preference when selecting
values.
Measured BAFs for metals and organic chemicals are obtained from the
literature, where available (all earthworm BAFs hi Table V-19 with a literature
reference are measured BAF values). If a measured BAF for an organic
chemical is unavailable, a BCF is calculated (see below). If a measured BAF
for a metal is unavailable from the literature, an earthworm BAF of 1.0 is
assumed, that is, the tissue concentration in the earthworm is equal to the soil
concentration. This is a conservative assumption based on the data in Table
V-19 for metals with measured BAFs; all but three of these measured BAFs
are less than one. Earthworm BAFs are unavailable for antimony, beryllium,
silver, and thallium.
Connell and Markwell (1990) describe a procedure for estimating the
bioconcentration of lipophilic compounds from soil to earthworms. Based on
general fugacity concepts, Connell and Markwell (1990) have suggested that
bioconcentration of organic compounds in earthworms can best be described
by a three-compartment model that considers the partitioning among soil,
interstitial water, and the earthworm. In this model, bioconcentration of
organic chemicals from soil into earthworms can be approximated as the
partitioning of the chemical into the organism from water (BCFW) divided by
the partitioning of the chemical from water into soil, as follows:
(% lipi
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-20 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
W
where: BCFS = bioconcentration factor of the chemical from soil into
earthworms, unitless
BCFW = bioconcentration factor of the chemical from water into
earthworms, unitless
water-soil partitioning coefficient
octanol-water partition coefficient, cm3/g soil
fraction of organic carbon, unitless
organic carbon partition coefficient, cm3/g soil
a = non-linearity constant for bioconcentration from water
Partitioning of organic compounds between water and soil is a function
of the compound's affinity for the organic carbon present hi soil (K^) and the
fraction of organic carbon in the soil (f^. Partitioning of organic compounds
from water into the tissues of an earthworm is estimated by a non-linear
function that describes the affinity of a compound for organic material relative
to water (K^*) and the lipid content of the earthworm20.
Chemical-specific model input values for K^, and K,,,. are listed in Table
V-2. The soil f^ of 1.3 percent is a site-specific value obtained from data
provided by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (see Volume V,
Appendix V-7), the lipid content hi earthworms (0.84 percent) is a measured
value from Gish and Hughes (1982), and the non-linearity constant of 1.14 for
organochlorine compound bioconcentration from water by earthworms (Lord et
al. 1980) is the same value used by Connell and Markwell (1990)21.
Since multiplying the soil concentration (hi dry weight) by the
measured or estimated BAF/BCF yields tissue concentrations hi mg/kg dry
weight, the resulting values are divided by a factor of four; this factor of four
is based upon a measured 25 percent average solids content hi earthworms, as
reported by Connell and Markwell (1990) using data from Gish and Hughes
(1982) to yield wet-weight tissue concentrations. Calculated earthworm tissue
concentrations (in mg/kg wet-weight) are presented hi Tables V-20 (metals)
20 Although this equation estimates a BCF, not a BAF (since soil ingestion is not
considered), hi practice, the resulting BCF values are generally higher than literature-
derived BAF values. For example, literature-derived values for PCBs and DDE are 6
and 16, respectively, while calculated values are 17 and 664, respectively. Use of this
equation, therefore, results hi a conservative estimate of bioaccumulation.
21 This value for the non-linearity constant is assumed to also apply to the three non-
chlorinated ECOCs (anthracene, benzo[a]pyrehe, and bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate).
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-21 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
and V-21 (organics) for stack emissions and in Table V-22 for fugitive ash
emissions.
b. Terrestrial Plants
Estimated above-ground plant tissue concentrations of the 28 ECOCs
evaluated for potential food chain effects are calculated for leafy plants using
the methodology employed in the human health assessment (see Volume V,
Appendix V-7 for a complete description of the methodology and the rationale
for the input parameters used). This methodology, which is briefly described
in this section, consisted of multiplying the estimated maximum soil
concentration (at the points of maximum estimated deposition) by chemical-
specific bioconcentration factors (as presented in Table V-19) and adding
concentrations of chemicals deposited directly on leaves and plant uptake from
air-to-plant transfer (as described in Volume V, Appendix V-7). BCFs for
metals are from Baes et al. (1984)22 and BCFs for organic chemicals are
calculated as described below.
Travis and Anns (1988) have related chemical uptake by plants from
soils (via the roots) with the octanol-water partition coefficient (K,,w) using a
geometric mean regression for uptake of nearly thirty different chemicals by
plants (five of the chemicals included in the derivation of this regression
equation [PCBs, benzo(a)pyrene, 4,4'-DDE, hexachlorobenzene, and 2,3,7,8-
TCDD (dioxin)] are ECOCs). The algorithm for determining the
bioconcentration factor in vegetation from root uptake from soil is:
logBv = 1.588 - (0.578) GogJ (V-2)
where: Bv = bioconcentration factor in vegetation, unitless
Direct deposition of chemicals to leaf surfaces is calculated based on
yearly estimates of wet and dry deposition rates, the interception fraction of
this deposition by plants, and a calculated plant surface loss coefficient based
22 The Baes et al. (1984) estimates are based on any combination of: (1) analysis of
literature references, (2) correlations with other parameters, (3) elemental systematics,
or (4) comparison of observed and predicted concentrations. Of the 15 metal ECOCs,
BCFs are based directly on measured values from the literature only for antimony,
cadmium, and lead. .
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-22 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
on chemical half-lives in the environment using the following equation (from
Volume V, Appendix V-7):
pd _ (1000) [Dyd + (Fw) (Dyw)] (Rpf) [l - e-™W] ^_3)
where: Pds = Chemical concentration due to direct deposition in the ith
plant group (mg/kg dry weight)
1000 = Conversion factor ([10'3 kg/glflO6 mg/kg])
Dyd = Yearly dry deposition rate (g/m2-yr)
Fw = Fraction of wet deposition that adheres to plant surfaces
(unitless)
Dyw = Yearly wet deposition rate (g/m2-yr)
Rpi = Interception fraction of the edible portion of plant tissue
for the ith plant group (unitless)
kp = Plant surface loss coefficient (yr1)
Tpj = Length of plant's exposure to deposition per harvest of
the edible portion of the ith plant group (years)
Ypj = Yield or standing crop biomass of the edible portion of
the ith plant group (kg/m2 dry weight)
This equation does not account for plant uptake of chemicals deposited
to leaves, but rather accounts for chemicals lying on the foliar surface. From
the perspective of ingestion exposures by a herbivore, however, this distinction
is irrelevant since the chemical will be ingested regardless of whether it is
incorporated into the leaf tissue (assuming no metabolism) or is simply lying
on the leaf surface. Input values for this equation, and the rationale for their
selection, are given in Volume V, Appendix V-7. For the SERA, the
estimated plant exposure duration is the entire year, representing the most
conservative exposure assumption possible. This is the only parameter value
in this equation that is modified from the HHRA input parameters. The
modification is made to account for continuous exposures of woody plants and
other wild vegetation over the entire year, as opposed to exposures to
domesticated crop species that are modeled hi the HHRA, which only
accumulate chemicals until they are harvested.
Chemical concentrations due to direct air-to-plant transfer are calculated
based on a biotransfer factor which relates chemical-specific values of log
and Henry's Law Constant to plant uptake for an assumed temperature, air
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-23 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
density, and plant leaf density using the following equation (from Volume V,
Chapter VI):
(Cy)
(V-4)
where: PVj = concentration of constituent due to. air-to-plant transfer in the i*
plant group (mg constituent/kg plant tissue dry weight)
Cy = vapor-phase concentration of constituent hi air due to direct
emissions (pg constituent/in3 air)
BVJ = air-to-plant biotransfer factor for the i* plant group ([mg
constituent/kg plant tissue dry weight]/[mg constituent/kg air])
VGjg = above ground plant correction factor (unitless)
pa = density of air (kg/m3)
103 = units conversion (mg/10Vg)
Input values for this equation, and the rationale for their selection, are
given in Volume V, Appendix V-7. None of the parameter values in this
equation are modified from the HHRA input parameters.
The calculated plant tissue concentrations are obtained by summing the
results from the three equations described above as follows:
CV = (Bv.) (SQ + Pdt + Pv,. (V-5)
where: CV = total concentration of constituent hi the Ith plant group, mg/kg
BVJ = bioconcentration factor for chemical uptake from soil via the
roots in i* plant group (unitless)
SC = soil concentration (mg/kg)
Pd; = concentration of constituent hi r* plant group due to direct
deposition (mg/kg)
PVJ = concentration of constituent hi r* plant group due to air-to-plant
transfer (mg/kg)
The resulting total chemical concentration hi plants is converted to a
wet-weight basis based on an estimated seven percent solids content hi above-
ground leafy plant parts (Baes et al. 1984). This solids content is a weighted
average value from measurements of the water content of nine crop species.
Calculated plant tissue concentrations (hi mg/kg wet-weight) are presented hi
Volume VI
V-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Tables V-20 (metals) and V-21 (organics) for stack emissions and in Table V-
( 22 for fugitive ash emissions.
c. Fish
Chemical concentrations in whole-body fish tissue are estimated for the
Ohio River, Tomlinson Run Lake, and Little Beaver Creek for stack and
fugitive ash emissions based on calculated surface water concentrations using
the model from Volume V, Appendix V-7. This model uses chemical-specific
BCFs, which are the highest available measured values from the literature for
applicable freshwater fish species, and assumes a fish lipid content, for
lipophilic chemicals, of seven percent as provided in U.S. EPA (1994d).
Since BCFs do not account for dietary exposures, which may be the
predominant exposures for many bioaccumulative chemicals, BCF values are
converted to BAF values by multiplying the BCF by a food chain multiplier
(U.S. EPA 1995b). Food chain multipliers for organic ECOCs are selected
using the chemical-specific log K^, value and are based on consumption of
trophic level 3 fish. Trophic level 3 is used since the piscivorous indicator
species used in the SERA consume fish primarily from this trophic level (U.S.
EPA 1995b). Following the guidance in U.S. EPA (1995b), a food chain
V multiplier of one is used for all metal ECOCs except methyl mercury. For
methyl mercury, a measured BAF value is obtained directly from the
literature. Table V-23 lists the literature-derived BCFs, the food chain
multiplier used for each ECOC, and the resulting BAFs.
The model used to estimate fish tissue concentrations, and the rationale
behind each of the input parameters, is described further hi Volume V,
Appendix V-7. Calculated fish tissue concentrations (in mg/kg wet-weight) are
presented in Tables V-24 (metals) and V-25 (organics) for stack emissions and
hi Table V-26 for fugitive ash emissions.
d. Small Mammals
Tissue concentrations hi meadow voles and short-tailed shrews (the two
small mammal indicator species) are calculated to model ingestion exposures
for the other indicator species that consume small mammals as part of then-
diet (i.e., mink, red fox, and red-tailed hawk). This is accomplished by
assuming that, for ECOCs that are not known to biomagnify hi food chains,
the concentration of the chemical hi the small mammal's tissues is in
/ equilibrium with the concentration of the chemical in the diet; thus, a diet to
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-25 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
whole-body tissue BAF of one is assumed. This procedure is used since data
for diet to whole-body transfer of chemicals are generally unavailable for most
chemicals. Although BCFs for plant and earthworm uptake are higher than
one for most of the organic ECOCs, these BCFs involve, transfer of chemicals
from abiotic media to tissues, not from tissues to tissues. Since the
partitioning of chemicals from abiotic media to tissues (e.g., soils to
earthworm tissues) is.governed by different processes than dietary uptake from
consuming animal tissues, there is not a direct correlation between the
BCFs/BAFs (hi terms of relative magnitude) for the two processes. Thus, one
set of values can not be used to estimate the other.
The use of a BAF of one would likely underestimate chemical transfer
for chemicals known to biomagnify. Thus, for the food chain ECOCs known
to biomagnify in terrestrial food chains (mercury, dioxin/furan, and PCBs),
BAF values for food to whole body biotransfer are obtained for small
mammals from the literature. Woodward-Clyde (1991) reports a
bioaccumulation factor (BAF) of 4.3 (based on literature review) for mercury
transfer from plant tissue to small mammqls via the dietary route; this is the
only such value found in the literature. For the SERA, this BAF is also
assumed to apply to other dietary components (i.e., earthworms) of the two
small mammal species considered. A value of 4.3 is used in Equation V-6
(see below) for the BAF parameter for mercury. For dioxin, Coulston and
Kolbye (1994b) and U.S. EPA (1990c) report a BAF of 1.4 from diet to
whole-body tissue for the deer mouse; this is the only reported value found in
the literature. Thus, a value of 1.4 is used in Equation V-6 for the BAF
parameter for dioxin/furan. For PCBs, a maximum BAF of 1.0 is reported by
Simmons and McKee (1992) based on laboratory studies with white-footed
mice.
Based on the limited available data, the use of a small mammal food to
whole body BAF of one for non-biomagnifying chemicals is likely to result in
a conservative (high) estimate of chemical concentrations in tissues. Reported
BAF values for PCBs are 1.0 and for dioxins are only slightly greater than one
(1.4). In addition, Menzie et al. (1992) report BAF values for DDT of 0.3 for
voles and 0.2 for short-tailed shrews, values which are considerably below
one.
For each species of small mammal, the tissue concentration is
calculated based on the chemical concentration hi each dietary component
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-26 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
(including water) and the percentage of the total dietary intake (including
water) each component represented, as follows:
(WF)} (V-6)
where:
TCX =
BAF
FF
MW
UCF
WF
Whole-body tissue concentration of chemical x (/xg/g)
Concentration of chemical x in food item i (/xg/g)
Percentage of diet for food item i
Diet to whole-body BAF (unitless)
Fraction of intake composed of food (i.e., daily food ingestion
rate [g food/day] divided by the sum of the daily food and water
ingestion rates [in g/day])
Concentration of chemical in water (itg/L)
Unit Conversion Factor (ng/L to mg/L) of 1,000
Fraction of intake composed of water (i.e., daily water ingestion
rate [g water/day] divided by the sum of the daily food and
water ingestion rates [in g/day])
Equation V-6 was developed for this analysis and is a modified version
of a standard dietary intake model (see Equation V-7 below) and assumes that
the tissue concentration is equal to the chemical dietary intake multiplied by a
diet-to-whole body BAF plus the chemical intake via water. The first part of
Equation V-6 (to the left of the + sign) determines the chemical exposure for
each dietary item, sums the chemical intake over all dietary items, multiplies
this sum by the BAF (to account for biomagnification), and finally multiplies
the result by the fraction of the total intake (from food and water) attributable
to dietary exposure. Similarly, the portion of Equation V-6 to the right of the
+ sign determines the chemical exposure via water intake, multiplies this
value by the BAF (to account for biomagnification), and finally multiplies the
result by the fraction of the total intake (from food and water) attributable to
water exposure. The final tissue concentration is the result of summing the
dietary and water components.
Concentrations of the food chain ECOCs hi plants and earthworms
(dietary components of the meadow vole and short-tailed shrew) are calculated
as described hi subsections V.G.4.a and V.G.4.b and are contained hi Tables
V-20 through V-22. Soil concentrations (for incidental soil ingestion) and
surface water concentrations (for water ingestion) for the food chain ECOCs
are contained in Tables V-10 through V-12 and V-13 through V-15,
Volume VI
V-27
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
respectively. Water and food ingestion rates, and dietary compositions, for the
meadow vole and short-tailed shrew are summarized in Table V-27. Based on
the ingestion rates given in Table V-27, WF for the meadow vole and short-
tailed shrew are 0.37 and 0.32, respectively; FF would then be 0.63 and 0.68,
respectively, since WF and FF must add up to one.
As mentioned above, BAFs for the ECOCs that are not known to
biomagnify would be one (i.e., a diet to whole-body tissue BAF of one is
assumed). For the ECOCs that are known to biomagnify (mercury, PCBs, and
dioxin), BAF values from the literature are used hi Equation V-6. Calculated
tissue concentrations for the meadow vole and short-tailed shrew are contained
in Tables V-28 through V-30.
5. Dietary Intakes
Dietary intakes for each food chain ECOC are calculated for each applicable
indicator species and exposure route (described earlier) using the following equation
(modified from Ma et al. [1991] by adding water ingestion):
MW
[£. (FR) (MCX .) (PDCty\ + [(—^) (WI)] rv «
DI = ULF
BW
where: DIX = Intake of chemical x (/ig/g-BW/day)
FR = Feeding rate (g food/day)
MC,u = Concentration of chemical x in food item i (/ig/g)
PDQ = Percentage of diet for food item i
MWX = Concentration of chemical x in water 0*g/L)
WI = Water ingestion rate (g water/day)
UCF = Unit Conversion Factor Otg/L to mg/L) of 1,000
BW = Body weight (g)
The above equation relates the estimated intake of chemicals via food to the
chemical concentration in each prey item consumed by the particular receptor. Each
dietary food component is weighted by its relative contribution to the total diet (as a
percent). Dietary dose for food is then obtained by multiplying by the food ingestion
rate; this dose is then standardized by dividing by the body weight of the annual.
Water ingestion is obtained in a similar manner, that is, the chemical concentration in
the water is multiplied by the water ingestion rate to obtain the dose. The dose is
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-28 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
then standardized by dividing by body weight. Total dose ingested by the animal is
then obtained by summing the food and water components of the diet.
Indicator species-specific input values used in the models are summarized in
Table V-27. Concentrations in plants, earthworms, and fish are calculated as
described hi subsections V.G.4.b, V.G.4.a, and V.G.4.C, respectively, and are
contained in Tables V-20 through V-22 for plants and earthworms and in Tables V-24
through V-26 for fish. For indicator species that ingest small mammals, tissue
concentrations for the meadow vole and short-tailed shrew are estimated as described
hi subsection V.G.4.d and are contained hi Tables V-28 through V-30.
The small mammal dietary component for the red fox, mink, and red-tailed
hawk is assumed to be composed of 50% voles and 50% shrews. This is a
simplifying, and generally conservative assumption. Shrews are estimated to have
higher tissue concentrations of ECOCs than voles and are unlikely to represent as
much as 50 percent of the small mammal portion of the diet of these predator species.
Dietary intakes for the indicator species are presented hi Chapter VII and are
calculated in a very conservative manner by assuming that the indicator species obtain
all of then- food and water from the point of maximum deposition (Ohio River and
adjacent habitat). The tissue concentrations of plant, soil invertebrate, fish, and small
mammal prey items are determined based on maximum soil, surface water, and/or
sediment ECOC concentrations and ingested soil and water (at the maximum impact
point/Ohio River). In addition, dietary intakes are estimated for Little Beaver Creek
and Tomlinson Run Lake for stack and fugitive ash emissions.
H. Uncertainties in the Characterization of Exposure
The characterization of exposure begins with the selection and description of
representative exposure scenarios (i.e., key exposure pathways and routes that link the
emission sources through contaminated environmental media to ecological receptors) and
culminates with the modeled estimates of chemical concentrations to which the indicator
species are exposed. Some level of uncertainty is associated with each portion of this
process.
In a screening-level assessment, the goal is to focus on those exposures that
potentially represent the greatest risk to the ecological system. This process involves the
identification and characterization of critical exposure scenarios hi order to ensure that a
critical scenario is not overlooked or that the chemical exposures are not underestimated for
those scenarios that are taken through the risk characterization. As with the selection of
ECOCs from among the large initial list of chemicals, there is a need to reduce the large
number of possible exposure scenarios to a workable subset. The process used and rationale
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-29 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
applied for the selection of exposure scenarios is provided in Chapter n as part of the
conceptual site model and in Chapter V.
The following sections and Table V-31 provide a summary of the key uncertainties
associated with the process presented in this chapter.
1. Uncertainties Associated with Fate and Transport Modeling
The SERA relies upon modeled estimates of chemical concentrations in the
various abiotic media (air, soil, surface water, and sediment) because measured values
are not available. The same U.S. EPA-recommended models are used in the SERA
and the HHRA, with adjustments made as appropriate for ecological versus human
receptors. The models are considered conservative and may actually overestimate
environmental concentrations because they do not adequately account for degradative
processes that reduce chemical exposure. The best available measured and/or site-
specific input values are used; measured site-specific values are used preferentially
over the model default values. The use of default values is a source of uncertainty in
the analysis; however, when there is a range of values available (e.g. K^ and TOC
values, or the depth of soil into which contaminants might be mixed), values are
chosen that would result in exposure estimates at the higher end of the range. The
model-calculated soil and sediment concentrations are based on cumulative emissions
over the 30-year lifetime of the WTI facility, accounting for losses due to transport
and limited degradation processes. This approach is more likely to overestimate than
underestimate exposures to receptors.
2. Uncertainties Associated with Exposure Modeling
Information on habitats and biota from the site characterization component of
the SERA is used to select indicator species for exposure modeling and risk
characterization. If particularly sensitive or highly exposed species or species groups
are not included in the assessment, then the SERA might not be representative of
actual risks. An attempt is made to include representatives of all major trophic levels
and taxa for which relevant data are available in order to minimize this uncertainty.
Only those pathways considered to be of primary significance for given
receptors are considered for exposure modeling. For example, while wildlife may be
exposed to ECOCs via direct dermal exposure, this pathway is not evaluated because
it is considered very minor in comparison to exposure via consumption of food and
water and via inhalation. Consequently, any resultant underestimation of risk would
be minor.
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-30 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Exposures to both aquatic and terrestrial species are modeled at the maximum
air concentration and deposition points from stack emissions and fugitive emissions.
This provides an estimate of the highest possible concentrations in each of the relevant
environmental media. If there are no risks at such high exposure levels, then areas
further away from the maximum points should not pose a risk. Alternatively, if risks
are indicated at the mjmmum points, then other areas can be modeled to determine
the spatial aspects of the risks. For aquatic systems, high-end exposure estimates are
bounded by three scenarios; a high flow river, a lower flowing creek, and a lake/
wetland habitat. While possible, it is unlikely that there are ecologically significant
habitats in the assessment area with significantly higher modeled exposure
concentrations.
As with fate and transport models, the best estimate from the literature is used
for uptake and bioaccumulation values in the food chain models. Measured values are
chosen over estimated values, and if a range of values is available, the value resulting
in a higher exposure estimate is generally used. Input parameters of note include:
(1) lipid contents in fish and earthworms, (2) fish BCFs and BAFs, (3) soil-to-plant
BCFs, (4) soil-to-earthworm BCFs, (5) water contents for plants and earthworms, (6)
food chain BMFs for small mammals, and (7) ingestion rates, body weights, etc. for
the indicator species.
Indicator species are assumed to be exposed continuously to the maximum
concentrations hi air, soil, sediment, and water. This is a conservative assumption
for mobile species, including a number of the indicator wildlife species evaluated hi
the SERA. In addition, the wildlife indicator species are assumed to obtain all of
then- diet from food/prey items exposed at the maximum media concentrations. Since
few, if any, individuals of these indicator species are expected to be maximally
exposed hi this manner, due to home range and other considerations, this is more
likely to overestimate than underestimate exposure and risk.
External Review Draft
Volume VI V-31 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-l
Key Components of the Exposure Scenarios Used in the
Parameter
Emission Rate
Deposition Rate
Contact and Uptake
Processes and Rates
Additivity of
exposures
Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal
Based on current
permit limits .
Stack Expected
Metal
Best estimate from
facility data
Exposure Scenario
Stack High-End
Organic
High-end estimate
from facility data
Best estimate of total deposition rate (including both wet and dry
deposition processes) from a dispersion model which used site-specific
meteorological data collected over a one-year period
SERA
Fugitive Organic
Best estimate from
model
Not applicable
Fugitive Inorganic
High-end estimate
from facility data
Same as stack
Predicted concentrations (best estimates from fate and transport models) of chemicals in air, surface soil, surface water, and
sediment from the locations of maximum air concentrations and/or total deposition are used as exposure point concentrations
and to model food chain transfer (food chain models assumed that all food and drinking water are obtained from the points of
maximum deposition)
A 30-year accumulation period (based on the projected facility lifetime) is used to estimate surface soil and sediment (where
persistent chemicals would tend to accumulate) concentrations; applicable degradation and other loss processes are considered,
where appropriate, during the analysis. For air and surface water, steady-state equilibrium media concentrations are modeled
to better reflect chemical behavior in these media but assume continuous facility operation at maximum burn rates
Exposures are modeled for the water body closest to the point of maximum deposition (a portion of the Ohio River) and at
the closest major lotic (Little Beaver Creek) and lentic (Tomlinson Run Lake) water bodies with high estimated ecological
value; both aquatic (the water body itself) and terrestrial (adjacent terrestrial habitats) exposures are considered
Exposure is assumed to be continuous (i.e., home ranges are assumed to be confined to the points of maximum media
concentrations and no migratory or other movement from these points is considered)
Uptake rates (bioconcentration and bioaccumulation factors) for soil-to plant, air-to-plant, soil-to-earthworm, water-to-fish,
and diet-to-small mammal tissue are best estimates (from the high end of the range of available values) from the literature or
from models
Exposure concentrations from all stack and fugitive sources are summed, on a chemical -by-chemical basis, for those ECOCs
common to two or more emission sources
VI
V-32
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-2
Physical, Chemical, and Fate Characteristics of the ECOCs
Chemical
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
••Selenium
Water
Solubility
(mg/L)
Insoluble1*
Insoluble11
Soluble in
some forms'"
Soluble1
Insoluble11
Insoluble1*
Insoluble1*
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'*
Varies by
form
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'*
3.0 x 10 2h
Highly
soluble*
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'*
LogK^,
(unitless)
—
—
-
—
—
-
-
—
Varies by
form
—
—
-
--
Ka
(L/kgf
1,500*
45"
200*
60"
650*
6.5*
850*
35"
Varies by
form
90011
10*
150*
300*
LogK«
(unitless)"
—
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
Varies by
form
—
-
—
—
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
—
-
-
~
—
—
-
—
Varies by
form
—
—
-
—
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-mVmol)
0*
0«
0«
0«
0«
0»
0«
0«
Varies by
form
0»
7.0 x ia'm
0'
0«
Hair-Life
(surface water [sw]
and soil [s])
-
—
-
—
—
—
-
--
Varies by form
--
—
-
—
Volume VI
V-33
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Chemical
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
TABLE V-2
Physical, Chemical, and Fate Characteristics of the ECOCs
Water
Solubility
(mg/L)
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'*
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'1
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'1
Miscible*
Miscible*
75.0001
1.29"
0.0038
0.285"
7,950-
181,000b
LogK^
(unitless)
—
—
~
-0.24"
-0.34"
0.25-
4.55-
6.11-
7.30"
1.92m
0.63"
Kd
(L/kgf
45"
i.soo-1
40-1
—
~
—
—
~
--
~
-
LogK..
(unities*)"
—
—
—
0.34e
1.20
-0.07 le
4.41"
6.60"*
3.98e
1.53"*
1.70
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
—
--
—
231
88.81
107.8
1.95 x lO^1
5.49 x 1O9"
1.50x la7
246
19b
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-mVmol)
0«
0«
0«
3.97 x la5'
2.93 x la5
l.lOx 1O4'
6.51 x ias
1.55 x 10*'
2.70 x Ifr7
4.35 x ia'k
1.96x 10 5b
Half-Life
(surface water [sw]
and soil [s])
-
_
—
sw = 20 hi*
sw = 1 - 4 weeks
s = 1 - 4 weeks
sw = 1-6 days
s = rapid"
sw = 0.58- 1.7 hours
s ?s 50 days - 1.26 years
sw ss 43 days
s = 2 days - 2.9 yrsk
sw = 2 - 3 weeks'1
sw = 36 hrs - 10 days*
sw = 1 - 7 days
s = 1 - 7 days
V
VI
V-34
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-2
Physical, Chemical, and Fate Characteristics of the ECOCs
Chemical
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Ditnethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Di(n)octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-f CDD)
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Water
Solubility
(mg/L)
628"
0.010b
1,630,000-
100b
3.0"
Miscible*
2x 10-'011
Up to 55%
soluble?
0.18'
6.20 x Ifr3 '
4.0"
2.0b
LogK^
(unitless)
2.70™
6.76-
-0.38'
-0.93*
8,06m
-0.39™
7.41'
-0.05™
6.26m
5.89-
4.81ra
5.39"
Kd
(L/kgp
—
~
--
~
—
—
-
-
-
—
~
-
LogK«
(unitless)k
1.81'
4.70h
2.64**
-0.91"
4.28"
1.23"
6.43'
0.56e
4.48'
4.0"*
3.71'
3.63b
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
i.os x ia2b
6.5 x 10*b
1,520-
20.93"
1.40 x 10-10
38.01
7.4 x 10-|0b
3,883'
4.0 x 10^"
1.90 x ias>
0.15
0.08b
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-mVmol)
1.02 x 1O»'
2.34 x la5
1.77x ia51
4.58 x Ifr5
2.20 x Kr4"
4.88 x 10* '
1.62x ia5b
3.27 x Ifr7"
1.48X ia3>
1.30x la3'
1.03 x ia2-
2.70 x 10 2b
Half-Life
(surface water [sw]
and soil [s])
sw = 10 - > 50 days
s = < 1 day - weeks*
sw = 15 hours - 6.1 days
s = 2 - 15.6 years'
sw = 35 hr
s = rapid'
sw = 14 - 195 seconds
s = 14 - 195 seconds
sw = 7 - 28 days
s = 7 - 28 days
sw = 4 weeks - 6 months
s = 4 weeks - 6 months'
sw = 46 days - l.Syrs
s = < 1 yr - 12 yrsb
sw = 23.1 - 129.4 hours
a = 23.1- 129.4 hours'
sw = 8 hr
s = 1,530 days"
sw = 1 minute - 7.2 days
s = 7 days - 4 weeks'
External Review Draft
-------
TABLE V-2
Physical, Chemical, and Fate Characteristics of the ECOCs
Chemical
Water
Solubility
(mg/L)
(unitless)
K,
(L/kgV
(unitless)k
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-nrVmol)
Half-Life
(surface water [sw]
and soil [s])
Hexachlorophene
4.0 x 103h
7.54"
4.%'
4.6 x
5.48 x
Hydrazine
28,200"
-3.08'
-l.O6
14.4k
1.73 x 10*"
sw = 8.3 days'
PCBs
3.iox
6.39'
5.86'
7.70 x
2.50 x
Pentachlorobenzene
0.24k
5.26"
4.19"
0.016k
7.10 x Mr1"
sw = 194 - 345 days
s = 194 - 345 days
Pentachlorophenol
14'
5.09™
3.54*1
l.lOx
2.75 x
sw = hrs - days*
Vinyl chloride
1,100°
1.50"
0.39°
2,660°
0.056°
sw = 4 weeks - 6 months
s = 4 weeks - 6 months*
r
i
h
i
J
k
I
ra
Howard (1989, 1990, 1991, 1993).
HSDB (1995).
Montgomery and Welkom (1990).
Baes et al. (1984).
U.S. EPA (1990a).
U.S. EPA (1990b).
U.S. EPA (1992c).
U.S. EPA 1994c.
U.S. EPA 1983.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological Profiles.
Estimated value or not specified unless noted (* indicates measured value).
U.S. EPA (1994d).
U.S. EPA (1995a).
VI
V-36
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-3
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)«
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration Cig/m*)b
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.60 x 10"
l.lOx 10"
5.50 x 10'
3.60 x 10*
1.90 x 10"
1.50 x 10"
1.20 x 10-3
8.80 x 10-2
2.20 x 10'
4.40 x 10°
3.30 x 10°
5.50 x 10-'
1.46 x 10"
1.00 x 10"
5.01 x 10'
3.28 x 10-6
1.73 x 10"
1.37 x 10"
1.09 x ID'3
8.01 x ID"2
2.00 x 10'
4.00 x 10°
3.00 x 10°
5.00 x 10-'
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
2.40 x 10"
4.20 x 10*
3.70 x 10-'
1.50x10"
3.30 x 10-*
1.60x lO'3
7.10x 10-7
9.40 x 10-5
4.30 x 10-5
1.40x 10-3
5.00 x 10*
4.70 x 10"
1.50x ID"5
2.18x 10"
3.82 x 10-*
3.37 x 10-5
1.37 x 10"
3.00 x lO*
1.46x 10's
6.46 x 10-7
8.55 x lO'5
3.91 x 10'5
1.27 x 10-3
4.55 x lO*
4.28 x 10"
1.37 x lO'5
Volume VI
V-37
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-3
Maximum Modded Annual Average Ground-Levd Air Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Emission Rate
(g/sec)'
3.40 x 10-5
1.20 x 10"
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Levd Air
Concentration C*g/mJ)k
3.09 x 10'5
1.09 x 10-
See Section IV.
b Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 0.91.
Volume VI
V-38
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-4
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Acetone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
HexachJorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Estimated High-End
Emission Rate
(g/sec)'
2.90 x 10-3
1.10 xlQ'5
l.lOx 10-3
5.23 x ID'5
4.07 x 10-*
1.39 x 10-1
3.88 x 10"s
1.10 x 10-«
6.07 x 10-1
l.lOx 10-J
1.01 x 10-*
l.lOx lO'5
3.20 x 10-5
4.76 x lO'5
l.lOx lO'3
3.38 x 10-7
4.90 x 10-4
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration Otg/m3)"
2.64 xlO'3'
1.00 x 105
1.00 x 10 5
4.76 x 10'5
3.70 x 10U
1.26 x ID"4
3.53 x lO'5
1.00 x 10*
5.52 x 10-4
l.OOx 10'5
9.19x 10'5
l.OOx 10'5
2.91 x 10'5
4.33 x ID'5
1.00 x 10'5
3.08 x ID'7
4.46 x 10-*
See Section IV.
b Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 0.91 .
Volume VI
V-39
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-5
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Ash Handling Facility
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Total Cyanide
High-End Emission Rate
(g/sec)'
3.31 x 10*
9.11 x ID"7
6.63 x 10-5
2.17xlO-J
4.22 x 10-7
1.48 x 10-7
2.34 x 10-7
2.61 x 10-7
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration (/tg/m*)11
2.12 x 10U
:5.83 x ID'5
4.24 x ID'3
1.39 x ID'3
2.70 x ID'5
9.47 x 10"
1.50 x 10 5
1.67 x lO'5
* See Chapter IV for an explanation of emission rate calculations.
" Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 64.
Volume VI
V-40
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-6
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Carbon Absorption Bed
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Emission Rate
(g/secr
1.18 x 10*
3.19 x 10-'
7.94 x 10-5
3.00 x 10"
6.74 x 10"
1.72 x 10*
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration (fig/m1)*
4.47 x 10°
1.21 x 10-
3.02 x 10-
1.14x 10°
2.56 x ID'3
6.53 x 10^
• See Volume in for an explanation of emission rate calculations.
b Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 3.80.
Volume VI
V-41
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Maximum Modeled Annual
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
TABLE V-7
Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Tank Farm
Emission Rate
(g/sec)'
1.12 x 1(T2
3.03 x 10*
7.52 x 10"
2.84 x 10-3
6.39 x lO"3
1.63 x 10-5
" See Volume IH for an explanation of emission rate calculations.
b Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 143.56.
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration Otg/m3)b
1.60 x 10°
4.34 x 10':
1.08 x ID'1
4.08 x 10-'
9.17x ID'1
2.34 x 10'3
Volume VI
V-42
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-8
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Open Waste Water Tank
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Emission Rate
-------
TABLE V-9
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Truck Wash
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Emission Rate
(g/sec)'
5.19xlO-5
1.41 x 10*
3.50 x 10*
1.32x 10-5
2.98 x 10-5
7.58 x 10*
* See Volume HI for an explanation of emission rate calculations.
b Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 288.70.
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration 0*g/m3)b
1.50 x 10'2
4.07 x 10"1
1.01 x lO'3
3.82 x lO'3
8.59 x lO'3
2.19x lO'5
Volume VI
V-44
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-10
Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
Maximum Modeled Soil
Concentration (rag/kg)*
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.60 x 10"
1.10x10"
5.50x10'
3.60 x 10-6
1.90 x 10-*
1.50 x 10"
1.20 x 10-3
8.80 x ID'2
2.20 x 101
4.40 x 10°
3.30 x 10°
5.50 x 10-'
2.40 x 10"
4.20 x 10*
3.70 x 10-5
1.50 x 10"
3.30 x 10-*
1.60x ID'5
7.10x ID'7
9.40 x 10'5
4.30 x lO'5
1.40x ID"3
5.00 x 10*
4.70 x 10"
1.50 x 10-s
3.40 x 10'5 .
2.02 x ID'3
6.08 x 10 *
9.23 x 10=
5.92 x 10"
3.56 x 10"
3.01 x 10:
2.51 x 10-'
2.53 x 10-'
9.16x 10=
3.61 x 10=
4.16x 10'
1.54 x 10=
6.71 x 10 2
5.30 x ID'3
2.05 x 10 3
2.52 x 10°
5.43 x 10"
3.00 x 10'5
1.43 x 10"
9.24 x 10"
8.98 x ID"3
4.02 x lO'3
2.08 x 10"
3.86 x lO'2
1.89 x 10"
9.50 x ID'3
Volume VI
V-45
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-10
Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Zinc
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
1.20 x 10"
Maximum Modeled Soil
Concentration (mg/kg)*
1.35x10* .
* Assumes a soil depth of 0.01 meters (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-46
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-ll
Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaiate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
1.10x10?
l.lOxlO'5
5.23 x 10-5
3.88 x 10s
1.10 x Ifr6
1.10 x 10-5
1.01 x 10"
l.lOx lO"5
3.20 x 10-5
4.76 x ID'5
l.lOx lO'5
3.38 x 10-7
1.26 x 10*
Maximum Modeled Soil
Concentration (mg/kg)"
5.64 x 10'5
1.18x 10"
3.88 x 10'5
5.33 x 10-6
4.04 x 10-'
1.57 x 10"
2.15 x 10"
7.03 x 10-6
7.94 x 10"
3.55 x 10"
1.97xlO'5 .
3.24 x lO'5
3.01 x 10-7
Assumes a soil depth of 0.01 meters (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-47
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-12
Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations - Fugitive Ash Emissions
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Total Cyanide
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
3.31 x 10*
9.11 x ID"7
6.63 x 10"s
2.17 x 10-5
4.22 x 10-7
1.48 x lO'7
2.34 x ID'7
2.61 x 10-7
Maximum Modeled Soil
Concentration (mg/kg)'
7.30 x 10-
6.10x Ws
4.96 x 10"
1.81 x 10-
7.02 x 10"s
4.87 x 10'5
1.18x ID'3
5.58 x 10-"
' Assumes a soil depth of 0.01 meters (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-48
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-13
Modeled Surface Water Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
Modeled Surface Water Concentration (/tg/L)'
Ohio River
Tomlinson Run
Lake
Little Beaver
Creek
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.60 x 10"
l.lOx 10"
5.50 x 10'
3.60 x 10*
1.90 x 10"
1.50 x 10"
1.20 x 10-3
8.80 x lO'2
2.20 x 10'
4.40 x 10°
3.30 x 10°
5.50 x 10-'
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
2.40 x 10"
4.20 x 10-*
3.70 x 10 5
l.SOx 10"
3.30 x 10-8
1.60x ID'5
7.10x ID'7
9.40 x 10 5
4.30 x 10'5
1.40 x ID'3
5.00 x 10-6
4.70 x 10"
1.50 x ID'5
1.50 x lO'5
2.59 x 10's
6.50 x 10°
1.11 x 10-6
4.27 x 10*
4.76 x lO"5
3.83 x 10"
1.72 x 10-3
4.59 x 10°
1.17x10°
3.10x 10-'
1.82x10-'
7.94 x 10'5
3.95 x 10-7
8.70 x 10"
1.77 x lO'5
1.02x 10*
3.60 x 10-7
2.25 x 10-7
7.16x 10-6
1.37 x 10'5
2.73 x 10-5
1.04 x 10*
1.25 x 10"
1.41 x 10"*
4.36 x 10-*
7.03 x 10-*
1.86 x 10°
2.81 x 10;7
1.51 x 10*
1.17x 10'5
9.35 x ID'5
6.05 x ID'3
1.26 x 10°
3.13 x 10'1
9.00 x 10"2
4.11 x lO"2
"3.33x 10*
5.90 x 10"
1.46 x 10°
2.50 x 107
7.58 x lO'7
1.07 x 10'5
8.56 x 105
2.81 x 10°
1.05 x 10°
2.68 x 10"'
6.86 x lO'2
3.98 x 10°
1.79 x lO'5
1.15 x lO'7
2.37 x 10"
5.06 x 10-6
2.57 x 10-9
1.27 x 10-7
5.54 x 10*
2.11 x W
3.35 x 10-*
9.62 x 10-5
2.87 x lO'7
3.35 x lO'5
4.09 x lO'7
1.74x ID'5
8.74 x 10-"
1.99x 10"
3.97 x lO"
2.29 x 10-9
6.38 x 10-*
5.05 x 10*
1.56x 10*
3.07 x 10*
4.47 x 10-5
2.38 x 10-7
2.86 x lO"5
3.12x 1C"7
Volume VI
V-49
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-13
Modeled Surface Water Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
3.40 x 10-5
1.20 x 10U
Modeled Surface Water Concentration (pg/L)*
Ohio River
1.13 x 10-5
1.02 x 10-s
Tomlinson Run
Lake
2.54 x 10*
2.99 x 10^
Little Beaver
Creek
2.46 x 10-*
• 2.25 x 10-6
* Estimated surface water concentrations are for the dissolved fraction only.
Volume VI
V-50
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-14
Modeled Surface Water Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Di(n)octyl phthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
2.90 x 10-3
2.02 x 10"
l.lOx ID'5
l.lOx ID"5
5.23 x 10-5
4.07 x 10"
1.39 x 10"
3.88 x lO'5
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx lO'5
4.94 x 10-*
6.07 x 10"
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx 10'5
1.01 x 10"
l.lOx 10-5
3.20 x lO'5
4.76 x ID'5
l.lOx 10 5
3.38 x 10 7
1.26 x 10'
4.90 x 10"
Modeled Surface Water Concentration Gtg/L)*
Ohio River
2.24 x lO'7
2.57 x 10*
4.20 x 10*
1.24 x 10-7
2.32 x ID"7
2.66 x 10'7
1.18 x 10*
1.47 x 10*
4.44 x 10*
2.90 x 10*
2.42 x 10'7
6.61 x 10*
5.56 x 10-"
3.04 x ID'7
1.78 x lO'7
5.03 x 10*
9.90 x ID'7
3.06 x lO'7
1.73x 10*
2.24 x 10*
9.72 x 10-"
1.56x 10"7
Tomlinson Run
Lake
7.88 x lO'7
9.05 x 10*
1.23 x lO'7
3.53 x 10-9
2.46 x lO*
9.38 x ID'7
4.18x 10*
5.20 x 10*
1.13 x ID'7
8.93 x W
8.52 x lO'7
2.33 x lO'7
1.59x10-'° .
9.95 x ID'7
6.04 x 1C'7
1.72 x 10*
1.91 x 10-7
9.63 x ID'7
5.94 x 10*
1.27 x 10*
1.95x 10-'2
5.50 x lO'7
Little Beaver
Creek
3.66 x ID'7
4.20 x 10*
6.53 x 10*
5.59 x 10-'
2.33 x ID'9
4.35 x 10'7
1.94x 10*
2.41 x 10*
6.62 x 10*
4.54 x 10"'
3.95 x 10-7
1.08 x 10-7
8.57 x 10-"
4.88 x 10'7
2.88 x lO'7
8.15x 10*
1.44x lO'7
4.86 x 10'7
2.81 x 10*
1.58 x 10*
4.24 x 10-'2
2.55 x ID'7
' Estimated surface water concentrations are for the dissolved fraction only.
Volume VI
V-51
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-15
Modeled Surface Water Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Fugitive Ash Emissions
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
3.31 x 10*
9.11 x lO"7
6.63 x lO"3
2.17x 10-5
4.22 x 10'7
1.48 x ID"7
2.34 x 10-7
Modeled Surface Water Concentration Gtg/L)*
Ohio River
3.11 x 10*
4.30 x lO'7
5.96 x 10*
2.77 x 10-*
3.52 x 10-7
1.58 x icr7
8.78 x 10*
Tomlinson Run
Lake
2.64x10*
3.83 x lO'7
6.57 x 10*
2.11 x 10-5
3.02 x 10'7
1.32x 10"7
7.95 x 10-*
Little Beaver
Creek
3.50 x 10*
4.75 x 10"
5.21 x 10*
3.05 x 10 ;
3.96 x lO'7
1.78 x ID'7
9.58 x 10-*
Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions"
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
3.10x lO*
3.42 x 10'3
2.60 x 10*
7.70 x lO'3
1.96 x lO'5
1.61 x 10*
3.97 x 10-5
2.05 x 10*
3.43 x lO"5
8.81 x 10-*
2.02 x 10*
4.98 x lO'5
2.58 x 10*
4.32 x lO"5
1.11 x 10'7
1.03 x lO'5
2.54 x 10"1
1.31 x lO'5
2.20 x 10-"
5.65 x lO'7
' Estimated surface water concentrations are for the dissolved fraction only.
b Emissions and resulting concentrations from all four organic vapor fugitive sources are summed for
this analysis.
Volume VI
V-52
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-16
Modeled Sediment Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
Modeled Sediment Concentration (mg/kg)*
Ohio River
Tomlinson Run
Lake
Little Beaver
Creek
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.60 x 10"
1.10 x 10-4
5.50 x 10'
3.60 x 10-*
1.90x 10"
1.50 x 10"
1.20 x lO'3
8.80 x IO-2
2.20 x 10'
4.40 x 10°
3.30 x 10°
5.50 x 10-'
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
2.40 x 10"
4.20 x 10-6
3.70 x lO'5
l.SOx 10"
3.30 x IO-8
1.60 x 10 5
7.10x 10-7
9.40 x ID'5
4.30 x 10 5
1.40 x ID'3
5.00 x 10*
4.70 x 10"
1.50 x 10'5
4.06 x ID'7
S.lOxlO-6
2.34 x 10-'
4.32 x ID"7
1.67 x 10*
2.43 x lO'5
2.07 x 10"
1.03 x ID"5
4.13 x 10-'
2.11 x ID'1
8.37 x 10'3
1.64x10-'
7.15x 10's
1.07 x 10-8
1.04 x 10"
6.38 x lO'7
3.% x 10-9
1.40x 10-9
1.15x 10-7
l.SOx ID'7
7.41 x 10-6
1.64 x 10-7
9.40 x 10*
2.26 x lO'3
3.80 x 10-8
i.is x io-7
8.44 x ID'7
6.69 x lO'2
1.09 x ID'7
5.89 x ID"9
5.97 x 10"
5.05 x ID'5
3.63 x ID'5
1.14x 10'1
5.64 x ID'2
2.43 x lO'3
3.70 x ID'2
8.98 x ID1*
7.08 x ID'7
5.25 x 10:
9.76 x 10-"
2.95 x 10"'
5.44 x 10"*
4.62 x lO'5
1.68x 10'5
9.43 x 10'-
4.82 x 10:
1.85 x IO0
3.59 x 10-=
1.61 x 10'5
3.09 x 10*
2.84 x lO'7
1.82x lO'7
l.OOx lO"9
4.96 x 10-'°
2.83 x 10*
4.44 x 10-8
1.81 x IO-6
5.77 x ID'7
2.58 x 10*
6.03 x 10*
l.lOx 10*
1.56 x 10'5
2.36 x lO'9
2.38 x ID'7
1.43 x 10'7
8.95 x ID'10
2.49 x 10-'°
2.58 x 10-*
3.28 x 10*
1.66x lO"6
2.68 x ID'7
2.14x 10-*
5.15x 10"
8.42 x 10'9
Volume VI
V-53
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-16
Modeled Sediment Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
3.40 x ID"5
1.20 x 10"
Modeled Sediment Concentration (mg/kg)'
Ohio River
1.01 x 1
-------
TABLE V-17
Modeled Sediment Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Organic
Chemical
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
'Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Di(n)octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene .
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
2.90 x 10-3
2.02 x 10"
l.lOx lO'5
l.lOxlO-5
5.23 x 10-5
4.07 x 10"
1.39 x 10"
3.88 x lO"5
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx 10'5
4.94 x 10"
6.07 x 10"
l.lOx 10*
l.lOx 10's
1.01 x 10"
l.lOxlO-3
3.20 x lO'5
4.76 x lO'5
l.lOx 10 3
3.38 x lO'7
1.26 x lO"9
4.90 x 10"
Modeled Sediment Concentration (mg/kg)m
Ohio River
1.47 x 10-"
6.54 x 10-'3
3.24 x 10-8
1.48 x 10-3
8.56 x 10-3
2.70 x 10-'°
1.78 x 10-"
2.85 x 10-"
6.68 x 10*
1.65 x 10*
1.23 x 10-'°
7.14xlO-'2
5.04 x 10-"
9.12x 10*
2.77 x 10-"
6.43 x 10-10
2.70 x 10*
1.42 x lO'7
l.SOx 10*
4.86 x ID'7
3.48 x 10*
1.15x 10-"
Tomlinson Run
Lake
5.18 x 10-"
2.31 x ID"12
9.51 x 10*
4.18 x lO'7
9.09 x 10-7
9.53 x ID'10
6.28 x 10-"
1.01 x ID"10
1.69 x 1C'7
5.09 x 10*
4.34 x 10-'°
2.52 x 10-"
1.44 x 10-'°
2.98 x lO'7
9.38 x lO*
2.20 x 1O*
5.22 x lO'7
4.48 x ID'7
6.18x 10*
2.76 x 10-7
3.% x 10-'°
4.05 x 10-"
Little Beaver
Creek
2.40 x 10-"
1.07x 10-':
5.04 x 10*
6.63 x lO'7
8.59 x ID'7
4.42 x 10-'°
2.91 x 10-"
4.67 x 10-"
9.95 x 10*
2.59 x 10-9
2.01 x 10-'°
1.17x 10-"
7.76 x 10-"
1.46x ID'7
4.48 x 10*
1.04x 10'9
3.94 x lO'7
2.26 x ID'7
2.92 x 10*
3.43 x 10"7
9.68 x 10-'°
1.88 x 10-"
" Estimated sediment concentrations assume a total organic carbon content of three percent.
Volume VI
V-55
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-18
Modeled Sediment Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Fugitive Ash Emissions
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
3.31 x 10*
9.11 x ID'7
6.63 x 10's
2.17x 10-5
4.22 x ID'7
1.48 x l
-------
TABLE \-\9
Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For Plants and Earthworms
Chemical
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Plant BCP
Source
0.004
0.20
0.04
0.15
0.01
0.55
0.0075
0.40
0.045
0.90
0.06
0.025
0.40
0.0004
1.50
Organics
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
0.091
0.011
0.002
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Baes et al. 1984
Earthworm BCF/BAF*
Source
0.34
1.0
0.91
0.36
1.0
21
0.49
0.8
. 0.95
0.96
0.72
3.1
1.0
1.0 .
5.7
Beyer and Stafford 1993
No data - assumed value
Beyer and Stafford 1993
Beyer and Stafford 1993
No data - assumed value
Beyer et al. 1982
Beyer and Stafford 1993
Beyer et al. 1982
Roberts and Dorough 1985
Beyer and Stafford 1993
Beyer et al. 1982
Fischer and Koszorus 1992
No data - assumed value
No data - assumed value
Roberts and Dorough 1985
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
3.9
1.5
45
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Volume VI
V-57
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Chemical
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/fiirans
TABLE V-19
Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For Plants and Earthworms
Plant BCP
1.065
0.005
0.015
0.064
0.030
0.002
0.035
0.044
0.008
0.002
Source
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Earthworm BCF/BAF*
12.0
16.0
4.0
38
211
846
41
8.0
6.0
4.0
Source
Calculated
Beyer and Gish 1980
Coulston and Kolbye 1994a
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
van Gestel and Ma 1988
Diercxsens et al. 1985
Reinecke and Nash 1984
" BCFs (unitless) for organic ECOCs are calculated using the equation of Travis and Arms (1988) for transfer from soil to the vegetative
portions (leaves) of plants. Values followed by a reference are measured values from the literature.
b BCFs (unitless) for organic ECOCs are calculated using the equation of Connell and Markwell (1990), Values followed by a reference are
measured BAF values from the literature.
V-'
-------
TABLE V-20
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight)
For Plants and Earthworms - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Plant Tissue (rag/kg)*
Earthworm Tissue (mg/kg)b
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
2.98 x IO3
9.91 x 10*
9.38 x 10°
1.79 x IO7
2.00 x 10s
6.86 x 10*
1.31 x 10-*
2.06 x IO2
2.48 x 10°
3.14x 10'
1.12x 10°
1.86x IO2
5.05 x 10U
1.38 x 10:'
8.31x10'
1.48 x 10-*
1.87 x 10-'
3.69 x 10-3
5.95 x 10:
6.07 x 10':
1.65 x Iff
2.80 x 10=
1.04 x 10'
3.84 x 10'
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
9.60 x 10*
7.82 x 1O7
3.33 x 10*
2.56 x IO3
1.64x10*
1.68 x 10*
3.25 x 10*
2.70 x 1OS
4.68 x 10*
3.27 x 10-"
5.64 x lO"7
3.35 x 1O3
5.09 x 10*
1.15x 10*
5.70 x ID'3
1.33 x ID'5
4.65 x 10-"
2.27 x 10*
1.36 x IO*
1.57 x IO4
1.75 x 10s
1.85 x IO-1
2.13 x 10-'
9.65 x 10-»
3.75 x ID'3
2.99 x 1C'2
4.73 x ID'3
2.38 x ID'3
Volume VI
V-59
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-20
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight)
For Plants and Earthworms - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Zinc
m
b
Plant Tissue (rag/kg)"
1.31 x Iff4
Earthworm Tissue
(mg/kg)k
1.92 xlO-3
For leafy plants (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Calculated by multiplying the maximum projected soil concentration by the BCF/BAF and
converting to wet-weight based on a 25% solids content (Connell and Markwell [1990]).
Volume VI
V-60
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-21
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight)
For Plants and Earthworms - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Anthracene .
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans
Plant Tissue (rag/kg)'
1.07 x 10-7
1.38 x 10*
3.62 x 10"
2.11 x 10-5
5.40 x 10*
1.43 x 10-7
6.93 x 10*
2.42 x 10*
1.91 x 10*
2.54 x ID"7
7.75 x 10*
6.45 x 10*
2.22 x 10-10
Earthworm Tissue (mg/kg)b
5.50 x 10s
4.43 x lO'5
4.37 x 1Q-"
1.60 x 1C'5
1.62 x 10-
1.57 x 10-
2.04 x ID'3
3.71 x 10-
1.68 x ID'1
3.64 x ID'3
3.93 x ID'5
4.86 x 105
3.01 x ID'7
For leafy plants (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
b Calculated by multiplying the maximum projected soil concentration by the BCF/BAF and
converting to wet-weight based on a 25% solids content (Connell and Markwell [1990]).
Volume VI
V-61
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-22
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight)
For Hants and Earthworms - Fugitive Ash Emissions
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Plant Tissue (mg/kg)*
1.55 x 10*
7.20 x HT7
3.52 x 10-'
1.18x 10-3
2.37 x 10-7
5.86 x 10*
3.42 x 10-7
Earthworm Tissue (mg/kg)b
1.66 x 10*
5.49 x 10-*
2.61 x 10;3
4.30 x 10'3
1.26 x ID'5
3.77 x lO'5
2.95 x 10-6
For leafy plants (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
b Calculated by multiplying the maximum projected soil concentration by the BCF/BAF and
converting to wet-weight based on a 25% solids content (Connell and Markwell [1990]).
Volume VI
V-62
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-23
Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For Fish
Chemical
Pish BCF (L/kg)
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury (methyl)
Mercury (inorganic)
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Organics
Anthracene
36
1
44
4
20
2,213
16
290
160
—
4,994
61
78
0.5
120
432
Source
Food Chain
Multiplier*
Fish BAF (L/kg)
AQUIRE 1995
U.S. EPA 1994a
U.S. EPA 1994a
U.S. EPA 1994a
U.S. EPA 1994a
U.S. EPA 1985d
U.S. EPA 1994a
U.S. EPA 1985c
AQUIRE 1995
U.S. EPA 1985a
U.S. EPA 1985a
U.S. EPA 1980e
U.S. EPA 1980f
U.S. EPA 1994a
U.S. EPA 1994a
U.S. EPA I980c
7,260
AQUIRE 1995
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
—
1
1
1
1
1
1
36
1
44
4
20
2,213
16
290
160
85,700
4,994
61
78
0.5
120
432
1.858
13,489
Volume VI
V-63
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-23
Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For Fish
Chemical
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxlns/furans
Wish BCF (L/kg)
3,208
886
7
181,000
39,000
17,000
448
278
20,000
1,066
274,000
86,000
Source
AQUIRE 1995
U.S. EPA 1980g
Howard 1991
U.S. EPA 1980d
AQUIRE 1995
Howard 1989
HSDB 1995
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
AQUIRE 1995
U.S. EPA 1980a
AQUIRE 1995
Food Chain
Multiplier*
11.410
13.474
1.017
14.302
9.629
2.485
5.432
12.193
4.557
3.597
13.174
12,987
Fish BAF (L/kg)
36,603
11,938
7.1
2,588,662
375,531
42,245
2,434
3,390
91,140
3,834
3,609,676
1,116,882
From U.S. EPA (1995b) for trophic level 3.
V
VI
V-64
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-24
Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Fish - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Fish Tissue (mg/kg)*
Ohio River
Tomlinson Run Lake
Little Beaver Creek
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercuryb
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.50 x 1O*
1.14x10*
2.60 x 10-2
2.22 x 10*
9.46 x «r*
7.62 x 10-7
6.13 x 10-5
4.32 x 10-2
2.80 x 10-'
9.15x 10"2
1.55 x 10"
2.18x 10"2
4.36 x 10*
3.09 x 10"?
7.43 x Ifr3
5.61 x 10*
3.34 x «T*
1.87 x 10-7
1.50 x 10-5
1.52 x 10-'
7.71 x 10-2
2.44 x 10-2
4.50 x 10"5
4.93 x 10-3
3.33 x 10-'
2.60 x 10 7
5.83 x 10-'
5.00 x 10-'
1.68 x 1O*
1.71 x Itr7
1.37x 10-5
7.07 x 10:
6.39 x ia:
2.09 x 10-=
3.43 x 10-5
4.78 x 103
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercuryb
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
2.86 x 1O*
3.95 x 10-'°
3.83 x lO"7
7.09 x 10-*
2.03 x 10-'°
7.96 x 10"7
3.60 x 10-'
2.08 x 10*
2.20 x 10*
6.88 x 1O4
6.37 x 10*
9.78 x 10*
7.05 x 10-'°
6.45 x 10-7
1.15x 10-'°
1.04 x 10-7
2.03 x 10*
5.14x 10-"
2.82 x 10-7
8.87 x 10-'°
6.13 x lO"7
5.36 x 10-7
2.42 x ID"3
1.75 x 10*
2.61 x 10*
2.04 x 10-'°
6.26 x 10-7
8.74 x 10-"
8.74 x 10*
1.59 x 10*
4.59 x 10-"
1.41 x ID"7
8.08 x 10-'°
4.53 x 10-7
4.91 x 10-7
1.12x 10"3
1.45 x 10*
2.23 x 10*
1.56 x 10-'°
Volume VI
V-65
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-24
Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Fish - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
*
b
Fish Tissue (mg/kg)'
Ohio River
1.35 x 10*
4.42 x 10-*
Tomlinson Run Lake
3.05 x Ifr7
1.29 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
2.96 x ID"7
9.72 x la7
Whole-body, wet-weight (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Assumes 75% inorganic and 25% methyl mercury (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-66
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-25
Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Fish - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans
Fish Tissue (mg/kg)*
Ohio River
5.66 x 10-7
4.56 x 10*
2.77 x 10*
1.05 x 10-'°
1.15x10"
1.14x10"
7.52 x 10*
1.22x10*
3.36 x 10*
2.79 x lO'5
6.63 x 10*
8.08 x 10-s
1.09x 10-7
Tomlinson Run Lake
1.66 x 10*
1.29 x 10-7
2.94x10*
3.70 x 10-'°
2.92 x 10"
3.74 x 10"
2.55 x 10"5
4.18x 10*
6.48 x ID'7
8.78 x lO'5
2.28 x ID'7
4.58 x 10-3
2.17x 10"
Little Beaver Creek
8.81 x 10-7
2.05 x.10-7
2.78 x 10*
1.72 x ID'10
1.71 x 10"
1.83 x 10"
1.22x 10s
1.98 x 10*
4.89 x ID'7
4.43 x 10'5
1.08 x lO'7
5.70 x lO'5
4.74 x ID'9
• Whole-body, wet-weight (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-67
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-26
Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Fish • Fugitive Ash Emissions
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Fish Tissue Concentration (rag/kg)'
Ohio River
1.37 x 1O7
1.72 x 10*
1.32 x 10-5
4.43 x 1O6
2.15x10*
1.23 x 10*
4.39 x 1O11
Tomlinson Run Lake
1.16 x 107
1.53 x 10*
1.45 x 10s
3.38 x 10*
1.84 x 1O*
1.03 x 10*
3.97 x 1O"
• Whole-body, wet-weight (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Little Beaver Creek
1.54x 1O7
1.90 x 1O9
1.15 x 105
4.88 x 10*
2.42 x 10*
1.39x 10*
4.79 x 10-"
Volume VI
V-68
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-27
Food Chain Model Input Variables
Species
Meadow vole
Northern short-tailed shrew
Red fox
Mink
American robin
Belted kingfisher
Red-tailed hawk
Water Intake
(g water/day)
6.5
3.8
383
105
10.8
16.2
72
Ingestion
Rate
(g food/day)
11.1
7.95
315
220
93.1
73.5
134.2
Dietary Composition (Percent)
Plants/
Fruits
95.6
12.2"
6.2
1
5.6
0
0
Earthworms/
Invertebrates
2
76.3'
0
0
84
0
0
Soil
2.4
11.5'
2.8
2.8"
10.4°
0
0
Fish/
Crayfish
0
0"
0
90.2
0
100
0
Small
Mammals
0
o-
91
6
0
0
100
Body
Weight (g)
37.0
16.9
4,500
1,000
77.3
147
1,220
Data from U.S. EPA (1993d) except where noted.
1 Data from Sample and Suter (1994).
b Red fox value used.
0 American woodcock value used.
Volume VI
V-69
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-28
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Small Mammals
Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Vole Tissue (rag/kg)*
Shrew Tissue (mg/kg)m
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
5.48 x 10-5
1.15 x 10"
2.07 x 10'
1.09 x 10-3
4.10x ias
5.06 x 10"
4.62 x 10-3
7.30 x 10-2
1.74 x 10'
9.18x10°
1.43 x 10°
2.82 x 10°
4.22 x 10"
1.19xlO-3
1.16X 10r
1.23 x 10"
9.99 x 10"
4.27 x ID'3
5.05 x 10:
2.28 x 10-'
1.57 x 10=
1.74 x 102
8.75 x 10°
3.20 x 10'
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.09 x 10-3
1.44 x 10*
3.88 x 10-5
5.63 x lO"5
l.OOx 10-7
3.45 x l(r*
2.40 x 10*
3.26 x 10-5
1.65 x 10"
1.16x 10-3
3.% x 10*
9.81 x 10"
6.52 x 10*
1.74 x 10"
8.20 x 10-'
1.11 x 10's
4.02 x 10"
3.17 x 10"
1.13x 10"6
8.41 x ID'5
2.02 x ID'5
1.70 x 10"
1.81 x lO'3
3.62 x ID'3
3.58 x 10-5
1.85 x lO'2
3.98 x 10-5
1.98 x lO"3
Volume VI
V-70
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-28
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Small Mammals
Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Zinc
Vole Tissue (rag/kg)*
1.23 x 10"
Shrew Tissue (mg/kg)*
1.11 x lO'3
* See text for method of calculation.
Volume VI
V-71
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-29
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Small Mammals
Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachldrobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans
Vole Tissue (mg/kg)*
1.61 x 10*
3.17 x 10*
2.24 x 10-1
1.30xlOs
5.90 x 10*
4.44 x 10*
2.90 x 10s
4.78 x 10*
2.13 x 1O3
5.14x 1OS
5.46 x 10*
1.14x 10*
1.19x 10*
Shrew Tissue (mg/kg)'
3.29 x ID'5
3.23 x 10s
2.60 x 10J
1.05 x 10s
8.75 x ID'5
9.38 x ID'5
1.08 x 10 3
1.93 x W
8.72 x 10-=
1.92 x ID'3
2.26 x 10 5
2.78 x ID'5
2.52 x lO'7
* See text for method of calculation.
Volume VI
V-72
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-30
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Small Mammals
Fugitive Ash Emissions
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vole Tissue (mg/kg)'
1.41 x ID"3
1.43 x 10*
6.15x10*
3.35 x 104
1.36 x 10*
1.25 x 10*
4.22 x 10-7
* See text for method of calculation.
Shrew Tissue (rag/kg)*
1.43 x 10"1
7.68 x 10*
1.39 x K);3
3.65 x ID'3
1.21 x ID'5
2.34 x ID'5
2.48 x 10«
Volume VI
V-73
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-31
Key Assumptions for Chapter V - Characterization of Exposure
Assumption
Basis
Magnitude of
Effect
Direction of
Effect
Fate and Transport Modeling (see Volume V for more details)
Fate and transport modeling accurately estimates the
chemical concentrations in abiotic media.
Chemical-specific and site-specific inputs to the fate
and transport models are appropriate and
representative.
KM is an accurate measure of bioaccumulation
potential. The K^ values used in the assessment are
appropriate.
Soil mixing is confined to the top 1 cm of soil.
TOC values in soil and sediment are appropriate.
The facility operates continuously over a 30-year
period.
U.S. EPA-recommended models (1990b, 1993f,
1994d) used in the HHRA and adjusted where
appropriate for the SERA are based on the best
available data (although somewhat limited). These
models do not adequately account for degradative
processes that limit chemical availability. In some
instances, models developed under conservative
laboratory conditions are applied to compounds or
conditions in a manner that would overstate actual
environmental conditions.
Professional judgement based on best available data.
Default parameters are conservatively selected.
Professional judgement. Measurement of K^
values, especially for highly lipophilic chemicals,
contains significant uncertainty. Maximum or best
estimate values are selected for the assessment.
Chosen as the most conservative of the three default
values (1, 10, and 20 cm). U.S. EPA (1990b)
guidance assuming tilling in agricultural lands.
Soil and sediment TOC values are either based on
site-specific data or default values which are in the
range of values typically used in screening-level
assessments.
It is highly unlikely that the facility will operate
100% of the time for 30 years (the facility operated
53% of the time in its first year of operation).
high
high
high
medium
medium
low
likely
overestimate
likely
overestimate
likely
overestimate
likely
overestimate
unknown
likely
overestimate
V ' Tie VI
V-74
External Review Draft
Do Not C'ite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-31
Key Assumptions For Chapter V - Characterization of Exposure
Assumption
Surface soil and sediment concentrations are based on
30-year accumulations after accounting "for loss and
degradation mechanisms.
For surface water and air, concentrations are steady-
state, equilibrium concentrations.
Basis
The projected Year 30 soil and sediment
concentrations are used to estimate exposures from
Year 1.
U.S. EPA (1994d) guidance.
Exposure Modeling (see Volume V for more details)
Exposure to chemicals via the dermal route is not
evaluated.
PAHs are evaluated as bioaccumulating in the food
chain pathway even though they are rapidly
metabolized by most higher organisms.
Chromium is assumed to exist completely in the
hexavalent state.
Exposure pathways are adequately identified and
characterized.
The modeled portion of the Ohio River is very near
the estimated point of maximum deposition. Little
Beaver Creek and Tomlinson Run Lake are
representative of other water bodies with reasonable
upper-bound exposures.
The cumulative analyses for the inhalation pathway
assume that the maximum points for all sources are
colocated.
This route is considered insignificant compared to
other exposure routes.
Conservatively assumed based on sufficient scientific
evidence that PAHs are metabolized and do not
significantly bioaccumulate.
Need for conservative assumption in order fo
account for presence of Cr+6 which is more toxic
than Cr+3.
Professional judgement based on the site-specific
features of the WTI assessment.
Other water bodies and wetlands within a 10-km
radius of the facility are small (less than 10-acres)
or represent less attractive habitats for most wildlife
receptors. •.
Simplifying assumption to represent a worst-case
exposure (since maximum points are not colocated
to within the resolution of the dispersion model).
Magnitude of
Effect
medium
low
low
medium
low
low
low
medium
Direction of
Effect
overestimate
unknown
underestimate
overestimate
overestimate
unknown
unknown
overestimate
Volume VI
Vr75
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or
-------
TABLE V-31
Key Assumptions for Chapter V - Characterization of Exposure
Assumption
Basis
Magnitude of
Effect
Direction of
Effect
The indicator species selected for evaluation are
appropriate and representative.
A screening process is used to select indicator
species which are representative and appropriate for
the principal exposure pathways identified for the
assessment.
high
unknown
Chemicals are assumed to be bioavailable to
ecological receptors.
Reasonable assumption for a screening-level
assessment, although in actuality bioavailability will
vary according to local conditions. Following U.S.
EPA water quality and sediment guidance, some
surface water benchmarks are adjusted based on pH
or hardness and sediment benchmarks are adjusted,
when relevant, based on total organic carbon.
medium
likely
overestimate
The various inputs into the food chain models are
appropriate.
Professional judgement based on the best available
data. Some assumptions, such as the 50/50 ratio of
shrews and voles in the diets of predators, are
simplifying, conservative assumptions.
medium
likely
overestimate
For mercury bioaccumulation from surface water by
fish, mercury is assumed to be present in both
inorganic (75%) and organic (25%) forms.
U.S. EPA recommended (1994J) proportion of
mercury in aquatic environments that is in the
inorganic and organic forms.
medium
unknown
Parameters used to estimate tissue concentrations of
ECOCs in plants, earthworms, and fish as part of
food chain modeling accurately reflect reality.
Values for parameters including lipid content and
water content in tissues are based on literature
values. Measured values are used preferentially
over estimated values; the data sets varied in size.
medium
unknown
For plant uptake from direct deposition, the entire
year is assumed as the exposure period.
The most conservative assumption possible since it
assumes continuous exposure; this is a realistic
assumption for terrestrial plant communities.
low
slight
overestimate
lie VI
V-76
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V-3I
Key Assumptions for Chapter V - Characterization of Exposure
Assumption
Basis
Magnitude of
Effect
Direction of
Effect
The soil-to-plant BCFs (B, values) from Baes et al.
(1984) are appropriate for metals.
These are considered the best available values; Baes
derived them from published literature. The data
sets varied in size; some data are measured values
and some are modeled.
medium
unknown
For organic chemicals without measured soil-to-plant
BCFs, the K^-based equation of Travis and Arms
(1988) is appropriate to estimate BCF values.
This equation is based on a regression analysis of 29
chemicals (5 of which were ECOCs). Since
calculated BCFs using this equation are generally
much higher than measured values from the
literature (where available), this equation is
considered an appropriate screening-level
methodology.
medium
likely
overestimate
The earthworm BAFs for metals are appropriate; use
of a BAF of 1 is appropriate if data are unavailable.
The BAFs used are derived from the literature and
generally represent the maximum or upper-end
estimate available. Use of a BAF of 1 (for four
metals without measured values) is considered
appropriate since most metals with measured values
have BAFs of less than one.
medium
likely
overestimate
V-77
External Review Draft
Dn Not Tile Or Quote
-------
1100"
1 km Radius-
EXPLANATION
Source:
Location: Coordinates in meters
relative to source
Stack
Fugitive
1 Open wastewaier tank
2 Truck wash
3 Organic waste tank form
4 Carbon adsorption bed
5 Ash handling facility
Total deposition A 98E, 17N
Vapor B 985E.174S
Vapor C 193E.230N
Vapor E 129E.153N
Vapor F 64E. 77N
Vapor D 274W.752S
Particulate G 76E. 64N
Total deposition G 76E, 64N
0
1200
2400
365
730
Scale in Feet
Scale in Meters
Volume VI
LOCATION OF EMISSION SOURCES,
MAXIMUM DEPOSITION POINTS, AND
MAXIMUM AIR CONCENTRATION POINTS
V-78
»- igure
V-1
External Review Draft -^_
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
01 -4000a:sch«matic-slack
Slack-
Stack-
Stack-
Stack-
Slack-
Stack-
Stack-
Stack -
Slack-
Slack-
Stack-
Stack
Air.
Air.
Air.
Air.
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
Dispersion
Dispersion
Dispersion •
Dispersion •
Dispersion •
Dispersion
Dispersion
Dispersion •
Dispersion
Dispersion
Dispersion
Terrestrial Birds
& Mammals
- Ground-level Air1 —^ Foliar Exposure—^ Terrestrial Plants
- Ground-level Air1 —^ Inhalation Exposure
• Soil2 —^ Root Exposure —^ Terrestrial Plants
• Soil2 —^ Direct Contact/Feeding —^ So/7 Fauna
• Deposition —^ Soil2—
- Air1 —^ Foliar Uptake
••Deposition to1
Plant Foliage
- Deposition —
- Deposition —
- Deposition —
Incidental
Ingestbn
Terrestrial Plants
I
'Meadow Volef
Direct Contact/_
Feeding
Runoff
DeposHion
.Surface"
Water "
k Direct Contact/;
Ingestion
Dispersion
Deposition
Sediment'3-
. Surface*
Water
• Earthworm
Aquatic
Plants
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Zooplankton
Aquatic
Direct Contact/ * Plan!s
Ingestion ^^^ Benthic
Invertebrates
Shorl-tallecP
Shrow
'American3 •
Robin •
Fish
MlnV
Belied3
Kingfisher
Ingestion
i
1 = At point of maximum concentration
2 = At point of maximum deposition
3 = Evaluated at Tomlnson Run Lake and Little Beaver Creek Lake also
Italics = Evaluated in the Risk Characterization portion of the SERA
SPECIFIC EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR STACK EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
External Review Draft
-------
OMOOOa:sch«trale-Fugil!v«
* Stack -
* Stack -
Stack-
Stack-
Stack-
Stack -
Stack-
Stack -
Stack-
Stack-
* Stack -
Slack-
Air-
Air.
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
• Air-
• Air-
Air-
Air-
Dispersion —I
Dispersion —|
Dispersion -H
Dispersion —I
Dispersion -H
Dispersion —
Dispersion —
Dispersion —
Dispersion —
Dispersion —
Dispersion
Terrestrial Birds
& Mammals
• Ground-level Air' —^- Foliar Exposure—^ Terrestrial Plants
Ground-level Air1 —^- Inhalation Exposure
Soil* —^- Root Exposure —^- Terrestrial Plants
Soil2 —^- Direct Contact/Feeding —^» Soil Fauna
Deposition —
Incidental
Ingestion
- Air1 —^ Foliar Uptake
^Deposition to1
Plant Foliage
• Deposition _
» Deposition —
- Deposition —
Terrestrial Plants
1
- Meadow Vole
Direct Contact/_
Feeding
Runoff
•Earthworm
Aquatic
Plants
Short-tailed
Shrew
American
Robin
Deposition
. Surface*
Water ~
Dispersion
Sediment1
Deposition —^Surface*
Water
Direct Contact/^ Aquatic
Ingestion >^ Invertebrates
Zooplankton
Aquatic
_. _ . Plants
Direct Contact/
Ingestion >s)^ Benthic
Invertebrates
Fish
Ingestion
1 = At point of maximum concentratbn
= At point of maximum deposition
Italics = Evaluated in the Risk Characterization portion of the SERA
* The fugitive organic scenario is evaluated for these pathways only (the third pathway is only evaluated through fish)
Volume VI
SPECIFIC EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR FUGITIVE EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
\r on
External Review Draft
Pin NW Pita f\r r».,~*~
J;igure
V-3
-------
VI. CHARACTERIZATION OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
The characterization of ecological effects is the second of two parts that comprise the
analysis component of an ecological risk assessment. U.S. EPA (1992b) defines the
characterization of ecological effects as the portion of the analysis component of an
ecological risk assessment that evaluates the ability of a stresspr to cause adverse effects
under a particular set of circumstances and distinguishes between direct effects and indirect
effects. Direct effects occur when a stressor acts on an ecological receptor itself, and not
through effects on other components of the system. Indirect effects occur when a stressor
acts on supporting components of the ecosystem, which in turn have an effect on the
ecological receptor(s) of interest. Indirect effects are ramifications of direct effects. From
an ecological perspective, responses elicited by exposure to chemicals through the food chain
are considered direct effects since they result from direct exposure to the chemical. In
contrast, human health assessments consider food chain effects as indirect because there are
two steps in the exposure route. An example of an indirect ecological effect is a reduction in
the size of a prey population, due to exposure to a chemical stressor, which results in a
decrease in the abundance of prey available to predators. The prey population would
experience a direct effect (mortality) while the predators would experience indirect effects
(reduction in food supply). The SERA focuses on direct effects, including the effects of
bioaccumulation through food chains; indirect effects are discussed qualitatively since they
are very difficult to quantify, especially at the screening level (see Chapter VII).
Chemical stressors, by their nature, have the potential to elicit a broad range of
effects on ecological receptors. Effects can take place at the biochemical or physiological
level (e.g., induction of an enzyme system), at the individual level (e.g., death, reduced
growth, or reproductive impairment), at the population level (e.g., change in the size or
reproductive potential of a population), or at the community level (e.g., change hi species
composition). The assessment endpoints chosen for the SERA (Chapter II) focus principally
on those effects on individuals that have implications at the population level, particularly
reproductive endpoints. This is also the practical choice because ecotoxicological data for
individual ECOCs are not generally available beyond the endpoints of survival, growth, and
reproduction.
In order to evaluate the potential effects of the projected maximum chemical
concentrations of the ECOCs in ground-level ambient air, surface soil, surface water,
sediment, and biological tissues, chronic lexicological benchmark values are obtained, or
calculated, from data hi the literature for each applicable indicator species and exposure
External Review Draft
Volume VI VI-1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
pathway. Computerized data bases of published values (e.g., RTECS, HSDB, OHM/TADS,
PHYTOTOX, and AQUIRE) and published literature reviews (e.g., the ecotoxicological
series written by R. Eisler of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are relied upon for most
data. When data are unavailable from these sources, the primary literature is used as an
information source.
No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs) based on growth and reproduction are
obtained, where available. Growth and reproduction are emphasized as toxicological
endpoints since they are the most relevant, ecologically, to maintaining viable populations
and because they are generally the best studied chronic toxicological endpoints for ecological
receptors. When chronic NOAEL toxicological benchmark values are unavailable, estimates
are derived or extrapolated from chronic Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL)
or from acute thresholds using appropriate uncertainty factors, also known as application
factors. Uncertainty factors are discussed in the following section.
A. Uncertainty Factors
The development and use of uncertainty factors in ecological risk assessments is
discussed extensively in Calabrese and Baldwin (1993). The types of extrapolations covered
by uncertainty factors which may merit inclusion in ecological risk assessments include:
(1) acute to chronic toxicity, (2) subchronic to chronic exposure duration, (3) LOAEL to
NOAEL values, (4) interspecies sensitivity differences, (5) intraspecies sensitivity
differences, and (6) laboratory to field. Each of these is discussed below. Table VI-1 lists
the uncertainty factors used in the SERA. The selection of these factors is based on a
compilation of the approaches and uncertainty factors presented in U.S. EPA (1995c),
Opresko et al. (1995), Romijn et al. (1993, 1994), Calabrese and Baldwin (1993), Zeeman
and Gilford (1993), Nabholz et al. (1993), Lewis et al. (1990), and Newell et al. (1987).
Although the approaches and values for uncertainty factors provided in these references are
generally derived from aquatic or mammalian data (i.e., no uncertainty factors developed
from plant or earthworm data are available), the uncertainty factors outlined in Table VI-1
are applied, where applicable, to the derivation of all of the toxicological benchmarks used in
the SERA, not just those for aquatic, bird, and mammal receptors.
One of the most commonly employed and most generally accepted uncertainty factors
used in ecological risk assessments deals with acute to chronic toxicity extrapolation
(Calabrese and Baldwin 1993). This extrapolation is used to predict the chronic toxicity to a
particular species from acute toxicity data for the same or similar species. The general
acceptability and wide use of this extrapolation is the result of a fairly extensive data base for
ecological receptors in aquatic ecosystems. The extensive data base for small mammals
External Review Draft
Volume VI VI-2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
(e.g., laboratory rats and mice) provides a basis for similar extrapolations for mammalian
receptors.
Uncertainty factors to extrapolate from an acute effect level to a chronic NOAEL that
are reported in the literature (based upon calculated acute to chronic ratios) range widely
(Opresko et al. 1995), depending upon the chemical, receptor, exposure route, and the
amount of data available. Most of these factors are less than 1,000. The amount of data
available is a key concern since there would be more confidence in a value based on many
data points than on one based on only one or a few data points. Therefore, an acute to
chronic NOAEL uncertainty factor of 100 is used when three or more acute values are
available and an uncertainty factor of 1,000 is used when fewer than three acute values are
available (Romijn et al. 1993, 1994; Zeeman and Gilford 1993; Nabholz et al. 1993). To be
conservative, these uncertainty factors are applied to the lowest available acute value. It
should be noted that chronic data are available for almost all chemicals and receptors and
thus acute to chronic extrapolations are rarely required.
Extrapolation of data values based on avian and mammalian studies of subchronic
duration to chronic effects over the long term also requires the use of an uncertainty factor.
These subchronic-to-chronic uncertainty factors, as reported hi the literature, range from 1 to
10 (U.S. EPA 1995c; Opresko et al. 1995; Lewis et al. 1990; Newell et al. 1987). The
magnitude of the uncertainty factor is related to the duration of the subchronic study. In the
SERA, a subchronic-to-chronic uncertainty factor of 10 is used for studies less than 28 days
in duration, an uncertainty factor of five is used for studies between 28 and 90 days in
duration, and an uncertainty factor of one is applied to studies exceeding 90 days in duration
(Table VI-1).
Another uncertainty factor which is commonly used in ecological risk assessments is
to extrapolate from a LOAEL to a NOAEL. This extrapolation is used to predict a NOAEL
for a given species using the lowest exposure level from toxicity studies where an effect is
observed for the same or a similar species. NOAELs are preferred as toxicological
benchmarks to be protective of ecological receptors. Generally recommended LOAEL-to-
NOAEL uncertainty factors range from one to 10 for ecological risk assessments (U.S. EPA
1995c; Lewis et al. 1990; Calabrese and Baldwin 1993; Opresko et al. 1995; Newell et al.
1987), with most sources recommending that a factor of five be used. Therefore, a LOAEL-
to-NOAEL uncertainty factor of five is used hi the SERA (Table VI-1).
While it is recognized that interspecies (between species) variation in the toxicity of
chemicals exists, there is currently no generally accepted methodology in ecological risk
assessment for deriving an uncertainty factor to account for this variability (Calabrese and
Baldwin 1993). Interspecies extrapolation techniques are better developed for aquatic
receptors, such as fish (Suter 1993), than for terrestrial species, such as birds and mammals.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VI-3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Suggested uncertainty factors for interspecies extrapolation range from one to 1,000,
depending upon the quality of the data available, the quantity of the data available, and the
degree of taxonomic relatedness between the species being compared (Calabrese and Baldwin
1993; Newell et al. 1987; U.S. EPA 1995c). Recommended interspecies uncertainty factors
for extrapolations within a taxonomic class are 100 or less. As discussed previously for
acute-to-chronic extrapolations, the quantity of data is an important consideration when
determining an interspecies uncertainty factor as is the number of species within a taxonomic
class for which data are available. Smaller values (closer to one) for the interspecies
uncertainty factor are recommended when toxicity data are available for a larger number of
species within a given taxonomic class (U.S. EPA 1995c). In the SERA, an interspecies
uncertainty factor of 10 is applied to the lowest available NOAEL if NOAELs are available
for fewer than three species within a taxonomic class (e.g., birds or mammals). An
interspecies uncertainty factor of one is used if NOAEL values are available for three or
more species within a class (Romijn et al. 1993, 1994; Newell et al. 1987), as shown hi
Table VI-1.
Intraspecies (between individuals of the same species) uncertainty factors are
commonly used in human health risk assessments to protect sensitive individuals hi a
population. In contrast, ecological risk assessments generally focus on assessing risks to
populations or communities of organisms rather than the protection of individual organisms.
In those situations where protection of sensitive individuals within a population of birds or
mammals is required (generally for the protection of an endangered species), an intraspecies
uncertainty factor of 10 (applied to a NOAEL) is recommended on a site-specific basis (U.S.
EPA 1995c). Since the toxicological benchmarks developed in the SERA for selected
indicator species are not designed to protect rare and endangered species, an intraspecies
uncertainty factor is not applied in the SERA. Rare and endangered species are treated
qualitatively as part of the assessment endpoint evaluation (see Chapter VII).
Calabrese and Baldwin (1993) recommend that an uncertainty factor of one (direct
extrapolation) be applied for the laboratory to field extrapolation as there is no consensus on
the most appropriate methodology for extrapolating laboratory data to the field situation.
Laboratory toxicity studies have the potential to both under- and over-estimate field
responses; Calabrese and Baldwin (1993) discuss this issue and provide examples. Since
none of the other references consulted (U.S. EPA 1995c; Opresko et al. 1995; Romijn et al.
1993, 1994; Zeeman and Gilford 1993; Nabholz et al. 1993; Lewis et al. 1990; Newell et al.
1987) recommend the use of a laboratory-to-field uncertainty factor, none is applied hi the
SERA (this is equivalent to the use of an uncertainty factor of one).
External Review Draft
Volume VI VI-4 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
B. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ground-Level Air
Toxicological benchmarks for animal and plant species exposed to chemicals in
ground-level air are based on data obtained from data bases and the literature. All 15 metal
ECOCs, total cyanide, and 20 organic ECOCs (14 in stack emissions only, three in fugitive
emissions only, and an additional three in both stack and fugitive emissions) are selected for
risk evaluation in ground-level air (Chapter IV).
Relatively few studies have evaluated the lexicological effects of chemicals released to
the air on wildlife species, two exceptions being lead and cadmium (Newman arid Schreiber
1988). Laboratory studies of non-wildlife species (e.g., laboratory mice) are the principal
source of relevant data, supplemented by wildlife data where available. Inhalation data are
available for the majority of the ECOCs. Toxicity data for air exposures of plants are only
available for five of the ECOCs.
Table VI-2 lists the lexicological benchmark values used for plants and animals 10
evaluate exposure to ground-level ambient air. The animal inhalation dala used lo construct
Table VI-2 (species, concentration, sludy duration, effect, and study reference) are contained
in Appendix VI-19. The plant data are referenced directly in Table VI-2 since relatively
little dala are available.
For Ihe terrestrial plant indicator species group, the lowesl available NOAEL value
found in the literature, or Ihe lowesl non-NOAEL value adjusted to a NOAEL using the
uncertainly factors discussed previously, is used as the lexicological benchmark. A similar
approach is used for deriving inhalation benchmarks for animal species. Since Ihe toxicity
dala on inhalation exposures lo animals correlate effecls direclly to air concentration (without
converting to dose), individual indicator species are not used and allometric scaling (based on
body weight) is not conducted. Rather, the lowest available NOAEL value (or non-NOAEL
value adjusted to a NOAEL using Ihe uncertainty factors in Table VI-1) is used as the
lexicological benchmark for all animal species. If dala are available for relatively few
species, interspecies uncertainty factors are applied as discussed in Section VI. A. The use of
Ihe lowesl available or derived NOAEL value and applicable uncertainty factors in deriving
the animal inhalation benchmark is considered an appropriately conservative approach for a
screening-level assessment, especially given that exposures are evaluated at the points of
maximum predicted air concentrations (see Chapter V).
C. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Surface Soil
Toxicological benchmark values for soil fauna and for terrestrial plants exposed to
chemicals hi surface soils are based on data oblained from data bases and the literature. A
total of 28 ECOCs are considered for evaluation, including all 15 metals plus total cyanide
and 13 organics. Plant benchmark values are available for all of the metals, for total
External Review Draft
Volume VI VI-5 . Do Nol Cite Or Quote
-------
cyanide, and for six of the 13 organics. lexicological benchmarks for soil fauna are
available for all but five (three metals and two organics) of the ECOCs. Although most of
the available data for soil fauna are for earthworms, benchmark values based on data for
other macroorganisms (e.g., insects) or for soil microorganisms are used when they are
available and are lower than benchmark values based on earthworm data. In general, the
data are currently too limited to allow for the establishment of benchmarks for the toxicity of
chemicals in soil to soil-dwelling organisms other than earthworms (Will and Suter 1994b).
Appropriate uncertainty factors are applied, where needed, to derive chronic benchmark
values. Table VI-3 lists the toxicological benchmark values used for plants and soil fauna.
The data used to construct Table VI-3 are contained in Appendices VI-20 and VI-21.
D. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Surface Water
Toxicological benchmarks for aquatic biota exposed to ECOCs in surface water are
based on chronic U.S. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for the Protection of
Aquatic Life (U.S. EPA 1986a; 1991a), chronic Ohio Water Quality Standards (OEPA
1993), chronic Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards (PADER 1993), and chronic West
Virginia Water Quality Criteria (WVDNR 1995). Where criteria or standards differ among
these four sources, the lowest available criterion value is used to provide for a conservative
assessment. AWQC values are commonly used to evaluate chemical-specific surface water
concentrations, particularly hi screening-level ecological risk assessments. In general,
chemical-specific AWQC are established based on toxicity testing and other appropriate data,
and are normally established to protect the vast majority (i.e., 95 percent) of aquatic species.
For chemicals that are known to bioaccumulate in aquatic food chains, such as mercury and
PCBs, AWQC are often based on Final Residue Values (FRV) which are designed to protect
against the possible adverse effects to ecological receptors of bioaccumulation at higher
trophic levels. AWQC provide a suitable gauge of .chemical levels at which most aquatic
species, and their non-human predators, may be adversely affected.
Toxicological benchmarks for surface water are established for all 15 metals and for
25 organic ECOCs (see Chapter IV). If an ecologically-based AWQC is not available, a
toxicological benchmark value for chronic effects is derived from the AQUIRE data base or
other literature sources. This benchmark is generally (exceptions are noted in Appendix VI-
22) based on the lowest reported chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC; which
is comparable to a NOAEL) for appropriate freshwater species, including aquatic plants,
benthic invertebrates, and fish. If NOEC values are not available, they are derived, through
the use of uncertainty factors (as described in Section VI. A; interspecies uncertainty factors
are also used where appropriate), from Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (LOEC;
comparable to LOAEL values) or acute LCso values.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VI-6 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
U.S. EPA recommends that the AWQC values be adjusted for those chemicals whose
bioavailability is known to be affected by water hardness or pH. Some chemicals, such as
aluminum and pentachlorophenol, become more mobile, and thus more bioavailable, under
acidic conditions (lower pH), as discussed in Appendix VI-18. Lower criteria values would,
therefore, be required to protect the aquatic community in low pH surface waters. For
certain metals, such as cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc, experimental data indicate
that toxicity increases as hardness decreases (U.S. EPA 1986a). Criteria values would,
therefore, need to be adjusted to match the hardness levels of the surface water under
evaluation in order to achieve protection of the aquatic community.
A water hardness value of 100 mg/L (as CaCO3) is conservatively assumed for use in
the SERA. Hardness data from U.S. EPA's STORE! data base (U.S. EPA 1994i) for water
bodies in the Ohio River basin generally exceeded 100 mg/L (range of approximately 150 to
>500 mg/L). A hardness value of 100 mg/L is also the standard "default" value (U.S. EPA
199la). In the absence of water body-specific hardness data for the three water bodies
evaluated, a hardness value of 100 mg/L is used to provide a conservative assessment.
A pH of 7.5 is used in the SERA; this value is the lowest mean pH value (range of
approximately 7.5 to 8.5) for water bodies in the Ohio River basin, as reported in the
STORET data base (U.S. EPA 1994i). The lowest reported mean pH value is used in the
absence of water body-specific data.
Toxicological benchmark values for surface water are listed hi Table VI-4. The data
used to construct Table VI-4 are contained in Appendix VI-22.
E. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Sediment
Toxicological benchmark values for aquatic biota exposed to ECOCs deposited onto
sediments are based on available ecologically-based sediment criteria, guideline, or
benchmark values. Screening-level sediment guidelines have been developed by the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment (MOE 1993), the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC 1993), the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration
(NOAA) (Long and Morgan 1990), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (as
reported hi Hull and Suter [1994] and Beyer [1990]), and U.S. EPA (1988b, as updated for
individual chemicals). Each of these sources is consulted to identify an applicable toxicity
benchmark value for each of the 15 metal and 25 organic ECOCs evaluated in sediments (see
Chapter IV); values for each ECOC are not available from all of these sources.
The MOE and NOAA guideline values (for both metals and organics) and the
Wisconsin and NYSDEC guideline values (for metals) are derived from matching bulk
sediment chemistry data from field-collected samples with adverse effects to benthic
organisms observed hi the same field-collected samples. This is known as the Screening
External Review Draft
Volume VI VI-7 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Level Concentration (SLC) approach. The SLC approach assumes that all adverse effects to
the benthic community are attributable to each individual chemical when developing the
guideline values. Since the field-collected samples contained mixtures of numerous
chemicals, both organic and inorganic, this approach yields very conservative guideline
values. While applicable to screening-level assessments, exceedence of these SLC-based
guideline values should not be interpreted as indicating that adverse ecological effects will
occur, only that further evaluation is warranted.
Both the MOE (1993) and NOAA (Long and Morgan 1990) sediment guidelines
provide more than one threshold value per chemical. These include the No Effect Level
(NEL) and the Lowest Effect Level (LEL) in the MOE guidelines and the Effects Range-Low
(ER-L) and the Effects Range-Medium (ER-M) in the NOAA guidelines. The NEL is
defined as the level at which a chemical in sediments does not adversely affect fish or
sediment-dwelling organisms (including food chain effects). The LEL is defined as the 5th
percentile of the SLC, that is, LELs are protective of 95 percent of the aquatic community;
thus, these values are analogous to AWQCs for surface water. ER-L values are similar to
LEL values except that they are based on the 10th percentile of the SLC; ER-M values are
based on the median of the SLC. The NEL value is preferentially used, when available, as it
represents a lower and more conservative estimate of a toxicity benchmark. If a NEL is not
available, the LEL (or the corresponding ER-L value from NOAA23) is used.
In contrast to the SLC-based values described above, the NYSDEC and U.S. EPA
sediment guideline values for organic chemicals are based on the equilibrium partitioning
approach (U.S. EPA 1989c, 1988b). These guideline values control for bioavailability by
normalizing based on the total organic carbon (TOC) content of the sediment.
If a sediment guideline value is not available for an organic chemical from the sources
cited above, a value is derived using the equilibrium partitioning approach (U.S. EPA
1988b), as follows:
Value (mglkg) = (KJ O) (TOC) (VI-1)
UCF
where: K,,,. = Adsorption coefficient normalized to the organic content
of the sediment (from Table V-2); unitless
CWQC = Chronic water quality criterion (from Table VI-4); /tg/L
23 Although the majority of the data used to determine the ER-L values are from marine or
estuarine habitats (not found in the assessment area), the only sediment benchmark based
solely on an ER-L value is for anthracene.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VI-8 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
UCF = Unit conversion factor (jig/L to mg/L) of 1,000
TOC = Total organic carbon content; percent
A TOC value of three percent, a default value used in the HHRA models (U.S. EPA
1994d) (see Volume V, Appendix V-7), is used. Appendix VI-23 contains the input values
used hi these calculations for each organic ECOC.
If a sediment guideline value for a metal is not available from the sources cited
above, the literature is searched hi an attempt to obtain an applicable screening-level value.
This is the procedure used because the equilibrium partitioning approach, which is used for
organic chemicals, is not normally applied to metals.
All of the relevant sediment lexicological benchmark values from the published
sources cited previously, or derived as described above, are reviewed for each ECOC
(Appendix VI-23). The lowest available sediment benchmark value, whether based on the
SLC or equilibrium partitioning approach, is selected for use in the SERA to provide a
conservative evaluation. The benchmark value (and source) used for each ECOC is listed in
Table VI-5. Benchmark values are established for all 25 organic ECOCs and for all but
three (aluminum, beryllium, and thallium) of the metal ECOCs.
F. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion of Tissues (Food Chain Effects)
Toxicological benchmark values for ingestion exposures, to evaluate potential food
chain effects, are derived from the literature for each of the seven bird and mammal indicator
species (see Chapter V) and the 28 ECOCs (15 metals and 13 organics) evaluated for
potential food chain effects (see Chapter IV). Toxicological information from wildlife
species is used, where available, but is supplemented by laboratory studies of non-wildlife
species (e.g., laboratory mice) where necessary. Uncertainty factors are used as needed to
derive chronic NOAEL values (see Section VI. A).
The lowest available and most applicable toxicological value is used when determining
the ingestion benchmarks for each bird and mammal indicator species. Determination of the
most applicable value for a particular indicator species considers the degree of taxonomic
relatedness and the degree of similarity in dietary preferences between the experimental
species for which data are available and each indicator species. Therefore, if toxicological
data for an indicator species are available, they are preferentially used. For the two small
mammal indicator species (meadow vole and short-tailed shrew), the lowest available (or
derived) value from studies of small mammals (e.g., rats and mice) is selected. For the red
fox and mink, preference is given to studies that used carnivorous species (e.g., dog). A ,
similar approach is used for the avian indicator species, that is, data for raptor species are
preferentially used for the red-tailed hawk, data from studies of piscivorous species are
External Review Draft
Volume VI VI-9 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
preferentially used for the belted kingfisher, and data from passerines or insectivorous birds
are used preferentially for the American robin. While the various preferences summarized
above are used in selecting the appropriate lexicological value to use for each indicator
species, other factors, such as study endpoint, study duration, and data quality, are
considered to ensure that the selected value is the best available for that particular indicator
species.
Chronic lexicological benchmarks for each indicator species are based on chronic
NO AEL values, adjusted for each bird and maximal indicator species using the scaling factor
approach outlined in U.S. EPA (1995c). The scaling factor approach is based on the
observation that toxicity is a function of physiological processes, most notably metabolic rate.
Smaller animals have higher metabolic rates and are usually more resistant to adverse effects
from toxic chemicals because of more rapid metabolic processing (Opresko et al. 1995; U.S.
EPA 1995c). The scaling factor that best accounts for differences in body size is determined
as follows: the body weight is divided by the body surface area, where the body surface area
is approximately equivalent to body weight raised to the 3/4 power (U.S. EPA 1995c). This
scaling factor is then used to translate experimentally determined toxic daily intake
information from one species to another by the following formula:
l* (VI-2)
BW\
where: Da = The intake or dose in an untested species a; mg/kg/day
Db = Experimentally determined intake in species b; mg/kg/day
BWa = Body weight of untested species a; kg
BWb = Body weight of species b; kg
The allometric scaling approach can be applied to pairs of species within the same
taxonomic class. For example, mammalian toxicity data are used to predict toxic effects in
mammals and avian toxicity data are used to predict avian toxic effects.
The lexicological benchmark values for ingestion are listed in Table VI-6, based on
the data contained hi Appendix VI-24. Benchmark values are derived for all of the 28
ECOCs for the four mammalian indicator species evaluated; benchmark values are not
available for seven ECOCs (four metals and three organics) for the three avian indictor
species. Appendix VI-25 contains the data used to derive the benchmark values using
allometric scaling.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VI-10 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
G. Summary of lexicological Benchmark Values
Table VI-7 lists the ECOCs evaluated, the species or taxonomic group on which each
benchmark value is based, and the specific toxicological effect on which each benchmark
value is based for each exposure route or media that is evaluated in the SERA. As
previously stated, growth and reproductive effects from chronic exposures are emphasized
when establishing benchmark values, but other endpoints are utilized where these data are
unavailable.
H. Uncertainties in the Characterization of Ecological Effects
The key assumptions and uncertainties related to the effects assessment relate
primarily to the identification or derivation of toxicological benchmark values for the
indicator species. This and other sources of uncertainty are presented in Table VI-8 and are
described below.
The most complete and directly applicable toxicological data set is for aquatic species.
Extrapolation of data from laboratory studies on non-wildlife species (e.g., mouse and rat) is
used in the absence of wildlife-specific toxicological data for most of the ECOCs. Limited
toxicological data are available for crop and non-crop plant species. Earthworms are the
primary surrogate species for soil invertebrates. To address the uncertainty of extrapolating
limited toxicological data sets to ecological receptors, and to account for the extrapolation
from an "indicator" species to the other species it is intended to represent, the SERA utilizes
the generally accepted approach of applying "uncertainty factors" to the existing toxicological
data. These factors, which are summarized and referenced hi Table VI-1, are intended to
provide toxicological benchmark values that will not underestimate risks to sensitive species.
In addition to the uncertainty factors, other aspects of effects characterization in the SERA
that are included to ensure that risks are not underestimated included the use of: (1)
toxicological data for the most sensitive species hi the available data sets, (2) chronic toxicity
benchmarks based on no-effect levels, (3) the most toxic form of metal ECOCs (e.g., methyl
mercury, hexavalent chromium), and (4) scaling factors to adjust the benchmarks for wildlife
based on body size.
There are some ECOCs, receptors, and pathways (particularly for air exposure of
plants) that can not be fully evaluated with the available data sets and uncertainty factors.
With the exception of the air pathway for plants, this occurs relatively infrequently and thus,
while a source of uncertainty, is not expected to significantly influence the conclusions of the
risk analysis. A herbicide (2,4-D), which has a relatively high toxicity to plants, is selected
as an ECOC hi order to offset the general lack of phytotoxicity data for other ECOCs.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VI-11 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-1
Summary of Uncertainty Factors Used in the SERA
Extrapolation
, Acute to Chronic NOAEL
< 3 LCj<> or ID,, values
J>. 3 LCjo or LDjo values
Subacute to Chronic Duration
short term ( < 28 days)
intermediate (28 - 90 days)
long-term (> 90 days)
LOAEL to NOAEL
Interspecies"
_>_ 3 species with NOAELs (in taxonomic class)
< 3 species with NOAELs (in taxonomic class)
Intraspecies
Laboratory-to field
Uncertainty Factor
1,000 on lowest
100 on lowest
10
5
1
5
1 (chose lowest)
10 (on lowest)
1
1
* Allometric scaling is also used to adjust dose based on differences in body weight between test
species and indicator species.
Based on a compilation of the approaches and uncertainty factors presented in U.S. EPA (1995c), Opresko
et al. (1995), Romijn et al. (1993, 1994), Calabrese and Baldwin (1993), Zeeman and Gilford (1993),
Nabholz et al. (1993), Lewis et al. (1990), and Newell et al. (1987).
Volume VI
VI-12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
V J
TABLE \l-2
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Ground-Level Ambient Air Concentrations
Chemical
Plant
Benchmark
(pg/m*)
Source
Animal
Benchmark
0*g/m>)
Source
Metals and Cyanide
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
ND-
ND
3.9
ND
ND
280
ND
ND
ND
ND
56k
2.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
—
—
Eisler 1988a
—
—
Cox 1992
—
—
—
—
Ecologistics Limited 1986
Ecologistics Limited 1986
—
—
—
—
42"
18.4te
2.6ef
15.2*
2.8
2.0"
10
12e«
988h
2.2e
1.0*
400
4.0
ND
ND
22"
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990b
Eisler 1988a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993b
Eisler 1986c
ATSDR 1989g
ATSDR 1993c
Eisler 1988b
IPCS 1989a, 1991 a
ATSDR 1993!
Eisler 1985b
—
—
ATSDR 1992d
Volume VI
VI-J3
External Review Draft
Dn Not Clip fir Ounlr.
-------
TABLE VI-2
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Ground-Level Ambient Air Concentrations
Chemical
Plant
Benchmark
0»g/m3)
Source
Animal
Benchmark
<*»g/mj)
Organics
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
Pentachlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
88"
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1PCS 1989b
—
—
—
—
—
—
630M
672,000
200be
ND ,
20,000"
40W
SO1**
ND
ND
25,400"
0.48*
le.ooo11
1,070*
55. 8"
33.4e«
2.0W
ND
Source
RTECS 1995
U.S. EPA 1987b
HSDB 1995
—
ATSDR 1993e
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
—
•
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992b
U.S. EPA 1984b; HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1986b
RTECS 1995
'
v •
VI-14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-2
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Ground-Level Ambient Air Concentrations
Chemical
Plant
Benchmark
Oig/m3)
Source
Animal
Benchmark
Source
Pentachlorophenol
ND
500
Eisler 1989
Total PCBs
ND
1,500
ATSDR 1993f
Vinyl chloride
ND
127,812
ATSDR 1991a
ND = No data.
Lowest chronic LOAEL divided by 5.
Highest NOAEL which is less than all reported LOAELs.
Lowest acute value divided by 1,000,
Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 10.
Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
Lowest acute value divided by 100.
Volume VI
VI-15
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Chemical
Plant
Benchmark
(mg/kg)
Metals and Cyanide
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
50
5
3
500
10
3
1
20
0.6°
30
0.3
30
1
2
1
50
TABLE VI-3
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants
and Soil Fauna in Surface Soils
Source
Soil Fauna
Benchmark
(mg/kg)r
Source
Will and Suter 1994a
Will and Suter 1994a; Alloway 1990
Bysshe 1988
Will and Suter 1994a
Will and Suter 1994a
Will and Suter 1994a; Alloway 1990
Will and Suter 1994a
Bysshe 1988
Environment Canada 1994
Bysshe 1988
Will and Suter 1994a; Alloway 1990
Will and Suter 1994a
Will and Suter 1994a
Will and Suter 1994a; Alloway 1990
Will and Suter I994a; Alloway 1990
Will and Suter 1994a
600-
NDk
25
3,000-
ND
10
0.4
32
0.018d
500
0.1
40°
50
501
ND
97
Will and Suter 1994b
—
Fisher and Koszorus 1992
Will and Suter 1994b
—
cited ia van Gestel et al. 1992
Will and Suter 1994b
Spurgeon et al. 1994
Environment Canada 1994
Will and Suter 1994b
Will and Suter 1994b
Malecki et al. 1982
Fisher and Koszorus 1992
Will and Sufer 1994b
—
Eisler 1993
Nie VI
VI-16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-3
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants
and Soil Fauna in Surface Soils
Chemical
Organics
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total dioxin/furan
Total PCBs
Plant
Benchmark
(mg/kg)
Source
Soil Fauna
Benchmark
(mg/kg)f
ND
3,500C
100
0.034
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4e
ND
40
Environment Canada 1994
I PCS 1992b
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
—
—
—
—
—
Environment Canada 1994
—
Will and Suter 1994a
0.0374de
> 26d
> 25"
0.047d
2,000
> 0.763d
0.0076d
ND
ND
0.115d
4
5
0.023d
Source
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
Environment Canada 1994
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
Roberts and Dorough 1985
IPCS 1989c
Neuhauser et al. I985b
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
—
—
van Gestel et al. 1991
Will and Suter 1994b
Reinecke and Nash 1984
Fitzpatrick et al. 1992
Threshold is based on soil microorganisms.
ND = No Data.
The lowest chronic effect value is divided by 5 to yield the chronic NOAEL threshold.
A reported acute value is divided by 1,000 to yield the chronic NOAEL threshold.
Based on acenaphthene.
Data are for earthworms unless otherwise specified.
Volume VI
VI-17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-4
Chronic lexicological Benchmark Values for Surface Water
Chemical
Benchmark
<«/L)
Source
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic (ID)
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
87-
30
190
4,100
1.06"
1.1°
10
llc
3.2e
0.012
160°
5.0
0.12
13
90°
U.S. EPA 1991a; WVDNR 1995
U.S. EPA 1991a
U.S. EPA 1991a; OEPA 1993; PADER 1993; WVDNR
1995
PADER 1993
U.S. EPA 1991a
U.S. EPA 1991a; PADER 1993; WVDNR
1995
WVDNR 1995
WVDNR 1995
U.S. EPA 1991a; PADER 1993; WVDNR
U.S. EPA 1991a; PADER 1993; WVDNR
U.S. EPA 1991a; PADER 1993; WVDNR
1995
1995
1995
U.S. EPA 1991a; OEPA 1993; PADER 1993; WVDNR
1995
U.S. EPA 1991a
PADER 1993
WVDNR 1995
Organics
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dimethylamine
78.000
0.77
0.44"
0.016"
8.4
15.7
3.5"
10"
0.000024
150
OEPA 1993
WVDNR 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
OEPA 1993
WVDNR 1995
AQUIRE 1995; OHM/TADS 1995
AQUIRE 1995
WVDNR 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
VI-18
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-4
Chronic lexicological Benchmark Values for Surface Water
Chemical
Dimethylhydrazine
Di(n)octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/ftirans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
Benchmark
(Mg/L)
400
3.0
115,000"
436
0.001
0.00074
2
1
0.021e
5.1
55
8.6'
0.000079
0.0000076"
525
Source
AQUIRE 1995
U.S. EPA 1991a; WVDNR 1995
AQUIRE 1995
FADER 1993
OEPA 1993
WVDNR 1995
PADER 1993
PADER1993
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
OEPA 1993
WVDNR 1995
AQUIRE 1995
WVDNR 1995
a Assumes a pH value of 7.5 (see text).
* Lowest Observed Effect Level (LOEL) divided by 5.
° Hardness-dependent criterion. A hardness value of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 is used (see text).
d Lowest NOEL value; a lower LOEL value is available but is considered inconsistent with the other
data in Appendix VI-22 and is not used.
Acute LCjo divided by 1,000.
Volume VI
VI-19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-5
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values Tor Sediment
Chemical
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
SLC-Based
Benchmark (mg/kg)*
NA"
2
6
500
NA
0.6
26
16
31
0.10
16
1
1
NA
100
Organics
Acetone
NA
Source
Partitioning-Based
Benchmark (mg/kg)"
Source
—
Long and Morgan 1990;
NYSDEC 1993
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
Hull and Suter 1994
—
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
Hull and Suter 1994
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
Beyer 1990
Long and Morgan 1990;
NYSDEC 1993
—
Beyer 1990
.
-
—
—
i
-
—
'
--
~
~
~
- •
—
~
—
—
•
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
.
—
• —
...
5.12
Calculated
VI
VI-20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-5
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Sediment
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Di(n)octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
SLC-Based
Benchmark (mg/kg)*
NA
0.085
0.370
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0003
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source
—
Long and Morgan 1990
MOE 1993
—
—
"
—
Long and Morgan 1990
—
—
—
—
—
MOE 1993
MOE 1993
—
—
—
—
Partitioning-Based
Benchmark (mg/kg)'
0.00002
0.34
1.91
2.41
0.016
0.005
0.019
0.00004
1.97
0.0014
1.71
58.65
0.047
0.0009
0.0002
0.12
0.13
0.057
0.00002
Source
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated; NYSDEC 1993
Calculated
NYSDEC 1993
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Volume VI
VI-21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-5
Chronic lexicological Benchmark Values for Sediment
Chemical
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxin/furans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
SLC-Based
Benchmark (mg/kg)1
NA
NA
0.01
0.000001
NA
Source
—
—
MOE 1993
Beyer 1990
—
Partitioning-Based
Benchmark (mg/kg)'
, 25.56
0.89
0.002
0.000006
0.039
Source
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
NYSDEC 1993
Calculated
" See text. Equilibrium partitioning is based on three percent TOC.
b NA - Not Available.
V \eVI
VI-22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE \l-6
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion
Chemical
Ingestion Benchmark Value (mg/kg-BW/day)*
Meadow vole
Short-tailed
shrew
Red fox
Mink
American
robin
Red-tailed
hawk
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
0.43
0.34
0.18
0.159
0.11
2.29
3.66
0.37
1.07
0.049
1.52
0.033
0.96
0.0043
3.8
0.52
0.41
0.22
0.193
0.13
2.78
4.44
0.44
1.30
0.059
1.85
0.040
1.17
0.0052
4.6
73
0.10
0.06
0.048
0.03
0.92
1.10
8.9
0.39
0.024
0.46
0.010
0.29
0.0013
31
107
0.15
0.08
0.070
0.05
1.33
1.60
12.9
0.57
0.150
0.67
0.014
0.42
0.0019
20.8
Organics
Anthracene
101
122
30
44
13.1
119
0.59
ND
ND
0.87
0.19
5.6
1.38
0.023
0.768
0.49
ND
ND
25
6.6
60
0.29
ND
ND
0.44
0.10
2.8
8.3
. 0.012
0.385
0.24
ND
ND
13
0.101
0.051
Belted
kingfisher
11.1
101
0.50
ND
ND
0.74
0.17
4.8
1.17
0.020
0.654
0.41
ND
ND
21
0.086
Volume VI
VI-23
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-6
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion
Chemical
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxin/furan
Ingestion Benchmark Value (mg/kg-BW/day)'
Meadow vole
0.019
0.15
10
6.27
2.44
0.30
1.52
2.3
1.68
1.8
0.49
0.00000152
Short-tailed
shrew
0.023
0.19
10
7.61
2.96
0.37
1.85
2.8
2.04
2.2
0.59
0.00000185
Red fox
0.006
0.05
10
1.22
0.022
0.09
0.46
0.24
0.51
0.6
0.0011
0.00000046
Mink
0.008
0.07
10
1.78
0.032
0.13
0.67
0.36
0.74
0.8
0.0016
0.00000067
American
robin
ND
0.248
10
0.201
0.10
0.030
ND
0.721
ND
3.6
0.63
0.00000055
Red-tailed
hawk
ND
0.124
10
0.101
0.05
0.015
ND
0.361
ND
1.8
0.31
0.00000028
Belted
kingfisher
ND
0.211
10
0.062
0.08
0.026
ND
0.613
ND
3.1
0.53
0.00000047
' The data on which these benchmarks are based is presented in Appendices Vl-24 and VI-2S.
VI
Vl-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Species/Taxa
Inhalation
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium .
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)pbthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
Pentachlorophenol
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Rat
—
Rabbit
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
—
Guinea pig
Mammal
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Cat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
—
Effecf
NOAEL - respiratory effects
LOAEL - respiratory effects
NOAEL -fetal effects
Lowest toxic dose - spennatogenesis
NOAEL - lung inflamation
NOAEL - estrus cycle
Wildlife threshold
NOAEL - respiratory and immunological effects
LC»
No direct adverse effects
NOAEL - fetal effects/resorptions
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Wildlife threshold
NOAEL - lung function
Post-implantation mortality
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Reduced body weight gain; effects on blood chemistry
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Fetotoxicity; fetal death
Changes in liver weight
Liver effects (fatty degeneration, necrosis)
Newborn growth; post-natal effects
LC»
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - systemic effects
NOAEL - sperm count
Fetotoxicity; fetal death
Wildlife threshold
Volume VI
VI-25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For lexicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Species/Taxa
Rat
Rat
Soil -Plants
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Soil - Soil Fauna
Aluminum
Arsenic
White clover
Not specified
Not specified
Barley
Not specified
Soybean
Lettuce
Not specified
Lettuce
Not specified
Not specified
Multiple species
Sorgrass
Not specified
Not specified
Multiple species
Lettuce
Spinach, pea
Xanthosoma
sagittifolium
Onion
Radish
Multiple species
Effect"
NOAEL
NOAEL - male fertility
Seedling establishment
Phytotoxicity
Toxicity threshold
Plant weight
Phytotoxicity
Shoot weight
Shoot weight
Toxicity threshold
ECy, - seedling emergence
Toxicity threshold
Phytotoxicity
Derived toxicity threshold
Shoot weight
Phytotoxicity
Phytotoxicity
Derived toxicity threshold
ECy, - seedling emergence
No effect - growth
No effect
Increase in seed germination
EC,,, - seedling emergence
Derived toxicity threshold
Soil microorganism
Earthworm
Threshold value
No effect - mortality
Volume VI
VI-26
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Surface Water
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Species/Taxa
Soil microorganism
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Soil microorganism
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Effect"
Threshold value
NOEC - cocoon production
Threshold value
NOEC - cocoon production
LC»
Threshold value
Threshold value
Significant effects - growth and reproduction
No effect - mortality
Threshold value
No effect (-safe" soil level)
LC»
LC»
LCso
LCX
No effect
No effect - mortality
LC»
LC,o
LCjo
Threshold value
LC*
—
—
—
—
—
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA, WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA, OH, PA,
WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (PA)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA)
Volume VI
VI-27
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vl-7
Summary of Effects For lexicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Di(n)octylphthalate
1 ,4-Dioxane
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Species/Taxa
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
Daphnia magna
Rainbow trout
—
—
Bluegill
Duckweed
—
Green algae
Green algae
—
Algae
Rainbow trout
—
—
—
—
Effect"
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA, PA. WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA, PA, WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA, PA, WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA, PA, WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA, OH, PA,
WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (PA)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (OH)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (WV)
Changes in brood parameters
Decreased growth - early life stages
Chronic freshwater AWQC (OH)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (WV)
LC*
No effect - growth
Chronic freshwater AWQC (WV)
NOEC - biomass
NOEC - growth
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA, WV)
Population growth effects
Decreased growth
Chronic freshwater AWQC (PA)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (OH)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (PA)
Volume VI
VI-28
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
HexachJorophene
Hydrazine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Sediment
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Species/Taxa
—
Fathead minnow
Green algae
Fathead minnow .
—
—
—
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
—
—
Benthic organisms
Benthic organisms
—
—
—
—
—
Effect-
Chronic freshwater AWQC (PA)
LCjo (96-hr)
NOEC - growth
NOEC
Chronic freshwater AWQC (OH)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (WV)
Chronic freshwater AWCQ (WV)
ER-L; NYSDEC (SLC-based)
LEL; NYSDEC (SLC-based)
Wisconsin (SLC-based)
LEL; NYSDEC (SLC-based)
LEL; NYSDEC (SLC-based)
LEL; NYSDEC (SLC-based)
LEL; NYSDEC (SLC-based)
Wisconsin (SLC-based)
LEL; NYSDEC (SLC-based)
Wisconsin (SLC-based)
ER-L; NYSDEC (SLC-based)
Wisconsin (SLC-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
ER-L (SLC-based)
LEL (SLC-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Volume VI
VI-29
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Di(n)octylphthalate
1 ,4-Dioxane
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Species/Taxa
—
—
—
—
Benthic organisms
—
Benthic organisms
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Ingestionb
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Rat
Dog
Ringed dove
Mouse
Northern bobwhite
Rat
California quail
Rat
Rat
Rat
Dog
Am. black duck
Effect1
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Wisconsin (SLC-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
LEL (SLC-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
NYSDEC (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Reduced fetal weight
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
NOAEL
Developmental abnormalities (neuromuscular system)
Single dose LDM
Increased mortality in offspring; embryotoxicity
NOAEL - systemic effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Offspring behavior
Volume VI
VI-30
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE \T-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Species/Taxa
Rat
Am. black duck
Rat
Mink
Mallard
Rat
Dog
Japanese quail
American kestrel
Rat
Dog
Mink
Mallard
Rat
Chicken
Mouse
Mallard
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Mink
Dog
Chicken
Rat
Blackbird
Mouse
Rat
Ring dove
Effect-
NOAEL
NOAEL
Pre- and post-implantation mortality
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - mortality; weight gain
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Chronic toxicological level
NOAEL - reproduction
No reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
High incidence of stillbirths
NOAEL - mortality, weight loss, axatia
Reduced egg production, hatching success
Decreased number of offspring per litter
NOAEL - weight gain; metabolism
NOAEL - fetal growth
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Single dose LD^,
Spermatogenesis effects
NOAEL - developmental effects
NOAEL - developmental and reproductive effects
No effect
No effect on reproduction or progeny
Carcinogenicity
LD»
Reduction in fertility and reproductive capacity
Maternal effects (ovaries and fallopian tubes)
NOAEL - reproduction
Volume VI
VI-31
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicologies! Benchmark Values
Chemical
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
PCBs
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Species/Taxa
Mammals
Birds
Mouse
Dog
Brown pelican
Am. kestrel
Rat
Mink
Japanese quail
Rat
Japanese quail
Rat
Rat
Dog
Northern bobwhite
Rat
Rat
Chicken
Rat
Mink
E. screech owl
Chicken
Rat
Pheasant
Effect-
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL - pre-weaning mortality rate
NOAEL
NOAEL - reproduction
Decrease in eggshell thickness
NOAEL - reproduction (4 generations)
Fetal and post-natal toxicity
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproduction (weanling weight)
NOAEL - chick survival
NOAEL - maternal toxicity; fetal toxicity
NOAEL - reproduction (3 generations)
Effects on spermatogenesis
Single dose LDn
NOAEL - offspring survival
No effect (8 months)
No effect - body weight (8 weeks)
.NOAEL - developmental effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive impairment
No reproductive impairment
No reproductive effect (3 generations)
NOAEL - reproduction
* Non-NOAEL values are adjusted using uncertainty factors (see text).
b Multiple species are reported for some chemicals because benchmark values for some indicator
species are based on different test species (see text).
Volume VI
VI-32
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vl-6
Key Assumptions for Chapter VI - Characterization of Ecological Effects
Assumption
The chemical toxicity values reported in HSDB,
RTECS, OHM/TADS, AQUIRE, PHYTOTOX,
ATSDR profiles, and other secondary literature
sources are accurate.
Dioxin/furan compounds are assigned toxicity based
on the Toxicity Equivalency Factor (TEF) scheme;
PCBs are evaluated as total PCBs.
The toxicological benchmark values are appropriate
to a screening level assessment.
The scaling approach used is appropriate to adjust
ingestion benchmark values for the indicator species.
ECOCs without toxicological benchmarks for some
pathways do not represent a significant risk.
The uncertainty factors used in the assessment are
appropriate for a screening-level assessment.
Basis
The databases and secondary references utilized in
the SERA are standard databases and references
commonly employed in screening-level assessments.
The internationally accepted approach developed for
human health assessments is used in the SERA for
dioxins/furans since an accepted approach for
ecological assessments has not been developed.
PCBs are typically evaluated as total PCBs or as
mixtures (Aroclors) in ecological risk assessments
since data for most homologs are lacking.
Data for the most sensitive species are used for
ecologically relevant endpoints (such as
reproduction) and benchmarks are based on no-
effect levels. The data sets varies considerably with
regard to the numbers of species tested.
Professional judgement. The approach used follows
that recommended by U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA 1995c).
This occurred infrequently.
Professional judgment. The uncertainty factors are
considered appropriate based on those proposed by
U.S. EPA and the published literature (see Table
VI- 1 for a complete reference list).
Magnitude of
Effect
medium
low
medium
medium
medium
high
Direction of
Effect
unknown
unknown to
overestimate
unknown
unknown
underestimate
unknown
Volume VI
VI-33
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
VH. RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Risk characterization is the final component of an ecological risk assessment (U.S.
EPA 1992b). The data from the characterization of exposure (exposure concentrations) and
the characterization of effects (lexicological benchmarks) serve as the primary inputs to the
risk characterization. The uncertainties identified during all components of the risk
assessment are also analyzed and summarized in the risk characterization component of the
assessment (see Chapter VEI)24.
For each applicable exposure pathway and indicator species included within each of
the five exposure scenarios, the potential risks from stack and fugitive emissions from the
WTI facility are evaluated using the hazard quotient method, an accepted screening-level
technique (Suter 1993). Hazard quotients are calculated by dividing the estimated chemical
concentration (or dose) in a medium, such as surface soil, by the corresponding toxicological
benchmark value for the selected indicator species, such as terrestrial plants (example
calculations are shown in Appendix VI-26). Hazard quotients exceed one when the exposure
level is greater than the toxicological benchmark. This indicates potentially moderate to high
risks, with the magnitude of the hazard quotient indicating the relative magnitude of the risk.
Alternatively, hazard quotients that are equal to or less than one indicate low to negligible
risks. Since the toxicological benchmark values are based on no-effect levels (NOAELs),
exposure at the benchmark value (a hazard quotient of one) equates to low to negligible risk.
Consistent with a screening-level approach, the assumptions used hi the SERA to derive both
the exposure levels and the toxicological benchmark values are selected hi order to reduce
the likelihood of underestimating risks. Therefore, hazard quotients that exceed one do not
necessarily indicate that adverse effects would occur to the ecological receptor. However,
hazard quotients that exceed one do identify ECOCs, exposure pathways, and indicator
species (exposure scenarios) that may need to be evaluated further in a subsequent tier of the
risk assessment process (PERA or DERA; see Section LA).
If none of the exposure scenarios for a particular ECOC result hi hazard quotients that
exceed one, then that ECOC can be eliminated from further evaluation with reasonable
assurance that it does not pose a significant risk to ecological receptors hi general. This is
because the indicator species or species groups included as components of the exposure
24 Key assumptions and uncertainties associated with ECOC selection, characterization of
exposure, and characterization of effects are also summarized and discussed at the end
of Chapters IV, V, and VI, respectively.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VE-1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
scenarios are selected to serve as representative species to evaluate potential risks to other
ecological receptors and to the overall biological community25.
Hazard quotients (HQ) are calculated for all of the ECOC and indicc. )r species
combinations for applicable exposure pathways chosen to evaluate the potential ecological
risks as a result of exposure to high-end and/or best estimates of stack and fugitive emissions
from the WIT facility. Estimated ma*itmin> media concentrations (calculated at the points of
maximum air concentrations and/or total deposition) from Chapter V are compared with
chronic toxicity benchmark values from Chapter VI; locations beyond these maximum points
are also evaluated. Air, soil, surface water, sediment, and food chain exposures are
evaluated for stack emissions and for inorganic chemical emissions from the ash handling
facility. Only the air and surface water/sediment pathways are evaluated for fugitive vapor
emissions since they are comprised of volatile chemicals which would not be expected to
reach, or persist :n. soils or to enter food chains.
A. Air
The risk evaluation of the air pathway is initially conducted separately for stack and
fugitive emissions. Following these separate evaluations, potential risks to ecological
receptors are evaluated for the combined stack and fugitive sources for each ECOC that is
evaluated for both sources of emissions.
1. Stack Emissions
Table VII-1 compares the maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations
from stack emissions with available chronic toxicity benchmark values for terrestrial
plants and animals for the two metal stack exposure scenarios. Plant toxicity
benchmarks for the air pathway are available for four of the 15 metals. Animal
inhalation benchmark values are available for all but two metals (silver and
thallium)26.
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, only nickel exceeds its
plant benchmark value (HQ = 10). Barium exceeds its animal inhalation benchmark
value (HQ = 3.3) and selenium is at its animal inhalation benchmark value (HQ =
25 In the SERA, rare, threatened, and endangered species are an exception since the
indicator species approach is not applied to these receptors. See Section VII.G.5 for a
discussion of potential risks to rare, threatened, and endangered species from facility
emissions.
26 Potential risks can not be evaluated where benchmark values are unavailable; these
ECOCs are noted in each of the tables in this chapter.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VH-2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
1.0). All of the other calculated hazard quotients are two or more orders of
magnitude less than one, suggesting that the risk to ecological receptors from these
exposures is low to negligible for metals other than nickel and barium.
For the stack expected metal scenario, all HQ values (both plant and animal)
are three or more orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to negligible risk
for all of the metals evaluated for this pathway and scenario (Table VII-1).
For organics, plant toxicity benchmark values for air exposures are available
for only one of the 17 ECOCs, formaldehyde. Animal inhalation benchmark values
are available for all organic ECOCs except benzo(a)pyrene, 2,4-D, 4,4'-DDE, and
pentachlorobenzene. While potential risks can not be evaluated for inhalation
exposures for these four ECOCs, exposure via inhalation is expected to be relatively
small hi comparison to other exposure routes (particularly ingestion for which toxicity
benchmarks are available) based on the fate and transport properties of these four
ECOCs. For organic ECOCs, all hazard quotients (both plant and animal) are three
or more orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to negligible risk for these
exposures (Table VII-2). Although plant toxicity benchmarks are not available for
organic stack ECOCs other than formaldehyde, the hazard quotient for formaldehyde
is very low (6.27 x 10*) and the predicted air concentrations of the other organic
stack ECOCs are, at most, five times that of formaldehyde. These other organic
stack ECOCs would, therefore, need to be many orders of magnitude more toxic to
plants than formaldehyde via this exposure pathway for there to be an indication of
significant risk.
2. Fugitive Ash Emissions
Table VII-3 compares the maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations
from the ash handling facility (fly ash emissions) with available chronic toxicity
benchmark values for plants and annuals. All of the hazard quotients are three or
more orders of magnitude less than one for this source. This suggests that the risk to
ecological receptors from these exposures for this source is low to negligible.
3. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
Tables VII-4 through VII-7 compare the maximum predicted ground-level air
concentrations from each of the four organic vapor fugitive emissions sources with
available chronic toxicity benchmark values for plants and animals. With the
exception of formaldehyde, all of the hazard quotients are three or more orders of
magnitude less than one for each source. Hazard quotients for formaldehyde
inhalation exposures to animal receptors exceed one for the tank farm (HQ = 1.9;
External Review Draft
Volume VI VII-3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Table VH-5), and approach one (HQ = 0.4; Table VH-6) for the open waste water
tank. The highest hazard quotient for plant exposure to formaldehyde was 0.01 at the
tank farm. The concentrations of the other fugitive organic vapor ECOCs (for which
there are no plant lexicological benchmarks) were, at most, twice that of
formaldehyde. This suggests that the risk to ecological receptors from inhalation
exposures to these sources is low to negligible, except for animal inhalation exposure
to formaldehyde at the tank farm. No metal emissions are expected from the four
fugitive vapor sources.
4. Combined Emissions
In order to assess potential cumulative or additive effects from the multiple
sources of air emissions, exposures from the four organic vapor fugitive emission
sources and from stack emissions are summed for each ECOC common to the
sources. Summing the exposures and dividing the total by the toxicity benchmark is
equivalent to summing the hazard quotients for a given ECOC; for expediency, the
hazard quotients are summed. This approach is conservative in that, in summing the
maximum exposures from each source, it is assumed that the locations of the
estimated maximurn ground-level air concentrations from each source are colocated.
Figure V-l in Chapter V shows that the predicted locations of the maximum ground-
level air concentrations do not, in fact, occur at the same location for the sources
considered. The potential upper-bound overestimation of risk of summing the hazard
quotients from the five sources would be a factor of five (if risks from all sources
were equal).
For the animal inhalation pathway, the cumulative hazard quotient for each
organic ECOC in air is presented hi Table VH-8. The summed hazard quotient for
formaldehyde exceeds one (HQ = 2.3) due primarily to emissions from the tank
farm. The summed hazard quotients for the other organic ECOCs are three or more
orders of magnitude less than one, indicating that the risk to animal receptors is low
to negligible for these ECOCs.
Formaldehyde is the only organic ECOC evaluated for both stack and fugitive
emissions for which a plant toxicity benchmark value is available. The cumulative
hazard quotient for formaldehyde exposure to plants is 0.01, indicating low to
negligible risk. As noted previously, none of the other organic ECOCs have
predicted ah* concentrations significantly higher than formaldehyde. If then* toxicity is
not significantly greater than formaldehyde, then they too would not pose a significant
risk to plants.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VH4 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
" Fugitive emissions from the ash handling facility are summed, in the same
V manner as described above, with the stack emissions for each metal ECOC common
to the two sources. Both of the metal stack exposure scenarios are evaluated in this
manner. For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, with the exception of
selenium (HQ = 1.0) and barium (HQ = 3.3), the cumulative inhalation hazard
quotients are below one. The potential risks from cumulative inhalation exposures to
metals are therefore low to negligible, except for barium. For the stack expected
metal scenario, all cumulative animal inhalation hazard quotients are at least three
orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to negligible risk (Table VII-9).
Arsenic, cadmium, and nickel are the only metal ECOCs evaluated for both
stack and fugitive emissions for which a plant toxicity benchmark value is available.
The cumulative hazard quotients for the stack projected permit limit metal scenario
are five orders of magnitude less than one for arsenic and cadmium. For nickel, the
hazard quotient is 10; the ash handling facility's contribution to this nickel hazard
quotient is small compared to the stack's contribution. For all three metals under the
stack expected metal scenario, cumulative hazard quotients are five orders of
magnitude less than one, indicating low to negligible risk.
f B. soil
The risk evaluation for exposures to the ECOCs in soil is conducted for both stack
metal scenarios, for the stack organic scenario, and for the ash handling facility fugitive
source. The predicted maximum soil concentrations from deposition of the stack and fugitive
ash emissions are compared with available chronic toxicity benchmark values for plants and
soil fauna. In addition, cumulative exposures are evaluated for each metal ECOC common
to both the stack and fugitive ash sources.
1. Stack Emissions
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, predicted maximum soil
concentrations for barium, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium exceed plant
toxicological benchmark values; hazard quotients are 1.9, 31, 361, 21, and 154,
respectively (Table VII-10). The hazard quotients for the other metals are at least
two orders of magnitude less than one except for mercury (HQ = 0.8). Hazard
quotients for soil fauna under the stack projected permit limit metal scenario exceed
one for mercury (2.5), nickel (23), and selenium (7.2) (Table VII-10). The soil fauna
hazard quotients for the other metals are at least two orders of magnitude less than
/ one except for silver (HQ = 0.8) and barium (HQ = 0.3).
External Review Draft
Volume VI VII-5 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
For the stack expected metal scenario, plant and soil fauna hazard quotients for
all of the metals are at least two orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to
negligible risks (Table VH-10).
For the organic ECOCs, hazard quotients for plants and soil fauna are at least
two orders of magnitude below one, indicating low to negligible risks (Table VII-11).
There are no available lexicological benchmark values for either plants or soil fauna
for two organic ECOCs, hexachlorocyclopentadiene and hexachlorophene; their
potential risks can not be evaluated for soil exposures.
2. Fugitive Ash Emissions
For the inorganic ECOCs in fugitive fly ash, hazard quotients for plants and
soil fauna are at least four orders of magnitude below one, indicating low to
negligible risks (Table VH-12).
3. Combined Emissions
Table VII-13 shows the cumulative hazard quotients for plants and soil fauna
from exposure to the metal ECOCs in sous due to the combined emissions from the
stack and from the ash handling facility. For the combined emissions from the stack
projected permit limit metal scenario and the ash handling facility, four metals
(barium, nickel, selenium, and silver) exceed plant benchmark values and two metals
(nickel and selenium) exceed soil fauna benchmark values. The magnitude of these
exceedences is the same as for the stack emissions alone, as the ash handling facility's
contribution to the cumulative hazard quotients is small compared to the stack's
contribution (Table VII-13). For the stack expected metal scenario, all cumulative
plant and soil fauna hazard quotients are at least two, and generally at least four,
orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to negligible risk (Table VII-13).
C. Surface Water
For stack emissions, risk characterization is conducted for three water bodies in the
assessment area. The Ohio River and Little Beaver Creek represent a relatively large and a
relatively small flowing water body, respectively. Tomlinson Run Lake represents a
relatively small lake/wetland aquatic resource. Exposure concentrations vary among the
three water bodies because of their differing distances from the facility as well as differences
in size and watershed area. Maximum predicted surface water concentrations in each of
these three water bodies, for the two metal stack exposure scenarios and the single organic
stack exposure scenario, are compared with available Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(AWQC) values or derived chronic toxicity benchmark values to calculate hazard quotients.
External Review Draft
Volume VI Vfl-6 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
A similar risk analysis is conducted for fugitive ash emissions from the ash handling
facility and for emissions (considered together) from the four organic vapor fugitive sources.
In addition to the separate analyses for stack and fugitive emissions, cumulative exposures
are evaluated for each metal ECOC common to both the stack and fugitive ash sources and
for each organic ECOC common to both the stack and the organic vapor fugitive sources.
1. Stack Emissions
a. Ohio River
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, all of the hazard
quotients are less than one, except for silver (HQ = 2.6) (Table VII-14). For
the stack expected metal scenario, all hazard quotients are at least three (and
usually more than five) orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to
negligible risks for surface water exposures under this scenario (Table VII-14).
For organic ECOCs in the Ohio River, all hazard quotients are at least three
orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to negligible risks for these
chemicals for surface water exposures (Table VII-15).
b. Tomlinson Run Lake
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, all of the hazard
quotients are two or more orders of magnitude less than one, except for silver
(HQ = 0.8) and mercury (HQ = 0.5) (Table VH-16). For the stack expected
metal scenario, all hazard quotients are at least three (and usually more than
six) orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to negligible risks for
this scenario (Table VII-16). For organic ECOCs in Tomlinson Run Lake, all
hazard quotients are at least three orders of magnitude less than one, indicating
low to negligible risks for these chemicals from surface water exposures
(Table VH-17).
c. Little Beaver Creek
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, all of the hazard
quotients are two or more orders of magnitude less than one, except for silver
(HQ = 0.6) and mercury (HQ = 0.2) (Table VII-18). For the stack expected
metal scenario, all hazard quotients are at least three (and usually more than
six) orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to negligible risks for
this scenario from surface water exposures (Table VII-18). For organic
ECOCs hi Little Beaver Creek, all hazard quotients are at least three orders of
External Review Draft
Volume VI Vfl-7 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
magnitude less than one, indicating low to negligible risks for these chemicals
from surface water exposures (Table Vn-19).
2. Fugitive Ash Emissions
For the inorganic ECOCs in fugitive fly ash, hazard quotients for surface
water exposures are at least six orders of magnitude below one at each of the three
water bodies, indicating low to negligible risks (Table VH-20).
3. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
For the organic ECOCs in fugitive organic vapor emissions (all sources
combined), hazard quotients for surface water exposures are at least five orders of
magnitude below one at each of the three water bodies, indicating low to negligible
risks (Table VH-21).
4. Combined Emissions
Table VII-22 shows the cumulative hazard quotients for exposure to the metal
ECOCs in surface water due to the combined emissions from the stack and from the
ash handling facility. For the combined emissions for the stack projected permit limit
metal scenario and the fugitive inorganic scenario, one metal (silver) exceeds
benchmark values in the Ohio River. The magnitude of this exceedence is the same
as the exceedence for the stack emissions alone, as the ash handling facility's
contribution to the cumulative hazard quotients is small compared to the stack's
contribution (Table VII-22). For the combined emissions from the stack expected
metal scenario and the fugitive inorganic scenario, all cumulative hazard quotients are
at least five orders of magnitude less than one at each of the three water bodies,
indicating low to negligible risks (Table VII-22).
Table VII-23 shows the cumulative hazard quotients for exposure to the
organic ECOCs in surface water due to the combined emissions from the stack and
from the four organic vapor fugitive sources. All cumulative hazard quotients are at
least five orders of magnitude less than one at each of the three water bodies,
indicating low to negligible risks (Table VII-23).
D. Sediment
As was done for surface water exposures (Section VII.C), risk characterization for
sediment exposures is conducted for the Ohio River, Little Beaver Creek, and Tomlinson
Run Lake. Exposure concentrations vary among the three water bodies because of their
differing distances from the facility as well as deposition, fate, and transport aspects unique
External Review Draft
Volume VI VH-8 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
to each of the three locations. Maximum predicted sediment concentrations in each of these
three water bodies, for the two metal stack exposure scenarios and the single organic stack
exposure scenario, are compared with available or calculated sediment toxicity benchmark
values to derive hazard quotients. Toxicity benchmark values for aluminum, beryllium, and
thallium are not available and these chemicals can not, therefore, be evaluated for .any of the
water bodies or exposure scenarios for this medium.
A similar risk analysis was conducted for fugitive ash emissions from the ash
handling facility and for emissions (considered together) from the four organic vapor fugitive
sources. In addition to the separate analyses for stack and fugitive ash emissions, cumulative
exposures are evaluated for each metal ECOC common to both the stack and fugitive ash
sources and for each organic ECOC common to both the stack and the organic vapor fugitive
sources.
1. Stack Emissions
a. Ohio River
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, all of the calculated
hazard quotients are at least two orders of magnitude less than one, except for
selenium (HQ = 0.2) (Table VII-24). For the stack expected metal scenario,
all of the hazard quotients are at least five orders of magnitude less than one,
indicating low to negligible risks for sediment exposures under this scenario
(Table VII-24). For organic ECOCs in Ohio River sediments, all hazard
quotients are at least two orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to
negligible risks for these chemicals from sediment exposures (Table VII-25).
b. Tomlinson Run Lake
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, all of the
calculated hazard quotients are at least two orders of magnitude less than one,
indicating negligible risk (Table VII-26). For the stack expected metal
scenario, all of the hazard quotients are at least six orders of magnitude less
than one, indicating negligible risks from sediment exposures for this exposure
scenario (Table VII-26). For organic ECOCs in Tomlinson Run Lake
sediments, all hazard quotients are at least three orders of magnitude less than
one, indicating negligible risks for these chemicals from sediment exposures
(Table VH-27).
Volume VI
VH-9
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
c. Little Beaver Creek
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, all of the calculated
hazard quotients are at least two orders of magnitude less than one, indicating
low to negligible risk (Table VII-28). For the stack expected metal scenario,
all of the hazard quotients are at least six orders of magnitude less than one,
indicating low to negligible risks from sediment exposures for this exposure
scenario (Table VD>28). For organic ECOCs in Little Beaver Creek
sediments, all hazard quotients are at least three orders of magnitude less than
one, indicating low to negligible risks for these chemicals from sediment
exposures (Table VH-29).
2. Fugitive Ash Emissions
For the inorganic ECOCs in fugitive fly ash, hazard quotients for sediment
exposures are at least seven orders of magnitude below one at each of the three water
bodies, indicating low to negligible risks (Table VH-30).
3. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
For the organic ECOCs in fugitive organic vapor emissions (all sources
combined), hazard quotients for sediment exposures are at least five orders of
magnitude below one at each of the three water bodies, indicating low to negligible
risks (Table VH-31).
4. Combined Emissions
Table Vn-32 shows the cumulative hazard quotients for exposure to the metal
ECOCs in sediments due to the combined emissions from the stack and from the ash
handling facility. For the combined emissions from the stack projected permit limit
metal scenario and the fugitive inorganic scenario, no metal exceeds benchmark
values in any of the three water bodies; the magnitude of the cumulative hazard
quotients is similar to that for the stack emissions alone, as the ash handling facility's
contribution to the cumulative hazard quotients is small compared to the stack's
contribution (Table VII-32). For the combined emissions from the stack expected
metal scenario and the fugitive inorganic scenario, all cumulative hazard quotients are
at least five orders of magnitude less than one for each of the three water bodies,
indicating low to negligible risk (Table VQ-32).
Table VII-33 shows the cumulative hazard quotients for exposure to the
organic ECOCs in sediment due to the combined emissions from the stack and from
the four organic vapor fugitive sources. All cumulative hazard quotients are at least
External Review Draft
Volume VI VH-10 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
five orders of magnitude less than one at each of the three water bodies, indicating
low to negligible risks (Table VH-33).
E. Food Chain
Potential risks to wildlife from ECOCs entering the food chain are evaluated on the
basis of dietary exposures to selected indicator species. As part of this analysis, it is
conservatively assumed that the indicator species obtain all of their food and water from the
point of maximum deposition onto soil and surface water. Maximum estimated
concentrations are used for direct dietary exposure to surface water (as drinking water) and
for direct dietary exposure to soil (incidental soil ingestion). Maximum estimated tissue
concentrations in plant, soil fauna (earthworms), fish, and small mammal food items are
based on maximum predicted soil, surface water, and/or sediment concentrations.
As was done for both the surface water and sediment exposure pathway evaluations
(Sections VII.C and VII.D), risk characterization for food chain exposures is conducted for
the maximum predicted impact point (Ohio River) for stack emissions, and for two more
distant points, Little Beaver Creek and Tomlinson Run Lake areas (which include the surface
water body itself plus the immediately surrounding terrestrial habitats). These three areas are
chosen because they represent points of terrestrial and aquatic deposition (and corresponding
media concentrations) over a range of habitats where dietary exposures are possible. The
Ohio River is nearest to the maximum point of total deposition for all major water bodies
present in the entire assessment area. However, since water-body specific parameters (water
volume, flow rate, etc.) influence the final calculated media concentrations, resulting media
concentrations in surface water and/or sediment may be higher at the other two water bodies
than at the Ohio River, even though the total deposition rate is lower. Therefore, food chain
exposures are evaluated at all three water bodies for all of the indicator species, since each
species is exposed to surface water, sediment, and/or aquatic prey items. Hazard quotients
are derived based on estimated maximum dietary intakes for each of the 15 metal ECOCs
(under both stack metal exposure scenarios) and for each of 13 organic stack ECOCs,
compared witii chronic oral toxicity benchmark values for each of the seven bird/mammal
indicator species.
A similar risk analysis is conducted for fugitive ash emissions from the ash handling
facility. In addition to the separate analyses for stack and fugitive ash emissions, cumulative
exposures are evaluated for the metal ECOCs common to both the stack and fugitive ash
sources.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VII-11 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
1. Stack Metal Scenarios
Avian ingestion toxicity benchmark values are not available for barium,
beryllium, silver, and thallium, so these four metals could not be evaluated at any of
the locations for the American robin, belted kingfisher, or red-tailed hawk.
a. Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Under the stack projected permit limit metal scenario at the maximum
impact point/Ohio River, at least one metal exceeds a hazard quotient of one
for each indicator species. Six of the 15 metals have hazard quotients
exceeding one. The specific number of indicator species with hazard quotients
which exceed one for these metals are: selenium (6), nickel (6), thallium (4),
barium (4), mercury (3), and silver (2). For the individual indicator species,
the number of exceedences range from one for the belted kingfisher to five for
the short-tailed shrew and red fox. The maximum metal-specific hazard
quotients (all species) are 4.250 for thallium (short-tailed shrew), 3,000 for
selenium (short-tailed shrew), 367 for nickel (American robin), 416 for barium
(short-tailed shrew), 5.2 for silver (short-tailed shrew), and 4.1 for mercury
(American robin) (Tables VH-34, VH-36, VH-38, VH-40, VH-42, VII-44, and
VH-46).
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario at Tomlinson Run
Lake, four of the 15 metal ECOCs have hazard quotients exceeding one,
including thallium for three indicator species, selenium for three indicator
species, barium for a single indicator species, and mercury for a single
indicator species. There is an exceedence for at least one metal for each of
the indicator species except the red-tailed hawk and the meadow vole. The
maximum metal-specific hazard quotient is 10.4 for thallium (short-tailed
shrew), 7.4 for selenium (short-tailed shrew), 3.8 for mercury (belted
kingfisher), and 1.0 for barium (short-tailed shrew) (Tables VH-34, VII-36,
Vn-38, VH-40, VH-42, Vn-44, and VH-46). Relative to the maximum impact
point near the Ohio River, there are fewer exceedences and the exceedences
are of a much lower magnitude at Tomlinson Run Lake. This is attributable to
the lower concentrations of the ECOCs in the media at Tomlinson Run Lake
relative to the Ohio River location.
Under the stack projected permit limit metal scenario at Little Beaver
Creek, four of the 15 metals have hazard quotients exceeding one, including
selenium for five indicator species, thallium for four indicator species, barium
for two indicator species, and mercury for a single indicator species. There is
External Review Draft
Volume VI VH-12 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
a hazard quotient exceedence for at least one metal for each of the seven
indicator species except for the red-tailed hawk. The maximum metal-specific
hazard quotient is 37 for thallium (short-tailed shrew), 26 for selenium (short-
tailed shrew), 3.6 for barium (short-tailed shrew), and 1.8 for mercury (belted
kingfisher) (Tables VH-34, VH-36, VH-38, VH-40, VE-42, VH-44, and VH- ,
46). Relative to the maximum impact point near the Ohio River, there are
fewer exceedences and the exceedences are of a much lower magnitude at
Little Beaver Creek. This is attributable to the lower concentrations of the
ECOCs in the media at Little Beaver Creek relative to the Ohio River location.
The number and magnitude of exceedences are generally similar to, but
slightly higher than, Tomlinson Run Lake. Distance from the WTI facility
(less than 1-km for the Ohio River, 3-km for Little Beaver Creek, and 10-km
for Tomlinson Run Lake) is considered the primary factor in the pattern of
decreasing hazard quotients.
b. Stack Expected Metal Scenario
For the stack expected metal scenario, no hazard quotients exceed one
at the maximum impact point/Ohio River. There are two hazard quotients
between 0.1 and 1.0 at this location: 0.3 for the short-tailed shrew and both
thallium and selenium (Tables VH-34, VH-36, VH-38, VH-40, VH-42, VII-44
and VII-46). For Tomlinson Run Lake and Little Beaver Creek, hazard
quotients are at least two orders of magnitude less than one for all of the
metals and indicator species evaluated. Thus, low to negligible risks are
predicted for metals for the stack expected metal scenario at these three water
bodies from food chain exposures.
2. Stack High-End Organic Scenario
For the organic stack ECOCs, hazard quotients are at least two orders of
magnitude less than one for all chemicals and indicator species at the maximum
impact point/Ohio River, except for the American robin and belted kingfisher (Tables
VH-35, VH-37, VH-39, VII-41, ¥11-43, VH-45, and VH-47). The American robin
has a hazard quotient of 0.6 for dioxin/furan and a hazard quotient of 0.2 for
hexachlorophene (Table ¥11-43). The belted kingfisher has a hazard quotient of 0.1
for dioxin/furan (Table VII-45). Thus, low to negligible risks are predicted at this
location for the organic ECOCs from food chain exposures.
For Tomlinson Run Lake and Little Beaver Creek, hazard quotients are at least
two orders of magnitude less than one for all of the organic ECOCs and indicator
External Review Draft
Volume VI VH-13 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
species evaluated. Thus, low to negligible risks are predicted for the stack high-end
organic scenario at these two water bodies from food chain exposures. Avian
ingestion toxicity benchmarks are not available for three of the organic ECOCs
(benzo[a]pyrene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, and pentachlorobenzene), so these three
chemicals can not be evaluated at any of the locations for the American robin, belted.
kingfisher, or red-tailed hawk.
3. Fugitive Ash Emissions
For the inorganic ECOCs in fugitive fly ash, hazard quotients for food chain
exposures are at least three orders of magnitude below one at each of the three
locations evaluated (Table Vn-48). Thus, low to negligible risks are predicted for
food chain exposures to fugitive ash metal ECOCs.
4. Combined Emissions
Tables VII-49 through 51 show the cumulative hazard quotients for food chain
exposures to the metal ECOCs due to the combined emissions from the stack and
from the ash handling facility for the three locations evaluated. For the combined
emissions from the stack projected permit limit metal scenario and the fugitive
inorganic scenario, four metals (barium, nickel, selenium, and silver) exceed ingestion
benchmarks for at least one of the indicator species at the Ohio River. The
magnitude of these exceedences is similar to those for the stack emissions alone, as
the ash handling facility's contribution to the cumulative hazard quotients is small
compared to the stack's contribution. For the combined emissions from the stack
expected metal scenario and the fugitive inorganic scenario, all cumulative hazard
quotients are less than one at the Ohio River (Table VII-49).
For the combined emissions from the stack projected permit limit metal
scenario and the fugitive inorganic scenario at Tomlinson Run Lake, two metals
(barium and selenium) exceed ingestion benchmarks for at least one of the indicator
species. The magnitude of these exceedences is similar to those for the stack
emissions alone, as the ash handling facility's contribution to the cumulative hazard
quotients is small compared to the stack's contribution. For the combined emissions
from the stack expected metal scenario and the fugitive inorganic scenario, all
cumulative hazard quotients are less than one at Tomlinson Run Lake (Table Vn-50).
For the combinec missions from the stack projected permit limit metal
scenario and the fugitive inorganic scenario at Little Beaver Creek, three metals
(barium, nickel, and selenium) exceed ingestion benchmarks for at least one of the
indicator species. The magnitude of these exceedences is similar to those for the
External Review Draft
Volume VI VH-14 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
stack emissions alone, as the ash handling facility's contribution to the cumulative
hazard quotients is small compared to the stack's contribution. For the combined
emissions from the stack expected metal scenario and die fugitive inorganic scenario,
all cumulative hazard quotients are less than one at Little Beaver Creek (Table VII-
51).
F. Summary of Hazard Quotients by Exposure Scenario
This section provides a summary of the hazard quotients for the three stack and two
fugitive exposure scenarios. Tables VII-52 and VII-53 list those instances where hazard
quotients exceed one. Table VH-54 lists those instances where hazard quotients are between
0.1 and 1.0. While not exceedences, these values are included as they represent the next
highest set of hazard quotient values.
1. Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
With one exception (fugitive formaldehyde inhalation), the stack projected
permit limit metal scenario is the only scenario where chemical-specific hazard
quotients exceed one. This scenario includes, as a component, emission rate
estimates based on the maximum hourly permitted metal stack emissions for the WTI
incinerator and represents the current legal "upper limit" for emissions. This is in
contrast to expected emissions based on the current mix of wastes in the incinerator
waste stream and current operating conditions (at maximum capacity), which are used
as the basis for the stack expected metal scenario.
Both the stack projected permit limit and stack expected metal scenarios use
the same dispersion, deposition, and fate models to translate emissions into estimated
media concentrations and exposure levels. Further, they both use the same chronic
lexicological benchmark values.
Stack projected permit limit-based exposure estimates exceed chronic toxiciry
benchmark values (hazard quotients exceeding one) for six metal ECOCs (barium,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium) for a number of exposure pathways,
indicator species, and locations. Even considering the conservative nature of the risk
characterization, the magnitude of these exceedences suggests that continuous
emissions at or above the current permit limits for several of the metals may result in
potential impacts to some ecological receptors. In addition, some of these predicted
risks extend out to a distance of at least 10 kilometers from the facility stack (the
distance to Tomlinson Run Lake) for at least some receptors.
^ -x, A summary of the hazard quotients that exceed one for the stack projected
V permit limit metal scenario for air, surface soil, surface water, and sediment'is
External Review Draft
Volume VI VH-15 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
contained in Table Vn-52. Table Vn-53 contains a summary of the hazard quotients
that exceed one for ingestion exposures of the seven bird and mammal indicator
species.
2. Stack Expected Metal Scenario
The stack expected metal scenario includes, as a component, emissions rates
based on estimated annual average emissions at roll waste capacity. These emission
rates are derived from trial burns, waste feed data, and thermodynamic modeling and
represent a more realistic estimate of expected metal emissions from the incinerator
stack. As noted in the last subsection, both this scenario and the stack projected
permit limit metal scenario use the same dispersion, deposition, and fate models to
translate emissions into estimated media concentrations and exposure levels. In
addition, they both use the same chronic lexicological benchmark values.
There are no exceedences of toxicological benchmark values a: the maximum
impact point/Ohio River or at the other two locations (Tomlinson Run Lake and Little
Beaver Creek) for the indicator species and exposure pathways evaluated as part of
the stack expected metal scenario (Tables VII-52 and VH-53). Hazard quotients for
air, soil, surface water, and sediment are at least two orders of magnitude below one
at all three locations, indicating low to negligible risks. For food chain ingestion
exposures, hazard quotients are at least two orders of magnitude below one for all
indicator species at Tomlinson Run Lake and Little Beaver Creek, again indicating
low to negligible risks.
There are two instances where hazard quotients are between 0.1 and 1.0 at the
maximum impact point/Ohio River (Table VII-54). The implications of these two
hazard quotients within an order of magnitude of one are discussed in Section VII.H.
Tables VII-5f and VII-56 provide a side-by-side comparison of hazard
quotients, and the relative difference, between the two metal stack scenarios.
Chemical-specific hazard quotients under the stack expected metal scenario are
between one and eight orders of magnitude lower than for the stack projected permit
limit metal scenario.
3. Stack High-End Organic Scenario
The evaluation of organic stack emissions includes, as a component, high-end
emission rate estimates determined from facility performance tests. The evaluation of
organic stack emissions uses the same dispersion, deposition, and fate models as the
two metal stack exposure scenarios to translate emissions into estimated media
concentrations and exposure levels.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VII-16 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
There are no exceedences of lexicological benchmark values for organic stack
ECOCs, indicating low to negligible risks for ecological receptors (Tables VII-52 and
VII-53). The highest hazard quotients for organic stack ECOCs (and the only hazard
quotients greater than 0.1) are from ingestion exposures of the American robin and
belted kingfisher (Table VH-54), as follows:
. • The hazard quotient for dioxin/furan is 0.6 for the American robin
• The hazard quotient for dioxin/furan is 0.1 for the belted kingfisher
• The hazard quotient for hexachlorophene is 0.2 for the American robin
4. Fugitive Inorganic Scenario
The evaluation of fly ash emissions from the ash handling facility includes, as
a component, high-end emission rate estimates determined from site-specific
measurements of metal concentrations in WTI incinerator ash. The evaluation of
inorganic fugitive emissions uses the same dispersion, deposition, and fate models as
the stack exposure scenarios to translate emissions into estimated media concentrations
and exposure levels. It also uses the same chronic lexicological benchmark values.
There are no exceedences of lexicological benchmark values for inorganic
fugitive ECOCs, and all hazard quotients are at least two orders of magnitude less
than one, indicating low to negligible risks for ecological receptors (Tables VII-52
and Vn-53).
5. Fugitive Organic Scenario
Hazard quotients for formaldehyde inhalation exposure to animals exceed one
for fugitive vapor emissions from the tank farm (HQ = 1.9) (Table VII-52). The
cumulative hazard quotient for animal inhalation exposure to formaldehyde from all
stack and fugitive sources is 2.3. This exceedence is discussed in Section VII.H. For
all other organic fugitive vapor ECOCs, both source-specific and cumulative hazard
quotients are more than two orders of magnitude less than one (except for
formaldehyde at the open waste water tank; HQ of 0.4), indicating low to negligible
risks to animals and plants from these exposures.
G. Evaluation of Assessment Endpoints
Five assessment endpoints were chosen during conceptual site model development (in
the Problem Formulation component) as the basis for evaluating the potential ecological risks
External Review Draft
Volume VI VH-17 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
associated with stack and fugitive emissions from the WTI facility. As discussed in Chapter
n, an assessment endpoint is an explicit expression of the environmental component or value
that is to be protected. Assessment endpoints must be capable of being practically evaluated
given: (1) the type of evaluation being conducted (hi this case a screening-level assessment),
(2) the site-specific characteristics of the stressors (ECOCs), exposure pathways, and
receptors, and (3) the amount of information available to perform the assessment. The
measurement endpoints and risk characterization methodology (hi this case the hazard
quotient method) that are selected must be appropriate to the selected assessment endpoints
and also be based on practical considerations. The uncertainty inherent hi the assessment
methodology (see Chapter VTfl) is a factor hi determining the level of confidence that can be
placed hi the endpoint evaluation.
Each of five assessment endpoints is evaluated hi the SERA using measurement
endpoints appropriate to a screening-level assessment (see Section II.A.3 and Table II-l).
The measurement endpoints are evaluations of chronic toxicity for indicator species or
species groups chosen to represent the ecological values to be protected. The results of the
evaluations of each of these assessment endpoints are summarized below. The magnitude
and implications of potential risks are discussed hi Section Vn.H.
While the screening-level risk characterization hi the SERA focuses on direct toxic
effects (i.e., growth, reproduction, and survival) to selected indicator species under various
exposure scenarios, some aspects of potential indirect effects (i.e., food chain and habitat
disruption) are also qualitatively addressed as part of the evaluation of assessment endpoints.
In addition, some aspects of potential community-level effects can be inferred from the
results of the SERA.
1. Reproduction, Growth, and Survival of Birds and Mammals
Birds and mammals represent socially and ecologically important groups of
receptors inhabiting the WTI assessment area and are thus identified as ecologically
valuable resources to be protected. The assessment focuses on potential risks to bird
and mammal populations from inhalation and dietary (both from food and water, as
well as incidental ingestion of soils) exposure to WTI emissions. Four mammalian
species (meadow vole, northern short-tailed shrew, mink, and red fox) and three
avian species (American robin, red-tailed hawk, and belted kingfisher) are chosen to
represent the range of trophic levels, habitats, and exposure pathways relevant to the
points of maximum impact and other representative locations within the assessment
area. These indicator species serve as representative species to evaluate potential
risks to bird and mammal populations hi general.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VH-18 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
The measurement endpoint is an evaluation of chronic inhalation and dietary
toxicity affecting reproduction, growth, and survival. Conservative chronic toxicity
benchmarks (NOAELs) are used to assess potential risk from long-term exposures to
each metal and organic ECOC in air and/or having the potential to enter the food
chain.
Low to negligible risks to the survival, reproduction, and growth of birds and
mammals (hazard quotients less than one) are predicted for the organic stack ECOCs
and for the metal stack ECOCs under the stack expected metal scenario (Section
Vn.F). There is a prediction of moderate to high risks, however, for six metal
ECOCs under the stack projected permit limit metal scenario. This risk prediction
extends from the maximum impact point to a distance of at least 10-km for barium,
selenium, thallium, and mercury. For fugitive emissions, low to negligible risks are
predicted for emissions from the ash handling facility. However, moderate risk is
predicted for inhalation exposure to formaldehyde emissions from the fugitive organic
vapor sources.
2. Reproduction, Growth and Survival of Terrestrial Plant Species
Terrestrial plant species and communities are intrinsically valuable ecological
resources that also provide food and cover (habitat) for wildlife inhabiting the WTI
assessment area and are thus identified for protection. This second assessment
endpoint focuses on potential risks to terrestrial plant species or communities from
foliar contact and root uptake exposure to ECOCs in ground-level ambient air or to
ECOCs deposited onto soil. Since there are limited lexicological data available for
terrestrial plant species, specific plant indicator species are hot selected; rather, data
for all plant species (including agricultural crops27) are considered.
The measurement endpoint is an evaluation of chronic toxicity endpoints for
terrestrial plant species via foliar (air) and root (soil) exposures. A relevant survival,
reproduction, or growth chronic toxicological benchmark value for the most sensitive
species for which data are available is used to assess risks to terrestrial vegetation
from long-term exposure to each ECOC.
27 While domesticated species, including agricultural crops, are not included in the formal
definition of "ecological receptors" and are outside the scope of the SERA, the
ecotoxicological data for the ECOCs are applicable to crop species. In fact, much of the
available data for plants are for crop species. Therefore the risk analysis outcome for
the SERA would also be generally applicable to agricultural crops present within the
assessment area surrounding the WTI facility.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VII-19 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Low to negligible risks to terrestrial plant species and communities are
predicted for organic stack ECOCs and for metal stack ECOCs under the stack
expected metal scenario (Sections VII.A [air] and VELB [soil]). While there are a
number of ECOCs for which plant toxicity data are not available, the data set does
include the herbicide 2,4-D, which is known to be toxic to a wide range of plants and
therefore addresses particularly phytotoxic chemicals.
Hazard quotients exceed one for five metal ECOCs under the stack projected
permit limit metal scenario; one from ah- exposure and all five from soil exposure at
the maximum impact point. Low to negligible risks to terrestrial plant species are
predicted for fugitive emissions.
3. Intact and Productive Aquatic and Terrestrial Food Chains
The aquatic and terrestrial animals that inhabit the WTI assessment area rely
on intact and productive food chains to meet their life requisite need for food. Thus,
intact and productive food chains are selected as values to be protected. In the
context of the SERA, food chains are represented by organisms at various trophic
levels, such as plants consumed by herbivores which are consumed by carnivores, or
aquatic invertebrates consumed by fish which are consumed by piscivorous birds.
Because a number of the ECOCs have the potential to enter the food chain via
bioaccumulation from soil, surface water, or sediment, this third assessment endpoint
focuses on whether the food chains are likely to be disrupted due to adverse impacts
to low or mid trophic level organisms, including terrestrial plants, soil fauna (e.g.,
earthworms), fish, and small mammals. These species or species groups are chosen
based on their being representative of various prey species in the food chain, then-
place in the various exposure pathways to higher trophic level species (top predators),
and because they represent groups for which toxicity data exist for some or all of the
ECOCs.
The measurement endpoint selected for this assessment endpoint is an
evaluation of chronic toxicity affecting reproduction, growth, and survival. This
evaluation is accomplished through the use of conservative chronic toxicity
benchmarks for each of the indicator species or species groups that are selected to
represent prey groups in aquatic and/or terrestrial food chains.
Low to negligible risks are predicted for terrestrial plants, soil fauna, aquatic
biota, and small mammals from exposure to organic stack ECOCs and to metal stack
ECOCs under the stack expected metal scenario (see Section Vn.F). For a total of
six metals under the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, however, moderate
to high risks are predicted for terrestrial plants and soil fauna (due to soil exposures),
External Review Draft
Volume VI VII-20 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
aquatic biota (due to surface water exposure), and/or for two small mammal species,
the herbivorous meadow vole and the insectivorous short-tailed shrew (due to
ingestion exposures). In addition, these potential risks extend out from the maximum
impact point to a distance of at least 10-km for at least some habitats for barium,
selenium, and thallium exposures of the short-tailed shrew. In addition, moderate
potential risks are predicted for inhalation exposures to formaldehyde for the two
small mammal species from fugitive vapor emissions. ,
4. Maintaining a Healthy Aquatic Community
The Ohio River is in the immediate vicinity of the WTI facility and is
predicted to be at the maximum exposure point for some of the fugitive emissions and
at or near the maximum point of stack deposition. In addition, several additional
water bodies with high ecological value (Little Beaver Creek, representing a small
stream, and Tomlinson Run Lake, representing a relatively small lake/wetland) occur
within relatively close proximity to the WTI facility. Therefore, the fourth
assessment endpoint focuses on potential risks to the aquatic communities (aquatic
plants, invertebrates, and fish) within these water bodies from exposure to WTI
emissions.
The measurement endpoint selected is an evaluation of chronic toxicity
(affecting reproduction, growth, and survival) for the majority of the species that
compose the aquatic communities hi freshwater aquatic habitats. This evaluation is
accomplished through the use of applicable state or federal chronic Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC) for the Protection of Aquatic Life, which are available for
most of the ECOCs and are intended to be protective of aquatic communities.
Chronic toxicity benchmarks based on the most sensitive freshwater species and life
stage reported hi the AQUIRE data base are derived for those ECOCs without
existing AWQCs. Published sediment guideline values or derived chronic toxicity
benchmarks based on equilibrium partitioning are also used.
The evaluation of organic stack ECOCs and of metal stack ECOCs under the
stack expected metal scenario indicate that the health of the aquatic community within
each of the three water bodies evaluated is not likely to be adversely impacted (see
Sections Vn.C and VELD). Hazard quotients exceed one, however, for a single metal
(silver) hi Ohio River surface water under the stack projected permit limit metal
scenario. There are no exceedences of sediment benchmark values. Risks to aquatic
communities from fugitive emissions are predicted to be low to negligible for the ash
handling facility or the organic vapor fugitive sources.
External Review Draft
Volume VI VII-21 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
5. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats
Species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered are sensitive receptors which,
because of limited population sizes, may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of
chemical stressors in the environment. As such, they are selected as resources to be
protected. The assessment focuses on whether these species could be impacted
through any of the potential exposure pathways under consideration in the SERA.
The measurement endpoint selected is an evaluation of the potential
distribution and occurrence of rare, threatened, and endangered species relative to the
projected areas of maximum chemical exposure. While the hazard quotient-based risk
estimates for indicator species can provide some indication of potential risks for rare,
threatened, and endangered species (assuming habitats and behaviors are similar to the
indicator species), a more detailed biological assessment would be needed to
completely evaluate, and possibly quantify, the risk to these particularly vulnerable
species should they be present in areas where significant exposures are possible.
The available information on rare, threatened, and endangered species known
to be present within the assessment area was collected and presented as part of the
SERA (see Section IQ.C.6). At the predicted maximum concentration points for
ECOCs (i.e., within a 1-km radial distance of the facility), there are no known recent
occurrences of rare, threatened, or endangered species. The nearest known recent
observation of such a species occurred approximately 4-km southwest of the facility.
This observation, of two state-listed fish species (one endangered and the other
threatened), occurred in the Ohio River. Since there are no obstructions (e.g., dams)
to fish movements between the location of these sightings and the WTI facility, it is
possible that these species could be present at or near the points of projected
maximum deposition, at least periodically. Predicted risks to aquatic communities are
low to negligible (see the previous subsection) for all exposure scenarios except for
silver under the stack projected permit limit metal scenario. The estimated maximum
exposure concentration for silver under this upper-bound exposure scenario is 2.6
times higher than the chronic ambient water quality criterion.
At distances of between five and 10-km from the WTI facility, 11 species
listed as rare, threatened, or endangered are known to occur; the majority (8 of 11)
are terrestrial plant species (see Chapter IE). At this distance from the facility (five
to 10-km), the predicted air and soil concentrations are below the plant toxicological
benchmarks used for the indicator species evaluation. One "significant" habitat (Little
Beaver Creek) occurs within 10-km of the WTI facility based on Natural Heritage
records. Hazard quotients exceed one for some (non-endangered) animal indicator
External Review Draft
Volume VI VE-22 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
species from food chain exposures at Little Beaver Creek for the stack projected
permit limit metal scenario.
The one aquatic species (a mussel) and the two bird species (Canada warbler
and winter wren) with known occurrences between five and 10-km from the WTI
facility are not likely to inhabit areas hi the immediate vicinity of the facility because
of habitat requirements. The indicator species risk analysis predicts low to negligible
risks to aquatic communities from exposure to surface water in Little Beaver Creek
(where the mussel is known to occur). Low to negligible risks are also predicted for
bird species exposed via the food chain for locations beyond the maximum impact
point, except under the stack projected permit limit metal scenario where moderate to
high risks are predicted for bird indicator species. The implications to threatened and
endangered bird species of these exceedences for non-endangered indicator species
can not be quantitatively evaluated with available information.
6. Summary of Assessment Endpoint Evaluation
In summary, five assessment endpoints are identified for evaluation during the
Problem Formulation component of the SERA; specific measurement endpoints are
established and applied to the evaluation of each assessment endpoint. Risks to the
ecological values represented by these assessment endpoints are determined to be low
to negligible for organic stack ECOCs and for metal ECOCs under the stack expected
metal scenario. For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, however, various
degrees of potential risks to the ecological values represented by all five assessment
endpoints are predicted from exposures to six metals present in emissions from the
WTI incinerator. Risks from fugitive ash emissions are predicted to be low to
negligible. However, moderate risks to animal species are predicted from inhalation
exposures to formaldehyde present hi fugitive vapor emissions.
H. Risk Analysis
Consistent with a screening-level assessment, the SERA uses exposure assumptions
and toxicological benchmark values that are not likely to underestimate potential risks. The
degree of conservatism of the key parameters used hi the assessment is summarized in Table
VII-57. In all cases where it is practical, based on existing data, high-end estimates of these
parameters are used; where it is not practical (due to limited data), a best estimate value is
selected from the available data.
From an exposure standpoint, the parameters with the greatest potential impact on the
results of the assessment include emission rate estimates, deposition rates, and the
assumptions relating to the spatial and temporal extent of exposure. For emission rate
External Review Draft
Volume VI VII-23 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
estimates, high-end values are used in three of the five exposure scenarios. For stack metal
emissions, both a high-end and best estimate scenario are evaluated. Fugitive vapor emission
evaluations are based on best estimates, not high-end emission rate estimates. This does not
appear to have affected the overall conclusions concerning risks associated with fugitive
vapor emissions. With the exception of formaldehyde, the summed hazard quotients for the
other organic ECOCs are three or more orders of magnitude less than one. In addition,
fugitive vapor emissions are a minor contributor (except for formaldehyde) to exposure when
compared to stack exposures for the same ECOC. Maximum deposition rates are used for
all exposure scenarios (Table Vn-57).
In regard to the spatial extent of exposures, all exposure scenarios include an
evaluation of exposures at the maximum projected location of air concentrations and/or
deposition. In addition, it is assumed that the home ranges of the indicator species evaluated
are confined to these maximum points. Thus, it is assumed that even mobile species are
continuously exposed to maximum concentrations. In addition, soil and sediment media
concentrations of persistent chemicals are based on a 30-year period of accumulation for all
exposure scenarios.
Toxicological benchmark values are based on the lowest available no-effect levels for
ecologically relevant endpoints. The degree of conservatism of these selected benchmarks is
generally unknown, although the selection of the lowest value from an extensive data base
would result hi a higher degree of confidence hi the conservatism of the value than the
selection from a more limited data set (the latter is considered a best estimate). To increase
the confidence that the benchmark would not underestimate toxicity to sensitive species,
uncertainty factors are applied where appropriate. Generally, these uncertainty factors are
based on the amount of data available, with a larger uncertainty factor used for limited data
sets and smaller uncertainty factors used with more extensive data sets.
The choice of the exposure and effect parameters used hi the SERA results in
generally conservative risk estimates for those ECOCs, pathways, and receptors that are
evaluated. Using these parameters, the likelihood that risks are overestimated is greater than
the likelihood that risks are underestimated.
Low to negligible risks to ecological receptors are predicted for the stack high-end
organic scenario, for the stack expected metal scenario, and for the fugitive inorganic
. scenario. Two organic stack ECOCs had hazard quotients between 0.1 and 1.0 at the
maximum exposure point. Given the generally conservative methodology used in the SERA,
there is a relatively high degree of confidence hi these predictions of low to negligible risks.
For animal inhalation exposures to formaldehyde from fugitive vapor emissions, the
cumulative hazard quotient (all fugitive sources plus the stack) is approximately 2.3. Nearly
all of the predicted risks are attributable to emissions from the tank farm (HQ *= 1.9). Since
External Review Draft
Volume VI VH-24 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
emissions from this fugitive source occurs at ground level, potential risks to ecological
receptors should be limited to the area in the immediate vicinity of this source. Given that
the habitats near the points of maximum air concentrations are within the facility boundary
for the tank farm (Figure V-l), it is unlikely that species other than those common to urban
areas would be exposed. Risks in surrounding areas more distant from these sources, where.
habitat quality is higher, would likely be low to negligible as air concentrations would be
expected to decrease significantly with distance.
For the stack expected metal scenario, one mammalian indicator species (short-tailed
shrew) has hazard quotients for thallium and selenium dietary exposures between 0.1 and 1.0
at the point of maximum deposition. These exposures are unlikely to result in adverse
impacts to this species since the point of maximum stack deposition is located in the
developed area within the fenced area of the WTI facility and therefore represents limited
habitat for this species. At this location, the number of animals potentially affected would be
relatively small, making adverse effects to the population or to community structure unlikely.
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, the magnitude of predicted risks
is relatively high for both plant (HQs up to 361) and animal (HQs up to 4,250) terrestrial
indicator species at the projected points of maximum air concentrations and total stack
deposition. In addition, hazard quotients exceed one at locations up to 10-km from the WTI
facility for some of the wildlife indicator species (HQs up to 11) exposed via the food chain
to mercury, barium, selenium, or thallium. The predicted risks for this scenario are
generally confined to terrestrial systems with the exception of one exceedence of a surface
water benchmark for silver hi the Ohio River (HQ of 2.6) and an exceedence of an ingestion
benchmark for a strictly piscivorous species, the belted kingfisher (HQ of 3.8).
The key issue relating to the stack projected permit limit scenario is the degree of
realism in the stack emission rate estimates that are based on the maximum permitted hourly
emission levels. For this scenario, these maximum hourly rates are directly extrapolated to
average annual emission rates, that is,.it is assumed that the incinerator emits metals
continuously (on an annual basis) at its maximum hourly permitted levels. If this is a
realistic possibility, the magnitude of the predicted risks (even considering the conservative
nature of the assessment) suggests that adverse effects to terrestrial plant and animal species
are probable. Given the areal extent over which some of these predicted risks extend,
adverse effects are possible to some wildlife populations and possibly to the terrestrial plant
community. Quantify ing the degree of likelihood and the extent of these potential effects for
the indicator species, metals, and exposure pathways for which risk is predicted in the SERA
would require additional evaluation at the PFJRA or DERA level. The implications of such
high metal exposures for rare, threatened, and endangered species that may inhabit the
External Review Draft
Volume VI VTI-25 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
assessment area would have to be determined from a biological assessment (not a PERA or
DERA).
I. Uncertainties in the Risk Characterization
The key assumptions and related uncertainties in the risk characterization component
of the SERA are described below and in Table VII-58. The assumptions/ uncertainties
include those that are both inherent because of the SERA being a screening-level assessment,
and typical given the current state-of-the-science in ecological risk assessment.
It is assumed that the chemical exposure estimates and the endpoints selected for
evaluation are sufficiently representative of the assessment area and are appropriately
conservative, such that significant risks will not be overlooked. In the SERA: (1) not all
receptors can be directly evaluated, (2) chemical-by-chemical risk analysis is generally
conducted for a prospective screening-level risk assessment, and (3) survival, reproduction
and growth data are the best available surrogates for predicting adverse affects at the
population and community levels. Given these factors, the indicator species approach (which
includes uncertainty factors to account for the possibility of more sensitive or highly exposed
species) together with the hazard quotient methodology provide a generally accepted
screening-level analysis which separates those chemicals, exposure pathways, and receptors
which are clearly not contributing significantly to risk from those that have a greater
potential for contributing to risk and for which a refined analysis could be conducted, as
warranted.
External Review Draft
Volume VI W-26 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VIM
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Air Concentration
(Mg/m3)
Plant Benchmark
G»g/m')
Plant Hazard
Quotient
Animal Benchmark
(Mg/m3)
Animal Hazard
Quotient
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.46x HT1
l.OOx 1CT1
5.01 x 10'
3.28 x 10*
1.73x ICT"
1.37 x Kr1
1.09x 10 3
8.01 x 10*
2.00 x 10'
4.00 x 10°
3.00 x 10"
5.00 x la1
—
3.90 x 10°
—
—
2.80 x 102
—
—
5.60 x 10'
2.00 x 10°
—
—
—
—
2.56 x 10s
—
—
6.18x 10 7
—
—
1.43 x 10 J
1.00 x 10'
—
—
—
1.84x10'
2.60 x 10°
1.52 x 10'
2.80 x 10°
2.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10'
2.20 x 10°
l.OOx 10°
4.00 x 10J
4.00 x 10°
—
—
7.93 x 10*
3.85 x 10s
3.29 x 10*
1.17x 10*
8.65 x 10 s
1.37 x 10s
4.95 x lO^4
8.01 x 102
5.00 x 102
1.00 x 10*
—
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
''Arsenic
Barium
2.18x lO^1
3.82 x 10*
3.37 x 105
1.37 x lO^1
—
—
3.90 x 10°
—
—
—
8.64 x 10*
—
4.20 x 10>
1.84x 10'
2.60 x 10°
1.52x 10'
5.19x 10*
2.08 x 10 7
1.29x 10 5
9.01 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-27
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-I
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Hants and Animals - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Air Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.00 x 10*
1.46x Ifr5
6.46 x 107
8.55 x la3
3.91 x 105
1.27 x 10'
4.55 x 10*
4.28 x 1O4
1.37 x Ifr5
3.09 x ias
1.09 x HT4
Plant Benchmark
Gtg/m')
'
2.80 x 102
—
—
—
5.60 x 10'
2.00 x 10°
—
—
—
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
—
5.21 x 10*
—
— .
—
2.27 x 10 5
2.28 x 10*
—
—
—
—
Animal Benchmark
0«g/mJ)
2.80 x 10°
2.00 x 10°
l.OOx 10'
1.20x 10'
2.20 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
4.00 x 10"
4.00 x 10°
—
—
2.20 x 10'
Animal Hazard
Quotient
1.07 x 10*
7.30 x 10*
6.46 x 10*
7.13x 10*
1.78x 10 5
1.27 x 10'
1.14x10*
1.07 x 10^
—
—
4.95 x 10*
\,-'
VI
VII-28
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or
-------
TABLE VII-2
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Acetone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4!-DDE
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Air Concentration
0«g/m3)
2.64 x 103
l.OOx 10s
l.OOx 10s
4.76 x 10s
3.70 x 1CT1
1.26x \0*
3.53 x 10 5
l.OOx "MT*
5.52 x 10^
l.OOx 10s
9.19x 10s
l.OOx Ifr3
2.91 x la5
4.33 x 10s
l.OOx 10 3
3.08 x Ifr7
4.46 x IV
Plant Benchmark
0
-------
TABLE VII-3
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Fugitive Ash Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Total Cyanide
Air Concentration
(l«g/mj)
2.12x 10^
5.83 x 10s
4.24 x iaj
1.39x 10'
2.70 x 10'
9.47 x 10* ;
l.SOx la5
1.67x ia5
Plant Benchmark
teg/m3)
3.90 x 10°
—
2.80 x 102
—
2.00 x 10°
—
—
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
5.44 x W5
—
LSI x ia5
—
1.35 x Ws
—
—
—
Animal Benchmark
0»g/m3)
2.60 x 10"
1.52x10' .
2.00 x 10°
2.20 x 10"
4.00 x 102
4.00 x 10°
—
9.88 x 102
Animal Hazard
Quotient
B.lSx ia5
3.83 x 10*
2.12x ia3
6.32 x 104
6.75 x 1O«
2.37 x 10*
—
1.69 x 10*
VI
VII-30
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VIM
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Fugitive Emissions - Carbon Absorption Bed
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Air Concentration
G«g/ms)
4.47 x IO3
1.21 x \V
3.02 x KT1
l.Hx 10 3
2.56 x 10'
6.53 x 10*
Plant Benchmark
0»g/mJ)
...
—
—
—
8.80 x 10'
' —
Plant Hazard
Quotient
—
—
—
—
2.91 x 10s
—
Animal Benchmark
Gtg/m')
6.30 x iO2
6.72 x IO5
4.00 x 10'
2.54 x IO4
4.80 x 10-'
2.00 x 10"
Animal Hazard
Quotient
7.10x HT*
i.sox ia'°
7.55 x 10*
4.49 x 10*
5.33 x IO3
3.27 x 10*
Volume VI
External Review Draft
Do NIn» ritp Or
-------
TABLE VII-5
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Fugitive Emissions - Tank Farm
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Air Concentration
G*g/mJ)
1.60 x 10°
4.34 x 10 2
l.OSx la'
4.08 x 10 '
9.l7x 10'
2.34 x la'
Plant Benchmark
0«g/m3)
—
—
—
—
8.80 x 101
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
—
—
...
—
1.04x 10*
—
Animal Benchmark
(/ig/m3)
6.30 x 102
6.72 x 10s
4.00 x 10'
2.54 x 104
4.80 x la1
2.00 x 10°
Animal Hazard
Quotient
2.54 x 103
6.46 x 10'
2.70 x 10°
1.61 x 10 5
1.91 x 10*
i.i7x ia5
VI
VII-32
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-6
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Fugitive Emissions - Open Waste Water Tank
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Air Concentration
teg/m3)
3.17x la1
8.59 x 10'
2.13 x 10 2
8.06 x 10J
1.81 x 10'
4.62 x 10-1
Plant Benchmark
G»g/mJ)
—
—
—
—
8.80 x 10'
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
—
—
•
—
2.05 x 10'
—
Animal Benchmark
(Mg/m3)
6.30 x 102
6.72 x 10s
4.00 x 10'
2.54 x 10*
4.80 x 10 '
2.00 x 10"
Animal Hazard
Quotient
5.03 x 10*
1.28x 10*
5.33 x 10^
3.17x 10*
3.77 x 10'
2.31 x 10^
Volume VI
VII-33
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-7
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Fugitive Emissions - Truck Wash
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethy famine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Air Concentration
(Mg/mJ)
l.SOx 102
4.07 x KT1
1. 01 x la3
3.82 x 10'
8.59 x 10 J
2.19x 10 5
Plant Benchmark
(/tg/mj)
—
—
—
—
8.80 x 10'
...
Plant Hazard
Quotient
—
—
—
—
9.76 x 10s
—
Animal Benchmark
dcg/m3)
6.30 x 102
6.72 x 105
4.00 x 10'
2.54 x 104
4.80 x Iff1
2.00 x 10°
Animal Hazard
Quotient
2.38 x 105
6.06 x 10-'°
2.53 x 103
1.50 x la7
1.78 x la1
i.iox ia5
ne VI
VH-34
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-8
Summed Animal Inhalation Hazard Quotients - All Organic ECOC Air Sources
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Hazard Quotients for Individual Sources
Stack
4.19x 10*
—
9.25 x KT6
—
1.15 x I01
—
Carbon
Absorption Bed
7.10x 10*
l.SOx 10 10
7.55 x icr6
4.49 x 10*
5.33 x 103
3.27 x 10*
Waste Water
Tank
5.03 x 10^
1.28x 10*
5.33 x 10*
3.17x 10*
3.77 x 10 '
2.31 x 10*
Tank Farm
2.54 x la'
6.46 x 10 »
2.70 x 103
1.61 x 10s
1.91 x 10*
i.nx ia5
Truck Wash
2.38 x la5
6.06 x 10 10
2.53 x 105
l.SOx 10"7
1.78x Ifr2
l.lOx la5
Summed Hazard
Quotient
3.08 x Itt3
2.00 x 10*
3.28 x 103
1.95 x 10 5
2.31 x 10*
2.57 x lO^1
Volume VI
VH-35
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-9
Summed Animal Inhalation Hazard Quotients - AH Metal ECOC Sources
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ash Handling
Facility
8.15x la5
3.83 x 10*
2.12xia3
6,32 x 10^
6.75 x 10*
2.37 x 10*
—
Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal
Scenario
3.85 x 105
3.29 x 10°
8.65 x 10s
4.95 x 10*
5.00 x 102
1.00 x 10*
—
Summed Hazard
Quotient
1.20x 1O4
3.29 x 10*
2.21 x la'
1.13x 10°
5.00 x ia2
1.00 x 10*
—
Stack
Expected Metal
Scenario
1.29xlfr5
9.01 x 10*
7.30 x 10*
1.78xia5
1.14x 10*
1.07x 104
—
Summed Hazard
Quotient
9.44 x Ifr5
1.28 x W
2.13 x MT3
6.50 x 10-4
7.89 x 10*
1.09 x 10^
—
V me VI
VII-36
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-10
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Soil Fauna - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
Plant Benchmark
(mg/kg)
Plant Hazard
Quotient
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
2.02 x M)3
6.08 x 10'
9.23 x 102
5.92 x 10-"
3.56 x 10*
3.01 x 10 2
2.51 x la1
2.53 x Ifr1
9.16x 102
3.61 x 102
4.16x10'
1.54x 102
5.00 x 10°
3.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
l.OOx 10'
3.00 x 10°
l.OOx 10°
3.00 x 10'
3.00 x Ifr1
3.00 x 10'
l.OOx 10°
2.00 x 10°
l.OOx 10°
4.04 x 10*
2.03 x 103
1.85 x 10*
5.92 x la5
1.19x 10*
3.01 x 102
8.35 x Ifr3
8.43 x Ifr1
3.05 x 10'
3.61 x 10'
2.08 x 10'
1.54 x 10*
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
6.71 x 10 2
5.30 x 105
2.05 x Itf3
2.52 x 103
5.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10°
3.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
1.34x Ifr3
1.06 x 10 5
6.82 x 10*
5.04 x 10*
Soil Fauna
Benchmark (mg/kg)
Soil Fauna Hazard
Quotient
—
2.50 x 10'
3.00 x 103
—
l.OOx 10'
4.00 x ia'
5.00 x 102
i.oox ia1
4.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10'
—
6.00 x JO2
—
2.50 x 10'
3.00 x 101
—
2.43 x 10^
3.08 x Ifr1
—
3.56 x 105
7.53 x Iff2
5.01 x 10*
2.53 x 10*
2.29 x 10'
7.23 x 10*
8.33 x Ifr'
...
I.l2x 10^
—
8.18x 10s
8.40 x 107
Volume VI
VH-37
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-10
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Soil Fauna - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
5.43 x 1O6
3.00 x 105
1.43x 10*
9.24 x 1O4
8.98 x 101
4.02 x 10'
2.08 x 10^
3.86 x 10 2
1.89x IV4
9.50 x 10'
1.35x 1
-------
TABLE VH-ll
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations
With Toxicologies! Benchmark Values Tor Plants and Soil Fauna - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
5.64 x la5
l.ISx 1O4
3.98 x 10s
5.53 x 10*
4.04 x 10s
1.57x 10"1
2.15x 10-*
7.03 x 10*
7.94 x KT1
3.55 x 10^
1.97 x 10 5
3.24 x la5
3.01 x Ifr7
Plant Benchmark
(mg/kg)
—
3.50 x 103
1.00 x 102
3.40 x 102
5.00 x 10°
—
—
—
—
—
4.00 x 10°
4.00 x 10'
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
—
3.37 x 10*
3.88 x Ifr7
1.57x 1O4
8.09 x 10*
—
—
—
—
—
4.92 x 10*
8.10x la7
—
Soil Fauna
Benchmark (mg/kg)
3.74 x 102
2.60 x 10'
2.50 x 10'
4.70 x Ifr2
2.00 x 103
7.63 x Ifr1
7.60 x Ifr3
—
—
1.15x 10'
4.00 x 10°
2.30 x la2
5.00 x 10°
Soil Fauna Hazard
Quotient
i.5i x ia3
4.54 x 10*
1.55x 10*
1.13x Kr*
2.02 x 10*
2.06 x 10^
2.83 x 10*
—
—
3.09 x 103
4.92 x 10*
1.41 x 103
6.03 x 1O»
Volume VI
VII-39
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-12
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations
With lexicological Benchmark Values For Plants and Soil Fauna - Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Total Cyanide
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
7.30 x 10*
6.10x 10 3
4.96 x 10-*
1.81 x 10 2
7.02 x la5
4.87 x 105
1.18x10"
5.58 x 10*
Plant Benchmark
(mg/kg)
3.00 x 10°
5.00 x I02
3.00 x 10°
3.00 x 10'
3.00 x 10'
1.00 x 10"
2.00 x 10°
6.00 x la1
Plant Hazard
Quotient
2.43 x 1O4
1.22x 10 7
1.65 x HT4
6.04 x 10^
2.34 x 10*
4.87 x Iff5
5.90 x 10*
9.30 x 1O"
Soil Fauna
Benchmark (mg/kg)
2.50 x 10'
3.00 x 103
l.OOx 10'
5.00 x 102
4.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10<
5.00 x 10'
l.SOx Ifr2
Soil Fauna Hazard
Quotient
2.92 x lfrs
2.03 x 10*
4.96 x 105
3.62 x 10 5
1.76 x 10*
9.74 x 107
2.36 x 107
3.10 x 10*
VI
VII-40
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-13
Summed Plant and Soil Fauna Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources
Chemical
Plants
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Soil Fauna
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ash Handling
Facility
Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal
Scenario
Summed Hazard
Quotient
Stack
Expected Metal
Scenario
Summed Hazard
Quotient
2.43 x lOr*
1.22 x 10'
1.65x KT1
6.04 x KT1
2.34 x 10*
4.87 x la5
5.90 x 10*
2.03 x 10'
1.85 x 10°
1.19x }0*
8.35 x 103
3.05 x 10'
3.61 x 10*
2.08 x 10'
2.27 x Ifr3
1.85 x 10*
2.84 x 1O4
8.95 x 103
3.05 x 101
3.61 x 10*
2.08 x 10'
2.92 x 105
2.03 x 10*
4.96 x Ifr5
3.62 x la5
1.76x 10*
9.74 x 107
2.36 x 107
2.43 x 1O4
3.08 x 10 '
3.56 x Ifr5
5.01 x 1O4
2.29 x W
7.23 x 10"
8.33 x 10'
2.72 x 10^
3.08 x la1
8.52 x 10-'
5.37 x 1O4
2.29 x 10'
7.23 x 10°
8.33 x 10'
6.82 x 104
5.04 x 10*
9.99 x 10*
2.99 x 10^
1 6.94 x 10*
3.86 x Ifr2
9.46 x la5
8.18x IVs
8.40 x Ifr7
3.00 x 10*
1.80 x la5
5.20 x 10*
7.72 x \0*
3.79 x 10*
9.25 x 10^
5.16 x 10*
1.75 x 10^
9.03 x 1&4
8.74 x 10*
3.86 x la2
1.01 x 10^
1.11 x 1O4
8.60 x 107
5.26 x 10s
5.42 x ias
6.96 x 10*
7.73 x 10^
4.03 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-41
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VH-14
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Surface Water
Concentration (/ig/L)
Chronic Benchmark
(t&L)
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony.
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.50 x ID"5
2.59 x ID"5
6.50 x 10°
1.11 x 10*
4.27 x 10*
4.76 x KT5
3.83 x 10"
1.72x 10-3
4.59 x 10°
1.17x 10°
3.10x 10-'
1.82x 10-'
3.00 x 10'
1.90 x 102
4.10x 103
1.06 x 10"
1.10x10°
1. 00x10'
3.20 x 10°
1.20 x 10-2
1.60 x 102
5.00 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
1.30 x 10'
5.01 x 107
1.36 x lO'7
1.59 x ID"3
1.05 x 10*
3.89 x 10*
4.76 x 10*
1.20x Kr4
1.43 x 10-'
2.87 x 10'=
2.35 x 10-'
2.58 x 10°
1.40 x 10-2
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
7.94 x 10"s
3.95 x 10-7
8.70 x 10*
1.77 x ID"5
1.02x10*
3.60 x 10-7
2.25 x 10-7
7.16 x 10*
1.37 x 10-5
2.73 x 10-5
1.04 x 10*
1.25 x 10-"
1.41 x 10*
8.70 x 101
3.00 x 10'
1.90 x 102
4.10x 103
1.06 x 10°
l.lOx 10°
1.00 x 10'
l.lOx 10'
3.20 x 10°
1.20 x 10-2
1.60 x 102
5.00 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
9.13x lO'7
1.32 x 10*
4.58 x 10*
4.33 x 10*
9.59 x ID"9
3.27 x 10-7
2.25 x 10*
6.51 x 10-7
4.29 x 10*
2.28 x 10-3
6.52 x lO*
2.51 x 10-5
1.17x NT5
Volume VI
VD-42
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VH-14
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicologies! Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Surface Water
Concentration (/tg/L)
1.13x10*
1.02x 10"s
Chronic Benchmark
<«/L)
1.30 x 10'
9.00 x 10'
Hazard Quotient
8.65 x ID"7
1.14x 10 7
Volume VI
VD-43
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VD-15
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Acetone
.Aciylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Di(n)octylphthalate
1 .4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
Surface Water
Concentration fcg/L)
2.24 x 10-7
2.57 x 10*
4.20 x 10*
1.24x ID"7
2.32 x ID"7
2.66 x 10-7
1.18x 10*
1.47x 10*
4.44 x 10*
2.90 x 10*
2.42 x lO"7
6.61 x 10*
5.56 x 10-"
3.04 x ID"7
1.78x ID"7
5.03 x 10*
9.90 x 10-7
3.06 x 10-7
1.73 x 10*
2.24 x 10*
9.72 x 10-"
1.56x 10-7
Chronic Benchmark
<«/L)
7.80 x 104
7.70 x 10-'
4.40 x 10-'
1.60X10"2
8.40 x 10°
1.57 x 10'
3.50 x 10"
1.00 x 10'
2.40 x 10-5
3.00 x 10°
1.15 x 10s
4.36 x Iff
1.00 x 10"3
7.40 x 10-1
2.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
2.10xlO-2
5.50 x 10'
8.60 x 10°
7.90 x 10-s
7.60 x 10*
5.25 x 102
Hazard Quotient
2.87 x 10-':
3.33 x 10*
9.54 x 10*
7.78 x 10-*
2.76 x 10"*
1.69 x 10*
3.38 x lO'9
1.47 x 10-9
1.85 x 10-'
9.65 x ID'10
2.10x 10-'-
1.52x 10-'°
5.56 x 10*
4.11 x 10-4
8.90 x 10*
5.03 x lO"9
4.71 x 10-5
5.57 x ID'9
2.01 x ID'9
2.83 x lO*
1.28 x ias
2.97 x 10-'°
Volume VI
VD-44
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-16
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic lexicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Surface Water
Concentration (/tg/L)
Chronic Benchmark
0
-------
TABLE Vn-16
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values • Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Surface Water
Concentration (/tg/L)
2.54 x 10*
2.99 x 10*
Chronic Benchmark
(pg/L)
1.30 x 10'
9.00 x 10'
Hazard Quotient
1.95 x ID"7
3.32 x Iff8
Volume VI
VII-46
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VH-17
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Acetone
Aciylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Di(n)octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
Surface Water
Concentration (jig/L)
7.88 x 10-7
9.05 x IO*
1.23 x ID"7
3.53 x 10-'
2.46 x 10*
9.38 x'10-7
4.18 x 10*
5.20 x 10*
1.13x 10-7
8.93 x 10*
8.52 x lO"7
2.33 x lO"7
1.59x 10-'°
9.95 x IO-7
6.04 x 10'7
1.72 x 10*
1.91 x lO"7
9.63 x ID'7
5.94 x 10*
1.27x 10*
1.95x ID"12
5.50 x IO-7
Chronic Benchmark
(ng/L)
7.80 x IO4
7.70 x 10-'
4.40 x ICC1
1.60 x 10-2
8.40 x 10°
1.57 x 10'
3.50 x 10°
1.00 x 10*
2.40 x lO"5
3.00 x 10°
1.15x IO5
4.36 x IO2
1.00 x ID"3
7.40 x 10-1
2.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
2.10x IO-2
5.50 x 10'
8.60 x 10°
7.90 x lO"5
7.60 x 10*
5.25 x IO2
Hazard Quotient
1.01 x ID'11
1.18x ID'7
2.80 x 10"
2.21 x IO-7
2.93 x lO'10
5.97 x IO-8
1.19x 10*
5.20 x ID"9
4.69 x ID'3
2.98 x ID'9
7.41 x 10-';
5.35 x 10-'°
1.59x ID'7
1.34 x 10'3
3.02 x ID'7
1.72x 10*
9.10x IO*
1.75 x 10*
6.91 x lO'9
1.61 x 10*
2.56 x 10-7
l.OSx 10*
Volume VI
VD-47
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-18
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic lexicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Surface Water
Concentration (pg/L)
Chronic Benchmark
feg/L)
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
3.33 x 10*
5.90 x 10*
1.46 x 10°
2.50 x lO"7
7.58 x ID"7
1.07 x 10"5
8.56 x 10-'
2.81 x l(r3
1.05 x 10°
2.68 x 10-'
6.86 x 10-2
3.98 x 10-2
3.00 x 10'
1.90 x 102
4.10x 103
1.06 x 10°
l.lOx 10°
1.00 x 10'
3.20 x 10°
1.20 x 10*
1.60 x 102
5.00 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
1.30 x 10'
1.11 x 10-7
3.11 x 10*
3.55 x KT1
2.36 x lO"7
6.89 x lO'7
1.07 x 10*
2.68 x 10"5
2.34 x 10-'
6.55 x 10"3
5.35 x 10-2
5.72 x 10-'
3.06 x 10-3
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
1.74 x 10"5
8.74 x 10*
1.99 x 10*
3.97 x 10*
2.29 x ID"9
6.38 x 10*
5.05 x 10*
1.56 x 10*
3.07 x 10*
4.47 x 10-5
2.38 x 10-7
2.86 x 10-5
3.12xlO-7
8.70 x 10'
3.00 x 10'
1.90 x 102
4-lOxlO3
1.06 x 10°
l.lOx 10°
1.00 x 10'
l.lOx 10'
3.20 x 10°
1.20 x lO"2
1.60 x 102
5.00 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
2.00 x ID"7
2.91 x 10-9
1.05 x 10*
9.69 x 10-'°
2.16x ID"9
5.80 x 10*
5.05 x 10-*
1.42 x 10-7
9.59 x lO"7
3.72 x 10-3
1.49x lO*
5.72 x 10*
2.60 x 10*
Volume VI
VD-48
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VO-18
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Surface Water
Concentration (/ig/L)
2.46 x 10*
2.25 x 10*
Chronic Benchmark
<«/L)
1.30 x 10'
9.00 x 10'
Hazard Quotient
1.89xlO7
2.50 x 10*
Volume VI
VD-49
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-19
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic lexicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Di(n)octylphthalate
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
Surface Water
Concentration 0*g/L)
3.66 x ID"7
4.20 x 10*
6.53 x ID"*
5.59 x lO*
2.33 x 10-9
4.35 xl(T7
1.94x 10*
2.41 x 10*
6.62 x 1O"
4.54 x 10*
3.95 x 10-7
1.08 x lO"7
8.57 x 10-"
4.88 x 10-7
2.88 x 10-7
8.15 x 10*
1.44x 10"7
4.86 x 10"7
2.81 x 10*
1.58x 10*
4.24 x ID'13
2.55 x lO"7
Chronic Benchmark
0
-------
TABLE VD-20
Comparison of Modeled Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic lexicological Benchmark Values - Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Chemical
Ohio River
. Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Surface Water
Concentration (pg/L)
3.11 x 1O6
4.30 x 10-7
5.96 x 10*
2.77 x 10s
3.52 x ID"7
1.58 x 1(T7
8.78 x 10*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
2.64 x 10*
3.83 x 1(T7
6.57 x 10*
2.11 x ID"5
3.02 x 10-7
1.32x 10-7
7.95 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Arsenic ..
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
3.50 x 10*
4.75 x 1O7
5.21 x 10*
3.05 x 105
3.96 x 10'7
1.78x 1O7
9.58 x 10*
Chronic Benchmark
fcg/L)
1.90 x 102
4.10x 103
l.lOx 10°
3.20 x 10°
1.60 x 102
5.00 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
Hazard Quotient
1.63 x 10*
.. 1.05 x ID'10
5.42 x 1O*
8.65 x 10*
2.20 x 10"'
3.16x 10*
7.31 x lO'7
1.90 x 10=
4.10X103
l.lOx 10°
3.20 x 10°
1.60 x 102
5.00 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
1.39x 10"8
9.34 x 10-"
5.97 x 10*
6.59 x 1O6
1.88 x 10'9
2.64 x 10*
6.63 x 1O7
1.90 x 102
4.10x 10*
l.lOx 10°
3.20 x 10°
1.60 x 102
5.00 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
1.84 x 10*
1.16x ID'10
4.73 x 1O*
9.54 x 1O*
2.48 x ID"9
3.56 x 10*
7.98 x 1O7
Volume VI
VD-51
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VH-21
Comparison of Modeled Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Surface Water
Concentration Oig/L)
Ohio River
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
1.61 x 10*
3.97 x ID"5
2.05 x 10*
3.43 x 10-s
8.81 x 10-"
Chronic Benchmark
C«g/L)
Hazard Quotient
7.70 x ID"1
1.50 x 102
4.00 x 102
4.36 x 102
5.10x 10°
2.09 x 10*
. 2.65 x 10-7
5.12x lO"9
7.87 x 10*
1.73 x 10*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Little Beaver Creek
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
2.02 x 10*
4.98 x 10-5
2.58 x 10*
4.32 x 10-s
1.11 x ID"7
1.03 x ia5
2.54 x 10-"
1.31 x I0r*
2.20 x 10"
5.65 x Itf7
7.70 x 10-'
1.50 x 102
4.00 x 102
4.36 x 102
5.10x10°
7.70 x 10-'
LSOxlO2
4.00 x 102
4.36 x 102
5.10x10°
2.63 x 10*
3.32 x 10-7
6.45 x 10"?
9.90 x 10*
2.17 x 10*
1.34 x 10"5
1.70 x 10*
3.29 x 10*
5.04 x 10-7
1.11 x ID"7
Volume VI
Vn-52
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
\ J
TABLE VII-22
Summed Surface Water Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources
Chemical
Ash Handling
Facility
Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal
Scenario
Summed Hazard
Quotient
Stack
Expected Metal
Scenario
Summed Hazard
Quotient
Ohio River
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
1.63 x 10*
l.OSx 10 10
5.42 x 10*
8.65 x 10*
2.20 x 10"
3.16x 10*
7.31 x Itf7
1.36x 10"
1.59x 10'
3.89 x 10*
1.20x 10^
2.87 x la2
2.35 x 10 '
2.58 x 10*
1.52x 10 7
1.59 x la'
9.31 x 10*
1.29x lO-1
2.87 x lOr1
2.35 x la1
2.58 x 10*
4.58 x 10*
4.33 x ia»
3.27 x Ifr7
4.29 x 10*
6.52 x 10 »
2.51 x la5
1.17x la5
6.21 x 10*
4.44 x ia9
5.75 x 10*
1.29x ias
8.72 x la9
2.51 x 10s
1.24x 10s
Tomlinson Run Lake
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
1.39 x 10*
9.34 x 10"
5.97 x 10*
6.59 x 10*
1.88 x 10*
2.64 x 1O*
6.63 x la7
3.70 x 10*
4.53 x 104
1.37 x 10*
2.92 x Ifr5
7.90 x Ifr3
6.27 x 10*
7.50 x la1
5.09 x 10*
4.53 x 104
7.34 x 10*
3.58 x Ifr5
7.90 x la3
6.27 x 102
7.50 x 10 '
1.25x 10*
1.24x la9
1.16x la7
l.OSx 10*
1.79 x la9
6.70 x 10*
3.41 x 10*
2.64 x lO*
1.33 x la9
6.09 x 10*
7.64 x 10*
3.67 x ia9
6.73 x 10*
4.07 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Arsenic
1.84x 10*
3.11 x 1041
4.95 x 10^
1.05 x 10"
2.89 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-53
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-22
Summed Surface Water Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources
Chemical
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ash Handling
Facility
1.16x 10 10
4.73 x 10*
9.54 x 10*
2.48 x 10'
3.56 x 10*
7.98 x I07
Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal
Scenario
3.55 x 10^
6.89 x 107
2.68 x 1»5
6.55 x 10'
5.35 x 102
5.72 x 10'
Summed Hazard
Quotient
3.55 x 10^
5.42 x 10*
3.63 x 10J
6.55 x Ifr3
5.35 x Ifr2
5.72 x Ifr1
Stack
Expected Metal
Scenario
9.69 x 10'°
5.80 x 10*
9.59 x ia7
1.49 x Ifr9
5.72 x 10*
2.60 x 10*
Summed Hazard
Quotient
1.09x 10*
4.79 x 10*
1.05x 10 5
3.97 x Ifr9
5.76 x 10*
3.40 x 10*
ic VI
VII-54
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-23
Summed Surface Water Hazard Quotients - All Organic ECOC Sources
Chemical
Fugitive Emission
Sources
Ohio River
Aciylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
2.09 x 10*
2.65 x 10-7
5.12x10*
7.87 x 1O*
1.73 x 10*
Stack High-End
Organic
Summed Hazard
Quotient
3.33 x 10*
—
—
1.52 x ID'10
—
Tomlinson Run Lake
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
2.63 x 10*
3.32 x 10-7
6.45 x 10*
9.90 x 10*
2.17x10*
Little Beaver Creek
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
1.34x lO5
1.70x 10"
3.29 x 10*
5.04 x 10-7
. 1.11 x 10-7
1.18x 10-7
—
—
5.35 x lO'10
—
5.45 x 10*
—
—
2.48 x 10-'°
—
2.12 x ID"6
—
—
7.89 x 10s
—
2.75 x 10*
—
—
9.95 x 10*
—
1.35x 10"5
—
—
5.04 x ID"7
—
Volume VI
VH-55
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VD-24
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Sediment
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
4.06 x 10-7
3.10x 10*
2.34 x 10-'
4.32 x 10-7
1.67 x 10*
2.43 x 10-5
2.07 x 10-»
1.03 x Ifr3
4.13x 10-'
2.11 x Iff1
8.37 x 10-3
1.64 x 10-'
Benchmark (mg/kg)
2.00 x 10°
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
—
6.00 x 10-'
2.60 x 10'
3.10x 10'
l.OOx 10-'
1.60 x 10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
—
Hazard Quotient
2.03 x 1(T7
5.17x 10'7
4.68 x 10-
—
2.78 x 10*
9.34 x 107
6.67 x 1O*
1.03 x 1O4
2.58 x 102
2.11 x lO'1
8.37 x 10"3
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
7.15x 10"'
1.07 x 10*
1.04 x IF6
6.38 x 10'7
3.96 x ID'9
1 .40 x ID"'
1.15 x 10-7
l.SOx lO'7
7.41 x 10*
1.64x 10-7
9.40 x 10*
2.26 x 10-5
3.80 x 10*
—
2.00 x 10°
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
—
6.00 x 10-'
2.60 x 10'
1.60x 10'
3.10x 10'
1.00 x 10-'
1.60 x 10*
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
—
5.33 x ID"9
1.74x 10-7
1.28x lO'9
—
2.34 x 10-9
4.42 x 10*
9.40 x ID"9
2.39 x lO'7
1.64x 1O*
5.87 x KT9
2.26 x 10-3
3.80 x 10*
Volume VI
VH-56
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-24
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Sediment Concentrations
With lexicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Sediment
Concentration
(rag/kg)
1.01 x 10-3
2.45 x Iff7
Benchmark (rag/kg)
—
i.oo x id2
Hazard Quotient
—
2.45 x 10-'
Volume VI
VD-57
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-25
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4' -DDE
Di(n)octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
1.47 x 10-"
6.54 x ID'13
3.24 x 10*
1.48 x 10"5
8.56 x lO*
2.70 x 10-'°
1.78 x 10-"
2.85 x 10-"
6.68 x 10*
1.65 x 10*
1.23 x 10-'°
7.14x 10-'2
5.04 x 10-"
9.12x 10*
2.77 x 10*
6.43 x 10-'°
2.70 x 10*
1.42x lO"7
l.SOx 10"9
4.86 x 10-7
3.48 x 10*
1.15x 10-"
Benchmark (mg/kg)
5.12 x 10°
2.00 x 10-s
8.50 x 10*
3.70 x 10-'
2.41 x 10°
1.60 x 10"2
5.00 x 10-3
1.90 x Iff2
4.00 x ID"5
1.71 x 10°
5.87 x 10'
4.70 x 10-2
3.00 x 10*
2.00 x 104
1.20x10-'
1.30 x 10-'
5.70 x 10-2
2.56 x 10'
8.90 x 10-'
2.00 x 10-3
1.00 x Iff6
3.90 x 10*
Hazard Quotient
2.87 x 10-':
3.27 x \Q*
. 3.81 x 107
3.99 x 10-5
3.55 x 10s
1.69 x KT8
3.56 x lO"9
l.SOx ID"9
1.67 x ID"3
9.65 x 10-'°
2.10x lO'12
1.52x lO'10
1.68 x Iff7
4.56 x 10-*
2.31 x 10-7
4.95 x ID"9
4.74 x 10-5
5.56 x lO*
2.02 x 10-9
2.43 x 10-4
3.48 x Iff2
2.94 x ID'10
Volume VI
VE-58
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-26
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Sediment
Concentration (rag/kg)
Benchmark (mg/kg)
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
i.isxiff7
8.44 x lO"7
6.69 x lO"2
1.09 x ID"7
5.89 x Iff*
5.97 x Iff*
5.05 x Iff*
3.63 x Iff5
1.14x Iff1
5.64 x Iff2
2.43 x Iff3
3.70 x Iff7
2.00 x 10°
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
—
6.00 x Iff1
2.60 x 10'
S.lOxlO1
l.OOx Iff1
1.60 x 10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00x10°
—
5.89 x 10^
1.41 x lO'7
1.34 x Iff4
—
9.82 x 10"'
2.30 x 10'7
1.63 x Iff*
3.63 x Iff*
7.11 x Iff3
5.64 x 10-=
2.43 x Iff3
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
1.61 x Iff5
3.09 x Iff*
2.84 x Iff7
1.82x Iff7
l.OOx 10-'
4.96 x ID'10
2.83 x Iff*
4.44 x Iff*
1.81 x Iff*
5.77 x Iff7
2.58 x Iff*
6.03 x Iff6
l.lOx Iff"
—
2.00 x 10°
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
—
6.00 x Iff1
2.60 x 10'
1.60x 10'
3.10x 101
1.00 x Iff1
1.60x10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
—
1.55 x Iff9
4.73 x Iff8
3.65 x 10-'°
—
8.27 x 10'10
1.09 x Iff9
2.77 x Iff9
5.84 x Iff8
5.77 x Iff*
1.62 x Iff*
6.03 x Iff6
l.lOx Iff8
Volume VI
VD-59
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-26
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Sediment
Concentration (rag/kg)
2.29 x 10*
7.17x10*
Benchmark (mg/kg)
—
1.00 x 107
Hazard Quotient
—
7.17x .10-'°
Volume VI
vn-60
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-27
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
I
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chlorofonn
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Di(n)octylphthalate
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
PentachloFophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
5.18x10-"
2.31 x lO'12
9.51 x 10*
4.18x 10-7
9.09 x 10-7
9.53 x ID'10
6.28 x 10-"
1.01 x 10-'°
1.69 x ID"7
5.09 x lO*
4.34 x ID'10
2.52 x 10-"
1.44x10-'°
2.98 x 10-7
9.38 x 10*
2.20 x 1O»
5.22 x 10-7
4.48 x lO"7
6.18 x lO"9
2.76 x 10"7
3.% x 10-'°
4.05 x 10-"
Benchmark (mg/kg)
5.12x10°
2.00 x 10"s
8.50 x 10"2
3.70 x 10-'
2.41 x 10°
1.60 x 10-2
5.00 x 10-3
1.90x 10-2
4.00 x 10-5
1.71 x 10°
5.87 x 10'
4.70 x 10"2
3.00 x 10"
2.00 x 10"
1.20 x 10-'
1.30 x 10-'
5.70 x 10;2
2.56 x 10'
8.90 x ID"1
2.00 x Ifr3
1.00 x 10*
3.90 x 10-2
Hazard Quotient
1.01 x 10-"
1.15x 107
1.12x 10-"
1.13x 10*
3.77 x 10-7
5.96 x 10*
1.26 x 1O*
5.30 x lO'9
4.23 x ID'3
2.98 x 10-'
7.40 x ID'12
5.36 x 10-'°
4.80 x 10-7
1.49x lO'3
7.82 x 1C'7
1.69x 10*
9.16x10*
1.75 x lO*
6.94 x 10-'
1.38x 10"
3.96 x 10"
1.04 x 10"9
Volume VI
VH-61
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE \H-28
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Sediment
Concentration (rag/kg)
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
.Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
8.98 x 10*
7.08 x 1(T7
5.25 x 10"2
9.76 x 10*
2.95 x'10-9
5.44 x 10*
4.62 x 10*
1.68 x 10-5
9.43 x 10*
4.82 x lO"2
1.85x 10-3
3.59 x ID"2
Benchmark (mg/kg)
2.00 * 10°
6.00x10°
5.00 x 102
—
6.00 x 10-'
2.60 x 10'
3.10x 10'
l.OOx 10-'
1.60 x 10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
—
Hazard Quotient
•
4.49 x 10*
.1.18x lO'7
1.05 x 1O4
—
4.92 x ID'9
2.09 x 10-7
1.49x lO*
1.68 x 10"
5.89 x lO'3
4.82 x 10'2
1.85 x 10"3
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
1.56x 10-s
2.36 x 10*
2.38 x la7
1.43x 10-7
8.95 x ID'10
2.49 x 10-'°
2.58 x 10*
3.28 x 10*
1.66x 10*
2.68 x Ifr7
2.14x 10*
5.15 x 1O*
8.42 x lO*
—
2.00 x 10°
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
—
6.00 x 10-'
2.60 x 10'
1.60x 10'
3.10x 10'
1.00 x 10-'
1.60 x 10'
l.OOx 10°
1.00 x 10°
—
1.18x 10-»
3.97 x 10*
2.86 x ID'10
—
4.15x ID'10
9.90 x ID'10
2.05 x 10*
5.35 x 10*
2.68 x 10-*
1.34 x lO*
5.15x 1CT6
8.42 x 10-'
Volume VI
VH-62
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-28
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
.Zinc
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
2.22 x 10*
5.40 x 1O*
Benchmark (mg/kg)
—
i.oq x lo2
Hazard Quotient
—
5.40 x ID'10
Volume VI
VH-63
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VD-29
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicologies! Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Di(n)octylphthalate
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Vinyl chloride
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
2.40 x 10-"
1.07 x ID'12
5.04 x 10*
6.63 x 10-7
8.59 x 10-7
4.42 x 10-'°
2.91 x ID'11
4.67 x 10-"
9.95 x 10*
2.59 x lO*
2.01 x 10-'°
1.17x 10-"
7.76 x 10'"
1.46x 10-7
4.48 x 10*
1.04 x 10-9
3.94 xlO"7
2.26 x 10"7
2.92 xlCT9
3.43 x 10-7
9.68 x lO'10
1.88x 10-"
Benchmark (mg/kg)
5.12x10°
2.00 x 10s
8.50 x lO-2
3.70 x 10-'
2.41 x 10°
1.60 x 10-2
5.00 x 10-3
1.90 x 10-2
4.00 x 10-5
1.71 x 10°
5.87 x 10'
4.70 x 10-2
3.00 x 10-1
2.00 x 10"
1.20x 10-'
1.30 x 10-'
5.70 x 10-2
2.56 x 10'
8.90 x 10'1
2.00 x 10-'
1.00 x 10*
3.90 x 10-2
Hazard Quotient
4.69 x 10-':
5.35 x 10*
5.93 x lO'7
1.79x 1O*
3.56 x ID"7
2.76 x lO"8
5.82 x 10"'
2.46 x 10-'
2.49 x 10-'
1.51 x ID'9
3.43 x lO'12
2.48 x 10-'°
2.59 x ID"7
7.31 x 1O4
3.73 x ID'7
8.03 x 10-'
6.92 x 10*
8.83 x ID"9
3.28 x 10"9
1.72x lO"
9.68 x lO"
4.81 x ID'10
Volume VI
VD-64
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-30
Comparison of Modeled Sediment Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Chemical
Sediment
Concentration (rag/kg)
Ohio River
Arsenic ••
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
3.73 x lO"7
1.55 x 10*
2.32 x 10*
1.49 x 1O*
3.17x 1O8
2.85 x 10*
2.37 x 10*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
3.16xlO-7
1.38 x 10*
2.56 x 10*
1.14x 10"s
2.72 x 10*
2.37 x 10*
2.15 x lO*
Little Beaver Creek
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
4.20 x Iff7
1.71 x 10*
2.03 x 1O*
1.65x 1O5
3.56 x 10*
3.20 x 10*
2.59 x 10*
Benchmark
(mg/kg)
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
6.00 x 10-'
3.10x10'
1.60x10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
6.00 x ID"1
3.10 x 10'
1.60x 10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
Hazard Quotient
6.21 x 10*
3.10x10-"
3.87 x 1O*
4.82 x 10"7
1.98 x lO*
2.85 x 10-*
2.37 x 10"'
5.27 x 10*
2.76 x 10-"
4.27 x 10*
3.68 x 10-7
1.70 x 10-9
2.37 x 10*
2.15x 10*
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
6.00 x 10-'
3.10x 10'
1.60x 10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00x10°
6.99 x 10*
3.42 x 10'"
3.38 x 10*
5.32 x 10-7
2.23 x 1O*
3.20 x 10*
2.59 x 10*
Volume VI
VD-65
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-31
Comparison of Modeled Sediment Concentrations
With Chronic lexicological Benchmark Values - Organic Vapor Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Ohio River
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Tomlinson Run Lake
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Little Beaver Creek
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
4.10x ID'11
5.20 x 10-7
7.56 x 10-12
3.70 x 10*
2.64 x 10-13
5.16x 10-"
6.52 x 10-7
9.52 x lO'12
4.66 x 1(T»
3.32 x ID'13
2.63 x ID'10
3.33 x 10*
4.85 x 10-"
2.38 x 10*
1.69x lO'12
Benchmark
(mg/kg)
2.00 x 10s
1.97 x 10°
1.40 x 1O3
4.70 x 10-2
2.00 x 1OS
Hazard Quotient
2.05 x 10*
2.64 x 10'7
5.40 x 1O'
7.88 x 10*
1.32x10-*
2.00 x 10s
1.97 x 10°
1.40 x 103
4.70 x 10-2
2.00 x 10s
2.58 x 10*
3.31 x lO'7
6.80 x ID''
9.92 x 1O"
1.66 x 10*
2.00 x 1O5
1.97 x 10°
1.40x 1O3
4.70 x 1O2
2.00 x 1O5
1.32x lO'5
1.69x lO*
3.46 x 1O*
5.05 x 1O7
8.47 x 1O8
Volume VI
VD-66
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
)
TABLE Vll-32
Summed Sediment Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources
Chemical
Ohio River
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ash Handling
Facility
Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal
Scenario
Summed Hazard
Quotient
6.21 x 10* ..
3.10 x 10"
3:87 x 10*
4.82 x IO7
1.98x 10'
2.85 x 10*
2.37 x IO9
Tomlinson Run Lake
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Little Beaver Creek
Arsenic
5.27 x 10*
2.76 x 10"
4.27 x 10*
3.68 x Ifr7
1.70x 10'
2.37 x 10"
2.15x 10»
6.99 x 10*
5.17x la7
4.68 x 10*
2.78 x 10*
6.67 x 10^
2.58 x 10 2
2.11 x 10'
8.37 x 10°
1.41 x Ifr7
1.34 x W
9.82 x la9
1.63 x 10*
7.11 x IO1
5.64 x la2
2.43 x 10'
1.18x la7
5.79 x la7
4.68 x 10^
6.65 x 10*
7.15 x \0*
2.58 x IO1
2. 1 1 x la1
8.37 x Ifr3
Stack
Expected Metal
Scenario
Summed Hazard
Quotient
1.74x la7
1.28x ia»
2.34 x IO9
2.39 x la7
5.87 x la9
2.26 x Ifr5
3.80 x 10*
1.94x la7
1.34x 104
5.25 x 10*
2.00 x 10*
7.11 x Ifr3
5.64 x la2
2.43 x IO3
4.73 x 10*
3.65 x 10 •'«•
8.27 x 10 10
5.84 x 10*
1.62x 10 9
6.03 x 10^
l.lOx 10*
2.36 x la7
1.31 x ia9
4.10x 10*
7.21 x la7
7.85 x la9
2.26 x la5
4.04 x 10*
i.oox ia7
3.93 x 10 10
4.35 x 10*
4.26 x la7
3.32 x IO9
6.05 x \0*
1.32x 10*
1.88xl07
3.97 x 10*
l.lOx la7
Volume VI
VII-67
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vll-32
Summed Sediment Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources
Chemical
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ash Handling
Facility
3.42 x 10"
3.38 x 10*
5.32 x I07
2.23 x 10'
3.20 x 10"
2.59 x 10'
Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal
Scenario
1.05 x 10^
4.92 x 10*
1.49x 10^
5.89 x 10'
4.82 x 10 3
l.85x 10'
Summed Hazard
Quotient
l.OSx 10^
3.87 x 10*
2.02 x 10*
5.89 x Ifr3
4.82 x Ifr2
1.85x I0r3
Stack
Expected Metal
Scenario
2.86 x 10 10
4. 15 x 10-"
5.35 x 1O8
1.34x 10 »
5.15x10*
1 8.42 x ia»
Summed Hazard
Quotient
3.20 x 10 10
3.42 x 10*
5.86 x 107
3.57 x 10'
5.18x 10^
l.lOx 10"
VI
VH-68
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-33
Summed Sediment Hazard Quotients - All Organic ECOC Sources
Chemical
Ohio River
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Tomlinson Run Lake
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Fugitive Emission
Sources
2.05 x 10*
2.64 x 10"7
5.40 x 10*
7.88 x 10*
1.32 x 10*
2.58 x 10*
3.31 x 10-7
6.80 x 10*
9.92 x 10*
1.66 x 10*
Stack High-End
Organic
3.27 x 10*
—
—
1.52 x 10-'°
—
Summed Hazard
Quotient
2.08 x 10^
—
'
7.89 x 10*
—
l.lSxlO"7
—
—
5.36 x ID'10
—
Little Beaver Creek
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
1.32x 10"5
1.69x 10*
3.46 x 10*
5.05 x 10-7
8.47 x 10*
5.35 x 10*
—
—
2.48 x 10-'°
—
2.70 x 10*
—
—
9.97 x 10*
—
1.33 x 10'5
—
—
5.05 x lO"7
—
Volume VI
VH-69
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-34
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Meadow Vole
Chemical
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
3.40 x 10 '
I.SOx 10'
l.59x 10'
l.lOx la1
2.29 x 10"
3.66 x 10°
1.07 x 10°
4.90 x Ifr2
1.52x 10°
3.30 x la2
9.60 x Ifr'
4.30 x la3
2.61 x 10s
5.49 x 10s
9.84 x 10°
5.20 x 10*
1.95x IO*
2.41 x HT1
2.20 x Ifr3
8.09 x Ifr3
8.30 x 10°
4.37 x 10°
6.83 x Ifr1
1.34 x 10°
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
4.30 x 10 '
3.40 x la'
I.SOx 10'
5.20 x 10^
6.85 x 1(T7
1.85x 10 5
Hazard
Quotient
7.68 x 10s
3.05 x lO^1
6.19x 10'
4.73 x la5
8.52 x 10*
6.59 x IO5
2.06 x la3
1.65 x la1
5.46 x 10*
1.32 x 10*
7.12x la1
3.12x 10*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
6.57 x 10*
1.37 x lO"7
2.48 x la2
1.28 x 10*
4.90 x 10*
5.93 x IO7
5.41 x 10*
2.59 x 104
2.07 x 1(V2
1.08x 10 2
1.71 x la3
3.29 x 10"3
1.93 x 10 7
7.60 x IO7
1.56 x KT1
1.17 x la7
2.14x 10*
1.62 x la7
5.06 x 10*
5.28 x 103
1.36 x la2
3.28 x W
1.78x la3
7.66 x la1
2.29 x ia7
4.80 x 1(T7
8.63 x la2
4.52 x 10*
1.72xlfr7
2.09 x 10*
1.91 x la5
4.89 x IO4
7.25 x W2
3.81 x 1(T2
5.99 x la3
1.16x la2
6.74 x IO7
2.66 x 10*
5.43 x 10 '
4.11 x la7
7.49 x 10*
5.71 x la7
1.78 x Itt5
9.98 x la3
4.77 x la2
1.15 x 10*
6.24 x la3
2.70 x 10*
1.21 x 10 3
2.02 x 10*
1.03 x 1O4
1.28x 10*
1.72x la'
4.60 x 10*
2.97 x 10*
5.07 x 10»
2.56 x 107
4.50 x 10*
6.02 x 10*
1.61 x la7
l.OSx 10s
1.77x 10*
8.% x la7
THC VI
VH-70
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-34
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Meadow Vole
Chemical
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
1.59x 10'
I.lOx 10'
2.29 x 10°
3.66 x 10°
3.70 x la1
1.07x 10°
4.90 x Itf2
1.52x 10°
3.30 x ia2
9.60 x IO1
4.30 x Ifr3
3.80 x 10°
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.68 x \0*
4.77 x 10*
1.64 x 10*
1.14x 10*
1.55 x Ifr5
7.88 x Ifr5
1.29x IO4
1.89 x 10*
4.67 x IO4
3.11 x 10*
8.30 x la5
5.87 x Ifr5
Hazard
Quotient
1.69x 1O*
4.34 x IO7
7.18x Ifr7
3.12x la7
4.19x Ifr5
7.36 x la5
2.63 x 10"J
1.24x 10*
1.42x 10*
3.24 x 10*
1.93 x lfrz
1.54x la5
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
6.75 x 10"
1.18x 10 10
4.13x 10'
2.81 x 10'
3.89 x 10*
1.94x Ifr7
4.12x 10*
4.71 x 10*
1.16x 10*
7.78 x 10'
2.04 x IO7
1.46x ia7
Hazard
Quotient
4.25 x la7
1.07 x ia'
i.sox ia'
7.67 x 10'°
l.OSx Ifr7
i.8i x ifr7
8.40 x IOS
3.iox ifr9
3.50 x 10s
s.iox ia»
4.74 x \Of
3.83 x \0*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.35 x Ifr7
4.14 x lO'10
1.44x 10*
9.90 x ia»
1.36x IO1
6.83 x Ifr7
7.78 x 10*
1.65 x 10*
4.07 x 10*
..2.72x 10*
7.19x la7
5.13x ia7
Hazard
Quotient
1.48x 10*
3.76 x ia'
6.31 x 10'
2.70 x ia»
3.68 x la7
6.39 x la7
1.59x 10^
l.OSx 10*
1.23x IO4
2.84 x 10*
1.67x IO4
1.35x ia7
Volume VI
VII-71
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-35
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values For Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Meadow Vole
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)ph(halate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pcntachlorophcnol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/ftirans (TEQ)
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
1.01 x 102
1.90x 10 J
1.50x 10'
I.OOx 10'
6.27 x 10°
2.44 x 10°
3.00 x la1
1.52x 10°
2.30 x 10°
1.68x 10°
1.80x10°
4.90 x la1
1.52x 10*
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
7.67 x la7
1.51 x 10*
1.07 x lO^1
6.18x 10*
2.81 x 10*
2.12 x 10*
1.38x la5
2.28 x 10*
1.01 x iaj
2.45 x 10s
2.60 x 10*
5.43 x Ifr7
4.04 x ia»
Hazard
Quotient
7.59 x IQr9
7.96 x 105
7.12x 10^
6.18x Ifr7
4.48 x Iff7
8.67 x 107
4.60 x IOS
1.50x 10*
4.41 x IO4
1.46x la5
I.45x 10*
1.11 x 10*
2.66 x la3
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.44 x 10*
5.11 x 107
1.93x 10-1
1.97 x la7
8.94 x 10*
6.75 x 10*
4.40 x la7
7.25 x 10*
2.32 x 10*
7.80 x 107
8.29 x 10*
1.72 x 10*
I.OOx 10 m
Hazard
Quotient
2.42 x 10 10
2.69 x 105
1.29x 10 3
1.97 x 10*
1.43 x 10*
2.77 x 10*
1.47 x 10*
4.77 x 10*
1.01 x 10*
4.64 x Iff7
4.61 x 10*
3.51 x 10*
6.59 x 10'
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
4;63 x 10*
9.73 x 10"7
3.66 x 10-1
3.74 x lO"7
1.70x 107
1.28xia7
8.34 x Iff7
1.38x Iff7
8.53 x 10*
1.48 x 10*
1.57x 10"7
3.27 x 10*
2.06 x 10 10
Hazard
Quotient
4.59 x 10 "»
5.12x 10s
2.44 x 10'
3.74 x 10*
2.71 x 10*
5.24 x 10*
2.78 x 10*
9.05 x 10*
3.71 x 10*
8.80 x Iff7
8.74 x 10*
6.66 x 10*
1.36x 10-"
VI
VH-72
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-36
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Short-tailed Shrew
Chemical
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
4.IOx 10'
2.20 x 10 '
l.93x la1
1.30x Ifr1
2.78 x 10°
4.44 x 10°
1.30 x 10°
5.90 x 10*
1.85 x 10°
4.00 x 1(T2
I.l7x 10°
5.20 x 10-3
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
5.20 x 10 '
4.10x 10'
2.20 x 10 '
2.92 x 10^
8.26 x 10^
8.03 x 10'
8.52 x 1(T5
6.91 x \Q*
2.96 x 103
3.49 x 10*
3.66 x 10*
1.09 x 102
1.20x 102
6.05 x 10°
2.21 x 10"
7.13x 10^
3.75 x 10 3
4.16 x 10*
6.55 x 10*
2.49 x W
6.66 x W
2.69 x 10*
6.21 x Ifr1
5.88 x 10'
3.00 x 103
5.17 x 10*
4.25 x 10*
7.21 x 107
2.03 x 10*
1.98x Ifr1
2.09 x 10"7
1.71 x 10*
7.25 x 10*
8.56 x 10s
•1.17 x 10°
2.68 x 10 '
2.95 x Ifr1
1.49x 10*
5.41 x Ifr2
1.76 x 10*
9.25 x 10*
1.03 x 10*
1.61 x 10*
6.14xlfr7
1.63 x 10*
6.59 x Ifr5
1.98x 10*
1.45 x 10'
7.38 x 10*
1.28x 10*
1.04xlO>
2.55 x 10*
7.19x 10*
7.00 x la1
7.39 x 10-7
6.03 x 10*
2.56 x 1(T5
3.03 x 10^
2.21 x Ifr'
9.48 x 10°
I.04x 10°
5.28 x 1(T2
1.91 x Ifr1
6.21 x 10*
3.27 x ias
3.63 x 10'
5.68 x 10*
2.17x 10*
5.77 x 10*
2.33 x 10*
3.75 x la2
5.12x la1
2.61 x 10'
4.51 x la2
3.68 x 10*
5.67 x 103
7.67 x 10*
2.78 x 10*
1.09x 10*
1.87x la5
1.26x 10'
1.39 x 10 5
1.89x 10*
6.84 x 107
2.67 x 105
4.62 x 10"
3.11 x 10*
4.91 x 10'
6.69 x 10*
2.42 x 10*
9.44 x 10s
1.63x la7
l.lOx la5
Volume VI
VII-73
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-36
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Short-tailed Shrew
Chemical
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
1.93 x 10°
1.30x 10'
2.78 x 10°
4.44 x 10°
4.40 x la1
1.30x 10"
5.90 x Ifr2
1.85 x 10°
4.00 x Ifr2
1.17x10°
5.20 x Iff3
4.60 x 10P
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.19x KT1
7.81 x Iff7
5.82 x 10s
1.40x 10s
1.18x KT*
1.25x 10 3
5.83 x lO^1
2.47 x Ifr5
1.28x ia2
2.75 x Iff5
1.37 x 10 3
7.70 x 1O4
Hazard
Quotient
1.14x 103
6.01 x 10*
2.09 x 10s
3.15x 10*
2.68 x 104
9.63 x IV*
9.88 x 10-J
1.34x 10-5
3.21 x 10-'
2.35 x Iff5
2.63 x MT1
1.67 x 10^
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
5.41 x Ifr7
1.92x 10'
1.44x 107
3.43 x 10*
2.91 x Ifr7
3.07 x 10"*
1.86x 10s
6.10x 10*
3.15x 10*
6.80 x 10*
3.35 x 10*
1.90x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
2.80 x 10*
1.47 x 10*
5.17x 10*
7.72 x ia»
6.62 x la7
2.36 x 10*
3.15x I04
3.30 x 10*
7.89 x 10-«
5.81 x 10*
6.43 x 104
4.13x la7
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.91 x 10*
6.77 x 109
5.08 x la7
1.21 x W7
1.03 x 10*
l.OSx Ws
3.52 x Ifr5
2.15x la7
1.12x 1O4
2.40 x 10"
1.18x 10'
6.71 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
9.90 x 10*
5.21 x 10*
1.83 x 10 7
2.73 x 10*
2.34 x 10*
8.34 x 10*
5.97 x 104
1.16x la7
2.79 x la3
2.05 x la7
2.27 x 10'
1.46 x 10*
V
VI
VII-74
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vtt-37
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Short-tailed Shrew
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/ftirans (TEQ)
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
1.22x 102
2.30 x 102
l.90x 10'
l.OOx 10'
7.61 x 10"
2.96 x 10°
3.70 x HT1
1.85x 10°
2.80 x 10°
2.04 x 10°
2.20 x 10"
5.90 x 1O1
1.85 x 10*
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.28 x 1O5
2.24 x 105
l.SOx 10*
7.24 x 10*
6.06 x 105
6.49 x 10s
7.44 x 10^
1.33 x 1O4
6.03 x 102
1.33 x 10 3
1.56 x 103
1.92x 10'
1.24x 10 7
Hazard
Quotient
1.87 x 1O7
9.72 x 104
9.46 x 104
7.24 x 1O7
7.% x 10*
2.19x 1O5
2.01 x 1O3
7.21 x 105
2.15x 1O2
6.50 x 10-*
7.11 x 10*
3.25 x 10s
6.73 x 1O2
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
7.26 x 1O7
2.78 x 107
3.95 x 10 5
2.31 x 107
1.92x 10*
2.07 x 10*
2.37 x 1O5
4.25 x 10*
1.38 x 104
4.22 x 10s
4.98 x 1(T7
6.08 x Ifr7
5.39 x 10 10
Hazard
Quotient
5.95 x 109
1.21 x 10s
2.08 x 1O4
2.31 x 10*
2.53 x 107
6.98 x 1O7
6.41 x 1O5
2.30 x 10*
4.94 x 10s
2.07 x 105
2.26 x 107
1.03 x 10*
2.91 x 10^
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.38x 10*
6.18x 107
7.55 x 105
4.37 x 1O7
3.66 x 10*
3.92 x 10*
4.50 x 1O5
8.06 x 10*
5.07 x 101
8.01 x 1O5
9.45 x 1O7
1.15x 10*
1.52x 10»
Hazard
Quotient
1.13x 1O*
2.69 x 1O5
3.97 x 104
4.37 x 10*
4.80 x 107
1.32x 10*
1.21 x 104
4.36 x 10*
1.81 x IV4
3.93 x I05
4.29 x 107
1.95x 10*
8.24 x 1O4
Volume VI
VII-75
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE V1I-38
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for digestion - Stack Emissions - Red Fox
Chemical
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead'
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
l.OOx 10'
6.00 x 102
4.80 x 10 2
3.00 x 10*
9.20 x 10'
l.lOx 10°
3.90 x 10'
2.40 x 1O2
4.60 x 1O1
1.00 x 1O2
2.90 x 10'
1.30x I0r3
1.93x 10 5
5.37 x 10s
6.21 x 10°
5.43 x 10*
3.39 x IO5
2.11 x KT*
2.25 x IO3
1.02 x IO2
7.37 x 10"
6.53 x 10°
4.11 x 10'
1.41 x 10°
Hazard
Quotient
1.93 x IO4
8.94 x 10*
1.29 x 10*
1.81 x 104
3.69 x 1OJ
1.92 x IO4
5.76 x 10J
4.24 x 10'
1.60 x 10'
6.53 x 10*
1.42 x 10*
1.08 x 10s
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
4.76 x 10*
1.32x IO7
1.55 x 10*
1.32x 10*
8.20 x 10*
5.18x IO7
5.48 x 10*
3.22 x IO4
1.82 x IO2
1.58 x IO2
1.01 x 10'
3.43 x JO"'
Hazard
Quotient
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
,
4.76 x 10 7
2.20 x 10*
3.22 x 10'
4.42 x IO7
8.92 x 10*
4.71 x ia7
1.40x 1OS
1.34x ia2
3.95 x 1(T2
1.58 x 10*
3.50 x ia3
2.64 x 10*
1.69x ia7
4.68 x ia7
5.43 x 1(T2
4.71 x 10*
. 2.96 x 107
1.83 x 10*
1.95 x 1O5
6.15x 1O4
6.43 x 1O2
5.68 x 10*
3.59 x 10'
1.22x 102
Hazard
Quotient
1.69x 10*
7.79 x 10*
1.13 x 10*
1.57 x 10*
3.22 x 107
1.66 x 10*
4.99 x 10s
2.56 x 102
1.40 x 1O1
5.68 x 10*
1.24x 102~
9.38 x 10*
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
7.30 x 10"
i.oo x 10'
6.00 x io2
4.28 x 10^
5.06 x IO7
1.81 x IO5
5.86 x 10*
5.06 x 10*
3.01 x 10^
l.OSx 10*
1.25x10'
4.43 x 1041
l.44x 10^
1.25 x 10*
7.39 x I07
3.70 x 10*
4.42 x 10'
l.57x 107
5.07 x 10*
4.42 x 10*
2.62 x 10*
VI
VII-76
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-38
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red Fox
Chemical
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
4.80 x Ifr2
3.00 x 10 2
9.20 x 10 '
l.lOx 10°
8.90 x 10°
3.90 x 10-'
2.40 x 10*
4.60 x Ifr1
l.OOx 102
2.90 x 10 '
1.30x 1OJ
3.10x 10'
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.69x la5
4.98 x 10*
2.86 x 10*
l.OOx 10*
8.40 x 10*
8.05 x 10s
1.62 x 10*
1.68x 10*
6.98 x 10*
1.87 x 10*
8.71 x 105
4.26 x 10s
Hazard
Quotient
3.53 x 10*
1.66x 10*
3.10x 10*
9.09 x 1O7
9.43 x 107
2.06 x 10*
6.74 x 103
3.64 x 10*
6.98 x 1O2
6.44 x 10*
6.70 x 102
1.37 x 10*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
4.22 x 10*
1.21 x 10 10
6.91 x 10'
2.45 x 10*
2.08 x 10*
1.96x 107
5.12x 10*.
4.13x 1O9
1.69x 10*
4.61 x 109
2.12x 107
1.03 x 107
Hazard
Quotient
8.78 x 1O7
4.05 x 10'
7.51 x 10*
2.23 x 10*
2.34 x 109
5.03 x 10-7
2.13 x 10-*
8.98 x Ifr9
1.69* 10*
1.59x 10*
1.63 x 10*
3.34 x Ifr9
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.48x Ifr7
4.32 x 10 10
2.49 x 10*
8.67 x Ifr9
7.34 x 10*
6.98 x la7
9.78 x 10*
1.46 x 10*
6.07 x 10*
1.63 x 10*
7.54 x la7
3.71 x Ifr7
Hazard
Quotient
3.08 x 10*
1.44x 10*
2.71 x 10*
7.88 x 10*
8.25 x 1O9
1.79 x 10*
4.08 x 10-4
3.18 x 10*
6.07 x 10*
5.63 x 10*
5.80 x 10*
1.20x 10*
Volume VI
VII-77
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-39
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicolbgical Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red Fox
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthala(e
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
3.00 x 10'
6.00 x 10'
5.00 x I02
I.OOx 10'
1.22x 10°
2.20 x 102
9.00 x 10 2
4.60 x la1
2.40 x la1
s.iox ia'
6.00 x 10"'
i.iox 10°
4.60 x Ifr7
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.21 x 10*
1.37x 10*
1.71 x 10 5
8.49 x 107
3.08 x 10*
3.44 x 10*
3.56 x 10 5
6.31 x 10*
2.85 x Ifr3
6.34 x la5
9.66 x 10"
9.84 x Ifr7
8.99 x ia»
Hazard
Quotient
4.04 x 10*
2.28 x 10^
3.41 x 10-*
8.49 x 10*
2.52 x 10*
1.56x 1O*
3.95 x 10^
1.37 x ia5
1.19x Ifr2
1.24x 10^
1.61 x 10*
8.95 x 104
1.96 x IQr2
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
3.79 x 10*
5.64 x 10*
1.76x 10s
2.69 x 10*
9.58 x 10*
1.08x Ifr7
1.11 x 10*
1.96 x Ifr7
6.37 x 10*
1.97 x 10*
3.03 x 10*
3.07 x 10*
4.73 x 10-"
Hazard
Quotient
1.29x lfr»
9.40 x 10*
3.53 x W*
2.69 x la9
7.85 x 10*
4.89 x 10*
1.23 x 10 J
4.27 x Ifr7
2.65 x la5
3.87 x 10*
5.05 x 10*
2.79 x 10s
l.03x 10^
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
7.32 x 10*
1.12x 1(T7
3.35 x 10J
5.13x 10*
1.86x Ifr7
2.08 x 1(T7
2.15x 10*
3.81 x 10-7
2.39 x Ifr5
3.83 x 10*
5.84 x 10*
5.91 x 10*
1.27 x 10 10
Hazard
Quotient
2.44 x W
1.87 x 10 5
6.70 x 10^
5.13 x ia»
1.52x 10 7
9.44 x 10*
2.39 x iaj
8.29 x la7
9.98 x la5
7.51 x 10*
9.73 x 10*
5.37 x lfrj
2.76 x 10^
VI
VH-78
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-40
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With lexicological Benchmark Values For Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Mink
Chemical
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BVV/day)
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BVV/day)
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
l.SOx 10'
8.00 x 102
7.00 x I02
5.00 x Ifr2
1.33 x 10°
1.60x 10°
5.70 x la1
l.SOx Ifr1
6.70 x 10 '
1.40 x Ifr2
4.20 x Ifr1
1.90 x 10°
1.57 x 10 5
4.63 x 10s
6.62 x 10°
4.54 x 10*
l.lOx 10s
2.17x 104
1.92x Ifr3
1.22x Ifr2
6.86 x 10°
3.45 x 10°
3.26 x 10 '
1.18x 10"
1.04x 10*
5.79 x 10^
9.45 x 10'
9.07 x 10-5
8.26 x 10*
1.36x 1O4
3.37 x Ifr3
8.11 x Ifr2
1.02 x 10'
2.47 x 10*
7.77 x 10 '
6.21 x 10*
3.99 x 10*
1.75x tfr7
l.SOx 10"2
1.22x 10*
6.86 x 107
5.70 x 107
7.65 x 10*
3.03 x 10*
3.22 x Ifr2
1.33 x 10 2
8.21 x 10*
3.86 x Ifr3
2.66 x 107
2.19x 10"*
2.57 x 10 '
2.45 x 107
5.16x Ifr7
3.57 x 107
1.34 x Ifr5
2.02 x la1
4.80 x 102
9.48 x 10 '
1.96 x 10 3
2.03 x 10*
1.37x 10-7
4.53 x 107
5.89 x ia2
4:03 x 10*
4.12x la7
1.92 x 10*
1.93xia5
1.42x la2
7.20 x la2
3.40 x la2
2.86 x la3
1.11 x Itt2
Hazard
Quotient
9.16x 10 7
5.67 x 10*
8.42 x 10 '
8.06 x Iff7
3.10x 10 7
1.20x 10*
3.38 x la5
9.49 x la2
1.07x 10'
2.43 x 10*
6.80 x la3
5.86 x 10*
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
1.07x 102
l.SOx Ifr1
8.00 x 10 2
4.75 x 10*
4. 1 1 x 107
1.56x 10s
4.44 x 10-"
2.74 x 10*
1.95x \O*
1.29x 10*
l.OSx 10 •»
5.90 x 10»
1.21 x 10"
6.97 x 109
7.38 x I07
4.23 x 10*
3.61 x 10'
l.53x 107
3.95 x 10"
2.41 x la"
1.91 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-79
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-40
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Mink
Chemical
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
7.00 x 102
5.00 x 102
1.33 x 10°
1.60x 10°
1.29x 10'
5.70 x 10'
l.SOx 10'
6.70 x 1O1
1.40x 1O2
4.20 x 10 '
1.90x 10'
2.08 x 10'
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
l.SOx 10s
4.16 x 10*
9.25 x 107
1.03 x 10*
7.51 x 10*
6.88 x 1O5
1.94 x 10*
1.56x 10*
3.69 x 1O<
1.48x 10*
7.30 x 105
1.76x Ws
Hazard
Quotient
2.58 x 10*
8.32 x 107
6.95 x 107
6.43 x 107
5.82 x 1O7
1.21 x 10*
1.29x 10*
2.33 x 10*
2.63 x 102
3.53 x 10*
3.84 x 102
8.47 x 1O7
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
4.90 x 10*
1.12x 10 10
5.78 x 10*
2.70 x 10'
1.39x 107
2.74 x 10 7
4.82 x 10^
7.31 x 1O»
1.42 x 10*
3.73 x 10'
2.38 x 107
2.98 x 1O7
Hazard
Quotient
7.00 x 107
2.24 x 10'
4.34 x 10*
1.69x 1O»
l.OSx 10*
4.81 x 1O7
3.22 x 10°
1.09 x 10*
1.01 x IO4
8.89 x IO'
1.25 x 10^
1.43x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.61 x 1O7
3.70 x 10 10
3.47 x 10*
9.07 x 1O»
1.52 x 1O7
6.90 x 1O7
2.27 x lO*
1.64 x 10*
3.63 x 10*
1.30 x 10*
6.88 x 107
3.39 x Ifr7
Hazard
Quotient
2.30 x 10*
7.39 x 10*
2.61 x 10*
5.67 x 1O'
1.18x 10*
1.21 x 10*
1.51 x 10'
2.44 x 10*
2.60 x 10^
3.09 x 10*
3.62 x 1O4
1.63 x 10*
VI
VIf-80
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-41
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Mink
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/ftirans (TEQ)
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
4.40 x 10'
8.00 x 103
7.00 x 102
l.OOx 10'
1.78x 10°
3.20 x 102
1.30x 10'
6.70 x la1
3.60 x Ifr1
7.40 x 1(T'
8.00 x 10-'
1.60x Ifr3
6.70 x 107
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
6.88 x 107
1.87x 10*
4.78 x 10*
2.34 x 10-7
2.37 x 10s
2.43 x 10s
1.01 x la5
1.35x 10*
5.95 x 104
2.07 x 103
3.37 x Iff7
1.64x la5
2.51 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
1.56x 10*
2.34 x 10*
6.83 x 105
2.34 x 10*
1.33x Ifr5
7.59 x 10^
7.77 x 10-5
2.02 x 10*
1.65x la3
2.80 x 10s
4.21 x 107
1.03x la2
3.75 x 102
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
3.48 x 107
4.50 x 10*
4.54 x 10*
7.49 x 10'
5.79 x 105
7.42 x 105
5.33 x 10-*
5.03 x 10*
1.46x 10*
1.79 x 10 5
5.54 x 10*
9.11 x Ifr6
4.49 x 10 10
Hazard
Quotient
7.92 x 10'
5.63 x 10*
6.48 x 105
7.49 x 10'°
3.25 x lO"5
2.32 x W3
4.10x 10s
7.50 x 10*
4.05 x 10*
2.42 x 10s
6.93 x 10*
5.69 x la3
6.69 x \O*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.10x Ifr7
8.13x 10*
8.61 x 10*
1.42x 10*
3.41 x 10 5
3.64 x 105
2.94 x 10*
8.54 x 10*
5.10x 10*
9.70 x 10*
4.09 x 10*
1.13x la5
9.89 x 10 10
Hazard
Quotient
4.76 x Ifr*
1.02x 10s
1.23x 10^
1.42x 10 »
1.91 x 10 5
1.14x 10 3
2.26 x 10s
1.27 x Ifr7
1.42x la5
1.31 x la5
5.12x 10*
7.09 x la3
1.48x la3
Vr.lntn» VI
VIF-81
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-42
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - American Robin
Chemical
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.19x 102
5.90 x 10 '
—
—
8.70 x 10 '
1.90x 10'
1.38x 10°
2.30 x Itf2
7.68 x 10 '
4.90 x 10 '
—
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
1.31 x 10'
1.19x 102
5.90 x 10 '
7.66 x 10^
2. 16 x 103
2.00 x 102
2.24 x 104
1.94x 10 3
7.51 x 103
9.16x Ifr2
9.44 x Ifr2
2.82 x 102
3.29 x 102
1.58x 10'
5.81 x 10'
1.42x 10 2
2.01 x 105
7.27 x 104
6.43 x 10*
3.66 x 103
—
—
2.23 x 103
3.95 x 102
6.64 x Itf2
4.11 x 10*
3.67 x 10*
6.71 x HP
—
—
1.89x 10*
5.32 x 10*
4.94 x la1
5.49 x la7
4.78 x 10*
1.84x 10s
2.25 x 104
3.01 x 10-3
6.94 x 10 '
8.08 x 10 '
3.90 x 10 2
1.42x 10 -'
1.59x 10*
9.02 x 10*
—
—
5.49 x 10*
9.69 x 10s
1.63 x 10^
1.31 x la1
9.03 x 10 '
1.65 x 10*
—
—
6.67 x 10*
1.88x Ifr3
1.75 x 10°
1.94x 10*
1.69xia3
6.51 x 1(T3
7.94 x 10-«
5.71 x Ifr3
2.45 x 10°
2.86 x 10°
1.38x la1
. 5.03 x la1
5.61 x 10*
3.19x 10s
—
—
1.94x 10s
3.42 x 10*
5.75 x lO^1
2.48 x la1
3.19x 10'
5.83 x 10d
—
—
1.08x 10 3
1.69x 107
1 .23 x 10'
3.47 x 105
4.96 x 10^
1.79x 10*
2.65 x 10*
4.17 x 10 10
3.03 x 10*
1.23 x 10^
1.75 x 107
6.33 x 10*
9.36 x 10*
1.47x 10 »
1.07x la5
>e VI
VH-82
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-42
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With lexicological Benchmark Values For Ingestion - Stack Emissions - American Robin
Chemical
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
—
—
8.70 x 10'
1.90x 10'
5.60 x 10°
1.38 x 10°
2.30 x Iff2
7.68 x Iff1
4.90 x 10-'
—
—
2.50 x 10"
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
5.47 x 104
2.05 x 10*
1.63x 10^
3.55 x 10s
3.05 x It*4
3.28 x 10'
l.SOx 10 3
6.40 x Iff5
3.51 x Iff2
7.19x 10 5
3.59 x 103
2.12x Iff3
Hazard
Quotient
...
—
1.87 x \0^
1.87 x 10"1
5.44 x lO'5
2.38 x Iff3
6.53 x Iff2
8.33 x Iff5
7.16x Iff2
—
—
8.48 x la5
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.35x 10-6
5.04 x Iff9
4.02 x Iff7
8.71 x 10^
7.52 x 10-7
8.05 x 10*
4.79 x 10s
1.58x Iff7
8.63 x Iff5
1.77 x 10 7
8.79 x 10*
5.23 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
4.62 x Iff7
4.58 x Iff7
1.34x 10-7
5.83 x 1O*
2.08 x la3
2.05 x ia7
1.76 x 104
—
—
2.09 x Ifr7
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
4.76 x 10*
1.78 x 10*
1.42x 10*
3.08 x Ifr7
2.66 x 10*
2.84 x la5
9.08 x 10 5
5.57 x Iff7
3.05 x IQ4
6.27 x lO'7
3.11 x Iff5
1.85x la5
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
1.63 x 10*
1.62x 10*
4.74 x la7
2.06 x Iff5
3.95 x Iff3
7.26 x Iff7
6.23 x 10*
—
—
7.39 x Iff7
Volume VI
VH-83
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-43
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values For Ingestion - Stack Emissions - American Robin
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/fiirans (TEQ)
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
1.01 x 10'
—
2.48 x 10 '
l.OOx 10'
2.01 x la1
l.OOx 10'
3.00 x 10 2
—
7.21 x la1
—
3.60 x 10°
6.30 x la1
5.50 x Itf7
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
6.27 x 10s
5.97 x 105
4.71 x 10"1
1.83x la5
1.69x 104
1.79x \0^
2.09 x 103
3.76 x 10^
1.70x 10'
3.73 x 10 3
4.28 x 10s
5.32 x IVs
3.43 x Ifr7
Hazard
Quotient
6.21 x 104
—
1.90x 103
1.83x 10*
8.41 x 1O4
1.79x 10°
6.97 x Iff2
—
2.36 x 10-'
—
1.19x 10 5
8.45 x la5
6.23 x ia'
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.00 x 10*
5.93 x 107
4.78 x 10s
5.82 x ia7
5.37 x 10*
5.69 x 10*
6.66 x 105
1.20 x lfrs
3.89 x 1O4
1.19x 10^
1.36 x 10*
1.69 x 10*
1.46x 10 »
Hazard
Quotient
1.98x ia5
—
1.93 x IV4
5.82 x 1O*
2.67 x ia5
5.96 x Iff5
2.22 x 10-3
—
5.40 x 104
—
3.79 x 1(T7
2.68 x 10*
2.65 x 1(T3
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
3.79 x 10*
1.37 x 10*
9.25 x ia5
l.lOx 10*
1.02x ia5
l.OSx 10s
1.26x 1O4
2.27 x ias
1.43 x la3
2.25 x 1O4
2.59 x 10*
3.20 x 10*
4.15x ia»
Hazard
Quotient
3.75 x ia5
—
3.73 x 1O4
l.lOx la7
5.08 x ia5
1.08 x 10*
4.21 x ia3
—
1.98 x ia3
—
7.18x W1
5.08 x 10*
7.54 x ia3
tie VI
VII-84
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VH-44
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Belted Kingfisher
Chemical
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.01 x 102
5.00 x 10 '
—
—
7.40 x Iff1
1.70x 10'
1.17x 10°
2.00 x Iff2
6.54 x 10 -'
4.10x 10'
—
—
9.17x 10'
5.72 x Iff7
1.37 x Iff2
1.12x Iff8
4.73 x 10*
3.86 x Iff7
3.07 x Iff5
2.16x Iff2
1.41 x 10'
4.59 x Iff2
1.12 x 10*
1.09x Iff2
9.08 x 10"
1.14x 10*
—
—
6.39 x 10*
2.27 x 10*
2.62 x Iff5
1.08 x 10°
2.15x 10'
1.12x 10'
—
—
2.66 x Iff*
1.56 x Iff7
3.92 x Iff3
2.84 x 10 »
1.67x 10*
9.50 x 10*
7.49 x 10-*
7.61 x Iff2
3.87 x Iff2
1.23 x Iff2
3.24 x Iff5
2.47 x 10-'
2.64 x 10 "
3.11 x Iff7
—
—
2.26 x 10*
5.59 x Iff7
6.40 x 10*
3.80 x 10*
5.91 x Iff2
2.99 x Iff2
—
—
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.03 x 10'
1.31 x Iff7
3.08 x Iff3
2.53 x Iff9
8.38 x Iff7
8.65 x 10*
6.86 x 10*
3.53 x Iff2
3.21 x 102
1.05 x 10 2
2.47 x Iff5
2.39 x 10'
Hazard
Quotient
2.01 x 10"
2.61 x Iff7
—
—
1.13x 10*
8.65 x Iff7
5.86 x 10*
1.77 x Itf
4.90 x Iff2
2.55 x Iff2
—
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
1.11 x 10'
1.01 x 102
5.00 x 10 '
1.44x 10*
2.41 x 10-'°
1.92x Iff7
1.30x Iff7
2.38 x Iff12
3.85 x I07
3.25 x Iff7
6.99 x 10"
5.23 x 10*
2.92 x 10*
6.92 x 10 l3
1.05 x 10 7
3,15 x Iff7
5.33 x 10"
4.39 x 10*
2.84 x 10*
5.28 x 10 "
8.78 x Iff*
Volume VI
VII-85
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-44
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Belted Kingfisher
Chemical
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
—
—
7.40 x 10 '
1.70x Itf'
4.80 x 10°
1.17x 10°
2.00 x 102
6.54 x W
4.10x W
—
'
2.10x 10'
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
3.74 x 10*
1.03x 10'°
3.98 x 107
1.83 x 10'
1.04x 10*
l.lOx 10*
3.44 x 10*
3.20 x 10*
4.90 x 10*
5.08 x 10-'°
6,76 x 107
2.21 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
5.38 x 107
1.07x 10*
2.16x Itf7
9.39 x 107
1.72x Itf2
4.89 x 10*
1.20x ID"5
—
—
1.05 x ur7
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.07x 10*
2.60 x 10"
1.41 x 10 7
4.49 x 10 10
3.07 x 10-7
2.68 x 107
1.21 x 10 3
8.79 x ia»
1.31 x 10*
1.47x 10 10
1.53 x 10 7
6.46 x 107
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
1.90x 10 7
2.64 x ia»
6.39 x 10*
2.29 x la7
6.05 x la2
1.34 x 10*
3.19x 10*
—
—
3.08 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
8.39 x 10*
2.32 x 10"
7.06 x 10*
4.09 x 10 10
2.27 x 10-7
2.46 x HT7
5.62 x 104
7.29 x lfr»
1.12 x 10*
1.12x 10 10
1.48 x 107
4.86 x la7
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
9.54 x 10*
4.09 x ia»
4.72 x 10*
2.10x 1(T7
2.81 x Ifr2
1.11 x 10*
2.73 x 10*
—
—
2.31 x 10*
V vi
VII-86
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-45
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Belted Kingfisher
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4' -DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/ftirans (TEQ)
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
8.60 x 102
—
2.11 x 10'
l.OOx 10'
6.20 x Iff2
8.00 x 102
2.60 x 102
—
6.13x 10'
—
3.10x 10°
5.30 x 10-'
4.70 x 107
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.83 x 107
2.28 x 10-6
1.39x 10*
5.41 x 10"
5.75 x 10 5
5.71 x 10 -s
3.76 x 10*
6.12x IQr9
1.68x10*
1.39x 10 5
3.32 x 10*
4.04 x Ifr5
5.43 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
3.29 x 10-*
—
6.56 x 10*
5.41 x 1012
9.27 x 10*
7.14x 10*
1.45 x 10^
—
2.74 x 10-6
—
1.07x 10*
7.62 x 10s
1.15x 10'
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
8.32 x 107
6.46 x 10*
1.47x 10*
1.91 x 10 10
1.46 x 10*
1.87x 10*
1.27 x 10s
2.09 x 10*
3.24 x 10 7
4.39 x 10s
1.14x 107
2.29 x 10s
1.09x 109
Hazard
Quotient
9.67 x 10*
—
6.97 x 10*
1.91 x 10-"
2.35 x Ifr3
2.33 x lO'3
4.90 x 10^
—
5.29 x Ifr7
—
3.67 x 10*
4.32 x 10s
2.31 x 10 3
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
4.41 x Ifr7
1.02x 107
1.39,x 10*
8.84 x 10-"
8.57 x 1^
9.16x 10 5
6.09 x 10-*
9.92 x 10*
2.45 x lO"7
2.21 x la5
5.39 x 10*
2.$5 x la5
2.37 x ia»
Hazard
Quotient
5.12 x 10*
—
6.58 x 10*
8.84 x 10 12
1.38xl03
l.I4x 10 3
2.34 x 10^
—
3.99 x Ifr7
—
1.74x 10*
5.38 x 105
5.04 x la3
Volume VI
VII-87
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Chemical
TABLE VII-46
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red-tailed Hawk
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
6.00 x 10'
2.90 x 10'
—
...
4.40 x 10'
l.OOx 10'
8.30 x 10°
1.20x Iff2
3.85 x 10'
2.40 x 10 '
...
—
2.62 x Iff5
7.20 x Iff5
7.52 x 10°
7.37 x 10*
5.72 x Iff5
2.63 x Iff4
3.03 x Iff3
1.65 x Iff2
9.61 x 10°
1.01 x 10'
5.60 x ia1
1.91 x 10°
Hazard
Quotient
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
4.37 x Iff7
2.48 x 10^
—
—
1.30x 10*
2.63 x 103
3.65 x Iff4
1.38 x 10*
2.50 x 10'
4.19 \ 10'
—
•
6.44 x 10*
1.76 x 10 7
1.87x Iff2
1.79x Iff"
1.38x Iff7
6.43 x Iff7 .
7.37 x 10*
5.22 x Iff4
2.36 x Iff2
2.43 x Iff2
1.38 x Iff3
4.65 x Iff3
1.07 x Iff9
6.08 x Iff7
—
—
3.14x Iff7
6.43 x 10*
8.88 x Iff7
4.36 x Iff2
6.13x Iff2
1.01 x Iff1
—
—
2.29 x Iff7
6.27 x Iff7
6.57 x Iff2
6.39 x Iff"
4.99 x Iff7
2.28 x Iff*
2.63 x Iff5
l.OOx Iff3
8.38 x Iff2
8.74 x Iff2
4.89 x Iff3
1.66x Iff2
3.82 x 10 9
2.16x 10*
—
—
1.13x 10*
1.34x Iff5
3.16x 10*
8.34 x Iff2
2.18x Iff1
3.64 x Iff1
—
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
6.60 x 10°
6.00 x 10'
2.90 x 10 '
5.11 x 10^
6.89 x Iff7
2.42 x Iff5
7.75 x 10s
1.15x 10"
8.35 x 10s
1.25 x 10*
1.69x Iff9
5.93 x 10*
1.90x Iff7
2.82 x 10"
2.04 x 10 7
4.42 x 10*
6.02 x Iff9
2.11 x 10 7
6.70 x 107
l.OOx 10 lo
7.28 x Iff7
V NIC VI
VH-88
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-46
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicologies! Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red-tailed Hawk
Chemical
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
—
„.
4.40 x 10 '
l.OOx 10'
2.80 x 10°
8.30 x 10°
1.20x 10 2
3.85 x la1
2.40 x la'
—
—
1.30x 10'
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.05 x 10s
6.76 x 10*
4.82 x 10*
1.24x 10*
1.12x 10 5
1.09x 10*
2.63 x 10^
2.18x 10*
1.07 x 10 3
2.55 x 10*
1.18x 10*
6.80 x la5
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
1.09x 10 5
1.24x 10s
3.99 x 10*
1.31 x 10 5
2.19x 10 2
5.67 x 10*
4.47 x Ifr3
—
—
5.23 x 10*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
5.09 x 10*
1.64 x 10 10
1.16x 10*
3.04 x IQr9
2.75 x 10*
2.64 x 107
8.32 x 10*
5.36 x 109
2.60 x 10*
6.25 x 10'
2.87 x 107
1.65x 107
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
2.64 x 10*
3.04 x 10*
9.82 x 10*
3.18x 10*
6.93 x lO*
1.39x 10*
1.08 x la5
—
—
1.27 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.79x la7
5.86 x 10 10
4.20 x 10*
l.OSx 10*
9.76 x 10*
9.41 x Ifr7
1.59x 10 5
1.90 x 10*
9.34 x 10*
2.22 x 10*
1.02x 10*
5.93 x la7
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
9.55 x 10*
6.34 x 10*
3.48 x 10*
1.13x 10;7
1.33 x 10 3
4.95 x 10*
3.89 x Itt5
—
—
4.56 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-89
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-47
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red-tailed Hawk
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Total dioxins/furans (TEQ)
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
s.iox io2
—
1.24 x 10'
l.OOx 10'
1.01 x 10'
5.00 x IO2
1.50 x 10 2
—
3.61 x IO1
—
l.SOx 10°
3.iox io1
2.80 x IO7
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.90x 10*
1.95x 10*
2.66 x IO5
1.29x 10*
5.14x 10*
5.40 x 10*
6.07 x 10s
1.09x IO5
4.91 x 1O3
1.08 x IO4
1.54x 10*
1.59x 10*
1.45x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
3.73 x 10 5
—
2.15 x 10^
1.29x IO7
5.09 x IO5
l.OSx 10*
4.05 x IO3
—
1.36x IO2
—
8.57 x IO7
5.13x 10*
,5.18x IO2
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
5.94 x 10*
8.11 x 10*
2.54 x 10 5
4.08 x 10*
1.60x 10 7
1.69x 1O7
1.89x 10*
3.38 x IO7
l.lOx 10s
3.37 x 10*
4.83 x 10*
4.95 x 10*
7.53 x 10"
Hazard
Quotient
1.16x 10*
—
2.05 x IV4
4.08 x 1O»
1.58 x 10*
3.38 x 1O«
1.26 x 1O*
—
3.04 x 1O5
—
2.68 x 10*
1.60 x 1O7
2.69 x 10^
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.15x 107
1.62x 1O7
4.83 x 1OS
7.80 x 10*
3.10x 107
3.26 x 107
3.67 x 10*
6.57 x 107
4.13x 1O3
6.54 x 10*
9.33 x 10*
9.55 x 10*
2.03 x 10 10
Hazard
Quotient
2.25 x 10*
—
3.89 x 10^
7.80 x 10'
3.07 x 10*
6.53 x 10*
2.45 x 10^
—
1.14x 10*
—
5.18x 10*
3.08 x 1O7
7.25 x 104
VI
VII-90
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Chemical
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
TABLE VII-48
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion
Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Meadow Vole
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
1.80x 10'
1.59x 10'
2.29 x 10°
1.07x 10°
1.52 x 10°
3.30 x Iff2
9.60 x Iff1
Short-Tailed Shrew
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
2.20 x Iff1
1.93 x Iff1
2.78 x 10°
1.30x 10°
1.85 x 10°
4.00 x 102
1.17x 10°
6.70 x 10*
6.79 x 107
2.93 x 105
1.60x Iff4
6.49 x 10 7
5.94 x 107
2.01 x Iff7
9.92 x 105
5.32 x 10*
9.64 x 10^
2.52 x 103
8.35 x 10*
1.62 x 10-5
1.72x 10*
3.72 x 10s
4.27 x 10*
1.28x 10 5
1.49x 10^
4.27 x 107
1.80x 10 5
2.09 x 107
5.15x 10*
5.16x 10*
2.17x 107
1.23 x 10*
4.99 x 10*
4.57 x Iff'
1.53 x Iff'
2.86 x 10 7
3.25 x 10*
9.48 x 10*
1.15x 10*
3.28 x 10»
1.38 x 10 7
1.59x Iff'
4.51 x 10"1
2.75 x 10 5
3.47 x W
1.94x 10 3
4.51 x 10*
4.05 x 10"1
1.47x 10*
7.64 x 107
4.10x 10*
7.42 x 10*
1.94x 10 5
6.43 x 10*
1.25x 107
1.32x 1041
3.47 x 10*
2.12x 10 7
2.67 x 10*
1.49x 10 5
3.47 x 10*
3.11 x 10*
1.13x 10"
2.86 x 107
2.88 x 10*
1.23x 10*
6.81 x 10*
2.77 x 10*
2.54 x 10*
8.53 x Iff'
4.26 x Iff*
2.28 x 10 7
4. 14 x Iff5
l.OSx Iff4
3.58 x 107
6.94 x 107
7.37 x 10*
1.59x 10*
1.81 x 107
5.36 x Iff7
6.37 x 10*
1.82 x 10*
7.70 x 107
8.89 x Iff*
1.93x 10 5
1.18x 10*
1.49x Iff5
8.29 x 10s
1.94x 10 7
1.73 x 10 5
6.30 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-91
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-48
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion
Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Chemical
Red Fox
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Mink
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
6.00 x I02
4.80 x 10'
9.20 x 10'
3.90x 10'
4.60 x 10 '
l.OOx 10 2
2.90 x Iff1
8.00 x 10 2
7.00 x Iff2
1.33 x 10°
5.70 x ID"1
6.70 x 10'
1.40x Iff2
4.20 x Iff1
6.45 x 10-*
4.13 x 10 7
4.75 x Iff5
1.62x 10^
5.66 x Iff7
8.80 x Iff7
1.17x 10-7
1.08x 10"1
8.60 x 10*
5.16 x Iff5
4.17x 10*
1.23x 10*
8.80 x 10s
4.04 x 107
5.57 x 10*
4.38 x la7
1.54 x 10-5
1.39 x Iff4
5.26 x ID'7
4.65 x Iff7
9.26 x 10*
6.96 x 105
6.26 x 10-*
1.15x Iff5
2.43 x 10-4
7.85 x 107
3.32 x Iff5
2.20 x Iff7
4.99 x 10*
3.21 x 10*
3.65 x Iff7
1.25 x Iff*
4.38 x Iff9
6.79 x Iff*
9.06 x Iff10
8.32 x Iff7
6.68 x 10*
3.97 * Iff7
3.21 x Iff*
9.53 x Iff9
6.79 x Iff7
3.12x Iff'
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
2.77 x Iff7
1.78x 10*
2.04 x Iff6
6.94 x Iff*
2.43 x 10*
3.77 x 10*
5.03 x Iff9
4.62 x 10*
3.70 x 107
2.22 x 10*
1.78 x 10 5
5.29 x 10*
3.77 x 10*
1.73 x 10*
6.59 x 10*
3.71 x 10*
2.98 x 10*
1.73 x Iff*
7.70 x 10*
5.61 x Iff'
7.28 x 10'°
8.24 x Iff7
5.30 x 10*
2.24 x Iff*
3.04 x Iff*
1.15x 10*
4.01 x Iff7
1.73 x Iff9
2.69 x Iff7
1.92x 10*
2.83 x 10*
6.86 x Iff*
2.72 x 10*
2.26 x 10*
3.99 x 10*
3.36 x 10*
2.75 x 107
2.13 x 10*
1.20x Iff5
4.06 x 10*
1.61 x 10*
9.51 x Iff*
VI
VII-92
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-48
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingest ion
Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Chemical
American Robin
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
5.90 x 10 '
8.70 x 10'
1.38 x 10°
7.68 x 10 '
4.90 x 10 '
—
2.60 x 10*
1.33 x 10 5
2.70 x 10'
6.62 x 103
2.16x 10s
4.43 x 105
4.48 x 10*
4.40 x 10*
—
3.10x 10'
4.80 x 10 3
2.81 x 10s
9.04 x 105
—
2.00 x 10*
1.02x 10 7
2.08 x ia5
5.09 x ia5
1.66x 107
3.41 x 107
3.45 x 10*
Belted Kingfisher
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
• Selenium
Silver
5.00 x ia1
—
7.40 x ia1
1.17 x 10°
6.54 x 10 '
4.10x 10'
—
6.87 x 10*
9.07 x 10 10
6.59 x 10*
2.22 x 10*
l.OSx 10*
6.18x 10'
3.16x 10-"
1.37 x 10 7
—
8.91 x 10*
1.89x 10*
1.65x 10*
1.51 x 10*
—
5.83 x 10*
8.08 x 10 10
7.27 x 10*
1.69x 10*
9.25 x 109
5.16x 10'
2.86 x 10"
3.39 x 10*
—
2.39 x 10s
3.69 x ia5
2.16x Iff7
6.95 x 107
—
1.11 x 10s
5.69 x Iff7
1.16x 1O4
2.83 x 104
9.27 x Iff7
1.90x 10*
1.93x Ifr7
1.17x 107
—
9.83 x 10*
1.44x 10*
1.42x 10*
1.26 x 10*
...
7.73 x 10*
1.00 x 10 »
5.76 x 10*
•2.44 x 10*
1.21 x 10*
6.95 x 10'
3.45 x 10"
1.89x 10 5
—
1.33 x 104
2.05 x 10^
1.21 x 10*
3.87 x 10*
—
1.55 x ia7
—
7.79 x 10*
2.09 x 10*
1.85x 10*
1.70x 10*
—
Volume VI
VII-93
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-48
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion
Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Chemical
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Red-Tailed Hawk
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
2.90 x 10 '
—
4.40 x 10 '
8.30 x 10°
3.85 x 10'
2.40 x 10 '
—
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
8.66 x ID"6
5.01 x 107
8.00 x 10 5
2.19x W*
7.39 x 10-7
1.36 x 10-6
1.60x 10-7
2.99 x 10s
—
1.82 x 10^
2.64 x 10s
1.92x 10*
5.65 x 10*
—
6.68 x 10*
3.88 x 10 9
6.15x 107
1.69x 10*
5.70 x 10"
1.04x \0*
1.23x 10*
2.30 x 107
—
1.40 x 10*
2.03 x 10-7
1.48x 10*
4.35 x 10*
—
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
3.72 x 10-7
2.15x 10*
3.44 x 10*
9.36 x 10*
3.17 x 10*
5.81 x 10*
6.85 x 10*
1.28 x 10*
—
7.81 x 10*
1.13x 10*
8.24 x 10*
2.42 x 107
—
VI
VII-94
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-49
Summed Ingestion Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources - Maximum Impact Point/Ohio River
Species
Summed Hazard Quotients - Stack and Ash Handling Facility
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario + Ash Handling Facility
Meadow vole
Short-tailed shrew
Red fox
Mink
American robin
Belted kingfisher
Red-tailed hawk
3.42 x 10*
4.20 x 10'
l.OOx 10 '
6.49 x 10*
4. 10 x IO3
1.28x 10*
2.78 x 10*
6.19 x 10*
4.16x 10!
1.29 x IO2
9.45 x 10'
—
—
—
2. 10 x 10 5
5.96 x 10*
8.85 x IO5
1.98x 10s
5.33 x 10°
1.53x 1(T5
3.12x 10*
Lead
Nickel
2.21 x Itf3
2.88 x IO2
6.18x la3
3.61 x la3
7.12x 10 2
2.81 x 10 3
3.91 x 10*
5.46 x 10*
5.88 x 10'
1.60 x 10'
1.02 x 10'
3.67 x 101
2.15xlfr'
2.50 x 10'
Selenium
Silver
1,32 x 10*
3.00 x IO3
6.53 x IIP
2.47 x 10*
6.71 x 10*
I.12x 10"'
4.19 x IO1
Stack Estimated Metal Scenario + Ash Handling Facility
Meadow vole
Short-tailed shrew
Red fox
Mink
American robin
Belted kingfisher
Red-tailed hawk
1.40 x 10*
1.71 xlO3
4.09 x 10^
2.65 x 10*
1.67 x Ifr3
5.22 x IO7
1.13x 10^
1.73 x \0*
1.17x 10 3
3.61 x 10^
2.64 x 10*
—
—
—
1.35 x I0r*
3.68 x 10^
5.47 x IO5
1.22x la5
3.29 x IO3
9.45 x 10*
1.93 x 10^
2.23 x 10*
2.90 x 103
6.23 x 10*
3.64 x \0*
7.18x 103
2.83 x 10*
3.95 x 10s
1.67 x IO*
1.79x Ifr5
4.87 x 10*
3.12 x 10*
1.11 x 10*
6.54 x 10*
7.59 x 10*
1.42xia2
3.21 x 10-'
6.99 x la2
2.63 x Ifr2
7.17x IO2
1.20x 10s
4.48 x 10 3
7.12x 10'
5.17 x 109
1.42 x 10°
7.77 x 10-'
—
—
—
3.45 x 10*
2.50 x la5
6.84 x 10*
3.75 x 10*
...
...
—
Volume VI
VII-95
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-50
Slimmed Ingestion Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources - Tomlinson Run Lake
Species
Summed Hazard Quotients - Stack and Ash Handling Facility
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario + Ash Handling Facility
Meadow vole
Short-tailed shrew
Red fox
Mink
American robin
Belted kingfisher
Red-tailed hawk
1.05 x 10*
1.27x 1(T5
3.03 x 10*
3.01 x 10*
l.24x la5
4.28 x la7
8.38 x Itt7
1.56x 10-'
1.03 x 10*
3.22 x la1
2.57 x la1
—
—
—
1.16x 10-7
3.28 x 10*
4.86 x la7
2.76 x 10*
2.94 x Ifr5
1.21 x Itf5
1.71 x 10*
Stack Estimated Metal Scenario + Ash Handling Facility
Meadow vole
Short-tailed shrew
Red fox
Mink
American robin
Belted kingfisher
Red-tailed hawk
5.42 x la7
6.58 x 10*
1.57x 10*
1.56 x 10*
6.42 x 10*
2.22 x la7
4.34 x la7
4.58 x 10-7
3.01 x 10*
9.44 x 10-7
7.53 x la7
—
—
—
9.66 x 10*
2.72 x 10*
4.05 x la7
2.28 x 10*
2.43 x 10-5
1.00 x \Qrf
1.43x 10*
6.21 x 10*
8.08 x 10 5
1.72 x 10 5
1.64x 10s
2.00 x 10*
7.84 x 10*
1.09 x 10*
1.36x la2
1.45 x 10-'
3.95 x Ifr2
4.80 x Ifr2
9.03 x la1
5.91 x lO'2
6.13 x la2
3.28 x la1
7.38 x Itf
1.58 x 10*
9.48 x W
1.65 x 10*
2.99 x Ifr2
1.01 x ia'
1.78 x Ifr3
1.28 x la2
3.50 x la3
1.96x la3
—
—
—
1.33 x 10*
1.73 x 10-5
3.71 x 10*
3.52 x 10*
4.27 x 10s
1.67x 10*
2.35 x 107
6.38 x 10*
6.77 x 10*
1.85 x 10*
2.24 x 10*
4.21 x Ifr7
2.76 x 10*
2.87 x 10*
3.51 x Itt5
7.92 x 10*
1.69x 10*
1.01 x 10*
1.76 x 10*
3.19 X 10*
l.OSx 10 5
9.69 x la*
6.94 x 10*
1.90 x 10*
1.06 x 10*
—
—
—
me VI
VfI-96
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
V J
TABLE V\\-Sl
Summed Ingestion Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources - Little Beaver Creek
Species
Summed Hazard Quotients - Stack and Ash Handling Facility
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario + Ash Handling Facility
Meadow vole
Short-tailed shrew
Red fox
Mink
American robin
Belted kingfisher
Red-tailed hawk
4.25 x 10*
5.20 x 10-5
1.24x 10s
9.03 x 10*
5.08 x 105
4.16x 107
3.44 x 10*
5.43 x 10-'
3.63 x 10°
1.13x 10*
8.42 x 1O1
—
—
—
6.11 x 1O7
1.71 x 10s
2.54 x 10*
2.44 x 10*
1.52x 1O4
8.92 x 10*
8.94 x 10*
2.42 x 10s
3.16x 10^
6.77 x 1OS
4.58 x 1O5
7.80 x 1O4
7.95 x 10*
4.29 x 10*
4.77 x 10 2
5.12x 10'
1.40 x 1O1
1.07 x 1O1
3.19 x 10°
4.90 x IQr2
2.18 x 10'
1.15x10°
2.61 x 10'
5.68 x 10*
2.43 x 10*
5.83 x 10*
2.55 x 102
3.64 x 1O1
Stack Estimated Metal Scenario + Ash Handling Facility
Meadow vole
Short-tailed shrew
Red fox
Mink
American robin
Belted kingfisher
Red-tailed hawk
2.49 x 10*
3.03 x 1O5
7.24 x 10*
5.27 x 10*
1.89x 10s
2.43 x 107
2.01 x 10*
1.66 x 10*
1.11 x 105
3.45 x 10*
2.58 x 10*
—
—
—
5.42 x 1O7
1.51 X lQr*
2.24 x 10*
2.16x 10*
1.35 x 10"1
7.89 x 10*
7.91 x 10*
7.01 x 10*
9.12x 105
1.96x 1O5
1.32x 10 5
2.26 x 1O4
2.30 x 10*
1.24x 10*
2.90 x 10*
3.10x 1O7
8.47 x 10"
6.50 x 10*
1.94x 10*
2.96 x 1O"
1.32x 107
1.23 x 10*
2.81 x 10-3
6.11 x 1O4
2.62 x 1O4
6.27 x 104
2.75 x 10*
3.91 x 1OS
6.24 x 103
4.51 x 10 2
1.24x 10 2
6.80 x 103
—
—
—
3.73 x 1041
2.68 x 107
7.36 x lO*
4.04 x 1O*
—
—
—
Volume VI
VII-97
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-52
Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One for all Exposure Scenarios - Abiotic Media
Receptor
Air
SoU
Surface Water
Sediment
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Animals
Terrestrial Plants
Soil Fauna
Aquatic Biota
Ba - 3.3
Ni - 10
—
—
—
Ba- 1.9
Ag - 21
Ni-31
Tl- 154
Se-361
Hg - 2.5
Se - 7.2
Ni-23
—
—
—
Ag - 2.6
(Ohio River)
—
—
No exceedences
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Animals
Terrestrial Plants
Soil Fauna
Aquatic Biota
No exceedences
No exceedences
—
—
—
No exceedences
No exceedences
—
—
—
—
No exceedences
Stack High-End Organic Scenario
Animals
Terrestrial Plants
Soil Fauna
Aquatic Biota
No exceedences
No exceedences
—
. —
—
No exceedences
No exceedences
„.
—
—
No exceedences
Fugitive Inorganic Scenario (Ash Handling Facility)
Animals
Terrestrial Plants
Soil Fauna
Aquatic Biota
No exceedences
No exceedences
...
...
—
No exceedences
No exceedences
—
Fugitive Organic Scenario (Fugitive Vapor Sources)
Animals
Terrestrial Plants
Formaldehyde:
1.9 (tank farm)
No exceedences
—
—
—
—
—
No exceedences
—
—
—
No exceedences
—
—
—
No exceedences
—
—
—
No exceedences
—
—
—
—
Volume VI
VII-98
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VH-52
Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One for all Exposure Scenarios - Abiotic Media
Receptor
Soil Fauna
Aquatic Biota
Air
—
—
Son
—
—
Surface Water
—
No exceedences
Sediment
— •
No exceedences
Volume VI
VII-99
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-53
Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One for All Scenarios Bird and Mammal Indicator
Species
Indicator Species
Water Body
Maximum Point/
Ohio River
Tomlinson Run Lake
Little Beaver Creek
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
American Robin
Belted Kingfisher
Red-tailed Hawk
Tl - 312
Se - 132
Ba-62
Ni - 5.5
Tl - 4,250
Se - 3,000
Ba - 416
Ni-59
Ag - 5.2
Tl - 1,080
Se - 653
Ba - 129
Ni- 16
Ag- 1.4
Tl - 621
Se - 247
Ba-95
Ni - 10
Se - 671
Ni - 367
Hg-4.1
Hg- 1.1
Se - 42
Ni-25
Hg- 1.4
No exceedences
Tl - 10.4
Se - 7.4
Ba-1.03
Tl-2.6
Se - 1.6
Tl-2.0
Se- 1.7
Hg - 3.8
No exceedences
' Tl-2.7
Se- 1.2
Tl - 37
Se-26
Ba - 3.6
Tl - 9.4
Se - 5.7
Ba- 1.1
Tl - 5.9
Se - 2.4
Se - 5.8
Ni - 3.2
Hg - 1.8
No exceedences
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
All Species
No exceedences
No exceedences
No exceedences
Stack High-End Organic Scenario
All Species
No exceedences
No exceedences
No exceedences
Fugitive Inorganic Scenario (Ash Handling Facility)
All Species
No exceedences
No exceedences
No exceedences
Volume VI
VII-100
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VH-53
Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One for All Scenarios Bird and Mammal Indicator
Species
Indicator Species
Water Body
Maximum Point/
Ohio River
Tomlinson Run Lake
Little Beaver Creek
Fugitive Organic Scenario .(Fugitive Vapor Sources)
—
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Volume VI
VII-101
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VH-54
Summary of Hazard Quotients Between 0.1 and 1.0 for all Exposure Scenarios
Receptor/Location
Exposure
Chemical
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
See Table VH-56
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Short-tailed shrew/Ohio River
Short-tailed shrew/Ohio River
Food chain
Food chain
Selenium
Thallium
3.21 x 10-'
2.63 x 10-'
Stack High-End Organic Scenario
American robin/Ohio River
Belted kingfisher/Ohio River
Food chain
Food chain
Hexachlorophene
Dioxin/furan
Dioxin/furan
2.36 x ID"1
6.23 x. 10-'
1.15x ID'1
Fugitive Inorganic Scenario (Ash Handling Facility)
NONE
Fugitive Organic Scenario (Fugitive Vapor Sources)
Animal/Open Wastewater Tank
Air - Inhalation
Formaldehyde
3.77 x 10-'
Volume VI
Vn-102
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VH-55
Comparison of Hazard Quotients - Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal and Stack Expected Metal
Scenarios For Hazard Quotients Exceeding One
Under the Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Chemical
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit
Limit Metal
Scenario
Air - Plants
Nickel
1.00 x 10'
Stack Expected Metal
Scenario
Relative Difference
(Orders of Magnitude) .
2.28 x Iff*
7
Air - Animals
Barium
Soil • Plants
Barium
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
3.29 x 10°
9.01 x 10-*
6
1.85 x 10°
3.05 x 10'
3.61 x 102
2.08 x 10'
1.54x 102
5.04 x HT6
6.94 x 10*
3.86 x 10-2
9.46 x lO"5
9.50 x ia3
6
7
4
6
5
Soil - Soil Fauna
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
2.53 x 10°
2.29 x 10'
7.23 x 10°
4.02 x 10"2
5.20 x 10*
7.72 x 10"
2
7
4
Surface Water (Ohio River)
Silver
2.58 x 10°
1.17x 10-5
5
Ingestion - Meadow Vole (Maximum Impact Point)
Barium
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
6.19x 10'
5.46 x 10°
1.32x 102
3.12 x 102
1.69 x 10"
1.24 x 10*
1.42 x 10-2
1.93-x 10"2
5
6
4
4
Ingestion - Meadow Vole (Little Beaver Creek)
Selenium
Thallium
1.15x 10°
2.70 x 10°
1.23 x 1O4
1.67 x 10"
4
4
Volume VI
VH-103
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE \H-55
Comparison of Hazard Quotients - Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal and Stack Expected Metal
Scenarios For Hazard Quotients Exceeding One
Under the Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Chemical
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit
Limit Metal
Scenario
Stack Expected Metal
Scenario
Relative Difference
(Orders of Magnitude)
Ingestion - Short-tailed Shrew (Maximum Impact Point)
Barium
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
4.16 x 102
5.88 x 10'
3.00 x 103
5.17 x 10°
4.25 x 103
1.14x 10-3
1.34x 10-5
3.21 x 10-'
2.35 x 10'5
2.63 x 10-'
5
6
4
5
4
Ingestion - Short-tailed Shrew (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Barium
Selenium
Thallium
1.03 x 10°
7.38 x 10°
1.04 x 10'
2.80 x 10*
7.89 x 10-1
6.43 x 1O4
Ingestion - Short-tailed Shrew (Little Beaver Creek)
Barium
Selenium
Thallium
3.63 x 10°
2.61 x 10'
3.68 x 10'
9.90 x 10*
2.79 x la3
2.27 x lO'3
6
4
5
6
4
4
Ingestion - Red Fox (Maximum Impact Point)
Barium
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.29x \(f
1.60x 10'
6.53 x 1CF
1.42 x 10°
l.OSx 103
3.53 x 1O4
3.64 x 10*
6.98 x ID'2
6.44 x 10*
6.70 x 10-2
6
7
4
6
5
Ingestion - Red Fox (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Selenium
Thallium
1.58 x 10°
2.64 x 10°
1.69 x 10-*
1.63 x IO4
4
4
Volume VI
VII-104
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-55
Comparison of Hazard Quotients - Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal and Stack Expected Metal
Scenarios For Hazard Quotients Exceeding One
Under the Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Chemical
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit
Limit Metal
Scenario
Stack Expected Metal
Scenario
Relative Difference
(Orders of Magnitude)
Ingestion - Red Fox (Little Beaver Creek)
Barium
Selenium
Thallium
1.13 x 10°
5.68 x 10°
9.38 x 10°
3.08 x 10^
6.07 x 10-"
5.80 x 10-*
6
4
4
Ingestion - Mink (Maximum Impact Point)
Barium
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
9.45 x 10'
1.02x 10'
2.47 x 102
6.21 x 102
2.58 x 10"4
2.33 x lO"6
2.63 x ID"2
3.84 x 10-2
5
7
4
4
Ingestion - Mink (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Thallium
2.03 x 10°
Ingestion - Mink (Little Beaver Creek)
Selenium
Thallium
2.43 x 10°
5.86 x 10°
1.25 x 10-4
4
2.60 x KT4
3.62 x 10"4
4
4
Ingestion - American Robin (Maximum Impact Point)
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
4.11 x 10°
3.67 x \(f
6.71 x 102
Ingestion - American Robin (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Selenium
1.65 x 10°
6.53 x 10"2
8.33 x 10"3
7.16 x ID'2
2
7
4
1.76 x Itf4
4
Ingestion - American Robin (Little Beaver Creek)
Nickel
Selenium
3.19x 10°
5.83 x 10°
7.26 x ID"7
6.23 x 104
7
4
Volume VI
VH-105
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VH-55
Comparison of Hazard Quotients - Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal and Stack Expected Metal
Scenarios For Hazard Quotients Exceeding One
Under the Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Chemical
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit
Limit Metal
Scenario
Stack Expected Metal
Scenario
Relative Difference
(Orders of Magnitude)
Digestion - Belted Kingfisher (Maximum Impact Point)
Mercury
1.08 x 10°
1.72 x 1(T2
2
Ingestion • Belted Kingfisher (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Mercury
3.80 x 10°
Ingestion - Belted Kingfisher (Little Beaver Creek)
Mercury
1.77 x 10°
6.05 x 10-2
2.81 x 10-2
2
2
Ingestion - Red-tailed Hawk (Maximum Impact Point)
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
1.38 x 10°
2.50 x 10'
4.19x 10'
2.19x lO"2
5.67 x 10-6
4.47 x 10-3
2
7
4
Volume VI
VH-106
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VH-56
Comparison of Hazard Quotients - Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal and Stack Expected Metal
Scenarios For Hazard Quotients Between 0.1 and 1.0
Under the Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Chemical
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit
Limit Metal
Scenario
Stack Expected Metal
Scenario
Relative Difference
(Orders of Magnitude)
Air - Animal Inhalation
Selenium
Soil - Plants
Mercury
Soil - Soil Fauna
Barium
Silver
1.00 x 10°
1.07 x 1O4
4
8.43 x 10-'
1.34 x 10-2
1
3.08 x 10'1
8.33 x 10-'
Surface Water (Ohio River)
Mercury
Selenium
1.43 x 10-'
2.35 x 10-'
8.40 x lO"7
3.79 x Ifr6
6
5
2.28 x 10-3
2.51 x 10-5
2
4
Surface Water (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Mercury
Silver
5.04 x 10-'
7.50 x 10-'
8.02 x 10-3
3.41 x 10*
2
5
Surface Water (Little Beaver Creek)
Mercury
Silver
2.34 x 10-'
5.72 x 10-'
3.72 x 10-3
2.60 x 1O*
2
5
Sediment (Ohio River)
Selenium
2.11 x 10-'
2.26 x 10-5
4
Ingestion - Meadow Vole (Maximum Impact Point)
Mercury
Silver
1.65x ID"1
7.12x ID'1
2.63 x lO"3
3.24 x 10*
2
5
Ingestion - Meadow Vole (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Barium
Selenium
1.56 x 10-'
3.28 x 10-'
4.25 x ID"7
3.50 x 10-'
6
4
Volume VI
VH-107
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-56
Comparison of Hazard Quotients - Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal and Stack Expected Metal
Scenarios For Hazard Quotients Between 0.1 and 1.0
Under the Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Chemical
Thallium
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit
Limit Metal
Scenario
7.66 x ID"1
Ingestion - Meadow Vole (Little Beaver Creek)
Barium
5.43 x ID"1
Stack Expected Metal
Scenario
4.74 x lO"5
Relative Difference
(Orders of Magnitude)
4
1.48 x 10*
5
Ingestion - Short-tailed Shrew (Maximum Impact Point)
Mercury
6.21 x 10-'
9.88 x 10"3
2
Ingestion - Short-tailed Shrew (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Nickel
1.45 x 10-'
3.30 x 10*
7
Ingestion - Short-tailed Shrew (Little Beaver Creek)
Nickel
5.12x 10"'
1.16x Iff7
6
Ingestion - Red Fox (Maximum Impact Point)
Mercury
4.24 x 10-'
6.74 x ID"3
2
Ingestion - Red Fox (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Barium
3.22 x 10-'
8.78 x ID"7
6
Ingestion - Red Fox (Little Beaver Creek)
Nickel
1.40 x 10-'
3.18x 10-*
Ingestion - Mink (Maximum Impact Point)
Silver
7.77 x 10"'
3.53 x 10*
7
5
Ingestion - Mink (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Barium
Mercury
Selenium
2.57 x 10-'
2.02 x 10-'
9.48 x 10"'
7.00 x lO"7
3.22 x 10-3
1.01 x 104
6
2
3
Volume VI
VD-108
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE Vn-56
Comparison of Hazard Quotients - Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal and Stack Expected Metal
Scenarios For Hazard Quotients Between 0.1 and 1.0
Under the Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Chemical
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit
Limit Metal
Scenario
Stack Expected Metal
Scenario
Relative Difference
(Orders of Magnitude)
Ingestion - Mink (Little Beaver Creek)
Barium
Nickel
8.42 x 10'1
1.07 x ID"1
2.30 x 10-*
2.44 x 10*
5
7
Ingestion - American Robin (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Mercury
Nickel
1.31 x lO"1
9.03 x ID"1
2.08 x 10-3
2.05 x Iff7
O
4.
6
Ingestion - American Robin (Little Beaver Creek)
Mercury
2.84 x 10-'
3.95 x 10-3
2
Ingestion - Belted Kingfisher (Maximum Impact Point)
Nickel
Selenium
2.15x 10-'
1.12x 10-'
4.89 x 10*
1.20 x 10"5
7
4
Ingestion - Red-tailed Hawk (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Selenium
1.01 x icr1
l.OSx Iff5
4
Ingestion - Red-tailed Hawk (Little Beaver Creek)
Nickel
Selenium
2.18 x 10-'
3.64 x ID'1
4.95 x 10*
3.89 x 10-5
7
4
Volume VI
VD-109
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-57
Summary of the Estimated Conservatism of Key Input Parameters Used in the
Exposure and Effects Characterizations For Each Exposure Scenario
Parameter
Stack Projected Stack Expected
Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Metal Scenario
Characterization of Exposure
Emission Rate Estimates
Deposition Rates
Modeled Locations for Exposure
Temporal and Spatial Extent of Exposure
Model Input Variables:
-K~
- Soil depth
- Total organic carbon
- Plant BCFs
- Earthworm BCFs/BAFs
- Fish BAFs
- Small mammal BAFs
- Ingestion Rates
- Body Weights
High-End Best Estimate
High-End High-End
Exposure Scenario
Stack High-End Fugitive
Organic Inorganic
Scenario Scenario
Fugitive
Organic
Scenario
High-End High-End
High-End High-End
Best Estimate
High-End
High-End ,
High-End
Not applicable Not applicable
Best Estimate Not Applicable
High-End of Default Values
Best Estimate -
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Site-specific Data or Default Value
Best Estimate From Literature
Best Estimate From Literature or Models
High-End From Literature
High-End From Literature or High-End Default Value
Best Estimate From Literature
Best Estimate From Literature
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
VI
VIM 10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-57
Summary of the Estimated Conservatism of Key Input Parameters Used in the
Exposure and Effects Characterizations For Each Exposure Scenario
Parameter
Exposure Scenario
Stack Projected
Permit Limit
Metal Scenario
Stack Expected
Metal Scenario
Stack High-End
Organic
Scenario
Fugitive
Inorganic
Scenario
Fugitive
Organic
Scenario
Characterization of Effects
Uncertainty Factors
Toxicological Benchmarks
Best Estimate Based on Literature and Professional Judgement
Best Estimate (where data were minimal) to High-End
(where data were more abundant)
Volume VI
VII-111
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE VII-58
Key Assumptions For Chapter VII - Risk Characterization
Assumption
Basis
Magnitude of
Effect
Direction of
Effect
The maximum projected impact points (from
dispersion and deposition modeling) accurately
represent an upper-bound exposure estimate.
The use of media concentrations derived at the
projected points of maximum air concentrations or
deposition represents the highest possible modeled
exposures.
medium
overestimate
The assessment and measurement endpoints used in
the SERA are appropriate.
The selected endpoints are based on an evaluation of
site-specific features of the WTI facility and on the
surrounding habitats to identify key ecological
resources to protect. They are considered the most
relevant to a screening-level assessment.
The effect endpoints (growth, reproduction, and
survival) are appropriate.
The effect endpoints are consistent with screening-
level assessments and generally focus on protecting
populations or communities, which are appropriate
for ecological risk assessments. If a risk is
predicted using these endpoints, then the assessment
can be refined with more site-specific data, as
warranted.
low
unknown
Receptor groups not specifically addressed in the
SERA are not at risk.
Those pathways and receptors believed to be at the
greatest potential risk are selected. Groups such as
reptiles and amphibians are not quantitatively
considered because of insufficient toxicological data
but are not expected to be at greater risk than
indicator species included in the analysis.
low
underestimate
Hazard quotients less than one represent negligible
risk.
The hazard quotient approach is standard/accepted
in screening-level ecological risk assessments. If
the hazard quotient approaches or exceeds one, then
that aspect of the assessment can be refined with
more site-specific data, as warranted.
Use of a chemical-by-chemical evaluation is
appropriate.
Professional judgement based on accepted ecological
risk assessment methodology.
high
unknown
VI
VII-112
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
. UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
As noted in several preceding chapters of the SERA (Sections FV.G, V.H, VI.H, and
VII.H), there are various sources of uncertainty throughout the risk assessment process.
There are two main types of uncertainties: (1) uncertainties that are inherent in screening-
level ecological risk assessments, and (2) uncertainties that are a result of the estimation
processes used in this SERA to establish exposure concentrations or doses and toxicological
benchmarks.
In regard to the first type of uncertainty, the SERA is intended to be consistent with
the state-of-the-science methodology for screening-level assessments, which is designed to
ensure that risks are not underestimated. As such, the screening-level process is intended to
be a conservative or protective process given the constraints of the science and the available
information. If it is deemed appropriate to go beyond a SERA to further evaluate those
chemical-exposure pathway-receptor combinations for which potential risks are identified,
then the SERA would provide a basis for focusing the PERA and/or DERA tiers of
ecological risk assessment (as described in Chapter I). Such a refinement would typically
use more site-specific data and would therefore reduce the uncertainty hi the SERA.
/ The second type of uncertainty hi the SERA is attributable to the assumptions used in
^— establishing exposure estimates and toxicological benchmarks. As described below, these
include "best available" values selected as the most applicable from among those in the
available published literature, "standard default" (U.S. EPA-recommended values for the
models used), and "high-end" (upper-bound or near upper-bound values from the possible
range of available values) parameter values. These values are used hi establishing: (1) the
ECOCs to be evaluated, (2) emission rates, dispersion factors, deposition rates, contact rates,
and uptake rates, (3) the indicator species to be evaluated, (4) ecological endpoints, (5)
toxicological uncertainty factors, and (6) chronic toxicity no-effect levels. These assumptions
are intended to result hi generally conservative and protective estimates such that risks are
not underestimated. These assumptions are, however, subject to uncertainty and therefore
refinement.
Within the inherent constraints of screening-level ecological risk assessments, and
given the need for assumptions hi the absence of site-specific data regarding exposure and
toxicity, there are four fundamental aspects of the SERA that involve significant assumptions
and therefore result hi uncertainty. They are:
• The chemicals (the ECOC selection process)
(
External Review Draft
Volume VI Vffl-1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
• The receptors (the indicator species selection process)
• The exposures (the estimates of emissions, media concentrations, exposure
pathways, and contact rates of the receptors)
• The toxicological benchmarks or thresholds (at or below which no adverse
effects are anticipated)
The key assumptions and uncertainties for these four areas are identified and
described in the uncertainty sections of Chapters IV through Vn. These sections also
provide an indication of the relative magnitude of each assumption's effect on the outcome of
the risk estimates (i.e., low, medium, high) as well as the direction of the effect if it is
known (i.e., underestimate, overestimate, unknown [may over or underestimate and may
vary with circumstances]).
Those uncertainties associated with ECOC selection (Chapter IV) and risk
characterization (Chapter VII) are of the type that are inherent in the screening-level risk
assessment process. While these uncertainties range from "low to high" and "underestimate
to overestimate", on balance, they represent the state-of-the-science for a process which is
intended to identify those chemicals, exposure pathways, and receptors that have the greatest
potential to contribute to risk, and to eliminate others that do not. Once the ECOCs,
assessment and measurement endpoints, and indicator species have been selected, and the
decision is made to conduct the risk characterization using the hazard quotient method and a
chemical-by-chemical approach, the remaining key uncertainties are as follows:
• Toxicological benchmarks - There are relatively few assumptions in
establishing toxicological benchmarks, but it is not generally known whether
the assumptions will overestimate or underestimate a true threshold. These
assumptions include, for example: (1) whether literature-reported laboratory
test values accurately predict what will happen in the field, (2) whether the
extrapolation uncertainty factors (e.g., for interspecies differences in chemical
sensitivity) are adequate, and (3) whether a toxicity equivalency factor for
dioxins/furans is accurate. Generally, standard default or best available values
are used and the alternatives, at the screening-level, are very limited.
• Exposure estimates - There are a relatively large number of assumptions in
establishing exposure estimates. A large majority are considered to result in
overestimates or possible overestimates of exposure, most with medium or
External Review Draft
Volume VI VIH-2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
high impacts on the outcome of the estimate. These include, for example: (1)
continuous exposure at the maximum estimated concentration, (2) colocating
maximum exposure points from stack and fugitive sources in evaluating
combined exposures, (3) upper-bound bioconcentration values for food chain
components, (4) using upper-bound 1^ values for estimating partitioning for
soil adsorption and food chain modeling, (5) using a 30-year facility operation
and accumulation scenario, (6) inclusion of a limited degradation component in
fate modeling, and (7) calculating soil exposures based on chemicals mixed in
only the top one centimeter of soil. There are also a number of uncertainties
with unknown direction at low and medium impacts including, for example:
(1) TOC values in soil and sediment, (2) lipid and water contents to estimate
tissue concentrations of plants, earthworms, and fish, (3) the relative
contribution of organic versus inorganic mercury to exposures, and (4) the
three water bodies selected for modeling as being representative of the larger
assessment area.
There are several additional uncertainties, regarding both toxicological effects and
exposures, which are identified as possibly contributing to an underestimate of risk, but
which are not expected to be of a significant magnitude such that the outcome of the risk
analysis would be markedly different. They are:
• Not all ecological receptor groups are evaluated (e.g., amphibians and
reptiles), generally due to the lack of toxicological data. It is presumed that
these receptors are not exposed to significantly higher concentrations of the
ECOCs than are indicator species that are evaluated. It is also presumed that
these receptors are not more sensitive than the indicator species evaluated
(taking into account the uncertainty factors that are applied).
• Not all ECOCs are evaluated for all indicator species because of the lack of
toxicological data (primarily terrestrial plants; however, herbicides are
intentionally evaluated to address this aspect).
• Not all possible exposure routes are evaluated for a given receptor (e.g.,
dermal routes for wildlife are considered insignificant versus ingestion and
inhalation exposure routes).
External Review Draft
Volume VI VHI-3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
• Not all of the organic material mass (about 60%) from the stack trial burns
could be characterized and therefore represents either additional chemicals
and/or additional mass of chemicals already identified. If the former, the
additional chemicals are presumed to be no more toxic than the chemicals
identified (which represent the majority of known "eco-toxic" chemicals or
chemical groups). If the latter, a proportional proration of the uncharacterized
mass across the identified chemicals would increase the exposures by about 2.5
times. This is a relatively small change and would have a relatively small
impact on hazard quotient values.
• Not all of the fugitive sources are identified. However, the review of
information on the facility design and operation, and the site inspection,
indicate that all significant sources are identified and considered in the
estimates of exposure to fugitive chemicals.
The SERA relies on published, modeled, or other readily available data. Again, its
goal is to separate those chemical-exposure pathway-receptor combinations which are clearly
not contributing to risk from those that have a greater potential to contribute to risk. In the
SERA, the separation is based on the widely-used hazard quotient method. The combination
of the inherent conservatism in a screening-level assessment with the generally conservative
estimates used to establish exposure and toxicological benchmark values provides the basis
for concluding that the SERA did not underestimate risks. This may have resulted hi some
scenarios showing a hazard quotient of greater than one when in fact the risks are actually
low or negligible (i.e., the risks are overestimated). It is very unlikely, however, that there
are any scenarios where the hazard quotients are less than one when in fact there is a
significant risk (i.e., the risks are underestimated).
External Review Draft
Volume VI VHI-4 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Potential risks to ecological receptors as a result of exposure to estimated stack and
fugitive emissions from the WTI facility are characterized using the hazard quotient method.
To calculate hazard quotients, conservative (protective) estimates of exposure are compared
to lexicological benchmarks for each ECOC and relevant exposure pathway included as
components in selected exposure scenarios, A hazard quotient of one or less (HQ < 1)
indicates low to negligible risks, and allows particular combinations of ECOCs, exposure
pathways, and indicator species to be eliminated from further consideration on a scenario-by-
scenario basis. Hazard quotients greater than one (HQ > 1) indicate potentially significant
risks. Because of the overall conservatism inherent in the SERA methodology, hazard
quotients that exceed one do not necessarily mean that adverse ecological effects will occur.
Instead, hazard quotients provide a relative indication of the potential for adverse ecological
effects to occur and, thereby identify ECOC-pathway-receptor combinations for specific
exposure scenarios that may warrant further evaluation. If deemed appropriate by the risk
manager(s), a more detailed evaluation of existing information, or the development of
additional data to refine the assumptions and/or reduce the uncertainties in the risk analysis
methodology, could be conducted to refine the estimates of risks and to interpret in greater
depth their potential ecological significance. By eliminating the ECOCs/scenarios that are
not likely to contribute to risk, the remaining ECOCs/scenarios could become the focus of
any further evaluation beyond the screening-level risk assessment.
Five exposure scenarios are evaluated hi the SERA, including three stack emission
scenarios and two fugitive emission scenarios. These include: (1) the stack projected
permit limit metal scenario, which uses emission rate estimates based on the facility's
currently permitted maximum hourly emissions extrapolated to an annual maximum, (2) the
stack expected metal scenario, which uses annual emission rate estimates based on facility
tests and assuming full facility capacity and maximum heat input, (3) the stack high-end
organic scenario, which uses high-end (95 percent UCL) emission rate estimates based on
facility performance tests as annual emission rates, (4) the fugitive inorganic scenario, which
uses high-end emission rate estimates of fugitive fly ash emissions from the ash handling
facility as annual emission rates, and (5) the fugitive organic scenario, which uses best
estimate emission rates (based on chemical properties and data on the facility's pumpable
waste feed) for four identified sources of fugitive organic vapor emissions as annual emission
rates. Each of these scenarios uses generally conservative assumptions to estimate potential
exposures to ecological receptors.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IX-1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Five assessment endpoints. chosen during conceptual site model development, are the
basis for evaluating potential ecological risks. As described in Chapter n, an assessment
etidpoint is an explicit expression of the environmental component or value that is to be
protected. Each of the five assessment endpoints is evaluated using measurement endpoints
appropriate to a screening-level assessment (refer to Table n-1). These measurement
endpoints consist of an evaluation of chronic toxicity for ecologically relevant endpoints (i.e.,
*nose affecting reproduction, growth, and/or survival) and selected indicator species or
species groups. The following conclusions are made regarding the five assessment
endpoints:
(1) Reproduction, Growth, and Survival of Birds and Mammals
• Low to negligible risks are indicated from: (1) estimated exposures to stack
metals under the stack expected metal scenario, (2) estimated high-end
exposures to stack organic ECOCs, and (3) estimated high-end exposures to
fugitive inorganic ECOCs from the ash-handling facility.
• Moderate to high magnitude risks (HQs of up to 4,250) are indicated for six
metal ECOCs under the stack projected permit limit metal scenario at the
estimated maximum impact point (i.e., within 1-km of the facility), and
extending (at lesser magnitude; HQs of up to 11) to a distance of a least 10-km
for barium, seleni_;n, thallium and mercury.
• Risks of lower magnitude are indicated (cumulative hazard quotient of 2.3 for
all sources combined) for animal inhalation exposure to formaldehyde under
the fugitive organic scenario. The habitat at die point of maximum air
concentrations, located in developed areas within or near the fenced area of the
facility, is of low quality for most wildlife species, including the indicator
species evaluated. Exposure, and therefore risk, would decrease with
increasing distance from this maximum point which coincides with moving
toward higher quality wildlife habitat.
(2) Reproduction, Growth, and Survival of Terrestrial Plant Species and Communities
• Low to negligible risks are indicated for all exposure scenarios except for the
stack projected permit limit metal scenario.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IX-2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
• Risks of moderate to high magnitude are indicated for five metal ECOCs, two
via air exposure (HQs of 3.3 and 10) and all five via soil exposure (HQ of 2
to 361) under the stack projected permit limit metal scenario at the estimated
maximum impact point which is within or near the fenced area of the facility.
Exposure and risk would decrease moving away from the facility and toward
less developed areas with more diverse vegetative communities.
(3) Intact and Productive Aquatic and Terrestrial Food Chains
• Low to negligible risks are indicated from: (1) estimated exposures to stack
metals under the stack expected metal scenario, (2) estimated high-end
exposures to stack organic ECOCs, and (3) estimated high-end exposures to
fugitive inorganic ECOCs from the ash-handling facility.
• Moderate to high magnitude risks are indicated for six metal ECOCs under the
stack projected permit limit metal scenario at the estimated maximum impact
point. The following hazard quotients are indicated: terrestrial plants and soil
fauna as a result of soil exposures (HQs of 2 to 361); aquatic biota as a result
of surface water exposure to silver (HQ of 2.6); and two small mammals (vole
and shrew) as a result of ingestion exposure (HQs of 5 to 4,250). The
potential risks for the vole and shrew extend to a distance of at least 10-km
(the distance of Tomlinson Run Lake) for barium (HQ of 1.0 for the shrew),
selenium (HQ of 7.4 for the shrew), and thallium (HQ 10.4 for the shrew).
• Lower magnitude risks are indicated (cumulative hazard quotient of 2.3 for all
sources combined) for inhalation exposure (small mammals) to formaldehyde
under the fugitive organic scenario. The habitat at the point of maximum air
concentrations, located in developed areas within or near the fenced area of the
facility, is of low quality for most wildlife species, including all of the
indicator species evaluated. Exposure, and therefore risk, would decrease with
increasing distance from this maximum point.
(4) Maintaining a Healthy Aquatic Community
• Low to negligible risks are indicated from estimated high-end exposures to
stack organic ECOCs, from expected emissions for stack metal ECOCs, and
for high-end exposures to fugitive inorganic and organic ECOCs.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IX-3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
• Hazard quotients exceed one for silver in surface water (HQ of 2.6) under the
stack projected permit limit metal scenario at the estimated maximum impact
point (i.e., the Ohio River within 1-km of the facility). There are low to
negligible risks indicated for exposure to stack metal ECOCs in sediments.
(5) Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats
• There are no recorded sightings within the area designated as the estimated
maximum impact point (i.e., within 1-km of the facility). There are 13
recorded sightings (including 8 plants, 2 birds, 2 fish and 1 "other" aquatic
species) within 10-km of the facility, the closest occurring approximately 4-km
southwest of the facility for two fish species in the Ohio River. Based upon
their mobility, both fish species and the two bird species could conceivably
occur, at least periodically, within 1-km of the facility. One "significant"
habitat (Little Beaver Creek) is located approximately 3-km from the facility.
In summary, the risk analysis indicates low to negligible ecological risks for organic
chemicals (except formaldehyde in fugitive emissions) and for metals under the stack
expected metal scenario. The formaldehyde exposure that results hi a hazard quotient of 2.3
is limited to habitats in or immediately adjacent to the facility. It is expected that wildlife
exposures will be limited at these locations (due to habitat considerations) and that adverse
effects to wildlife populations and community structure would be unlikely.
The level of confidence that actual risks are not underestimated for any of these
exposure scenarios is high based on the use of generally conservative assumptions throughout
the screening-level analysis. While there are a small number of exposure-related assumptions
for which the direction of the uncertainty is either not conservative or is not known, these
are outweighed by the majority of the assumptions, including those addressing emission
rates, deposition rates, and the duration and extent of exposures, which are recognizably
conservative.
The risk analysis for the stack projected permit limit metal scenario (the same in all
respects to the stack expected metal scenario except for its higher emission rates) indicates a
moderate to high risk to ecological receptors exposed via air, soil, or the food chain for six
of the twelve metals included hi the current permit: barium, mercury, nickel, selenium,
silver, and thallium. Hazard quotients for each of the six metals (except mercury) are 10 or
higher for one or more ecological receptors. The magnitude of the hazard quotient
exceedences range from 1.1 (for the kingfisher exposed to mercury through the food chain
pathway) to 4,250 (for the short-tailed shrew exposed to thallium through the food chain
External Review Draft
Volume VI IX-4 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
pathway) at the maximum impact points (which were all within 1-km of the facility). There
are exceedences for four of the metals (barium [HQ = 1.0], selenium [HQs < 8], thallium
[HQs < 11], and mercury [HQ = 3.8]) at Tomlinson Run Lake, a distance of 10-km from
the facility. No hazard quotient exceeds one for sediments, and there is one exceedence in
surface water (HQ = 2.6 for silver) at the maximum impact point/Ohio River.
As with the other scenarios, there is a high level of confidence that the actual risks
would be equal to or less than the estimated risks for the stack projected permit .limit metal
scenario; that is, the risks are not underestimated. However, there is an added feasibility
issue of long-term operations at this level of emissions. It assumes continuous emissions at
the maximum hourly permit limit rather than lower rates with periodic excursions up to the
hourly permitted limit. Because of this practical aspect, it is considered an unlikely scenario.
The significance of the outcome for the stack projected permit limit metal scenario is
that valued resources could be adversely impacted if the incinerator emitted metals
continuously at the allowable hourly maximum level. Although this level of emission is
considered unlikely, it is theoretically and legally possible. At present, the RCRA permit
imposes28 hourly limits on the emissions of ten metals, and it is anticipated that two
additional metals29 will be regulated when the final operating conditions are added to the
permit. Quantifying the likelihood and the extent of these potential effects for the indicator
species for which moderate to high risks are indicated would require additional evaluation at
the PERA or DERA level. Determining the implications of this scenario for rare,
threatened, and endangered species that may inhabit the assessment area would require more
in-depth evaluation of these species and would be addressed in a biological assessment rather
than a PERA or DERA.
28 The permit itself presently contains general language citing and requiring compliance
with the regulations found in the February 21, 1991 Federal Register (subsequently
codified at 40 CFR 266.100 et seq.); actual numerical emission and feed limit values
necessary to comply with this general permit language are set forth in a letter from
Region 5 to WTI dated October 20, 1993.
29 In addition to the ten metals normally limited under 40 CFR 266.106, the U.S. EPA now
routinely limits emissions of the two metals, nickel and selenium.
External Review Draft
Volume VI IX-5 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
X. REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1989a. Toxicological profile
for mercury. TP-0608MYF.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1989b. Toxicological profile
for selenium. TP-89/21. .
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1989c. Toxicological profile
for potycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1989d. Toxicological profile
for acrylonitrile. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1989e. Toxicological profile
for hexachlorobenzene. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1989f. Toxicological profile
for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. TP-88/23.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1989g. Toxicological profile
for copper. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1990a. Toxicological profile
for aluminum. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1990b. Toxicological profile
for antimony. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1990c. Toxicological profile
for barium. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1990d. Toxicological profile
for silver. TO-90/24.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1990e. Toxicological profile
for thallium. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1991a. Toxicological profile
for vinyl chloride. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1991b. Toxicological profile
for chloroform. Draft.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-l . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992a. Toxicological profile
for acetone. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992b. Toxicological profile
for hexachlorobutadiene. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992c. Toxicological profile
for 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDD. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992d. Toxicological profile
for zinc. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992e. Toxicological profile
for pentachlorophenol. Draft.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry .(ATSDR). 1993a. Toxicological profile
for arsenic. TP-92/02.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993b. Toxicological profile
for cadmium. TP-92/06.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993c. Toxicological profile
for cyanide.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993d. Toxicological profile
for lead. TP-92/12.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993e. Toxicological profile
for di (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. TP-92/05.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993f. Toxicological profile
for selected PCBs. TP-92/16.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993g. Toxicological profile
for beryllium. TP-92/04.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993h. Toxicological profile
for chromium. TP-92/08.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993i. Toxicological profile
for nickel. TP-92/14.
Ainsworth, N., J.A. Cooke, and M.S. Johnson. 1991. Behavior and toxicity of antimony in
the short-tailed field vole (Microtus agrestis). Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety. 21:165-170.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Alloway, B.J. (compiler). 1990. Heavy metals in soils. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
Somerset, NJ. 339 pp.
AQUIRE. 1995. On-line Aquatic Toxicity Data Base.
Baes, C.F. ffl, R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. A review and analysis of
parameters for assessing transport of environmentally released radionudides through
agriculture. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL-5786. 148 pp.
Barren, M.G., I.R. Schultz, and W.L. Hayton. 1989. Presystemic bronchial metabolism
limits di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate accumulation in fish. Tax.. Appl. Pharm. 99:49-57.
Bellrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America, third edition. Stackpole
Books, Harrisburg, PA. 540 pp.
Beyer, W.N. 1990. Evaluating soil contamination, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report 90(2). 25 pp.
Beyer, W.N. and C.D. Gish. 1980. Persistence hi earthworms and potential hazards to
birds of soil applied DDT, dieldrin, and heptachlor. Journal of Applied Ecology.
17:295-307.
Beyer, W.N. and C. Stafford. 1993. Survey and evaluation of contaminants hi earthworms
and hi soil derived from dredged material at confined disposal facilities hi the Great
Lakes region. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 24:151-165.
Beyer, W.N., R.L. Chancy, and B.M. Mulhern. 1982. Heavy metal concentrations hi
earthworms from soil amended with sewage sludge. Journal of Environmental
Quality. 11:381-385.
Brauning, D.W. (ed). 1992. Atlas of breeding birds in Pennsylvania. University of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA. 484 pp.
Buckelow, A.R., Jr. and G.A. Hall. 1994. The West Virginia breeding bird atlas.
University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA. 215 pp.
Bysshe, S.E. 1988. Uptake by biota. Chapter 4 IN Bodek, I., W.J. Lyman, W.F. Reehl,
and D.H. Rosenblatt (eds). Environmental Inorganic Chemistry. Pergamon Press,
NY.
Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing ecological risk assessments. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. 257 pp.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Cain, B.W. and E.A. Pafford. 1981. Effects of dietary nickel on survival and growth of
mallard ducklings. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
10:737-745.
Cikutovic, M.A., L.C. Fitzpatrick, B.J. Venables, and AJ. Goven. 1993. Sperm count in
earthworms (Lumbricus terrestris) as a biomarker for environmental toxicology:
effects of cadmium and chlordane. Environmental Pollution. 81:123-125.
Clark, D.R., Jr. 1981. Bats and environmental contaminants: a review. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report - Wildlife No. 235. 27 pp.
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. Afield guide to reptiles and amphibians, eastern and
central North America, third edition. Houghton Mifflin, Co., Boston, MA. 450 pp.
Connell, D.W. and R.D. Markwell. 1990. Bioaccumulation in the soil to earthworm
system. Chemosphere. 20:91-100.
Coulston, F. and A.C. Kolbye, Jr. (eds). 1994a. Appendix F: Chlorinated benzenes.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 20:S842-S894.
Coulston, F. and A.C. Kolbye, Jr. (eds). 1994b. Appendix J: Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology. 20:S960-S1029.
Cowardin, L.M., V.Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands
and deepwater habitats of the United States.' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-79/31. 103pp.
Cox, R.M. 1992. Air pollution effects on plant reproductive processes and possible
consequences to their population biology. Pages 131-158 IN Barker, J.R. and D.T.
Tingey (eds). Air Pollution Effects on Biodiversity. Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY.
322 pp.
Cruzan, J. 1994. Ninety-fourth Christmas Bird Count, Beaver, Pennsylvania. American
Birds. 48(4):502.
Cruzan, J. 1993. Ninety-third Christmas Bird Count, Beaver, Pennsylvania. American
Birds. 47(4):625.
Cruzan, J. 1992. Ninety-second Christmas Bird Count, Beaver, Pennsylvania. American
Birds. 46(4):658.
Cruzan, J. 1991. Ninety-first Christmas Bird Count, Beaver, Pennsylvania. American
Birds. 45(4):666-667.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-4 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Cruzan, J. 1990. Ninetieth Christmas Bird Count, Beaver, Pennsylvania. American Birds.
("' 44(4):659.
V „/
Cruzan, J. 1989. Eighty-ninth Christmas Bird Count, Beaver, Pennsylvania. American
Birds. 43(4):752-753.
Davis, G.A., M. Swanson, and S. Jones. 1994. Comparative evaluation of chemical
ranking and scoring methodologies. University of Tennessee Center for Clean
Products and Clean Technologies.
Diercxsens, P., D. de Week, N. Borsinger, B. Rosset, and J. Tarradellas. 1985.
Earthworm contamination by PCBs and heavy metals. Chemosphere. 14:511-522.
Dobbs, M.G., J.L. Farris, R.J. Reash, D.S. Cherry, and J. Cairns, Jr. 1994. Evaluation of
the resident-species procedure for developing site-specific water quality criteria for
copper in Blain Creek, Kentucky. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 13:963-
971.
Dunning, J.B. (ed). 1993. CRC handbook of avion body masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL. 371pp.
Ecologistics Limited. 1986. Crop sensitivity to foliar uptake of air contamination ~
, ^ literature review. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 91 pp.
Eisler, R. 1985a. Cadmium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.2). 46 pp.
Eisler, R. 1985b. Selenium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.5). 57 pp.
Eisler, R. 1986a. Poly chlorinated biphenyl hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a
synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.7). 72 pp.
Eisler, R. 1986b. Dioxin hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.8). 37 pp.
Eisler, R. 1986c. Chromium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.6). 60 pp.
Eisler, R. 1987a. Mercury hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.10). 90 pp.
Eisler, R. 1987b. Poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbon hazards to fish, wildlife, and
invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
^ 85(1.11). 81pp.
U ..
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-5 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Eisler, R. 1988a. Arsenic hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.12), Contaminant Hazard
Reviews Report No. 12. 92 pp.
Eisler, R. 1988b. Lead hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.14). 134 pp.
Eisler, R. 1989. Pentachlorophenol hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic
review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.17), Contaminant
Hazard Reviews Report No. 17. 72 pp.
Eisler, R. 1991. Cyanide hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.23), Contaminant Hazard
Reviews Report No. 23. 55 pp.
Eisler, R. 1993. Zinc hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 10. 106 pp.
Environment Canada. 1994. Toxicity testing of NCSRP priority substances for the
development of soil quality criteria. Presented at SETAC 1994.
Fischer, E. and L. Koszoms. 1992. Sublethal effects, accumulation capacities and
elimination rates of As, Hg and Se in the manure worm, Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta,
Lumbricidae). Pedobiologia. 36:172-178.
Fisher, I.E. and L.E. McCoy. 1983. The results of Ohio River macroinvertebrate sampling
for 1975-1981. Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Sciences. 55:42-55.
Fitzpatrick, L.C., R. Sassani, B.J. Venables, and A.J. Goven. 1992. Comparative toxicity
of polychlorinated biphenyls to earthworms Eisenia foetida and Lumbricus terrestris.
Environmental Pollution. 77:65-69.
Galloway, J.N., J.D. Thornton, S.A. Norton, H.L. Volchok, and R.A.N. McLean. 1982.
Trace metals in atmospheric deposition: a review and assessment. Atmospheric
Environment. 16(7): 1677-1700.
Gish, C.D. and D.L. Hughes. 1982. Residues of DDT, dieldrin, and heptachlor in
earthworms during two years following application. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Special Scientific Report - Wildlife No. 241. Washington, D.C. 15 pp.
Gottschang, J.L. 1981. A guide to mammals of Ohio. The Ohio State University Press,
Columbus, OH. 176 pp.
Green, N.B. and T.K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. University
of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA. 241 pp.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-6 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hartenstein, R., E.F. Neuhauser, and A. Narahara. 1981. Effects of heavy metal and other
elemental additives to activated sludge on growth of Eisenia foetida. Journal of
Environmental Quality. 10:372-376.
Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). 1995. On-line computer data base. National
Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.
Heinz, G.H. and M.A. Fitzgerald. 1993. Reproduction of mallards following overwinter
exposure to selenium. Environmental Pollution. 81:117-122.
Hill, E.F. and M.B. Camardese. 1986. Lethal dietary toxicities of environmental
contaminants and pesticides to Coturnix. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and
Wildlife Technical Report 2. 147 pp.
Howard, P.H. 1989. Handbook of environmental fate and exposure data for organic
chemicals. Volume I. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Howard, P.H. 1990. Handbook of environmental fate and exposure data for organic
chemicals. Volume II. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Howard, P.H. 1991. Handbook of environmental fate and exposure data for organic
chemicals. Volume III. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Howard, P.H. 1993. Handbook of environmental fate and exposure data for organic
chemicals. Volume TV. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Howard, P.H., R.S. Boethling, W.F. Jarvis, W.M. Meylan, and E.M. Michalenko. 1991.
Handbook of environmental degradation rates. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 725
pp.
Hudson, R.H., R.K. Tucker, and M.A. Haegele. 1984. Handbook oftoxicity of pesticides
to wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 153. 90 pp.
Hull, R.N. and G.W. Suter II. 1994. Toxicological benchmarks for screening contaminants
of potential concern for effects on sediment-associated biota: 1994 revision.
Environmental Restoration Division, ORNL Environmental Restoration Program.
ES/ER/TM-95/R1. 30pp.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1987. Environmental health criteria
71 - pentachlorophenol. World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1989a. Environmental health criteria
86 - mercury - environmental aspects. World Health Organization, Geneva.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-7 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1989b. Environmental health criteria
89 -formaldehyde. World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1989c. Environmental health criteria
83 - DDT and its derivatives - environmental aspects. World Health Organization,
Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1989d. Environmental health criteria
84 - 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) - Environmental Aspects. World Health
Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1990a. Environmental health criteria
107 - barium. World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1990b. Environmental health criteria
106 - beryllium. World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1991a. Environmental health criteria
118 - inorganic mercury. World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1991b. Environmental health criteria
128 - chlorobenzenes other than hexachlorobenzene. World Health Organization,
Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1991c. Environmental health criteria
108 - nickel. World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1991d. Environmental health criteria
120 - hexachlorocyclopentadiene. World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1992a. Environmental health criteria
135 - cadmium - environmental aspects. World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1992b. Environmental health criteria
131 - diethylhexyl phthalate. World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1992c. Environmental health criteria
134 - cadmium. World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1993a. Environmental health criteria
140 - polychlorinated biphenyls and terphenyls, second edition. World Health
Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1993b. Environmental health criteria
154 - acetonitrile. World Health Organization, Geneva.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-8 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1994. Environmental health criteria
156 - hexachlorobutadiene. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Jorgensen, S.E., S.N. Nielsen, and L.A. Jorgensen. 1991. Handbook of ecological
parameters and ecotoxicology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace elements in soils and plants. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Kerr, J.F. 1989. Eighty-ninth Christmas Bird Count, Beaver Creek, Ohio. American Birds.
43(4): 853-854.
Lewis, S.C., J.R. Lynch, and A.I. Nikiforov. 1990. A new approach to deriving
community exposure guidelines from "no-observed-adverse-effect-levels". Regulatory
Toxicology and Pharmacology. 11:314-330.
Linzey, A.V. 1987. Effects of chronic polychlorinated biphenyls exposure on reproductive
success of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus). Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 16:455-460.
Linzey, A.V. 1988. Effects of chronic polychlorinated biphenyls exposure on growth and
reproduction of second generation white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus). Archives
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 17:39-45.
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed
contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends program. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 52.
Longcore, J.R. and R.C. Stendell. 1977. Shell thinning and reproductive impairment in
black ducks after cessation of DDE dosage. Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology. 6:293-304.
Lord, K.A., G.C. Briggs, M.C. Neale, and R. Manlove. 1980. Uptake of pesticides from
water and soil by earthworms. Pesticide Science. 11:401-408.
Loux, N.T. and D.S. Brown. 1993. Prediction of metal contaminant exposure in natural
waters using geochemical equilibrium modeling. Pages 149-163 IN Fish Physiology,
Toxicology, and Water Quality Management. Proceedings of an International
Symposium, Sacramento, California. EPA/600/R-93/157.
Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1990. Handbook of chemical property
estimation methods. American Chemical Society, Washington D.C.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-9 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ma, W., W. Denneman, and J. Faber. 1991. Hazardous exposure of ground-living small
mammals to cadmium and lead in contaminated terrestrial ecosystems. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 20:266-270.
Maki, A.W. and J.R. Duthie. 1978. Summary of proposed procedures for the evaluation of
aquatic hazard. Pages 153-163 IN Cairns, J., Jr., K.L. Dickson, and A.W. Maki
(eds). Estimating the Hazard of Chemical Substances to Aquatic Life. ASTM STP
657.
Malecki, M.R., E.F. Neuhauser, and R.C. Loehr. 1982. The effect of metals on the
growth and reproduction of Eisenia foetida (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae).
Pedobiologia. 24:129-137.
McColloch, J.S. and P. Lessing. 1980. Land use statistics for West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Environmental Geology Bulletin No. 18A.
59pp.
Menzie, C.A., D.E. Burmaster, J.S. Freshman, and C.A. Callahan. 1992. Assessment of
methods for estimating ecological risk in the terrestrial component: a case study at
the Baird & McGuire Superfund Site in Holbrook, Massachusetts. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. 11:245-260.
Meredith, K. 1994. Ninety-fourth Christmas Bird Count, Beaver Creek, Ohio. American
Birds. 48(4):590.
Meredith, K. 1993. Ninety-third Christmas Bird Count, Beaver Creek, Ohio. American
Birds. 47(4):710-711.
Meredith, K. 1992. Ninety-second Christmas Bird Count, Beaver Creek, Ohio. American
Birds. 46(4):742-743.
Meredith, K. 1991. Ninety-first Christmas Bird Count, Beaver Creek, Ohio. American
Birds. 45(4):750.
Meredith, K. 1990. Ninetieth Christmas Bird Count, Beaver Creek, Ohio. American Birds.
44(4):741.
Merritt, J.F. 1987. Guide to the mammals of Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press,
Pittsburgh, PA. 408 pp.
Montgomery, J.H. and L.M. Welbom. 1990. Groundwater chemicals desk reference.
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-10 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Myers, J.P., R.I.G. Morrison, P.Z; Antas, B.A. Harrington, I.E. Lovejoy, M. Sallaberry,
S.E. Senner, and A. Tarak. 1987. Conservation strategy for migratory species.
American Scientist. 75:19-26.
Nabholz, J.V., P. Miller, and M. Zeeman. 1993. Environmental risk assessment of new
chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section Five.
Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, ASTM STP 1179.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1980. Formaldehyde - an assessment of-its health
effects. Prepared for the Consumer Product Safety Commission by the Committee on
Toxicology. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 38 pp.
National Park Service (NPS). Undated. North Country Trail- National Scenic Trail.
Information brochure.
National Park Service (NPS). 1994a. Letter from R.F. Gift, NPS Mid-Atlantic Region,
regarding NPS lands within the WTI assessment area. July 14, 1994.
National Park Service (NPS). 1994b. Letter from D.N. Given, NPS Midwest Region,
regarding NPS lands within the WTI assessment area. July 11, 1994.
National Research Council (NRC). 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government-
managing the process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Neuhauser, E.F., R.C. Loehr, D.L. Milligan, and M.R. Malecki. 1985a. Toxicity of
metals to the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 1:149-152.
Neuhauser, E.F., R.C. Loehr, M.R. Malecki, D.L. Milligan, and P.R. Durkin. 1985b.
The toxicity of selected organic chemicals of the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 14:383-388.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1993. Technical
guidance for screening contaminated sediments. Division of Fish and Wildlife and
Division of Marine Resources. 36 pp.
Newell, A.J., D.W. Johnson, and L.K. Allen. 1987. Niagara River biota contamination
project: fish flesh criteria for piscivorous wildlife. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Technical Report 87-3.
182 pp.
Newman, J.R. and R.K. Schreiber. 1988. Air pollution and wildlife toxicology: an
overlooked problem. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 7:381-390.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (OHDNR). Undated. Ohio's Scenic Rivers - Little
Beaver Creek. Information brochure.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-ll Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (OHDNR). 1991. Hydrologic atlas for Ohio.
Water Inventory Report No. 28.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (OHDNR). 1993. Ohio's State Natural Areas,
Nature Preserves, and Scenic River System. Information brochure, revision date:
4/10/93.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (OHDNR). 1994a. State of Ohio Level II land use
by county. Data provided by Wayne Channell, OHDNR.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (OHDNR). 1994b. Letter from D. Woischke,
OHDNR, regarding rare species information for the Ohio portion of the WTI
assessment area. June 16, 1994.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 1993. Ohio water quality standards.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 1994. Letter from D. Mishne, OHEPA,
regarding water quality, fish, and macroinvertebrate data for the Ohio portion of the
WTI assessment area. August 15, 1994.
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO). 1994. Letter from L.D.
Boggs, OHSANCO, regarding fish data for the Ohio River. September 9, 1994.
OHM/TADS. 1995. Computerized database on the effects of oil and hazardous materials.
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOE). 1993. Guidelines for the protection
and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. ISBN 0-7729-9248-7. 27
pp.
Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, and G.W. Suter. 1993. Toxicological benchmarks for
wildlife. Environmental Restoration Division, ORNL Environmental Restoration
Program, ES/ER/TM-86. 64 pp.
Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, and G.W. Suter. 1995. Toxicological benchmarks for
wildlife: 1995 revision. Environmental Restoration Division, ORNL Environmental
Restoration Program, ES/ER/TM-86/R2. 42 pp.
Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1991. Afield guide to freshwater fishes. Houghton Mifflin
Co., Boston, MA. 432 pp.
Pearson, W.D. and B.J. Pearson. 1989. Fishes of the Ohio River. Ohio Journal of
Science. 89(5): 181-187.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). 1992. Resource
management plan for Raccoon Creek State Park. October 1992.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-12 , Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). 1993. Water quality
toxics management strategy - statement of policy.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). 1994a. Letter from G.M.
Schrum, PADER, regarding data for Raccoon Creek, McConnells Mill, Moraine, and
Hillman State Parks. August 9, 1994.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). 1994b. Pennsylvania
water quality standards. Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Chapter 93.
Pennsylvania Game Commission. 1994. Letter from D.A. McDowell, Pennsylvania Game
Commission, regarding data from the Pennsylvania Fish and Wildlife Database for
Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Washington Counties. August 9, 1994.
Pennsylvania Game Commission. 1995. Letter from C.W. DuBrock, Pennsylvania Game
Commission, regarding data from the Pennsylvania Fish and Wildlife Database for
Beaver County. October 13, 1995.
Peterjohn, E.G. and D.L. Rice. 1991. The Ohio breeding bird atlas. Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, Columbus, OH.
Peterson, R.E., H.M. Theobald, and G.L. Kimmel. 1993. Developmental and reproductive
toxicity of dioxins and related compounds: cross-species comparisons. Critical
Reviews in Toxicology. 23:283-335.
PHYTOTOX. 1995. Computerized database of organic chemicals and their effect on plants.
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS). 1995. Computerized database
on the toxic effects of chemicals, maintained by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
Reinecke, A.J. and R.G. Nash. 1984. Toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and short-term
bioaccumulation by earthworms (Oligochaeta). Soil Biol. Biochem. 16(l):45-49.
Rhoads, A.F. and W.M. Klein, Jr. 1993. The vascular flora of Pennsylvania: annotated
checklist and atlas. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA. 636 pp.
Roberts, B.L. and H.W. Dorough. 1985. Hazards of chemicals to earthworms.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 4:307-323.
Rodriguez-Grau, J., B.J. Venables, L.C. Fitzpatrick, A.J. Goven, and E.L. Cooper. 1989.
Suppression of secretory rosette formation by PCBs in Lumbricus terrestris; an
earthworm assay for humoral immunotoxicity of xenobiotics. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. 8:1201-1207.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-13 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Romijn, C.A.F.M., R. Luttik, D. V.D. Meent, W. Slooff, and J.H. Canton. 1993.
Presentation of a general algorithm to include effect assessment on secondary
poisoning in the derivation of environmental quality criteria. Parti. Aquatic food
chains. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 26:61-85.
Romijn, C.A.F.M., R. Luttik, and J.H. Canton. 1994. Presentation of a general algorithm
to include effect assessment on secondary poisoning in the derivation of environmental
quality criteria. Part 2. Terrestrial food chains. Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety. 27:107-127.
Sample, B.E. and G.W. Suter II. 1994. Estimating exposure to terrestrial wildlife to
contaminants. Environmental Restoration Division, ORNL Environmental Restoration
Program. ES/ER/TM-125.
Scheuhammer, A.M. 1987. The chronic toxicity of aluminum, cadmium, mercury, and lead
in birds: a review. Environmental Pollution. 46:263-295.
Schafer, E.W., Jr., W.A. Bowles, Jr., and J. Hurlbut. 1983. The acute oral toxicity,
repellency, and hazard potential of 998 chemicals to one or more species of wild and
domestic birds. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 12:355-
382.
Shaffer, L.L. 1991. Pennsylvania amphibians and reptiles. Pennsylvania Fish Commission,
Harrisburg, PA. 161 pp.
Sheppard, S.C., W.G. Evenden, S.A. Abboud, and M. Stephenson. 1993. A plant life-
cycle bioassay for contaminated soil, with comparison to other bioassays: mercury
and zinc. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 25:27-35.
Simmons, G.J. and M.J. McKee. 1992. Alkoxyresorufin metabolism in white-footed mice
at relevant environmental concentrations of Aroclor 1254. Fundamental and Applied
Toxicology. 19:446-452.
Smith, W.B. 1994. Ninety-fourth Christmas Bird Count, Raccoon Creek State Park,
Pennsylvania. American Birds. 48(4):512.
Smith, W.B. 1993. Ninety-third Christmas Bird Count, Raccoon Creek State Park,
Pennsylvania. American Birds. 47(4):635.
Smith, W.B. 1992. Ninety-second Christmas Bird Count, Raccoon Creek State Park,
Pennsylvania. American Birds. 46(4):668.
Smith, W.B. 1991. Ninety-first Christmas Bird Count, Raccoon Creek State Park,
Pennsylvania. American Birds. 45(4):676.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-14 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Smith, W.B. 1990. Ninetieth Christmas Bird Count, Raccoon Creek State Park,
Pennsylvania. American Birds. 44(4):669.
Smith, W.B. 1989. Eighty-ninth Christmas Bird Count, Raccoon Creek State Park,
Pennsylvania. American Birds. 43(4):764.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). 1995. Chemical ranking
and scoring: developing and implementing tools for relative chemical assessments.
SETAC News. 15(3): 14-16.
Spurgeon, D.J., S.P. Hopkin, and D.T. Jones. 1994. Effects of cadmium, copper, lead and
zinc on growth, reproduction and survival of the earthworm Eisenia fetida (Savigny):
assessing the environmental impact of point-source metal contamination in terrestrial
ecosystems. Environmental Pollution. 84:123-130.
Suter, G.W. II. 1989. Ecological endpoints. Chapter 2 IN Warren-Hicks, W., B.R.
Parkhurst, and S.S. Baker, Jr. (eds). Ecological assessment of hazardous waste sites:
a field and laboratory reference. EPA/600/3-89/013.
Suter, G.W. II. 1993. Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 538
pp.
Suter, G.W. n and J.B. Mabrey. 1994. Toxicological benchmarks for screening potential
contaminants of concern for effects on aquatic biota: 1994 revision. Environmental
Restoration Division, ORNL Environmental Restoration Program, ES/ER/TM-96/R1.
50 pp.
Taylor, R.W. 1980. A survey of the freshwater mussels of the Ohio River from Greenup
Locks and Dam to Pittsburgh, PA. Report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. 71 pp.
Thomas, J.A., T.D. Darby, R.F. Wallin, P.J. Garvin, and L. Martis. 1978. A review of
the biological effects on di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology. 45:1-27.
Travis, C.C., and A.D. Arms. 1988. Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk, and
vegetation. Environ. Sci. Tech. 22(3):271-274.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 1989. An analysis of the land base
situation in the United States: 1989-2040. A technical document supporting the 1989
USDA Forest Service RPA assessment. USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report RM-181. 76pp.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-15 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 1994. Letter from T.S. Frieswyk,
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, regarding forest statistics for the WTI
assessment area. June 28, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1980a. Ambient water quality criteria
forPCBs. EPA/440/5-80/068.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1980b. Proceedings of the EPA
workshop on the environmental scoring of chemicals, EPA/560/11-80/010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1980c. Ambient water quality criteria
for zinc. EPA/440/5-80/058.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1980d. Ambient water quality criteria
for DDT. EPA/440/5-80/038.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1980e. Ambient water quality criteria
for nickel. EPA/440/5-80/036.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1980f. Ambient water quality criteria
for selenium. EPA/440/5-80/070.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1980g. Ambient water quality criteria
forphthalate esters. EPA/440/5-80/067.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1983. Environmental transpori and
transformation of poly chlorinated bipheny Is. EPA/560/5-83/025.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1984a. Mercury health effects update.
EPA/600/4-84/019F.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1984b. Health assessment document
for hexachlorocyclopentadiene. EPA/600/8-84/001F.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1985a. Ambient water quality criteria
for mercury. EPA/440/9-85/085M.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1985b. Health assessment document
for chlorinated benzenes. EPA/600/8-84/015F.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1985c. Ambient water quality criteria
for copper. EPA/440/8-85/079.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1985d. Ambient water quality criteria
for cadmium. EPA/440/5-84/032.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-16 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986a. Quality criteria for water.
Office of Water Regulation and Standards. EPA/440/5-86/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986b. Health and environmental
effects profile for hexachlorophene. EPA/600/X-86/085.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1987a. Health and environmental
effects profile for phthalic acid esters. EPA/600/5-87/022.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1987b. Health effects assessment for
acetonitrile. EPA/600/8-88/012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1988a. Review of ecological risk
assessment methods. EPA/230/10-88/041.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1988b. Interim sediment criteria values
for nonpolar hydrophobic organic compounds. Office of Water, Criteria, and
Standards Division. 34 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989a. Interim procedures for
estimating risks associated with exposures to mixtures of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
and dibenzo-p-furans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 update. EPA/625/3-89/016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989b. Ecological assessment of
hazardous waste sites: afield and laboratory reference. EPA/600/3-89/013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989c. Briefing report to the EPA
Science Advisory Board on the equilibrium partitioning approach to generating
sediment quality criteria. EPA/440/5-89/003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region I. 1989d. Supplemental risk
assessment guidance for the Superfiind program. Part 2. Guidance for ecological
risk assessments. EPA/901 /5-89/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1990a. Basics of pump-and-treat
groundwater remediation. EPA/600/8-90/003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1990b. Methodology for assessing
health risks associated with indirect exposure to combustor emissions. EPA/600/6-
90/003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1990c. Assessment of risks from
exposure of humans, terrestrial and avion wildlife, and aquatic life to dioxins and
furansfrom disposal and use of sludge from bleached kraft and sulfite pulp and paper
mills. EPA/560/5-90/013.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-17 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1991a. Water quality criteria
summary. Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1991b. Criteria for choosing indicator
species for ecological risk assessments at Superfund sites. EPA/101/F-90/051. 51
pp.
U:S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992a. Supplemental guidance to
RAGS; calculating the concentration term. May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992b. Framework for ecological risk
assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992c. Default parameters for indirect
exposure methodology. Washington D.C. February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1993a. WI7phase II risk assessment
project plan, EPA ID number OHD980613541. Region V, Chicago, Illinois. U.S.
EPA Contract No. 68-W9-0040, Work Assignment No. R05-06-15. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1993b. Report on the technical
workshop on WTI incinerator risk issues. EPA/630/R-94/001, Risk Assessment
Forum, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1993c. A review of ecological
assessment case studies from a risk assessment perspective. EPA/630/R-92/005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1993d. Wildlife exposure factors
handbook, Volume I of II. EPA/600/R-93/187a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). l993e. Office of water policy and
technical guidance on interpretation and implementation of aquatic life metals criteria.
1 October 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1993f. Addendum to "methodology for
assessing health risks associated with indirect exposure to combustor emissions".
Exposure Assessment Group. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
EPA/600/AP-93/003. Washington, D.C. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994a. Implementation Guidance for
Conducting Indirect Exposure Analysis at RCRA Combustion Units. Memorandum
from M. Shapiro, Director, Office of Solid Waste. Revised April 22. EPA/530/R-
94/021.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-18 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994b. Maximum metals emissions
from Waste Technologies Industries. Memorandum from G. Victorine, RCRA
Permitting Branch. December 21.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994c. Revised draft of risk assessment
implementation guidance for hazardous waste combustion facilities. Memorandum
from M.H. Shapiro, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, to Waste Management Division
Directors, Regions I-X. May 5.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994d. Estimating exposure to dioxin-
like compounds. Volumes I-III. Review Draft. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-88/005Ca,b,c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994e. Ecological risk assessment
issue papers. EPA/630/R-94/009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994f. Ecological risk assessment
guidance for RCRA corrective action, Region 5. Interim Draft.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994g. A review of ecological
assessment case studies from a risk assessment perspective. Volume II. EPA/630/R-
94/003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994h. Chemical hazard evaluation for
management strategies: a method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential
human health and environmental impacts. EPA/600/R-94/177.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994i. STORET System, a database of
sampling sites and their associated water quality data. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994J. Mercury study report to
Congress, Volume III: An assessment of exposure from anthropogenic mercury
emissions in the United States. Draft. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
and Office of Research and Development. December 13.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995a. Internal report on summary of
measured, calculated, and recommended log K^ values. Prepared for E.
Southerland, Chief of the Risk Assessment and Management Branch, Standards and
Applied Science Division, Office of Water by S.W. Karickhoff and J.M. Long,
Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens. April 10, 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995b. Great Lakes water quality
initiative technical support document for the procedure to determine bioaccumulation
factors. EPA/820/B-95/005.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-19 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995c. Great Lakes water quality
initiative technical support document for wildlife criteria. EPA/820/B-95/009.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994a. Letter from D.J. Putnam, USFWS State
College, Pennsylvania Office, regarding federally-listed species in the Pennsylvania
portion of the WTI assessment area. August 17, 1994.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994b. Letter from K.E. Kroonemeyer, USFWS
Reynoldsburg, Ohio Office, regarding federally-listed species in the Ohio portion of
the WTI assessment area. July 28, 1994.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994c. Letter from C.M. Glower, USFWS West
Virginia Field Office, regarding federally-listed species in the West Virginia portion
of the WTI assessment area. August 2, 1994.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1977a. Land Use and Land Cover, 1972, Cleveland,
Ohio; PA (1:250,000). Open File 77-105-1, Land Use Series.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1977b. Land Use and Land Cover, 1970-72, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania (1:250,000). Open File 77-110-1, Land Use Series.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1980. Land Use and Land Cover, 1976-78, Canton,
Ohio; PA; W. VA. (1:250,000). Open File 80-172-1, Land Use Series.
Van Gestel, C.A.M., E.M. Dirven-Van Breemen, R. Baerselman, H.J.B. Emans, J.A.M.
Janssen, R. Postuma, and P.J.M. Van Vliet. 1992. Comparison of sublethal and
lethal criteria for nine different chemicals in standardized toxicity tests using the
earthworm Eisenia andrei. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 23:206-220.
Van Gestel, C.A.M., W. Ma, and C.E. Smit. 1991. Development of QSARs in terrestrial
ecotoxicology: earthworm toxicity and soil sorption of chlorophenols,
chlorobenzenes, and dichloroaniline. Science of the Total Environment.
109/110:589-604.
Van Gestel, C.A.M. and W. Ma. 1990. An approach to quantitative structure-activity
relationships (QSARs) in earthworm toxicity studies. Chemosphere. 21:1023-1033.
Van Gestel, C.A.M. and W. Ma. 1988. Toxicity and bioaccumulation of chlorophenols in
earthworms, in relation to bioavailablity in soil. Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety. 15:289-297.
Van Gestel, C.A.M. and W.A. van Dis. 1988. The influence of soil characteristics on the
toxicity of four chemicals to the earthworm Eisenia fetida andrei (Oligochaeta).
Biology and Fertility of Soils. 6:262-265.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-20 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Van Straalen, N.M. and C.A.J. Denneman. 1989. Ecotoxicological evaluation of soil
quality criteria. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 18:241-251.
Verschueren, K. 1983. Handbook of environmental data on organic chemicals, second
edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York. 1310 pp.
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR). 1995. Specific water quality
criteria. Title 46, Series 1, Part 8, Appendix E.
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR). 1994. Letter from B. Sargent,
WVDNR, regarding rare species and other fish and wildlife data for the West
Virginia portion of the WTI assessment area. July 7, 1994.
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPAC). 1994. Letter from P.O. Wiegman, Western
Pennsylvania Conservancy, regarding rare species information for the Pennsylvania
portion of the WTI assessment area. August 26, 1994.
White, D.H. and J.T. Seginak. 1994. Dioxins and furans linked to reproductive impairment
in wood ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management. 58:100-106.
Will, M.E. and G.W. Suter II. 1994a. Toxicological benchmarks for screening potential
contaminants of concern for effects on terrestrial plants: 1994 revision.
Environmental Restoration Division, ORNL Environmental Restoration Program.
ES/ER/TM-85/R1.
Will, M.E. and G.W. Suter II. 1994b. Toxicological benchmarks for screening potential
contaminants of concern for effects on soil and litter invertebrates and heterotrophic
process. Environmental Restoration Division, ORNL Environmental Restoration
Program. ES/ER/TM-126.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1991. Final ecological risk assessment report, submerged
quench incinerator, Task IRA-2, Basin F liquids treatment design. Prepared for the
U.S. Army Program Manager's Office for Rocky Mountain Arsenal Contamination
Cleanup.
Wren, C.D., H.R. MacCrimmon, and B.R. Loescher. 1983. Examination of
bioaccumulation and biomagnification of metals in a Preeambrian Shield lake. Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution. 19:277-291.
Zeeman, M. and J. Gilford. 1993. Ecological hazard evaluation and risk assessment under
EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): an introduction. Environmental
Toxicology and Risk Assessment, ASTM STP 1179.
External Review Draft
Volume VI X-21 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-1
WETLAND AREAS GREATER THAN 10 ACRES
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VT External Review Draft
Appendix VI-1 1 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-1
Wetland Areas Greater than 10 Acres Within the Assessment Area
USGS Quadrangle
Gavers, OH
Elkton, OH
West Point, OH
Wellsville, OH-WV
Knoxville, OH-WV
East Palestine, OH-PA
Coordinates
40°39' x 80°46'
40°38' x 80°45'
40°39' x 80°47'
40°48' x 80°39'
40°46' x 80°39'
40°45' x 80°39'
40°44' x 80°44'
40°43' x 80°43'
40°42' x 80°43'
40°41' x 80°39'
40°40' x 80°41'
40°39' x 80°42'
40°37' x 80°42'
40°33' x 80°42'
40°31' x 80°42'
40°31' x 80°44'
40°30' x 80°43'
40°36' x 80°45'
40°29' x 80°41'
40°28'x80a41'
40°49'x80°31'
40°47' x 80°31'
40°47' x 80°31'
40°46' x 80°36'
Wetland
Class"
POWZ
LlOWHh
PEMY/Z
PFO1Y
PSS1 Y
EM
POWZx
PF01Y
POWH
PFQ 1Y
SS
POWH
POWH
PSS1Y
POWHh
PFOW
POWHx
POWH
POWHx
PFQ 1Y
SS
PSS1 Y
EM
POWH
PUBGx
PF01A
PF01A
LIUBHh
Approx.
Acreage
10-20
>50
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
>50
County, State
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Volume VI
Appendix VI-1
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-1
Wetland Areas Greater than 10 Acres Within the Assessment Area
USGS Quadrangle
East Liverpool North,
OH-PA-WV
East Liverpool South,
WV-PA-OH
New Galilee, PA
Midland, PA
Hookstown, PA
Burgettstown, PA
Beaver, PA
Coordinates
40°43' x 80°32'
40°38' x 80°31'
40°33' x 80°35'
40°48' x 80°28'
40°48' x 80°28'
40°47' x 80°27'
40°47' x 80°27'
40°47' x 80°27'
40°47' x 80°27'
40°46' x 80°29'
40°42' x 80°27'
40°34' x 80°25'
40°32' x 80°24'
40°31' x 80°27'
40°31' x 80°26'
40°30' x 80°24'
40°30' x 80°24'
40°30' x 80°23'
40°30' x 80°23'
40°29' x 80°29'
40°29' x 80°29'
40°28' x 80°27'
40°22' x 80°44'
40°21' x 80°40'
40°21' x 80°39'
Wetland
Class*
PFO1A
LIUBHh
LIUBHh
PF01A
PF01A
PEM1E
pro IE
ss
PEM IE
SS
PF01E
PFO1A
PF01A
PFO1A
PFO1A
PEM1E
PUBHh
L2USAh
L2USAh
LIUBHh
PFO1C
PFO1A
PF01A
PEM1C
LIUBHh
PUBHh
PEM1/
PF01A
Approx.
Acreage
>20
>50
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
>20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
>20
10-20
>20
>20
10-20
>20
10-20
10-20
County, State
Columbiana, OH.
Beaver, PA
Hancock, WV
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver/Washington, PA
Washington, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-1
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-1
Wetland Areas Greater than 10 Acres Within the Assessment Area
USGS Quadrangle
Coordinates
Wetland
Class*
Approx.
Acreage
County, State
Aliquippa, PA
40°35'x 80°44'
LIUBHh
>50
40°36'x 80°41'
PF01A
10-20
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Wetland Class
L - Lacustrine
1 - Limnetic
OW - Open Water/Unknown Bottom
UB - Unconsolidated Bottom
2 - Littoral
US - Unconsolidated Shore
P - Palustrine
UB - Unconsolidated Bottom
EM - Emergent
1 - Persistent
SS - Scrub-Shrub
1 - Broad-Leaved Deciduous
FO - Forested
1 - Broad-Leaved Deciduous
OW - Open Water/Unknown Bottom
Modifiers
Water Regime
A - Temporarily Flooded
C - Seasonally Flooded
E - Seasonally Flooded Saturated
G - Intermittently Exposed
H - Permanently Flooded
W - Intermittently Flooded Temporary
Y - Saturated Semipermanent/Seasonal
Z - Intermittently Exposed Permanent
Special Modifiers
h - Diked/Impounded
x - Excavated
NOTE: Portions of the Ohio River classified as lacustrine wetlands are not included in this appendix.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-1
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-2
NON-INTERMITTENT LOTIC WATER BODIES
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-2 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-2
Non-Intermittent Lotic Water Bodies Within the Assessment Area
Water Body
Alder Lick Run
Aunt Clara Fork, Kings Creek
Bailey Run
Bealer Run
Bieler Run
Brady Run
Brimstone Run
Brush Creek
Brush Run
Bull Creek
Camp Hollow Run
Carpenter Run
Carter Run
Coalbank Run
Cold Run
Croxton Run
Dennis Run
Dilloe Run
Dry Run
Elk Run
Fishpot Run
Four Mile Run
Frames Run
Goose Run
Location
(County, State)
Columbiana, OH
Washington, PA
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Washington, PA
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Jefferson, OH
Classification
Stream Order/
Designation"
OH: WWH
-
-
-
OH: WWH
PA: 3 WWF
PA: 3 TSF
OH: WWH
PA: 4 WWF
OH: WWH
PAS WWF
OH: WWH
-
-
OH: WWH
-
OH: WWH
OH: WWH
OH: WWH
PA: 3
OH: WWH
OH: WWH
PA: 3 WWF
PA: 2 WWF
PA: 3 WWF
OH: CWH
NWI Designation"
PSS1Y, POWZ,
PEMY
R3UBH
PSS1Y
PEM1C, PUBHh
R3UBH
R3UBH, R2UBHx
R3OWZ
PFO1A, PSS1A,
R2UBH, PSS1C,
PEM1E
PSS1E, PFO1E,
PEM1E, PSS1C,
R2UBH
R2OWZ, R2UBH
-
-
-
PFO1A, PEM1A
PEMY, PSS1Y
R3UBH, R3OWZ
-
PF01A
PFO1W, PSS1W
R50WZ
.
-
-
R30WZ
Volume VI
Appendix VI-2
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-2
Non-Intermittent Lotic Water Bodies Within the Assessment Area
Water Body
Gums Run
Haden Run
Hale Run
Hardin Run
Holbert Run
Hollow Rock Run
Island Run
Island Creek
Jeddo Run
Jeremy Run
Jethroe Run
Kings Creek, North Fork
Kings Creek
Lawrence Run
Leslie Run
Lick Run
Little Beaver Creek
Little Beaver Creek, Middle
Fork
Little Beaver Creek, North
Fork
Little Beaver Creek, West
Fork
Little Blue Run
Little Bull Creek
Little Island Creek
Location
(County, State)
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Jefferson, OH
Hancock, WV
Hancock, WV
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
Hancock, WV
Washington, PA
Hancock, WV
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Hancock, WV
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Classification
Stream Order/
Designation"
PA: 3 WWF
PA: 2 WWF
OH: WWH
-
-
OH: WWH
PA: 3 WWF
OH: CWH
OH: CWH
-
-
-
PA: 2 CWF
PA: 4
OH: WWH
OH: WWH
OH:EWH
PA: 2 WWF
OH: WWH, EWH
OH: WWH
-
-
OH: WWH
OH: WWH
NWI Designation"
-
-
R3OWZ
R3UBH
-
-
-
R3UBH, R3OWH,
R30WZ
-
-
R3UBH
-
-
-
R2UBH
-
R2UBH
R5OWZ
R2UBH
R5OWZ
PUBHh
R2UBH, R2OWZ
R3UBH
Volume VI
Appendix VI-2
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-2
Non-Intermittent Lotic Water Bodies Within the Assessment Area
Water Body
Little Service Run
Little Traverse Creek
Little Yellow Creek
Logtown Run
Longs Run
McElroy Run
Mclaughlin Run
McQueen Run
Mercer Run
Mill Creek
North Run
Ohio River
Painter Run
Patterson Creek
Peggs Run
Pine Run
Poorhouse Run
Raccoon Creek
Rag Run
Randolph Run
Riley Run
Roach Run
Location
(County, State)
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Hancock, WV
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Hancock, WV
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Hancock, WV
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Classification
Stream Order/
Designation"
PA: 4
PA: 3 WWF
OH: WWH
PA: 2 WWF
OH: CWH
-
PA: 3 WWF
OH: WWH
-
PA: 2 TSF
-
PA: 1
PA: 3 WWF
OH: WWH
PA: 2 WWF
-
PA: 2 WWF
PA: 2 WWF
-
OH: LRW
-
OH: WWH
NWI Designation"
PF01A
PFO1A
PFO1A, PUBHx,
PUBFh, PEMlFh,
R5OWZ
-
R2UBH
PEM1A, PFO1A
-
-
-
R3UBH, PEMY,
R2OWZ
-
PSS1E, PEM1E,
PFO1E
POWZ
-
PFO1A, PUBHh,
PSS1A, R3UBH
-
R2UBH
-
POWZ
R5OWZ
-
Volume VI
Appendix VI-2
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-2
Non-Intermittent Lotic Water Bodies Within the Assessment Area
Water Body
Rocky Run
Rough Run
Rowley Run
Rush Run
Salisbury Run
Salt Run
Service Creek
Shafers Run
Shelley Run
Six-Mile Run
Squirrel Run
Swamp Hollow Run
Tarburner Run
Tomlinson Run
Town Fork Run
Traverse Creek
Turkeyfoot Run
Two-Mile Run
Upper Dry Run
Wells Run
Whiteoak Run
Wildcat Hollow Run
Wingfield Run
Wolf Run
Location
(County, State)
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Hancock, WV
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Hancock, WV
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Hancock, WV
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Hancock, WV
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Classification
Stream Order/
Designation*
OH: WWH
OH: WWH
-
-
OH: LRW
OH: WWH
PA: 3 HQ-CWF,
WWF
-
OH: WWH
PA: 2 WWF
PA: 2 WWF
-
OH: WWH
PA: 2 WWF
OH: WWH
PA: 3 HQ-CWF, TSF
OH: WWH
PA: 2 WWF
PA: 2 WWF
OH: WWH
-
-
PA: 3
PA: 2 WWF
NWI Designation11
-
R2UBH
PEMW
-
-
-
PF01A
-
R30WZ
PEM1C
-
-
-
R3UBH
R3OWZ
R2UBH, PFO1A
PSS1Y, PEMY
-
-
-
-
R3UBH, R30WZ
PFO1A, PEM1E
PEM1C
Volume VI
Appendix VI-2
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-2
Non-Intermittent Lotic Water Bodies Within the Assessment Area
Water Body
Location
(County, State)
Classification
Stream Order/
Designation*
NWI Designation11
Yellow Creek
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
OH: WWH
R2OWZ, R3OWZ,
R5OWZ
Pennsylvania
CWF - Cold Water Fishery
HQ-CWF - High Quality Waters-Cold Water Fishery
TSF - Trout Stocking
WWF - Warm Water Fishery
Ohio
CWH - Coldwater Habitat
EWH - Exceptional Warmwater Habitat
LRW - Limited Resource Water
WWH - Warmwater Habitat
Wetland Class
R - Riverine
2 - Lower Perennial
OW - Open Water
UB - Unconsolidated Bottom
3 - Upper Perennial
OW - Open Water
UB - Unconsolidated Bottom
5 - Unknown Perennial
OW - Open Water
P - Palustrine
UB - Unconsolidated Bottom
EM - Emergent
1 - Persistent
SS - Scrub-Shrub
1 - Broad-Leaved Deciduous
FO - Forested
1 - Broad-Leaved Deciduous
OW - Open Water
Modifiers
Water Regime
A - Temporarily Flooded
C - Seasonally Flooded
E - Seasonally Flooded Saturated
F - Semipermanently Flooded
H - Permanently Flooded
W - Intermittently Flooded Temporary
Y - Saturated Semipermanent/Seasonal
Z - Intermittently Exposed Permanent
Special Modifiers
h - Diked/Impounded
x - Excavated
Volume VI
Appendix VI-2
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-3
DESCRIPTIONS OF STATE PARKS AND MAJOR WBLDLD7E
MANAGEMENT AREAS WITHIN THE WTI ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-3 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-3
Descriptions of State Parks and Major Wildlife Management Areas
Within the WTI Assessment Area
Raccoon Creek State Park encompasses 7,323 acres in Beaver County, Pennsylvania,
including 101-acre Raccoon Creek Lake (Figure m-3, Area 14). Approximately 90 percent
of the park is forested, with mixed oak the most common forest type (3,860 acres) (PADER
1992). The park contains a 314-acre wildflower reserve containing over 500 species of
flowering plants. It also contains Frankfort Mineral Springs, a unique natural feature and
historic site. The park features camping, boating, hunting, fishing, swimming, hiking, cross
country skiing, and snowmobiling. Over 4,000 acres are open to hunting and trapping;
common game species include deer, wild turkey, grouse, squirrel, and rabbit. Raccoon
Creek Lake offers fishing for sunfish, bullhead, catfish, yellow perch, walleye, muskellunge,
crappies, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, brook trout, and rainbow trout; many of these
species are stocked. A total of 191 species of birds are known to occur at the park.
Hillman State Park, located in Washington County, Pennsylvania, is administered by
the Pennsylvania Game Commission along with adjacent Special Area (State Game Lands)
432 (Figure m-3, Areas 8 and 19). These two areas combined total 3,654 acres. The area
is undeveloped and is used for hunting and off-road vehicle (ORV) recreation.
Beaver Creek State Park is located in Columbiana County, Ohio, and encompasses
3,038 acres (Figure m-3, Area 2). Little Beaver Creek, classified as a state wild and scenic
river and as a national scenic river, flows through the park. The Little Beaver Valley is
unique, geologically, and also contains several unusual species of flora. The park features
camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, swimming, boating, and snowmobiling. The 454-acre
Little Beaver Creek State Nature Preserve is located within the park and a portion of the
North Country National Scenic Trail crosses through the park.
Tomlinson Run State Park in Hancock County, West Virginia, contains 1,401 acres
(Figure m-3, Area 20). The park is divided into an "activity area", which features hunting,
fishing, boating, and hiking, and a small wilderness area. Over 33 acres of water, including
29-acre Tomlinson Run Lake, provide fishing for bass, bluegill, and trout as well as
recreational boating. In the wilderness area, Tomlinson Run has cut a deep gorge into the
surrounding land as it drops over a relatively steep elevational gradient. This portion of the
park is heavily forested with second-growth hardwoods and contains overhanging cliffs of
sandstone and shale.
Highlandtown Wildlife Area encompasses 2,105 acres in Columbiana County, Ohio
and includes 170-acre Highlandtown Lake (Figure ffl-3, Area 6). The area offers fishing
and hunting in a variety of wetland, upland, and aquatic habitats. Principal fish species
include largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie, white crappie, muskellunge, northern pike,
brown bullhead, channel catfish, and yellow perch, many of which are stocked. Habitat
types include second-growth deciduous and coniferous forest interspersed with shrubland, old
fields, and scattered wetlands. The area is actively managed to improve wildlife habitat
diversity and interspersion; this includes growing crops as a wildlife food source. Many
uncommon plant species are known to occur within this area. Cottontail rabbit, fox squirrel,
and gray squirrel are the principal game species. Other common game species include
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-3 2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
woodchuck, raccoon, bobwhite quail, American woodcock, waterfowl, mffed grouse, wild
turkey, and deer.
Brush Creek Wildlife Area encompasses 2,546 acres in Jefferson County, Ohio
(Figure EQ-3, Area 5). The area is composed of broad ridges and steep, wooded slopes
which descend to the narrow valley floor of Brush Creek. Second-growth hardwoods occupy
approximately 80 percent of the area, with oak-hickory forest types dominating the ridge
tops, and maple, beech, elm, ash, and tulip poplar dominating the lower slopes. Open field
and shrubland habitats are also present. The area is actively managed to improve wildlife
habitat diversity and interspersion, especially for forest game species; this includes growing
crops as a wildlife food source. Hunting is the major recreational use of the area, with
cottontail rabbit, ruffed grouse, gray squirrel, and fox squirrel the principal game species.
Other game species include northern bobwhite, white-tailed deer, woodchuck, beaver, wild
turkey, and raccoon. Bluegill, suckers, bullheads, and bass occur in the lower portions of
Brush Creek. Largemouth bass and bluegill are found in two small ponds within the area.
Hillcrest Wildlife Management Area occupies 1,519 acres of land in Hancock County,
West Virginia (Figure m-3, Area 7). Habitats on the area consist primarily of old fields and
croplands, with scattered woodlots. Hunting is the principal use of the area; common game
species include ring-necked pheasant, cottontail rabbit, mourning dove, and white-tailed deer.
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-3 3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
BIRD SPECIES KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-4 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Acadian flycatcher
Alder flycatcher*
American bittern11111
American black duck"
American coot*"
American crow
American goldfinch
American kestrel
American redstart
American robin
American tree sparrow
American wigeon
American woodcock
Baird's sandpiper
Bald eagle06111
Bank swallowf
Barn swallow
Barred owl
Bay-breasted warbler
Belted kingfisher
Black scoter
Black tern"111
Black vulture5
Black-and-white warbler
Black-bellied plover
Black-billed cuckoo
Black-capped chickadee
Black-throated blue warbler
Black-throated green warbler
Scientific Name
Empidonax virescens
Empidonax alnorum
Botaurus lentiginosus
Anas rubripes
Fulica americana
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Carduelis tristis
Falco sparverius
Setophaga ruticilla
Turdus migratorius
Spizella arborea
Anas americana
Scolopax minor
Calidris bairdii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Riparia riparia
Hirundo rustica
Strix varia
Dendroica castanea
Ceryle alcyon
Melanitta nigra
Chlidonias niger
Coragyps atratas
Mniotilta varia
Pluvialis squatarola
Coccyzus erythropthalmus
Parus atricapillus
Dendroica caerulescens
Dendroica virens
Source"
2,3,4,5
2,4
2,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
2,4,5
5
4,5
2,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
4,5
1,2,4,5
4
4
1
2,4,5
4
2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
2,4,5
2,4,5
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Blackbumian warbler
Blackpoll warbler
Blue grosbeak"
Blue jay
Blue-gray gnatcatcher
Blue-winged tealf
Blue-winged warbler
Bobolink*
Bonaparte's gull
Broad-winged hawk
Brown creeper
Brown thrasher
Brown-headed cowbird
Bufflehead
Canada goose
Canada warbler11
Canvasback
Cape May warbler
Carolina chickadee
Carolina wren
Cedar waxwing
Cerulean warbler4*
Chestnut-sided warbler
Chimney swift
Chipping sparrow
Clay-colored sparrow
Cliff swallow*
Common barn-owl*
Common goldeneye
Scientific Name
Dendrolca fusca
Dendroica striata
Guiraca caerulea
Cyanocitta cristata
Polioptila caerulea
Anas discors
Vermivora pinus
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Larus phttadelphia
Buteo platypterus
Certhia americana
Toxostoma rufum
Molothrus ater
Bucephala albeola
Branta canadensis
Wilsonia canadensis
Aythya valisineria
Dendroica tigrina
Parus carolinensis
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Bombycilla cedrorum
Dendroica cerulea
Dendroica pensylvanica
Chaetura pelagica
Spizella passerina
Spizella pallida
Hirundo pyrrhonota
Tyto alba
Bucephala clangula
Source*
4,5
4,5
4
1,2,3,4,5
2,4,5
2,4,5
2,4,5
2,4
4,5
2,4,5
1,2,4,5
2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
4,5
1,2,3,4,5
4,5
1,4,5
4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,4,5
2,4,5
2,3,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
2,4,5
2,4
2,5
1,4,5
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Common grackle
Common loon
Common merganser
Common moorhen0
Common nighthawk
Common raven
Common redpoll
Common snipeej
Common tern*
Common yellowthroat
Connecticut warbler
Cooper's hawk
Dark-eyed juncoh
Dickcissel"
Domestic duck
Domestic goose
Downy woodpecker
Dunlin
Eastern bluebird
Eastern kingbird
Eastern meadowlark
Eastern phoebe
Eastern screech-owl
Eastern wood-pewee
European starling
Evening grosbeak
Field sparrow
Fox sparrow
Gadwall
Scientific Name
Quiscalus quiscida
Gavia immer
Mergus merganser
Gallinula chloropus
Chordeiles minor
Corvus corax
Carduelis flammea
Gallinago gallinago
Sterna hirundo
Geothlypis trichas
Oporomis agilis
Accipiter cooperii
Junco hyemalis
Spiza americana
Picoides pubescens
Calidris alpina
Sialia stalls
Tyrannus tyrannus
Sturnella magna
Sayornis phoebe
Otus asio
Contopus vlrens
Stumus vulgaris
Coccothraustes vespertina
Spizella pusilla
Passerella lliaca
Anas strepera
Source"
1,2,4,5 .
4,5
1,4,5
2,4
2,4,5
4
4,5
2,4
5
1,2,3,4,5
5
1,2,4,5
1,3,4,5
4
3
3
1,2,3,4,5
4
1,2,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,4,5
1,2,4,5
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
•Golden eagle
Golden-crowned kinglet
r
Golden-winged warbler11
Grasshopper sparrow
Gray catbird
Gray-cheeked thrush
Great black-backed gull
Great blue heronf
Great crested flycatcher .
Great egret™
Great horned owl
Greater scaup
Greater yellowlegs
Green-backed heron
Green-winged teaT
Hairy woodpecker
Henslow's sparrow*
Hermit thrushh
Herring gull
Hooded merganser
Hooded warbler
Horned grebe
Horned lark
House finch
House sparrow
House wren
Indigo bunting
Kentucky warbler
Killdeer
Scientific Name
Aquila chrysaetos
Regulus satrapa
Vermivora chrysoptera
Ammodramus savannarum
Dumetella carolinensis
Catharus minimus
LOTUS marinus
Ardea herodias
Myiarchus crinitus
Casmerodius albus
Bubo virginianus
Aytkya mania
Tringa melanoleuca
Butorides striatus
Anas crecca
Picoides villosus
Ammodramus henslowii
Catharus guttatus
LOTUS argentatus .
Lophodytes cucullatus
Wilsonia citrina
Podiceps auritus
Eremophila alpestris
Carpodacus mexicanus
Passer domesticus
Troglodytes aedon
Passerina cyanea
Oporornis formosus
Charadrius vociferus
Source*
4
1,4,5
2,4,5
2,4,5
2,3,4,5
4,5
1
1,2,3,4,5
2,4,5
4,5
1,2,4,5
4,5
4,5
2,4,5
1,4,5
1,2,4,5
2,4
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,2,4,5
2,3,4,5
4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
2,3,4,5
2,4,5
2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Lapland longspur
Least flycatcher
Least sandpiper
Lesser golden-plover
Lesser scaup
Lesser yellowlegs
Lincoln's sparrow
Little blue heron*
Loggerhead shrike"""1
Long-eared owlej
Louisiana waterthrush
Magnolia warbler11
Mallard
Marsh wrenejn
Merlin
Mourning dove
Mourning warbler6
Northern rough-winged swallow
Nashville warbler*
Northern bobwhite
Northern cardinal
Northern flicker
Northern goshawk*"
Northern harrier1*
Northern mockingbird
Northern oriole
Northern parula
Northern pintail
Northern saw-whet owlcj
Scientific Name
Calcarius lapponicus
Empidonax minimus
Calidrls minutilla
Pluvialis dominica
Aythya affinis
Tringa flavipes
Melospiza lincolnii
Egretta caerulea
Lanius ludovicianus
Asia otus
Seiurus motacilla
Dendroica magnolia
Anas platyrhynchos
Cistothorus palustris
Falco columbarius
Zenaida macroura
Oporomis Philadelphia
Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Vermivora ruficapilla
Colinus virginianus
Cardinally cardinalis
Colaptes auratus
Accipiter gentilis
Circus cyaneus
Mimus polyglottos
Icterus galbula
Parula americana
Anas acuta
Aegolius acadicus
Source"
4
2,4,5
5
4
1,4,5
4,5
4
4
2,4
2,4
2,4,5
4,5
1,2,3,4,5
2
4
1,2,3,4,5
4,5
2,4,5
4,5
1,2,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,4,5
2,3,4,5
2,4,5
1,4,5
1,4
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Northern shoveler
Northern shrike
Northern waterthrushh
Oldsquaw
Olive-sided flycatcher"
Orange-crowned warbler
Orchard oriole
Osprey"'
Ovenbird
Pectoral sandpiper
Peregrine falcon1**1
Philadelphia vireo
Pied-billed grebe6"
Pileated woodpecker
Pine grosbeak
Pine siskin8
Pine warbler
Prairie warbler
Prothonotary warbler8
Purple finch
Purple martin"
Red crossbill6
Red-bellied woodpecker
Red-breasted merganser
Red-breasted nuthatch
Red-eyed vireo
Red-headed woodpecker8
Red-necked phalarope
Red-shouldered hawkj
Scientific Name
Anas dypeata
Lanius excubitor
Seiurus noveboracensis
Clangula hyemalis
Contopus borealis
Vermlvora celata
Icterus spurius
Pandion haliaetus
Seiurus aurocapillus
Calidris melanotos
Falco peregrinus
Vireo philadelphicus
Podilymbus podiceps
Dryocopus pileatus
Pinlcola enucleator
Carduelis pinus
Dendrolca pinus
Dendroica discolor
Protonotaria citrea
Carpodacus purpureus
Progne subis
Loxia curvirostra
Melanerpes carolinus
Mergus senator
Sitta canadensis
Vireo olivaceus
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Phalaropus lobatus
Buteo lineatus
Source*
5
4
4,5
. 4,5
4
5
2,4
1,2,4,5
2,3,4,5
4
4
4
1,2,4,5
1,2,4,5
1
1,4,5
2,4
2,4,5
2,5
1,2,4,5
2,4,5
4
1,2,4,5
1,4,5
1,2,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
4
1,2,4,5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Red-tailed hawk
Red-winged blackbird
Redhead
Ring-billed gull
Ring-necked duck
Ring-necked pheasant
Rock dove
Rose-breasted grosbeak
Rough-legged hawk
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Ruby-throated hummingbird
Ruddy duck
Ruffed grouse
Rufous-sided towhee
Rusty blackbird
Savannah sparrow
Scarlet tanager
Sedge wren611111
Semipalmated plover
Semipalmated sandpiper
Sharp-shinned hawkj
Sharp-tailed sparrow
Short-billed dowitcher
Short-eared owl"
Snow bunting
Snow goose
Snowy owl
Solitary sandpiper
Solitary vireo
Scientific Name
Buteo jamaicensis
Agelaius phoeniceus
Aythya americana
LOTUS delawarensis
Aythya collaris
Phasianus colchicus
Columba livia
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Buteo lagopus
Regulus calendula
Archilochus colubris
Oxyura jamaicensis
Bonasa umbellus
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Euphagus carolinus
Passerculus sandwichensis
Piranga olivacea
Cistothorus platensis
Charadrius semipalmatus
Calidris pusilla
Accipiter striatus
Ammospiza caudacuta
Limnodromus griseus
Asioflammeus
Plectrophenax nivalis
Chen caerulescens
Nyctea scandiaca
Tringa solitaria
Vireo solitarius
Source*
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,4,5
. 1,4,5
4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
2,4,5
1,4
1,4,5
2,4,5
1,4
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,5
2,4,5
2,3,4,5
2,4
4
4,5
1,2,4,5
4
4
1,4
1,4,5
1,4,5
4
4,5
2,4,5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Song sparrow
Soraej
Spotted sandpiper
Summer tanager"
Swainson's thrush8"
Swamp sparrow
Tennessee warbler
Tree swallow
Tufted titmouse
Tundra swan
Turkey vulture
Upland sandpiper™
Veery
Vesper sparrow
Virginia rail^
Warbling vireo
Water pipit
Whip-poor-will
White-breasted nuthatch
White-crowned sparrow
White-eyed vireo
White-throated sparrow
White-winged crossbill
Wild turkey
Willow flycatcher
Wilson's warbler
Winter wrenk
Wood duck
Wood thrush
Scientific Name
Melospiza melodia
Porzana Carolina
Actitis macularia
Piranga rubra
Catharus ustulatus
Melospiza georgiana
Vermivora peregrina
Tachycineta bicolor
Pants bicolor
Cygnus columbianus
Cathartes aura
Bartramia longicauda
Catharus fuscescens
Pooecetes gramineus
Rallus limicola
Vireo gilvus
Anthus rubescens
Caprimulgus vociferus
Sitta carolinensis
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Vireo griseus
Zonotrichia albicollis
Loxia leucoptera
Meleagris gallopavo
Empidonax traillii
Wilsonia pusilla
Troglodytes troglodytes
Aix sponsa
Hylocichla mustelina
Source*
1,2,3,4,5
2,4
2,4,5
2,4
4,5
1,2,4,5
4,5
2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,5
1,2,3,4,5
2,4
2,4,5
2,4,5
2,4
2,4,5
5
2,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,4,5
2,4,5
1,4,5
4,5
1,2,4,5
2,4,5
4,5
1,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
2,3,4,5
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Worm-eating warbler
Yellow warbler
Yellow-bellied flycatcher™
Yellow-bellied sapsucker1*
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Yellow-breasted chat
Yellow-ramped warblei*
Yellow-throated vireo
Yellow-throated warbler
Scientific Name
Helnutheros vermivorus
Dendroica petechia
Empidonax flaviventris
Sphyrapicus varius
Coccyzus americanus
Icteria virens
Dendroica coronata
Vireo flavifrons
Dendroica dominica
Source"
2,4,5 .
1,2,3,4,5
4,5
1,4,5
2,4,5
2,4,5
1,4,5
2,4,5
2,4,5
1 - Christmas Bird Count data; 2 - Breeding Bird Atlas data; 3 - Field visit (July 1994); 4 -
Pennsylvania Game Commission (1995) for Beaver County, Pennsylvania; 5 - Raccoon Creek State
Park (PADER 1992).
b Federal Endangered.
0 Federal Threatened.
d Federal Candidate.
West Virginia "Critically Imperiled".
f West Virginia "Imperiled".
g West Virginia "Rare/Uncommon".
h Ohio Endangered.
! Ohio Threatened.
j Ohio Special Interest.
k Ohio Potentially Threatened.
1 Pennsylvania Endangered.
m Pennsylvania Threatened.
" Pennsylvania Rare.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
BREEDING BIRD ATLAS DATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-5 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
Species
Pied-billed grebe
American bittern
Great blue heron
Green-backed heron
Canada goose
Wood duck
American black duck
Mallard
Blue-winged teal
Gadwall
Hooded merganser
Turkey vulture
Osprey
Northern harrier
Sharp-shinned hawk
Cooper's hawk
Red-shouldered hawk
Broad-winged hawk
Observed Breeding Behavior"
Beaver County
Pennsylvania
-
-
Po
C
C
C
-
C
Po
-
--
Po
~
Po
Pr
C
C
C
Washington County
Pennsylvania
C
-
C
C
C
C
C
C
-
-
C
C
~
-
C
C
Po
C
Columbiana County
Ohio
C
C
C
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
Po
—
C
—
Po
Po
C
Pr
C
Jefferson County
Ohio
—
—
C
C
—
C
—
C
—
—
~
C
—
—
C
C
Pr
C
Hancock County,
West Virginia
—
—
—
Po
C
C
C
C
Po
—
—
—
Po
~
Po
Po
Po
C
Volume VI
ix VI-5
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
Species
Red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Ring-necked pheasant
Ruffed grouse
Wild turkey
Northern bobwhite
Virginia rail
Sora
Common moorhen
Killdeer
Spotted sandpiper
Upland sandpiper
Common snipe
American woodcock
Rock dove
Mourning dove
Black-billed cuckoo
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Observed Breeding Behavior*
Beaver County
Pennsylvania
C
C
C
C
C
C
~
•
—
C
Pr
—
—
Pr
C
C
C
C
Washington County
Pennsylvania
C
C
C
C
C
C
Pr
—
—
C
C
Po
—
C
C
C
C
C
Columbiana County
Ohio
C
C
C
C
Po
C
Pr
Pr
Po
C
C
—
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
Jefferson County
Ohio
C
C
Pr
C
C
C
-
—
—
C
C
C
—
Pr
C
C
C
C
Hancock County,
West Virginia
Pr
Pr
C
C
C
Po
Po
~
—
C
Pr
—
-
Po
C
C
Pr
Pr
Volume VI
Appendix VI-5
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
Species
Common barn-owl
Eastern screech-owl
Great homed owl
Barred owl
Long-eared owl
Common nighthawk
Whip-poor-will
Chimney swift
Ruby-throated hummingbird
Belted kingfisher
Red-headed woodpecker
Red-bellied woodpecker
Downy woodpecker
Hairy woodpecker
Northern flicker
Pileated woodpecker
Eastern wood-pewee
Acadian flycatcher
Observed Breeding Behavior"
Beaver County
Pennsylvania
Po
C
C
Pr
C
C
Pr
C
C
C
Po
C
C
C
C
Pr
C
C
Washington County
Pennsylvania
C
C
C
C
—
C
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Columbiana County
Ohio
C
C
C
C
-
Pr
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Jefferson County
Ohio
—
C
C
C
—
C
C
C
C
C
—
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Hancock County,
West Virginia
—
Po
Po
—
—
Pr
Pr
C
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
C
Pr
C
Pr
Pr
Pr
Volume VI
£ ^ndix VI-5
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
Species
Alder flycatcher
Willow flycatcher
Least flycatcher
Eastern phoebe
Great crested flycatcher
Eastern kingbird
Horned lark
Purple martin
Tree swallow
N. rough-winged swallow
Bank swallow
Cliff swallow
Barn swallow
Blue jay
American crow
Black-capped chickadee
Carolina chickadee
Tufted titmouse
Observed Breeding Behavior*
Beaver County
Pennsylvania
—
C
Pr
C
C
C
C
Po
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Washington County
Pennsylvania
—
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Pr
—
C
C
C
C
C
C
Columbiana County
Ohio
Pr
C
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Jefferson County
Ohio
—
C
-
C
C
C
Pr
C
Pr
C
Po
Po
C
C
C
-
C
C
Hancock County,
West Virginia
—
Po
—
C
Pr
Po
C
C
—
Pr
C
~
C
C
Pr
Po
C
C
Volume VI
Appendix VI-5
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Species
Red-breasted nuthatch
White-breasted nuthatch
Brown creeper
Carolina wren
House wren
Sedge wren
Marsh wren
Blue-gray gnatcatcher
Eastern bluebird
Veery
Wood thrush
American robin
Gray catbird
Northern mockingbird
Brown thrasher
Cedar waxwing
Loggerhead shrike
European starling
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
Observed Breeding Behavior"
Beaver County
Pennsylvania
C
C
Po
C
C
Pr
--
C
C
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
C
-
C
Washington County
Pennsylvania
—
C
—
C
C
~
-
C
C
-
C
C
C
C
C
C
-
C
Columbiana County
Ohio
Pr
C
Pr
C
C
—
Pr
C
C
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
C
Po
C
Jefferson County
Ohio
—
C
—
C
C
—
—
C
C
—
C
C
C
Pr
C
C
~
C
Hancock County,
West Virginia
—
Pr
—
Po
C
—
—
Pr
C
—
C
C
Pr
Po
Pr
Pr
~
C
Volume VI
A- -wlixVI-5
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
Species
White-eyed vireo
Solitary vireo
Yellow-throated vireo
Warbling vireo
Red-eyed vireo
Blue-winged warbler
Golden-winged warbler
Northern parula
Yellow warbler
Chestnut-sided warbler
Black-throated blue warbler
Black-throated green warbler
Yellow-throated warbler
Pine warbler
Prairie warbler
Cerulean warbler
Black-and-white warbler
American redstart
Observed Breeding Behavior"
Beaver County
Pennsylvania
C
—
Pr
Pr
C
C
Pr
Pr
C
Pr
Pr
-
Po
-
C
Pr
C
Pr
Washington County
Pennsylvania
C
—
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Pr
—
—
Pr
—
C
C
C
C
Columbiana County
Ohio
C
C
C
C
C
C
Po
Pr
C
Pr
—
C
C
—
C
C
Pr
C
Jefferson County
Ohio
C
—
C
C
C
C
—
C
C
C
—
Pr
C
Pr
C
C
C
C
Hancock County,
West Virginia
Pr
—
Po
Po
C
Pr
—
—
Pr
—
Po
Pr
—
Pr
Pr
Pr
C
Volume VI
Appendix VI-5
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
Species
Prothonotary warbler
Worm-eating warbler
Ovenbird
Louisiana waterthrush
Kentucky warbler
Common yellowthroat
Hooded warbler
Yellow-breasted chat
Summer tanager
Scarlet tanager
Northern cardinal
Rose-breasted grosbeak
Indigo bunting
Rufous-sided towhee
Chipping sparrow
Clay-colored sparrow
Field sparrow
Vesper sparrow
Observed Breeding Behavior*
Beaver County
Pennsylvania
—
Po
C
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Pr
C
Po
Washington County
Pennsylvania
—
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
~
C
Pr
Columbiana County
Ohio
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Po
C
C
C
C
C
C
—
C
C
Jefferson County
Ohio
—
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Pr
C
C
Pr
C
C
C
—
C
C
Hancock County,
West Virginia
—
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
C
Po
—
Pr
C
—
Pr
C
C
—
Pr
-
Volume VI
ix VI-5
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
Species
Savannah sparrow
Grasshopper sparrow
Henslow's sparrow
Song sparrow
Swamp sparrow
Bobolink
Red-winged blackbird
Eastern meadowlark
Common grackle
Brown-headed cowbird
Orchard oriole
Northern oriole
Purple finch
House finch
American goldfinch
House sparrow
Observed Breeding Behavior"
Beaver County
Pennsylvania
Pr
C
Pr
C
C
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Washington County
Pennsylvania
C
C
C
c
—
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Pr
C
C
C
Columbiana County
Ohio
C
C
Pr
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Pr
C
C
C
Jefferson County
Ohio
C
C
C
c
Pr
Pr
C
C
C
C
Pr
C
Pr
C
C '
C
Hancock County,
West Virginia
..
Po
—
C
—
Pr
C
Pr
C
Pr
Po
C
—
C
C
c
* C - Confirmed breeding; Pr - Probable breeding; Po - Possible breeding; — Not observed.
Source: Peterjohn and Rice (1991), Brauning (1992), and Buckelew and Hall (1994).
Volume VI
Appendix VI-5
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-6
SUMMARY OF AVIAN ABUNDANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
BASED ON CHRISTMAS BIRD COUNT DATA
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-6 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-6
Summary of Avian Abundance in the Assessment Area Based on Christmas Bird Count Data
Species
European starling
Rock dove
Canada goose
Mallard
Mourning dove
Dark-eyed junco
House finch
American crow
House sparrow
Northern cardinal
Blue jay
Tufted titmouse
Black-capped chickadee
American goldfinch
Song sparrow
Chickadee spp.
American tree sparrow
White-breasted nuthatch
American robin
Carolina chickadee
Downy woodpecker
Ring-billed gull
Golden-crowned kinglet
Eastern bluebird
Red-bellied woodpecker
Carolina wren
Red-tailed hawk
6- Year Mean Number of Birds by Christmas Bird
Count Plot
Beaver, PA
912.5
968.7
482.0
661.0
257.0
135.5
277.0
122.5
247.7
113.0
92.3
85.8
132.2
37.2
42.8
35.5
20.8
32.5
32.8
4.7
38.2
88.8
15.0
8.5
11.2
17.0
7.7
Raccoon
Creek, PA
198.7
13.7
57.3
27.0
58.0
123.5
52.8
71.3
41.7
65.0
52.8
76.8
35.5
11.2
58.8
23.7
45.3
43.2
14.3
49.7
29.5
0.0
25.5
6.5
16.5
6.7
6.5
Beaver Creek,
OH
882.7
126.3
549.7
195.3
535.2
479.3
325.8
424.5
305.0
231.7
166.0
109.3
58.7
132.7
72.5
101.5
85.0
53.3
73.7
65.5
51.7
10.2
53.3
64.0
33.0
32.7
41.0
Average
(All Plots)
664.63
369.57
363.00
294.43
283.40
246.10
218.53
206.10
198.13
136.57
103.70
90.63
75.47
60.37
58.03
53.57
50.37
43.00
40.27
39.97
39.80
33.00
31.27
26.33
20.23
18.80
18.40
Volume VI
Appendix VI-6
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-6
Summary of Avian Abundance in the Assessment Area Based on Christmas Bird Count Data
Species
American black duck
Red-winged blackbird
Cedar waxwing
Purple finch
Hairy woodpecker
Tundra swan
White-throated sparrow
Wild turkey
American kestrel
Duck spp.
Snow bunting
Great blue heron
Herring gull
Northern flicker
Pileated woodpecker
Eastern screech-owl
Ruffed grouse
Brown creeper
Gull spp.
Belted kingfisher
Evening grosbeak
Horned lark
Pine siskin
Great horned owl
Yellow-rumped warbler
Common goldeneye
Red-breasted nuthatch
6- Year Mean Number of Birds by Christmas Bird
Count Plot
Beaver, PA
28.8
0.8
13.7
7.3
6.5
0.0
2.7
1.3
5.5
23.7
23.3
16.2
19.5
3.0
1.2
0.0
2.3
3.3
15.2
2.3
3.0
0.8
6.3
0.5
0.3
. 8.3
2.8
Raccoon
Creek, PA
0.0
8.7
2.0
6.2
13.7
0.0
3.3
7.8
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
4.2
3.8
11.0
6.5
6.5
0.0
3.2
0.0
8.7
0.0
3.5
2.8
0.0
0.7
Beaver Creek,
OH
25.2
36.8
27.0
26.2
14.7
33.3
21.7
17.8
18.2
0.0
0.0
5.2
0.5
12.7
13.0
7.0
8.7
6.3
0.0
7.8
8.2
1.5
4.5
6.0
6.7
0.7
5.0
Average
(All Plots)
18.00
15.43
14.23
13.23
11.63
11.10
9.23
8.97
8.50
7.90
7.77
7.57
6.67
6.63
6.00
6.00
5.83
5.37
5.07
4.43
3.73
3.67
3.60
3.33
3.27
3.00
2.83
Volume VI
Appendix VI-6
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-6
Summary of Avian Abundance in the Assessment Area Based on Christmas Bird Count Data
Species
Brown-headed cowbird
Cooper's hawk
White-crowned sparrow
Northern mockingbird
Field sparrow
Killdeer
Sparrow spp.
Ring-necked pheasant
Rufous-sided towhee
Swamp sparrow
Winter wren
Barred owl
Northern bobwhite
Sharp-shinned hawk
Common merganser
Black vulture
Northern harrier
Pied-billed grebe
Fox sparrow
Hooded merganser
Yellow-bellied sapsucker
Goose spp.
Hermit thrush
American coot
Buteo spp.
Redhead
Northern pintail
6- Year Mean Number of Birds by Christmas Bird
Count Plot
Beaver, PA
6.0
1.8
0.5
0.7
2.5
0.7
4.2
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.2
2.3
0.0
0.5
1.3
0.0
1.5
0.3
1.7
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
Raccoon
Creek, PA
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
1.7
0.5
1.5
1.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
1.7
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
Beaver Creek,
OH
1.0
4.2
6.0
4.5
2.0
0.7
0.0
2.0
3.3
2.3
2.3
3.3
3.3
1.8
0.3
2.2
1.3
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.0
1.2
0.3
0.7
0.8
1.0
Average
(All Plots)
2.33
2.27
2.17
1.73
1.50
1.47
1.40
1.40
1.33
1.27
1.23
1.17
1.10
1.07
0.87
0.73
0.70
0.70
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.57
0.50
0.43
0.40
0.37
0.33
Volume VI
Appendix VI-6
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-6
Summary of Avian Abundance in the Assessment Area Based on Christmas Bird Count Data
Species
Rough-legged hawk
Great black-backed gull
Red-shouldered hawk
Wood duck
Short-eared owl
Snow goose
Common grackle
Chipping sparrow
American wigeon
Red-breasted merganser
Eastern meadowlark
Ruddy duck
Lesser scaup
Rudy-crowned kinglet
Accipiter spp.
Owl spp.
Pine grosbeak
Gadwall
Osprey
Northern saw-whet owl
Canvasback
Yellow warbler
Rusty blackbird
Turkey vulture
Redpoll spp.
Common yellowthroat
Red-headed woodpecker
6-Year Mean Number of Birds by Christmas Bird
Count Plot
Beaver, PA
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
Raccoon
Creek, PA
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
Beaver Creek,
OH
0.5
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Average
(AU Plots)
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.30
0.30
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.23
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Volume VI
Appendix VI-6
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-6
Summary of Avian Abundance in the Assessment Area Based on Christmas Bird Count Data
Species
Green-winged teal
Hawk spp.
Total Individuals
Total Species
6-Year Mean Number of Birds by Christmas Bird
Count Plot
Beaver, PA
0.2
0.2
5111
50
Raccoon
Creek, PA
0.0
0.0
1323
45
Beaver Creek,
OH
0.0
0.0
5629
59
Average
(All Plots)
0.07
0.07
4,021.00
51.33
Volume VI
Appendix VI-6
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-7
MAMMALS KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-7 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-7
Mammals Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Beaver
Big brown bat
Coyote
Deer mouse
Eastern chipmunk
Eastern cottontail
Eastern mole*
Eastern pipistrelle
Eastern woodratdton
Fox squirrel
Gray fox
Gray squirrel
Hairy-tailed mole
Hoary bat
House mouse
Indiana bat1"*1
Keen's myotis (bat)
Least shrew1
Least weasel
Little brown bat
Long-tailed shrewf
Long-tailed weasel
Masked shrew
Meadow jumping mouse8
Meadow vole
Mink
Muskrat
Northern short-tailed shrew
Norway rat
Scientific Name
Castor canadensis
Eptesicus fuscus
Canis latrans
Peromyscus maniculatus
Tamias striatus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Scalopus aquations
Pipistellus subflavus
Neotoma floridana
Sciurus niger
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Sciurus carolinensis
Parascalops breweri
Lasiurus cinereus
Mus musculus
Myotis sodalis
Myotis keenii
Cryptotis parva
Mustela nivalis
Myotis lucifugus
Sorex dispar
Mustela frenata
Sorex cinereus
Zapus hudsonius
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Mustela vison
Ondatra zibethicus
Blarina brevicauda
Rattus norvegicus
Source*
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
2,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,4
1,2,5
5
1,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
2,5
1,2,4,5
5
1,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,4,5
5
1,2,4,5
2,4,5
1,2,5
1,2,4,5
2,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
Volume VI
Appendix VI-7
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-7
Mammals Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
• Pine (woodland) vole
Porcupine
Prairie vole*
Pygmy shrew5
Raccoon
Red bat
Red fox
Red squirrel
Silver-haired bat"
Smoky shrew
Southern bog lemming
Southern flying squirrel
Southern red-backed vole"
Star-nosed mole"
Striped skunk
Virginia opossum
White-footed mouse
White-tailed deer
Woodchuck
Woodland jumping mouse'
Scientific Name
Microtus pinetorum
Erethizon dorsatum
Microtus ochrogaster
Sorex hoyi
Procyon lotor
Lasiurus borealis
Vulpes vulpes
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Sorex fumeus
Synaptomys cooperi
Glaucomys volans
Clethrionomys gapperi
Condylura cristata
Mephitis mephitis
Didelphis virginiana
Peromyscus leucopus
Odocoileus virginianus
Marmota monax .
Napaeozapus insignis
Source"
2,5
4,5
1
5
1,2,3,5
1,2,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,2,4,5
1
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,5
' 1 - Gottschang (1981) for Jefferson and Columbiana Counties, Ohio; 2 - Pennsylvania Game
Commission (1995) for Beaver County, Pennsylvania; 3 - Field visit (July 1994); 4 - Raccoon
Creek State Park (PADER 1992); 5 - Merritt (1987).
b Federal Endangered.
° Federal Threatened.
d Federal Candidate.
West Virginia "Critically Imperiled".
f West Virginia "Imperiled".
8 West Virginia "Rare/Uncommon".
k Ohio Endangered.
1 Ohio Threatened.
j Ohio Special Interest.
k Ohio Potentially Threatened.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-7
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-7
Mammals Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Source"
Pennsylvania Endangered.
Pennsylvania Threatened.
Pennsylvania Rare.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-7
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-8
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-8 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-8
Amphibians and Reptiles Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Source"
Salamanders
Eastern hellbender4*
Four-toed salamander"
Jefferson salamander2
Longtail salamander
Marbled salamander
Mountain dusky salamander
Mudpuppy
Northern dusky salamander
Northern red salamander
Northern spring salamander
Northern two-lined salamander
Ravine salamander
Red-spotted newt
Redback salamander
Seal salamander
Slimy salamander
Spotted salamander
Wehrle's salamander
Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis
Hemidactylium scutatum
Ambystoma jeffersonianum
Eurycea I. longicauda
Ambystoma opacum
Desmognathus ochrophaeus
Necturus maculosus
Desmognathus f. fuscus
Pseudotriton r. ruber
Gyrinophilus p. porphyriticus
Eurycea bislineata
Plethodon richmondi
Notophthalmus v. viridescens
Plethodon cinereus
Desmognathus monticola
Plethodon glutinosus
Ambystoma maculatum
Plethodon wehrlei
1,2,3
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,5,6
1,3
1,2,3
1,2
1,2,3,5,6
1,2,3,6
1,2,3,5,6
1,2,3,5,6
2,3,6
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,5
1,2
1,2,3,5,6
1,2,3,5
6
Frogs and Toads
Bullfrog
Eastern American toad
Fowler's toad
Gray treefrog
Green frog
Mountain chorus frog
Northern leopard frog
Northern spring peeper
Rana catesbeiana
Bufo a. americanus
Bufo woodhousei fowleri
Hyla versicolor
Rana damitans melanota
Pseudacris brachyphona
Rana pipiens
Pseudacris c. crucifer
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,5,6
1,2,3,5,6
1,2
1,2,3,5,6
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,5
Volume VI
Appendix VI-8
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-8
Amphibians and Reptiles Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Pickerel frog
Western chorus frog
Wood frog
Scientific Name
Rana palustris
Pseudacris t. triseriata
Rana sylvatica
Source"
1,2,3,5,6
1,2,3
1,2.3,5
Turtles
Bog turtle1
Common map turtle
Common snapping turtle
Eastern box turtle
Eastern spiny softshell
Midland painted turtle
Midland smooth softshell
Spotted turtleej
Wood turtle8
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Graptemys geographica
Chelydra s. serpentina
Terrapene c. Carolina
Apalone s. spinifera
Chrysemys picta marginata
Apalone m. mutica
Clemmys guttata
Clemmys insculpta
1
1,2
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,4,5,6
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,5
2
1,2,3
1
Lizards
Five-lined skink
Northern fence lizard
Snakes
Black rat snake
Eastern garter snake
Eastern hognose snake
Eastern massasaugadjl
Eastern milk snake
Eastern worm snake
Kirtland's snake1"11
Midwest worm snake
Northern black racer
Northern brown snake
Northern copperhead
Eumeces fasciatus
Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus
1,2,3
1,2,3,5,6
Elaphe o. obsoleta
Thamnophis s. sirtalis
Heterodon platirhinos
Sistrurus c. catenates
Lampropeltis t. triangulum
Carphophis a. amoenus
Clonophis kirtlandii
Carphophis amoenus helenae
Coluber c. constrictor
Storeria d. dekayi
Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,5,6
1
1,2
1,2,3,5,6
2
1,2
2
1,2,3,5
1,2
1,2,3,5,6
Volume VI
Appendix VI-8
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-8
Amphibians and Reptiles Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Northern redbelly snake
Northern ringneck snake
Northern water snake
Queen snake
Ribbon snake
Shorthead garter snake
Smooth earth snake
Smooth green snake
Scientific Name
Storeria o. occipitomaculata
Diadophis punctatus edwardsii
Nerodia s. sipedon
Regina septemvittata
Thamnophis sauritis
Thamnophis brachystoma
Virginia valeriae
Opheodrys vemalis
Source"
1,2
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,5,6
1,2,3,6
1,2,3,5
1,2,3
1
235
•*•?-?»*'
1 - Shaffer (1991); 2 - Conant and Collins (1991); 3 - Pennsylvania Game Commission (1995) for
Beaver County, Pennsylvania; 4 - Field visit (July 1994); 5 - Raccoon Creek State Park (PADER
1992); 6 - Green and Pauley (1987).
b Federal Endangered.
Federal Threatened.
d Federal Candidate.
c West Virginia "Critically Imperiled".
f West Virginia "Imperiled".
* West Virginia "Rare/Uncommon".
h Ohio Endangered.
' Ohio Threatened.
j Ohio Special Interest.
k Ohio Potentially Threatened.
1 Pennsylvania Endangered.
m Pennsylvania Threatened.
n Pennsylvania Rare.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-8
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-9
FISH KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-9 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-9
Fish Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Alewife
American eel1
Banded darter
Banded killifishf
Bigeye chub
Bigeye shiner11
Bigmouth buffalo*
Black buffalof
Black bullhead"
Black crappie
Black redhorse
Blacknose dace
Blacknose shiner11
Blackside darter
Blackstripe topminnow
Blue catfish"
Blue sucker**"
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Bowfin"
Brindled madtom"
Brook silverside
Brook stickleback
Brook troutj
Brown bullhead
Brown trout
Bullhead minnowf
Central mudminnow
Central stoneroller
Scientific Name
Alosa pseudoharengus
Anguilla rostrata
Etheostoma zonale
Fundulus diaphanus
Hybopsis amblops
Notropls boops
Ictiobus cyprinellus
Ictiobus niger
Ameiurus melas
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Moxostoma duquesnei
Rhinichthys atratulus
Notropis heterolepis
Percina maculata
Fundulus notatus
Ictalurus furcatus
Cycleptus elongates
Lepomis macrochirus
Pimephales notatus
Amia calva
Noturus miurus
Labidesthes sicculus
Culaea inconstans
Salvelinus fontinalis
Ameiurus nebulosus
Salmo trutta
Pimephales vigilax
Umbra limi
Campostoma anomalum
Source"
4,6
.1,3,4
1,3,4,7
1,3,4
3,4
4
4
4,5
3,4,7
1,3,4,5,6,7
1,3,4,5,6,7
1,3,4,5,7
4
3,4,5,7
4
3,4
3,4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,3,4,5,6,7
4,7
3,4
3,4,6,7
3,7
3,7
1,2,3,4,5,7
4
4
3,7
1,2,3,4,5,7
Volume VI
Appendix VI-9
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Fish Known or Like
Common Name
Channel catfish
Channel darter8™
Cheat minnow'
Chestnut lamprey
Common carp
Common shiner*
Creek chub
Dusky darter*
Eastern sand darter*51
Emerald shiner
Fantail darter
Fathead minnow
Flathead -catfish
Freshwater drum
Ghost shiner0
Gizzard shad
Golden redhorse
Golden shiner
Goldeye*"
Goldfish
Grass pickerel
Gravel chub1
Green sunfish
Greenside darter
Highfin carpsuckerf
Hornyhead chub"
Johnny darter
Largemouth bass
Least brook lampreyf
APPENDIX VI-9
ly to be Present Within the Assessment A
Scientific Name
Ictalurus punctatus
Percina copelandi
Rhinichthys bowersl
Ichthyomyzon castaneus
Cyprinus carpio
Luxilus commits
Semotilus atromaculatus
Percina sciera
Etheostoma pellucidum
Notropis atherinoides
Etheostoma flabellare
P'unephales promelas
Pylodictls olivaris
Aplodlnotus grunniens
Notropis buchanani
Dorosoma cepedianum
Moxostoma erythrurum
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Hiodon alosoides
Carassius auratus
Esox americanus
Erimystax x-punctatus
Lepomis cyanellus
Etheostoma blennioides
Carpiodes velifer
Nocomis biguttatus
Etheostoma nigrum
Micropterus salmoides
Lampetra aepyptera
irea
Source4
1,3,4,5,6,7
4'
5
4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,3,4,7
1,2,3,4,5,7
4
3,4
1,3,4,5,6,7
1,3,4,5,7
3,4,7
3,4,5,6,7
1,3,4,5,6,7
4,5
1,3,4,5,6,7
3,4,5,6,7
3,4,7
3,4
3,4,7
3,4,7
3
1,3,4,5,6,7
1,3,4,5,7
3,4,5,6
3,7
1,3,4,5,7
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
3,7
Volume VI
Appendix VI-9
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Fish Known or Like
Common Name
Logperch
Longear sunfish"
Longnose dace
Longnose gar"
Mimic shiner
Mississippi silvery minnow11
Mooneyecjn
Mottled sculpin
Muskellunge-'
Northern hog sucker
Northern pike
Ohio lamprey8™
Orangespotted sunfishf
Orangethroat darter
Paddlefish^
Pumpkinseed
Quillback
Rainbow darter
Rainbow trout
Redear sunfish
Redfin shiner8"
Redside dace"
River carpsucker*
River chub
River darter6'
River redhorse""
River shiner*
Rock bass
Rosyface shiner
APPENDIX VI-9
ly to be Present Within the Assessment A
Scientific Name
Percina caprodes
Lepomis megalotis
Rhinichthys cataractae
Lepisosteus osseus
Notropis volucellus
Hybognathus nuchalis
Hiodon tergisus
Cottus bairdi
Esox masqulnongy
Hypentelium nigricans
Esox lucius
Ichthyomyzon bdellium
Lepomis humilis
Etheostoma spectabile
Polyodon spathula
Lepomis gibbosus
Carpiodes cyprinus
Etheostoma caeruleum
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Lepomis microlophus
Lythrurus umbratilis
Clinostomus elongatus
Carpiodes carpio
Nocomis micropogon
Percina shumardi
Moxostoma carinatum
Notropis blennius
Ambloplites rupestris
Notropis rubellus
irea
Source"
1,3,4,5,6,7
3,4,7
1,3
3,4,6
1,3,4,5,6,7
4
3,4,5,6
1,3,5,7
1,2,3,4,5
1,3,4,5,6,7
2,3,4,6
3,4
4,5,7
4
3,4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
3,4,5,6
1,3,4,7
2,3
3,4,6,7
3
2,3,7
3,4
1,3,4,5,7
3,4
3,4,5,6
4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,3,4,7
Volume VI
Appendix VI-9
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-9
Fish Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Sand shiner
Sauger
Shiner
Shipjack herring"
Shorthead redhorse
Shortnose gar"
Shovehiose sturgeon"1
Silver chub"
Silver lamprey0*"
Silver redhorse
Silver shiner
Silverjaw minnow
Smallmouth bass
Smallmouth buffalo"
Southern redbelly dacef
Speckled chub**
Spotfin shiner
Spottail shiner
Spotted bass
Spotted sucker"
Steelcolor shiner
Stonecat
Streamline chub
Striped bass
Striped shiner
Suckermouth minnow*
Trout
Trout-perch
Variegate darter
Scientific Name
Notropis ludibundus
Stizostedion canadense
Notropis stramineus
Alosa . chrysochloris
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Lepisosteus platostomus
Scaphirhynchus platorynchus
Macrhybopsis storeriana
Ichthyomyzon unicuspis
Moxostoma anisurum
Notropis photogenis
Ericymba buccata
Micropterus dolomieu
Ictiobus bubalus
Phoxinus erythrogaster
Extrarius aestivalis
Cyprinella spiloptera
Notropis hudsonius
Micropterus punctulatus
Minytrema melanops
Cyprinella whipplei
Noturus flavus
Erimystax dissimilis
Morone saxatilis
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Phenacobius tnirabilis
Salmo gairdneri
Percopsis omiscomaycus
Etheostoma variatum
Source'
1,3,7
1,3,4,5,6,7
4,5
3,4,5
3,4,5,6,7
4
3
3,4,6
4
3,4,6,7
3,4,7
1,3,4,5,7
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
3,4,5,6
1,2,3,7
3,4
1,3,4,7
4,5,6
3,4,5,6,7
3,4
3,4,6
3,4,5,7
4
4,6
1,3,4,5,7
4
4
3,4,5,7
1,3,4,7
Volume VI
Appendix VI-9
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-9
Fish Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Walleye
Warmouthfc
White bass
White catfish
White crappie
White sucker
Yellow bullhead
Yellow perch
Scientific Name
Stizostedion vitreum
Lepomis gulosus
Morone chrysops
Ameiurus cams
Pomoxis annularis
Catostomus commersoni
Ameiurus natalis
Perca flavescens
Source"
1,2,3,4,5,6
3,4,7
1,3,4,5,6
4,5
2,3,4,5,7
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,3,4,5,7
1,2,3,4,5,7
" 1 - Pennsylvania Game Commission (1995) for Beaver County, Pennsylvania; 2 - Raccoon Creek
State Park (PADER 1992); 3 - Page and Burr (1991); 4 - Pearson and Pearson (1989) for Ohio
River Miles 0-327 (sightings since 1970); 5 - WVDNR (1994) for the Ohio River, Kings Creek,
and Tomlinson Run; 6 - ORSANCO (1994) for Ohio River Miles 20-60 (1991-1993); 7 - OEPA
(1994) for Yellow Creek and Little Beaver Creek.
b Federal Endangered.
c Federal Threatened.
d Federal Candidate.
" West Virginia "Critically Imperiled".
f West Virginia "Imperiled".
8 West Virginia "Rare/Uncommon".
h Ohio Endangered.
1 Ohio Threatened.
j Ohio Special Interest.
k Ohio Potentially Threatened.
1 Pennsylvania Endangered.
m Pennsylvania Threatened.
n Pennsylvania Rare.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-9
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
PLANTS KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-10 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Source"
Woody Plants
Box-elder
Black maple
Red maple
Silver maple
Sugar maple
Mountain maple
Yellow buckeye
Ohio buckeye
Horse chestnut
Tree-of-heaven
Speckled alder
Downy serviceberry
Low shadbush
Pawpaw
Japanese barberry
Yellow birch
Black birch
American hornbeam
Bitternut hickory
Pignut hickory
Sweet pignut hickory
Shagbark hickory
American chestnutk
Catalpa
Common catalpa
New Jersey tea
American bittersweet
Buttonbush
Acer negundo
Acer nigrum
Acer rubrum
Acer saccharinum
Acer saccharum
Acer spicatum
Aesculus flava
Aesculus glabra
Aesculus hippocastanum
Ailanthus altissima
Alnus rugosa
Amelanchier arborea
Amelanchier stolonifera
Asimina triloba
Berberis thumbergli
Betula alleghaniensis
Betula lenta
Carpinus caroliniana
Carya cordiformis
Carya glabra
Carya avails
Carya ovata
Costarica dentata
Catalpa bignoniodes
Catalpa speciosa
Ceanothus americanus
Celastrus scandens
Cephalanthus occidentalis
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1,2
1
1
1
2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Knovra or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Redbud
Flowering quince
Alternate-leaf dogwood
Silky dogwood
Flowering dogwood
Gray dogwood
American hazelnut
Cockspur hawthorn
Fanleaf hawthorn
Frosted hawthorn
Dotted hawthorn
Long-spined hawthorn
Bush-honeysuckle
Russian olive
Autumn olive
Burning-bush
Running strawberry-bush
American beech
White ash
Black ash
Green ash
Honey-locust
Black huckleberry
Kentucky coffee-tree
Common witch-hazel
Wild hydrangea
Winterberry holly
Butternutdgk
Black walnut
Scientific Name
Cersis canadensis
Chaenomeles speciosa
Cornus altemifolia
Comus amomum
Cornus florida
Cornus racemosa
Corylus americana
Crataegus crus-galli
Crataegus flabellata
Crataegus pruinosa
Crataegus punctata
Crataegus succulenta
Diervilla lonicera
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Elaeagnus umbellata
Euonymus atropurpureus
Euonymus obovatus
Fagus grandifolia
Fraxinus americana
Fraxinus nigra
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Gleditsia triacanthos
Gaylussacia baccata
Gymnodadus dioica
Hamamelis virginiana
Hydrangea arborescens
Hex verticillata
Juglans cinerea
Juglans nigra
Source4
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2 .
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Red-cedar
Mountain laurel
American larchek
Bicolor lespedeza
Spicebush
Tulip (yellow) poplar
Mountain honeysuckle
Japanese honeysuckle
Tatarian honeysuckle
Cucumber tree
Wildsweet crabapple
Common apple
Red mulberry
Northern bayberryb
Black gum
Hornbeam
Virginia-creeper
Ninebark
Norway spruce
White spruce
Blue spruce
Jack pine
Red pine0
Pitch pine
Eastern white pine
Scot's pine
Virginia pine
American sycamore
Bigtooth aspen
Scientific Name
Juniperus virginiana
Kalmia latifolia
Larix laricina
Lespedeza bicolor
Lindera benzoin
Liriodendron tulipifera
Lonicera dioica
Lonicera japonica
Lonicera tatarica
Magnolia acuminata
Malus coronaria
Mains pumila
Morus rubra
Myrica pensylvanica
Nyssa sylvatica
Ostrya virginiana
Partenocissus quinquefolia
Physocarpus opulifolius
Picea abies
Picea glauca
Picea pungens
Pinus banksiana
Pinus resinosa
Pinus rigida
Pinus strobus
Pinus sylvestris
Pinus virginiana
Platanus occidentalis
Populus grandidentata
Source*
1
1,2
2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
2
1
2
2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2 .
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Quaking aspen
Wild plum
Sweet cherry
Pin cherry
Peach
Black cherry
Common chokecherry
White oak
Swamp white oak
Scarlet oak
Shingle oak
Lea oak
Mossy-cup oak
Chestnut oak
Northern pin oak
Northern red oak
Saw-toothed oak
Black oak
Great rhododendron1
Pinxter-flower
Smooth sumac
Poison-ivy
Staghorn sumac
Prickly gooseberry
Wild gooseberry
Bristly locust
Black locust
Wild rose
Swamp rose
Scientific Name
Populus tremuloides
Prunus americana
Prunus avium
Prunus pensylvanica
Prunus persica
Prunus serotina
Prunus virginiana
Quercus alba
Quercus bicolor
Quercus coccinea
Quercus imbricaria
Quercus leana
Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus Montana
Quercus palustris
Quercus rubra
Quercus runcinata
Quercus velutina
Rhododendron maximum
Rhododendron periclymenoides
Rhus glabra
Rhus radicans
Rhus typhina
Ribes cynosbati
Ribes rotundifolium
Robinia hispida
Robinia pseudoacacia
Rosa Carolina
Rosa palustris
. Source*
2
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
I
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Blackberry
White blackberry
Southern dewberry
Prickly dewberry
Bristly dewberry
Red raspberry
Black raspberry
Flowering raspberry
Blackberry
Dewberry
White willow
Weeping willow
Goat willow
Carolina willow
Pussy willowf
Heart-leaved willow
Sandbar willow
Shining willow
Black willow
American elderberry
Red elderberry
Sassafras
Common greenbrier
Bristly greenbrier
False spiraea
Meadowsweet
Bladdernut
Indiancurrant coralberry
American basswood
Scientific Name
Rubus allegheniensis
Rubus allegheniensis albinos
Rubus enslenii
Rubus flagellaris
Rubus hispidus
Rubus idaeus
Rubus occidentalis
Rubus odoratus
Rubus pensilvanicus
Rubus recurvicaulis
Salix alba
Salix babylonica
Salix caprea
Salix caroliniana
Salix discolor
Salix eriocephala
Salix interior
Salix lucida
Salix nigra
Sambucus canadensis
Sambucus racemosa
Sassafras albidum
Smilax rotundifolia
Smilax tamnoides
Sorbaria sorbifolia
Spiraea alba
Staphylea trifolia
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
Tilia americana
Source"
1,2
2
1
1,2
1,2
, 1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Eastern hemlock
American elm
Slippery elm
Low sweet blueberry
Highbush blueberry
Deerberry
Lowbush blueberry
Maple-leaved viburnum
Arrowwood
Nannyberry
Smooth blackhaw
Summer grape
Riverbank grape
Frost grape
Scientific Name
Tsuga canadensis
Ulmus americana
Ulmus rubra
Vaccinium angustifolium
Vacdnium corymbosum
Vaccinium stamineum
Vaccinium pallidum
Viburnum acerifolium
Viburnum recognitum
Viburnum lentago
Viburnum prunifolium
Vitis aestivalis
Vitis riparia
Vitis vinifera
Source"
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
2
/ 1.2
1,2
1,2
1
Herbaceous Plants
Velvet-leaf
Three-seeded mercury
Three-seeded mercury
Yarrow
Sweetflag
White baneberry
Red baneberry
Wingstem
Mountain-fringe'
Anise giant-hyssop
Yellow giant-hyssop
Purple giant-hyssop
Agrimony
Southern agrimony
Abutilon theophrastii
Acalypha rhombolidea
Acalypha virginica
Achillea millefolium
Acorns calamus
Actaea pachypoda
Actaea rubra
Actinomeris alternifolia
Adlumia fungosa
Agastache foeniculum
Agastache nepetoides
Agastache scrophulariifolia
Agrimonia gryposepala
Agrimonia parviflora
1,2
1
2
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,3
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Downy agrimony
Woodland agrimony
White bentgrass
Hairgrass
Upland bentgrass
Hairgrass
Creeping bentgrass
Water-plantain
Garlic mustard
Wild onion
Nodding wild onion
Field garlic
Tumbleweed
Pigweed
Common ragweed
Giant ragweed
Hog-peanut
Pearly-everlasting
Big bluestem
Beardgrass
Canada anemone*
Wood anemone
Thimbleweed
Rue-anemone
Purple-stemmed angelica
Deadly angelica
Leafy-shoot pussytoes
Parlin's pussy-toes
Plantain pussytoes
Scientific Name
Agrimonia pubescens
Agrimonia rostellata
Agrostis alba
Agrostis hyemalis
Agrostis perennans
Agrostis scabra
Agrostis stolonifera
Alisma subcordatum
Alliaria officinalls
Allium canadense
Allium cernuum
Allium vineale
Amaranthus albus
Amaranthus hybridus
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Ambrosia trifida
Amphicarpaea bracteata
Anaphalis margaritacea
Andropogon gerardii
Andropogon virginicus
Anemone canadensis
Anemone quinquefolia
Anemone virginiana
Anemonella thalictroides
Angelica atropurpurea
Angelica venenosa
Antennaria neodioica
Antennaria parlinii
Antennaria plantaginifolia
Source'
1,2 .
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Shale barren pussy-toes'
Dog-fennel
Sweet vernal grass
Groundnut
Puttyrootn
Spreading dogbane
Indian hemp
Wild columbine
Columbine
Mouse-ear cress
Sicklepod
Tower cress
Smooth rock cress
Lyre-leaved rock cress*
Wild sarsaparilla
Spikenard
Great burdock
Common burdock
Thyme-leaved sandwort
Woodland jack-in-the-pulpit
Green dragon
Swamp jack-in-the-pulpitk
Dutchman ' s-pipe
Virginia snakeroot
Horseradish
Sweet wormwood
Mugwort
Goat's-beard
Wild ginger
Scientific Name
Antennaria virginica
Anthemis cotula
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Apios americana
Aplectrum hyemale
Apocynum androsaemifolium
Apocynum cannabinum
Aquilegia canadensis
Aquilegia vulgaris
Arabidopsis thaliana
Arabia canadensis
Arabis glabra
Arabis laevigata
Arabis lyrata
Aralia nudicaulis
Aralia racemosa
Arctium lappa
Arctium minus
Arenaria serpyllifolia
Arisaema atrorubens
Arisaema dracontium
Arisaema stewardsonii
Aristolochia macrophylla
Aristolochia serpentaria
Armoracia rusticana
Artemisia annua
Artemisia vulgaris
Aruncus dioicus
Asantm canadense
Source"
3
i
1
1,2
1,4
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
2
1,2
1
2
1,2
1,3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Poke milkweed
Swamp milkweed
Purple milkweed
Four-leaved milkweed
Common milkweed
Butterfly-weed
Green milkweed1
Wild asparagus
Blue wood aster
White wood aster
Heath aster
Calico aster
Lowrie's aster
Bigleaf aster
New England aster
Late purple aster
Downy aster
Veiny-lined aster
Crooked-stemmed aster
Purple-stemmed aster
Arrow-leaved aster
Schreber's aster
Short's aster
Panicled aster
Clasping heart-leaved aster
Small white aster
Spearscale
Halberd-leaved orach
Downy false-foxglove
Scientific Name
Asclepias exaltata
Asclepias incarnata
Asclepias purpurascens
Asclepias quadrifolia
Asclepias syriaca
Asclepias tuberosa
Asclepias viridiflora
Asparagus officinalis
Aster cordifolius
Aster divaricates
Aster ericoides
Aster lateriflonts
Aster lowrieanus
Aster macrophyllus
Aster novae-angliae
Aster patens
Aster pilosus
Aster praealtus
Aster prenanthoides
Aster puniceus
Aster sagittifplius
Aster schreberi
Aster shortii
Aster simplex
Aster undulatus
Aster vimineus
Atriplex patula
Atriplex prostrata
Aureolaria virginica
Source*
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
3
1,2
1,2
1,2
2
1,2
2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Blue false-indigo
Wild indigo
Winter cress
Tickseed-sunflower
Spanish needles
Nodding bur-marigold
Beggar-ticks
Beggar-ticks
Beggar-ticks
Downy wood-mint
Hairy wood-mint
False nettle
Long-awned wood grass
Brown mustard
Black mustard
Field mustard
Hairy chess
Smooth brome
Canada brome
Sand-rush
Pale Indian-plantain
Great Indian-plantain
Sweet-scented Indian-plantain
Water-starwort
Marsh marigold
Hedge bindweed
Low bindweed
Tall bellflower
Shepherd's-purse
Scientific Name
Baptisia australis
Baptisia tinctoria
Barbarea vulgaris
Bidens aristosa
Bidens bipinnata
Bidens cemua
Bidens comosa
Bidens frondosa
Bidens vulgata
Blephilia ciliata
Blephilia hirsuta
Boehmeria cylindrica
Brachyelytrum erectum
Brassica juncea
Brassica nigra
Brassica rapa
Bromus commutatus
Bromus. inermis
Bromus pubescens
Bulbostylis capillaris
Cacalia atriplicifolia
Cacalia muhlenbergii
Cacalia suaveolens
Callitriche heterophylla
Caltha palustris
Calystegia sepium
Calystegia spithamaea
Campanula americana
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Source"
1
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
11
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Spring cress
Purple cress
Bitter-cress
Pennsylvania bitter-cress
Mountain watercress
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Fringed sedge
Sedge
Frank's sedge
Sedge
Graceful sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Pubescent sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sallow sedge
Sedge
Scientific Name
Cardamine bulbosa
Cardamine douglassii
Cardamine parviflora
Cardamine pensylvanica
Cardamine rotundifolia
Carex albicans
Carex albursina
Carex amphibola
Carex atlantica
Carex baileyi
Carex bromoides
Carex cephalophora
Carex communis
Carex crinita
Carex cristatella
Carex frankii
Carex gracilescens
Carex gracillima
Carex grayi
Carex grisea
Carex gynandra
Carex hirsutella
Carex hirtifolia
Carex intumescens
Carex laevivaginata
Carex laxiflora
Carex lupulina
Carex lurida
Carex normalis
Source*
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
•Pennsylvania sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Necklace sedge1
Sedge
Reflexed sedge1
Stellate sedge
Pointed broom sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Squarrose sedge
Awl-fruited sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Inflated sedge
Sedge
Wild senna
Wild sensitive-plant
Blue cohosh
Sandbur
Brown knapweed
Nodding chickweed
Mouse-ear chickweed
Slender chervil
Fairy-wand
Wartweed
Eyebane
Scientific Name
Carex pensylvanica
Carex platyphylla
Carex prasina
Carex projecta
Carex radiata
Carex retroflexa
Carex rosea
Carex scoparia
Carex shortiana
Carex sparganoides
Carex squarrosa
Carex stipata
Carex tribuloides
Carex tuckermanii
Carex typhina
Carex utriculata
Carex vesicaria
Carex vulpinoidea
Cassia marilandica
Cassia nictitans
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Cenchrus longispinus
Centaurea jacea
Cerastium nutans
Cerastium vulgatum
Chaerophyllum procumbens
Chamaelirium luteum
Chamaesyce maculata
Chamaesyce nutans
Source"
1,2
1
1
3
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
2
2
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1
1
1
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
13
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Hairy spurge
Greater celandine
Turtlehead
Lamb ' s-quarters
Goosefoot
Wormseed
Spotted wintergreen
Pipsissewa1
Ox-eye daisy
Water-carpet
Chicory
Water-hemlock
Black cohosh
Wood reedgrass
Enchanter' s-nightshade
Tall thistle
Canada thistle
Field thistle
Swamp thistle
Pasture thistle
Bull thistle
Watermelon
Carolina spring-beauty
Spring-beauty
Vase-vine leather-flower1
Virgin's-bower
Speckled wood-lily11
Blue-eyed Mary"
Horse-balm
Scientific Name
Chamaesyce vermiculata
Chelidonium majus
Chelone glabra
Chenopodium album
Chenopodium album var. missouriense
Chenopodium ambrosioides
ChimaphUa maculata
Chimaphila umbellata
Chrysanthemum leucanthetnum
Chrysospenium americanum
Cichorium intybus
Cicuta maculata
Cimicifiiga racemosa
Cinna arundinacea
Circaea quadrisulcata
Cirsium altissimum
Cirsium arvense
Cirsium discolor
Cirsium muticum .
Cirsium pumilum
Cirsium vulgare
Citrullus colocynthis
Claytonia caroliniana
Claytonia virginica
Clematis viorna
Clematis virginiana
Clintonia umbellulata
Collinsia verna
Collinsonia canadensis
Source"
1
1
U
1,2
1
1
1
1,3
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Bastard toadflax
Asiatic dayflower
Poison hemlock
Squaw-root
Hedge bindweed
Upright bindweed
Spotted coral-root
Tall tickseed
Crown-vetch
Yellow harlequin
Rock-harlequink
Hawk's-beard
Hogwort
Honewort
Common dittany
Blue waxweed
Common dodder
Smartweed dodder
Hound ' s-tongue
Wild comfrey
Umbrella-sedge
Nutgrass
Pink lady's-slipper
Yellow lady's-slipper
Orchard grass
Poverty grass
Jimsonweed
Queen Anne's lace
Dwarf larkspur
Scientific Name
Comandra umbellata
Commelina communis
Conium maculatum
Conopholis americana
Convolvulus septum
Convolvulus spithamaeus
Corallorhiza maculate
Coreopsis tripteris
Coronilla varia
Corydalis flavula
Corydalis sempervirens
Crepis capillarls
Croton capitatus
Cryptotaenia canadensis
Cunila origanoides
Cuphea viscosissima
Cuscuta gronovii
Cuscuta polygonorum
Cynoglossum officinale
Cynoglossum virginianum
Cyperus lupinus
Cyperus strigosus
Cypripedium acaule
Cypripedium calceolus
Dactylis glomerata
Danthonia spicata
Datura stramonium
Daucus carota
Delphinium tricorne
Source"
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
2
2
1
1
1,2
1
3
1
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
15
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Two-leaved toothwort
Cut-leaved toothwort
Showy tick-trefoil •
Hoary tick-trefoil
Tick-trefoil
Pointed-leaved tick-trefoil
Naked-flowered tick-trefoil
Tick-trefoil
Tick-trefoil
Tick-trefoil
Deptford pink
Sweet-william
Squirrel-corn
Dutchman's-breeches
Smooth crabgrass
Large crabgrass
Rough buttonweed
Wild yam
Wild yam
Teasel
Indian strawberry
Barnyard-grass
Barnyard grass
Wild cucumber
Blueweed
Least spike-rush
Spike-rush
Blunt spike-rush
Creeping spike-rush
Scientific Name
Dentaria dipkylla
Dentaria laciniata
Desmodium canadense
Desmodium canescens
Desmodium cuspidatum
Desmodium glutinosum
Desmodium nudiflorum
Desmodium paniculatum
Desmodium perplexum
Desmodium rotundifolium
Dianthus armeria
Dianthus barbatus
Dicentra canadensis
Dicentra cucullaria
Digitaria ischaemum
Digitaria sanguinalis
Diodia teres
Dioscorea quatemata
Dioscorea villosa
Dipsacus sylvestris
Duchesnea indica
Echinochloa crusgalli
Echinochloa muricata
Echinocystis lobata
Echium vulgare
Eleocharis acicularis
Eleocharis erythropoda
Eleocharis obtusa
Eleocharis palustris
Source"
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
2
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1 .
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Four-angled spike-rush
Spike-rush
Goosegrass
Water-weed
Canada wild-rye
Bottlebrush grass
Riverbank wild-rye
Wild-rye
Virginia wild-rye
Quackgrass
Beech-drops
Trailing arbutus
Purple-leaved willow-herb
Northern willow-herb
Lacegrass
Lacegrass
Creeping lovegrass
Carolina lovegrass
Purple lovegrass
Fireweed
Harbinger-of-spring"1
Daisy fleabane
Horseweed
Common fleabane
Daisy fleabane
Whitlow-grass
Treacle mustard
White trout-lily
Trout-lily
Scientific Name
Eleocharis quadrangulata
Eleocharis tenuis
Eleusine indiea
Elodea canadensis
Elymus canadensis
Elymus hystrix
Elymus riparius
Elymus villosus
Elymus virginicus
Elytrigia repens
Epifagus virginiana
Epigaea repens
Epilobium coloratum
Epilobium glandulosum
Eragrostis capillaris
Eragrostis cilianensis
Eragrostis hypnoldes
Eragrostis pectinacea
Eragrostis spectabilis
Ereditites hieracifolia
Erigenia bulbosa
Erigeron annuus
Erigeron canadensis
Erigeron philadelphicus
Erigeron strigosus
Erophila verna
Erysimum cheiranthoides
Erythronium albidum
Erythronium americdnum
Source"
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Hollow joe-pye-weed
Spotted joe-pye weed
Boneset
Sweet joe-pye-weed
White snakeroot
Upland eupatorium
Wood spurge
Flowering spurge
Cypress spurge
Fescue
Nodding fescue
False-mermaid
Woodland strawberry
Wild strawberry
Quickweed
Cleavers
Rough bedstraw
Wild licorice
Shining bedstraw
Wild madder
Bedstraw
Bedstraw
Sweet-scented bedstraw
Wintergreen
Biennial gaura
Closed gentian
Closed gentiank
Wild geranium
Wood geranium
Scientific Name
Eupatorium fistulosum
Eupatorium maculatum
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Eupatorium perpureum
Eupatorium rugosum
Eupatorium sessilifolium
Euphorbia commutata
Euphorbia corollata
Euphorbia cyparissias
Festuca elatior
Festuca obtusa
Floerkea proserpinacoides
Fragaria vesca americana
Fragaria virginiana
Galinsoga ciliata
Galium aparine
Galium asprellum
Galium circaezans
Galium concinnum
Galium mollugo
Galium pilosum
Galium tinctorium
Galium triflorum
Gaultheria procumbens
Gaura biennis
Gentiana andrewsii
Gentiana clausa
Geranium carolinianum
Geranium maculatum
Source*
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,3
1
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
18
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
White avens
Rough avens
Spring avens
Gill-over-the-ground
Floating mannagrass
Fowl mannagrass
Sweet everlasting
Purple cudweed
Low cudweed
Downy rattlesnake-plantain
Hedge-hyssop
Tubercled orchid
Stickseed
American pennyroyal
Sneezeweed
Southern sneezeweed
Common sunflower
Thin-leaved sunflower
Woodland sunflower
Swamp sunflower
Small wood sunflower
Rough-leaved sunflower
Jerusalem artichoke
Ox-eye
Day-lily
Sharp-lobed hepatica
Round-lobed hepatica
Cow-parsnip
Dame's-rocket
Scientific Name
Geum canadense
Geum laciniatum
Geum vernum
dechoma hederacea
dyceria septentrionalis
Glyceria striata
Gnaphalium obtusifolium
Gnaphalium purpureum
Gnaphalium uliginosum
Goodyera pubescens
Gratiola neglecta
Habenaria flava
Hackelia virginiana
Hedeoma pulegiodes
Helenium autumnale
Helenium flexuosum
Helianthus annuus
Hellanthus decapetalus
Helianthus divarlcatus
Helianthus giganteus
Helianthus microcephalus
Helianthus strumosus
Helianthus tuberosus
Heliopsis helianthoides
Hemerocallis fulva
Hepatica acutiloba
Hepatica americana
Heracleum maximum
Hesperis matronalis
Source"
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Alum-root
Flower-of-an-hour
Orange hawkweed
Hawkweed '
Hawkweed
King devil
Rough hawkweed
Rattlesnake weed
Velvet grass
Barley
Bluets
Long-leaved bluets
Common hop
Green violet
Goldenseal
American water-pennywort11
Appendaged waterleaf
Canada waterleaf
Virginia waterleaf
Pale St. Johnswort1
Pineweed
Dwarf St. Johnswort
Common St. Johnswort
Spotted St. Johnswort
Shrubby St. Johnswort
Yellow star-grass
Bottle-brush grass
Spotted touch-me-not
Jewelweed
Scientific Name
Heuchera americana
Hibiscus trionum
Hieracium aurantiacum
Hieracium gronovii
Hieracium paniculatum
Hieracium pratense
Hieracium scabrum
Hieracium venosum
Holcus lanatus
Hordeum vulgare
Houstonia caerulea
Houstonia longifolia
Humulus lupulus
Hybanthus concolor
Hydrastis canadensis
Hydrocotyle americana
Hydrophyllum appendiculatum
Hydrophyllum canadense
Hydrophyllum virginianum
Hypericum ellipticum
Hypericum gentianoides
Hypericum mutilum
Hypericum perforatum
Hypericum punctatum
Hypericum spathulatum
Hypoxis hirsuta
Hystrix panda
Impatiens capensis
Impatiens pallida
Source"
1.2
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
3
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
2
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Elecampane
Purple rocket1
Wild potato-vine
Whorled-pogonia
Northern blue flag
Sharp-fruited rush
Forked rush
Rush
Soft rush
Grass-leaved rush
Yard rush
Water-willow
Dwarf dandelion
Korean lepedeza
Giant lettuce
Wild lettuce
Prickly lettuce
Henbit
Purple dead-nettle
Wood nettle
Everlasting pea
Veiny pea
Pinweed
Rice cutgrass
Whitegrass
Lesser duckweed
Common motherwort
Field-cress
Wild pepper-grass
Scientific Name
Inula helenium
lodanthus pinnatifidus
Ipomoea pandurata
Isotria verticillata
Iris versicolor
Juncus acuminatus
Juncus dichotomus
Juncus dudleyi
Juncus effusus
Juncus marginatus
Juncus tenuis
Justicla americana
Krigia biflora
Kummerowia stipulacea
Lactuca biennis
Lactuca canadensis
Lactuca scariola
Lamiutn amplexicaule
Lamium purpureum
Laportea canadensis
Lathyrus latifolius
Lathyrus venosus
Lechea racemulosa
Leersia oryzoides
Leersia virginica
Lemna minor
Leonurus cardiaca
Lepidium campestre
Lepidium densiflorum
Source"
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
2
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Poor-man's pepper
Sericea lespedeza
Bush-clover
Wandlike bush-clover
Trailing bush-clover
Blazing-star
Canada lily
Turk's-cap lilyk
Butter-and-eggs
False pimpernel
Slender yellow flax
Large twayblade
Cardinal-flower
Indian-tobacco
Brook lobelia
Great lobelia
Pale-spike lobelia
Birdsfoot trefoil
Seedbox
Water-purslane
Wood rush
Southern woodrush'
Common wood-rush
Field wood-rush
Tomato
Water-honebound
Water-honebound
Bugleweed
Fringed loosestrife
Scientific Name
Lepidium virginicum
Lespedeza cuneata
Lespedeza hirta
Lespedeza intermedia
Lespedeza procumbens
Liatris spicata
Lilium canadense
Lilium superbum
Linaria vulgaris
Lindernia dubia
Linum virginianum
Liparis liliifolia
Lobelia cardinalis
Lobelia inflata
Lobelia kalmii
Lobelia siphilitica
Lobelia spicata
Lotus comiculatus
Ludwigia alternifolia
Ludwigia palustris
Luzula acuminata
Luzula bulbosa
Luzula echinata
Luzula multiflora
Lycopericon esculentum
Lycopus americanus
Lycopus uniflorus
Lycopus virginicus
Lysimachia ciliata
Source"
1
i
i
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1.2
1,2
1,2
2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Moneywort
Whorled loosestrife"
Yellow loosestrife
Purple loosestrife
Canada mayflower
Cheeses
Pineapple-weed
Indian cucumber-root
Black medick
Alfalfa
White sweet-clover
Yellow sweet-clover
Canada moonseed
Wild mint
Peppermint
Spearmint
Virginia cowslip
Sharp-winged monkey-flower
Square-stemmed monkey-flower
Wild four-o'clock
Partridgeberry
Miterwort
Carpet-weed
Horsemint
Bee-balm
Wild bergamot
Purple bergamot
Pine-sap
Indian-pipe
Scientific Name
Lysimachia nummularia
Lysimachia quadrifolia
Lysimachia terrestris
Lythrum salicaria
Maianthemum canadense
Malva neglecta
Matricaria matricarioides
Medeola virginiana
Medicago lupulina
Medicago saliva
Melilotus alba
Melilotus offidnalis
Menispermum canadense
Mentha arvensis
Mentha piperita
Mentha spicata
Mertensia virginica
Mimulus alatus
Mimulus ringens
Mirabilis nyaaginea
Mitchella repens
Mitella diphylla
Mollugo verticillata
Monarda clinopodia
Monarda didyma
Monarda fistulosa
Monarda media
Monotropa hypopithys
Monotropa uniflora
Source"
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
23
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Wirestem muhly
Dropseed
Muhly
Wild forget-me-not
True forget-me-not
Giant duckweed
Catnip
Apple-of-peru
Spatterdock
Common evening-primrose
Evening-primrose
Sundrops
Star-of-Bethlehem
One-flowered cancer-root
Sweet-cicely
Anise-root
Common wood-sorrel
Southern yellow wood-sorrel
Yellow wood-sorrel
Large yellow wood-sorrel
Yellow wood-sorrel
Violet wood-sorrel
Cowbane
Ginseng
Dwarf ginseng
Bicknell's panic-grass1
Old witch-grass
Panic-grass
Panic-grass
Scientific Name
Muhlenbergia frondosa
Muhlenbergia schreberi
Muhlenbergia sylvatica
Myosotis laxa
Myosotis scorpoides
Myosoton aquaticum
Nepeta cataria
Nicandra physalodes
Nuphar advena
Oenothera biennis
Oenothera parviflora
Oenothera perennis
Omthogalum umbellatum
Orobanche uniflora
Osmorhiza daytonii
Osmorhiza longistylis
Oxalis acetosella
Oxalis dillenll
Oxalis europaea
Oxalis grandis
Oxalis stricta
Oxalis violacea
Oxypolis rigidior
Panax quinquefolius
Panax trifolius
Panicum bicknelii
Panicum capillare
Panicum acuminatum
Panicum anceps
Source"
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1
2
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
2
1,2
1
1,2
2
1,2
1
3
1,2
1
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
•Deer-tongue grass
Smooth panic-grass
Witch grass
Woolly panic-grass
Panic-grass
Panic-grass
Broomcom millet
Panic-grass
Switchgrass
Pellitory
Smooth-forked chickweed
Forked chickweed
Slender beadgrass
Wild parsnip
Wood-betony
Arrow-arum
Foxglove beard-tongue
Beard-tongue
Ditch stonecrop
Miami-mist
Reed canary-grass
Common timothy
Blue phlox
Wild sweet-william
Summer phlox
Moss-pink
Common reed
Lopseed
Ground-cherry
Scientific Name
Panlcum clandestinum
Panicum dichotontiflorum
Panicum gattingeri
Panicum lanuginosum
Panicum latifolium
Panicum linearifolium
Panicum miliaceum
Panicum philadelphicum
Panicum virgatum
Parietaria pensylvanica
Paronychia canadensis
Paronychia fastigiata
Paspalum setaceum
Pastinaca sativa
Pedicularis canadensis
Peltandra virginica
Penstemon digitalis
Penstemon hirsutus
Penthorum sedoides
Phacelia purshii
Phalaris arundinacea
Phleum pratense
Phlox divaricata
Phlox maculata
Phlox paniculata
Phlox subulata
Phragmites communis
Phryma leptostachya
Physalis heterophylla
Source*
1,2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Ground-cherry
False dragonhead
Pokeweed
Clearweed
Pale green orchid
Ragged fringed-orchid
English plantain
Common plantain
Plantain
Large round-leaved orchidk
Canada bluegrass
Bluegrass
Kentucky bluegrass
Woodland bluegrass
Rough bluegrass
May-apple
Spreading Jacob 's-ladder
Field milkwort
Whorled milkwort
Solomon 's-seaJ
Giant Solomon 's-seal
Soloman's-seal
Water smartweed
Halbert-leaved tearthumb
Knotweed
Long-bristled smartweed
Fringed bindweed
Black bindweed
Japanese knotweed
Scientific Name
Physalis subglabrata
Physostegia virginiana
Pkytolacca americana
Pilea pumila
Platanthera flava
Platanthera lacera
Plantago lanceolate
Plantago major
Plantago rugelii
Platanthera orbiculata
Poa compressa
Poa cuspidata
Poa pratensis
Poa sylvestris
Poa trivialls
Podophyllum peltatum
Polemonium reptans
Polygala sanguinea
Polygala verticlllata
Polygonatum biflorum
Polygonatum canaliculatum
Polygonatum pubescens
Polygonum amphibium
Polygonum arifolium
Polygonum avlculare
Polygonum caespitosum
Polygonum cilinode
Polygonum convolvulus
Polyponum cuspidatum
Source*
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,3
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
26
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Common smartweed
Wild water-pepper
Dock-leaved smartweed
Pennsylvania smartweed
Lady's thumb
Dotted smartweed
Giant knotweed
Arrow-leaved tearthumb
Climbing false-buckwheat
Leaf-cup
Large-flowered leafcup
Bowman ' s-rootk
Moss-rose
Purslane
Snailseed pondweed
Ribbonleaf pondweed
Leafy pondweed
Longleaf pondweed
Snailseed pondweed
Tennessee pondweed
Dwarf cinquefoil
Rough cinquefoil
Rough-fruited cinquefoil
Common cinquefoil
Tall white lettuce
Heal-all
Mountain-mint
Mountain-mint
Shinleaf
Scientific Name
Polygonum hydropiper
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Polygonum lapathifolium
Polygonum pensylvanicum
Polygonum persicaria
Polygonum punctatum
Polygonum sachalinense
Polygonum sagittatum
Polygonum scandens
Polymnia canadensis
Polymnia uvedalia
Porteranthus trifoliatus
Portulaca grandiflora
Portulaca oleracea
Potamogeton diversifolius
Potamogeton epihydrus
Potamogeton foliosus
Potamogeton nodosus
Potamogeton spirillus
Potamogeton tennesseensis
Potentilla canadensis
Potentilla norvegica
Potentilla recta
Potentilla simplex
Prenanthes altissima
Prunella vulgaris
Pycnanthemum incanum
Pycnanthemum tenuifolium
Pyrola elliptica
Source"
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
2
1,3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
27
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Kidneyleaf buttercup
Tall buttercup
Mountain crowfoot
Swamp buttercup
Early buttercup"
Hispid buttercup
Hooked crowfoot
Creeping buttercup
Garden radish
Marsh 'watercress
Creeping yellow-cress
Black-eyed susan
Green-headed coneflower
Coneflower
Sheep sorrel
Tall dock
Curly dock
Bitter dock
Swamp dock
Marsh-pink
Grass-leaved arrowhead
Broad-leaved arrowheadk
Bloodroot
Canadian sanicle
Black snakeroot
Yellow-flowered sanicle
Large-fruited sanicle
Bouncing-bet
Wild basil
Scientific Name
Ranunculus abortivus
Ranunculus acris
Ranunculus allegheniensis
Ranunculus caricetorum
Ranunculus fascicularis
Ranunculus hispidus
Ranunculus recurvatus
Ranunculus repens
Raphanus sativus
Rorippa palustris
Rorippa sylvestris
Rudbeckia hirta
Rudbedda laciniata
Rudbeckia triloba
Rumex acetosella
Rumex altissimus
Rumex crispus
Rumex obtusifolius
Rumex verticillatus
Sabatia angularis
Sagittaria graminea
Sagittaria latifolia
Sanguinaria canadensis
Sanicula canadensis
Sanicula marilandlca
Sanicula odorata
Sanicula trifoliata
Saponaria officinalis
Satureja vulgaris
Source"
1,2
1,2
1,2
2
3
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2 .
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
28
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Early saxifrage
Three-square
Black bulrush
Wool-grass
Bulrush
Bulrush
Bulrush
Leafy bulrush
Great bulrush
Lanceleaf figwort
Carpenter' s-square
Common skullcap0
Downy skullcap
Mad-dog skullcap
Skullcap
Showy skullcap1
Wild stonecrop
Golden ragwort
Ragwort
Wild senna
White-topped aster
Giant foxtail
Foxtail grass
Green foxtail
Bur cucumber
White campion
Sleepy catchfly
Carolina flycatch'
Forked catchfly
Scientific Name
Saxifraga virginiensis
Schoenoplectus pungens
Scirpus atrovirens
Scirpus cyperinus
Scirpus georgianus
Scirpus hattarianus
Scirpus pendulus
Scirpus polyphyllus
Scirpus validus
Scrophularia lanceolata
Scrophularia marilandica
Scutellaria epilobiifolia
Scutellaria incana
Scutellaria lateriflora
Scutellaria nervosa
Scutellaria serrata
Sedum ternatwn
Senecio aureus
Senecio obovatus
Senna hebecarpa
Seriocarpus asteroides
Setaria faberi
Setaria pumila
Setaria viridis
Sicyos angulatus
Silene alba
Silene antirrhina
Silene caroliniana var. pensylvanica
Silene dichotoma
Source"
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
2
1
1,2
1
2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,3
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
29
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Snowy campion01
Starry campion
Fire pink
Cup-plant
Whorled rosinweed
Wild mustard
Tumble mustard
Hedge mustard
Blue-eyed grass
Narrow-leaved blue-eyed grassh
Water-parsnip
False Solomon 's-seal
Carrion-flower
Horse-nettle
Bittersweet nightshade
Black nightshade
Tall goldenrod
Silver-rod
Blue-stemmed goldenrod
Canada goldenrod
Broad-leaved goldenrod
Late goldenrod
Lance-leaved goldenrod
Early goldenrod
Gray goldenrod
Sweet goldenrod'
Rough-leaved goldenrod
Rough-stemmed goldenrod
Ragged goldenrod
Scientific Name
Silene nivea
Silene stellata
Silene virginica
Silphium perfoliatum
Silphium trifoliatum
Sinapis arvensis
Sisymbrium altissimum
Sisymbrium officlnale
Sisyrinchium angustifolium
Sisyrinchium mucronatum
Slum suave
Smilacina racemosa
Smilax herbacea
Solatium carolinense
Solatium dulcamara
Solatium nigrum
Solidago altissima
Solidago blcolor
Solidago caesia
Solidago canadensis
Solidago flexicaulis
Solidago gigantea
Solidago graminifolia
Solidago juncea
Solidago nemoralis
Solidago odora
Solidago patula
Solidago rugosa
Solidago squarrosa
Source"
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
2
1,2
1,2'
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
30
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Elm-leaved goldenrod
Field sow-thistle
Spring-leaved sow-thistle
Common sow-thistle
Indian grass
Bur-reed
Freshwater cordgrass
Venus' looking-glass
Slender wedge-grass
Nodding ladies'-tresses
Yellow nodding ladies'-tresses
Woundwort
Smooth hedge-nettle
Chickweed
Greenleaf duckweed
Long-leaved chickweed
Common chickweed
Star chickweed
Featherbells
Wild bean
Skunk cabbage
Yellow pimpernel
Tansy
Common dandelion
American germander
Early meadow-rue
Tall meadow-rue
Meadow -parsnip
Meadow-parsnip
Scientific Name
Solidago ulmifolia
Sonchus arvensis
Sonchus asper
Sonchus oleraceus
Sorghastrum nutans
Sparganium eurycarpum
Spartina peetinata
Specularia perfoliata
Sphenopholis obtusata
Spiranthes cemua
Spiranthes ochroleuca
Stachys palustris
Stachys tenuifolia
Stellaria corei
Stellaria graminea
Stellaria longifolia
Stellaria media
Stellaria pubera
Stenanthium gramineum
Strophostyles helvola
Symplocarpus foetidus
Taenidia interrima
Tanacetum vulgare
Taraxacum officinale
Teucrium canadense
Thalictrum dioicum
Thalictrum polypamum
Thaspium barbinode
Thaspium trifoliatum
Source*
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
2
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
31
External Review'Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Virginia knotweed
Club-rush
Purple-top
Hop clover
Rabbit-foot clover
Alsike clover
Red clover
White clover
Purple robin
Drooping trillium
Large-flowered trillium
Snow trillium1111
Sessile trillium
Wild coffee
Wheat
Coltsfoot
Common cattail
Stinging nettle
Common bladderwort
Bellwort
Bellwort
Wild oats
Few-flowered valerian
Corn-salad
Goose-foot corn-salad
Water-celery
Moth mullein
Common mullein
Blue vervain
Scientific Name
Tovara virginiana
Trichophorium planifolium
Tridens flavus
Trifolium agrarium
Trifolium arvense
Trifolium hybridum
Trifolium pratense
Trifolium repens
Trillium erectum
Trillium flexipes
Trillium grandiflorum
Trillium nivale
Trillium sessile
Triosteum aurantiacum
Triticum aestrivum
Tussilago farfara
Typha latifolia
Urtica dioica
Utricularia macrorhiza
Uvularia grandiflora
Uvularia perfoliata
Uvularia sessilifolia
Valeriana pauciflora
Valerianella umbilicata
Valerianella chenopodiifolia
Vallisneria americana
Verbascum blattaria
Verbascum thapsus
Verbena hastata
Source"
1,2 .
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1.2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
32
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
White vervain
Tall ironweed
Cora speedwell
American brooklime
.Common speedwell
Neckweed
Thyme-leaved speedwell
Culver's-root
Purple vetch
Wood vetch
Cow vetch
Creeping myrtle
LeConte's violet
Canada violet
American dog violet
Blue marsh violet
Lance-leaved violet
Northern white violet
Wood violet
Common blue violet
Smooth yellow violet
Downy yellow violet
Violet
Woolly blue violet
Striped violet
Barren-strawberry
Common cocklebur
Golden-alexander
Scientific Name
Verbena urticifolia
Vernonia altissima
Veronica arvensis
Veronica americana
Veronica officinalis
Veronica peregrina
Veronica serpyllifolia
Veronicastrum virginicum
Vicia americana
Vicia caroliniana
Vicia cracca
Vinca minor
Viola qffinis
Viola canadensis
Viola conspersa
Viola cucullata
Viola lanceolata
Viola pollens
Viola palmata
Viola papilionacea
Viola pensylvqnica
Viola pubescens
Viola sagittaria
Viola sororia
Viola striata
Waldsteinia fragariodes
Xanthium stnunarium
Zizia aurea
Source*
1,2
1,2
1 .
1.2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
2
1,2
1
1
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
33
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Source"
Ferns and Mosses
Maidenhair fern
Ebony spleenwort '
Walking fern
Maidenhair spleenwort
Common ladyfern
Narrow-leaved spleenwort
Silvery spleenwort
Cut-leaved grape fern
Matricary grape fernf
Leathery grape-fern
Blunt-lobed grape-fern
Rattlesnake fern
Fragile fern
Tennessee bladder fernk
Hay-scented fern
Southern ground-cedar '
Glandular wood fern
Goldie's wood fern
Broad beech fern
Fancy fern
Marginal shield fern
Spinulose wood fern
Marsh fern
Common horsetail
Water horsetail
Scouring-rush
Variegated horsetail111
Oak fern1
Adiantum pedatum
Asplenlum platyneuron
Asplenium rhizophyllum
Asplenium trichomanes
Athyrium fuix-femina
Athyrium pycnocarpon
Athyrium thelypteroides
Botrychium dissectum
Botrychium matricariaefolium
Botrychium multifidum
Botrychium oneidense
Botrychium virginianum
Cystopteris fragilis
Cystopteris tennesseenis
Dennstaedtia punctilobula
Diphasiastrum digitatum
Dryopteris earthusiana
Dryopteris goldiana
Dryopteris hexagonoptera
Dryopteris intermedia
Dryopteris marginalis
Dryopteris spinulosa
Dryopteris thelypteris
Equisetum arvense
Equisetum fluviatile
Equisetum hyemale
Equisetem variegatum
Gymnocarpium dryopteris
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
3
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
2
1,2
1,2
1,2
2
1,2
1
1
2
1,3
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
34
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Shining clubmoss
Common clubmoss
Round-branch ground-pine
Clubmoss
Sensitive fern
Northern Adder's-tongue
Cinnamon fern
Interrupted fern
Long beech-femk
Rock-cap fern
Christmas fern
Ostrich fern
Bracken fern
Creeping spikemoss
Broad beech fern
New York fern
Marsh fern
Filmy fern
Blunt-lobed woodsia
Scientific Name
Huperzia lucidula
Lycopodium clavatum
Lycopodium dendroideum
Lycopodium digitatum
Onoclea sensibilis
Ophioglossum puslllum
Osmunda cinnamonmea
Osmunda claytoniana
Phegopteris connectllis
Polypodium virginianum
Polystichum acrostichoides
Pteretis nodulosa
Pteridium aquilinum
Selaginella apoda
Thelypteris hexagonoptera
Thelypteris novaboracensis
Thelypteris palustris
Trichomanes intricatum
Woodsia obtusa
Mushrooms/Fungi
Fly agaric
Destroying angel
Chanterelle
Shaggy mane
Artist's fungus
Puffball
Common morel
Dog stinkhorn
Scarlet cup fungus
Amanita muscaria
Amanita virosa
Cantharellus cibarius
Coprinus comatus
Ganoderma applanatum
Lycoperdon spp.
Morchella esculenta
Mutlnus caninus
Peziza coccinea
Source"
1
1,2
•1
2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
35
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Common Name
Versicolor mushroom
Dead-man's fingers
Scientific Name
Polyporus versicolor
Xylaria polymorpha
Source*
2
2
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Source: 1 - Rhoads and Klein (1993); 2 - Raccoon Creek State Park (PADER 1992); 3 - OHDNR
(1994b); 4 - WPAC (1994).
Federal Endangered.
Federal Threatened.
Federal Candidate.
West Virginia "Critically Imperiled".
West Virginia "Imperiled".
West Virginia "Rare/Uncommon".
Ohio Endangered.
Ohio Threatened.
Ohio Special Interest.
Ohio Potentially Threatened.
Pennsylvania Endangered.
Pennsylvania Threatened.
Pennsylvania Rare.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
36
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-11
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND RARE SPECIES
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-11
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-11
Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status"
County, State
Distance
from
WTI(km)
Number
of
Records
PLANTS
Vase-vine leather-flower
Mountain-fringe
Shale barren pussy-toes
Reflexed sedge
Pipsissewa
Oak fern
Southern woodrush
Bicknell's panic-grass
Great rhododendron
Carolina flycatch
Harbinger-of-spring
Lyre-leaf rock-cress
Swamp jack-in-the-pulpit
Green milkweed
Clematis viorna
Adlumia fungosa
Antennaria virginica
Carex retroflexa var. retroflexa
Chimaphila umbellata
Gymnocarpium dryopteris
Luzula bulbosa
Panicum blcknellil
Rhododendron maximum
Silene carolinlana var.
pensylvanica
Erigenia bulbosa
Arabis lyrata
Arisaema stewardsonii
Asdepias viridiflora
PE
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
PT
OP
OP
OP
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
10-20
5-10
10-20
5- 10
10-20
10-20
5- 10
10-20
5- 10
10-20
5- 10
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
5- 10
10-20
10-20
10-20
1
5
8
2
15
3
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
Last
Sighting"
Source'
7/83
10/85
6/86
7/86
5/83
9/87
6/86
5/83
8/84
9/86
5/86
6/86
3/92
6/86
5/77
6/84
7/83
4,8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4,8
5
5
5
5
Volume VI
A-—ndix VI-11
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-11
Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
American chestnut
Speckled wood-lily
Rock-harlequin
Tennessee bladder fern
Closed gentian
American water-pennywort
Long beech-fern
Large round-leaved orchid
Bowman's root
Early buttercup
Hairy arrowhead
Putty root
Scientific Name
Castanea dentata
Clintonia umbellulata
Corydalis sempervirens
Cystopteris tennesseenis
Gentlana clausa
Hydrocotyle americana
Phegopteris connectills
Platanthera orbiculata
Porteranthus trifoliatus
Ranunculus fascicularis
Sagittaria latifolia var.
pubescens
Aplectrum hyemale
Status'
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
PR
County, State
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Distance
from
WTI(km)
10-20
5- 10
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
5- 10
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
Number
of
Records
1
2
3
1
1
1
,5
5
2
2
1
9
1
1
1
Last
Sighting"
11/82
7/84
6/84
8/84
9/84
7/86
6/86
7/84
9/93
6/86
5/86
9/86
5/92
Source0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
MAMMALS
Least shrew
Indiana bat
Cryptotis parva
Myotis sodalis
PE
FE/OE
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
10-20
7
?
?
Unknown
Unknown
7
2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-11
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-11
Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
BIRDS
Peregrine falcon
Bald eagle
Winter wren
Canada warbler
Sedge wren
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Troglodytes troglodytes
Wilsonia canadensis
Cistothorus platensis
Status"
County, State
Distance
from
WTI(km)
Number
of
Records
FE/PE
FT/PE
OE
OE
PT
Washington, PA
Beaver, PA
Washington, PA
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
?
7
?
7
5- 10
5- 10
7
?
?
?
?
1
1
7
Last
Sighting"
Source"
7
?
7
7
6/92
6/92
Unknown
7
7
7
7
5
5
7
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
Hellbender
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
FISH
Mooneye
Channel darter
Highfin carpsucker
Shipjack herring
Black bullhead
Smallmouth buffalo
Longnose gar
Longear sunfish
Hiodon tergisus
Percina copelandi
Carpiodes velifer
Alosa chrysochloris
Ameiurus melas
Ictiobus bubalus
Lepisosteus osseus
Lepomls megalotis
OE/F2
WV1
PT
WV2
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
Columbiana, OH
10-20
2
Hancock, WV
Beaver, PA
Hancock, WV
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
1 -5
10-20
1 -5
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
7/88
5
9/92
7/83
9/92
9/84
.7/83
7/85
8/85
9/84
6
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
Volume VI
/ ^ndixVI-11
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-11
Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Silver chub
River redhorse
Scientific Name
Macrhybopsis storeriana
Moxostoma carinatum
Status"
PC
PC/OS
County, State
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Jefferson, OH
Distance
from
WTI(km)
10-20
10-20
10-20
Number
of
Records
1
1
1
Last
Sighting"
8/86
9/84
10/90
Source"
4
4
5
OTHER ORGANISMS
Watermeal
Wavy-rayed lampmussel
Wolffia papulifera
Lamps His fasiola
WV1
OS
Hancock, WV
Columbiana, OH
10-20
5- 10
10-20
1
1
3
8/83
8/87
6
5
FE - Federally Endangered; FT - Federally Threatened; F2 - Federal Candidate (Category 2).
PE - Pennsylvania Endangered; PT - Pennsylvania Threatened; PC - Pennsylvania Candidate; PR - Pennsylvania Rare.
OE - Ohio Endangered; OT - Ohio Threatened; OS - Ohio Special Concern; OP - Ohio Potentially Threatened.
WV1 - West Virginia "Critically Imperiled"; WV2 - West Virginia "Imperiled".
b Recent sightings only (less than 25 years ago).
Source: 1 - USFWS (1994a); 2 - USFWS (1994b); 3 - USFWS (1994c); 4 - WPAC (1994); 5 - OHDNR (1994b); 6 - WVDNR (1994); 7 -
Pennsylvania Game Commission (1994); 8 - PADER (1994a).
? = Data Unavailable:
Volume VI
Appendix VI-11
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-12
ORGANIC STACK EMISSION RATES
Volume VI
Appendix VI-12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-12
Estimated Average and High-End Stack Emission Rates for Organic Chemicals
Chemical
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
AcetaJdehyde
Acetone
Acetophenone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzoic acid
Benzotrichloride
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform •
Bromomethane
Bromophenyl phenylether
Butanone, 2-
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-3-methylphenol, 4-
Chloroaniline, p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroethane
Emission Rate (g/sec)
Average
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10*
3.01 x 10-4
2.90 x 10-3.
2.93 x 10*
2.02 x 10*
5.50 x 10-6
1.47 x lO'5
1,13 x ID'5
3.20 x 10'5
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x 10-6
5.50 xlO-6
5.50 x 10-6
5.50 x 10-6
6.69 x 10-6
1.33 x lO'5
6.69 x 10-*
3.72 x ID'5
1.03 x 10*
5.50 x 10-6
4.90 x 10*
6.69 x 10-6
5.14x lO'5
5.50 x 10-*
8.91 x 10-5
1.58x 10*
5.50 x 1C'7
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10*
5.50 x 10^
3.68 x lO'5
4.90 x 10*
High-End
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x lO*
3.01 x 1O4
2.90 x 10-3
2.93 x 10*
2.02 x 10*
l.lOx 10-3
2.63 x 10-5
1.13x lO'5
3.20 x 10-5
l.lOx 10"5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx ID"5
l.lOx 10-5
6.69 x 10-*
1.33 xlO-5
6.69 x 10-6
5.23 x 10-5
. 1.53 x lO4
l.lOx 10-5
9.80 x 10*
6.69 x 10-*
7.40 x 10-5
l.lOx ICC5
9.46 x 10-5
2.75 x 10-4
l.lOx 10^
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 1O*
l.lOx 10-5
3.68 x 10'5
9.80 x 1CT1
Source"
a
a
a
a
a
a
b
b
a
a
b
b
b
b
b
a
a
a
b
b
b
b
a
b
b
b
b
b
a
a
b
a
b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-12
Estimated Average and High-End Stack Emission Rates for Organic Chemicals
Chemical
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloronaphthalene, 2-
Chlorophenol, 2-
Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether, 4-
Chrysene
Cresol, m-
Cresol, o-
Cresol, p-
Crotonaldehyde
Cumene
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzo(a,h)fluoranthene
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Dichloroethene, 1,1-
Dichloroethylene (trans), 1,2-
Dichlorophenol, 2-4-
Dichloropropane, 1,2-
Dichloropropene, cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-
Diethylphthalate
Dimethoxybenzidine, 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-
Dimethylphthalate
Emission Rate (g/sec)
Average
2.66 x 10"
2.45 x 10-*
6.69 x 10"6
5.50 x 10-*
6.69 x 10*
5.50 x 10-*
5.50 x 10-6
5.50 x 10-*
5.50 x 10*
1.39x 10^
5.50 x 10-6
3.88 x lO'5
5.50 x ID'7
5.50 x 10-*
5.50 x 10-6
2.63 x lO'5
5.50 x 10-*
5.50 x 10-6
5.50 x 10-6
3.33 x 10-s
2.45 x 10"
1.25 x lO'5
1.25 x 10-5
1.25 x lO'5
1.25 x 10-5
5.50 x 10*
1.25 x 10-s
1.25 x ID'5
1.25 x ID'5
1.69 x 10-5
1.15x 10-4
5.50 x 10-*
5.50 x 10*
High-End
4.07 x 10"
4.90 x 10"
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 1Q-5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx ID'5
1.39 x ICT4
l.lOx 10-5
3.88 x 10'5
l.lOx 10*
l.lOx 10"5
l.lOx ID'5
2.63 x 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx lO"5
3.33 x 10-5
4.90 x 1O4
2.50 x 10'3
2.50 x 105
2.50 x 10"5
2.50 x 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
2.50 x 10-5
2.50 x 10-5
2.50 x 10-5
3.60 x 10-5
1.15x 1O4
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
Source*
b
b
a
b
a
b
b
b
b
a
b
a
b
b
b
a
b
b
b
a
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
a
b
b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-12
Estimated Average and High-End Stack Emission Rates for Organic Chemicals
Chemical
Di-n-Butylphthalate
Dinitritoluene, 2,6-
Dinitro-2-methylphenol, 4,6-
Dinitrophenol, 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-
Dioxane, 1,4-
Di(n)octyl phthalate
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde
Furfural
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane, c- (Lindane)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexanone, 2-
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Maleic hydrazide
Methoxychlor
Methyl t-butyl ether
Methyl-2-Pentanone, 4-
Methylene chloride
Methylnaphthalene, 2-
Naphthalene
Emission Rate (g/sec)
Average
1.57 x 10-3
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x 10-6
5.50 x 10*
4.94 x 10"
5.50 x 10"
2.45 x 10"
4.98 x 10"
1.15x 10"
3.05 x lO'5
1.46 x 10-'°
5.50 x 10-*
6.69 x 10-6
6.07 x 10"
5.50 x 10-6
5.50 x lO'7
5.50 x 10-*
1.01 x 10"
5.48 x 10-5
5.50 x 10-6
5.50 x 10*
3.20 x ID'5
6.43 x 10-5
5.50 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
1.15x 10"
5.50 x lO'7
1.25 x 10-5
1.25 x 10'3
3.96 x 10"
4.18x ID'5
5.50 x 10*
High-End
2.04 x 10-5
l.lOxlO-3
l.lOx 10-3
l.lOx 10-3
l.lOx 10-5
4.94 x 10"
l.lOx ICC3
4.90 x 10"
7.53 x 10"
1.15x 10"
3.05 x lO"5
1.46 x 10-'°
l.lOx lO'5
6.69 x 10*
6.07 x 10"
l.lOx 10'5
l.lOx 10*
l.lOx I0rs
1.01 x 10"
5.48 x 10-3
l.lOx 10"3
l.lOx 10-3
3.20 x 10-3
6.43 x 10-3
l.lOx ID'3
6.69 x 10*
1.15 x 10"
l.lOx 10*
2.50 x 10-3
2.50 x lO"3
6.19x 10"
4.18 x 10-5
l.lOx 10-3
Source'
b
b
b
b
b
a
b
b
b
a
a
a
b
a
a
b
b
b
a
a
b
b
a
a
b
a
a
b
b
b
b
a
b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-12
Estimated Average and High-End Stack Emission Rates for Organic Chemicals
Chemical
Nitroaniline, 2-
Nitroaniline, 3-
. Nitroaniline, 4-
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenol, 2-
Nitrophenol, 4-
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Safrole
Styrene
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-
Toluene
Trichloro-1 ,2,2-trifluoroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
Emission Rate (g/sec)
Average
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10-*
6.69 x 10*
5.50 x 10-6
6.69 x 10-6
5.50 x 10-6
1.21 x 10"
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10-6
4.76 x 103
3.37 x lO'3
5.50 x 10-*
6.69 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
1.15 x IV
2.25 x lO'5
5.50 x 10-*
5.50 x 10-*
5.13 x 10-5
6.80 x 10-*
6.13x Iff4
3.30 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
1.25 x lO'3
1.25 x lO'3
1.86 x 10-s
2.45 x 10"4
5.50 x 10-*
5.50 x 10-*
6.43 x 10"s
2.45 x 10*
3.86 x 10"
High-End
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10-5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10-5
1.21 x 10"
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
4.76 x lO"3
3.37 x 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx ID'5
l.lOx lO'5
1.15x10"
4.04 x 10-5
l.lOx 10-3
l.lOx lO'3
8.02 x 10-3
6.80 x 10*
1.03 x lO"3
3.30 x 10"
l.lOx 10-3
2.50 x lO'5
2.50 x 10"5
3.09 x ID"3
4.90 x 10"
l.lOx 10-3
l.lOx lO"3
6.43 x 10-5
4.90 x 10"
5.75 x 10"
Source*
a
a
a
b
a
b
a
a
a
a
a
b
a
b
b
a
b
b
b
b
a
b
a
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
a
b
b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-12
Estimated Average and High-End Stack Emission Rates for Organic Chemicals
Chemical
Emission Rate (g/sec)
Average
High-End
Source"
PCB Homologs
Dichlorobiphenyl
Heptachlorobiphenyl
Hexachlorobiphenyl
Monochlorobiphenyl
Nonachlorobiphenyl
Octachlorobiphenyl
Pentachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
Trichlorobiphenyl
4.68 x 10*
1.40 x ID41
1.40 x 10*
1.67 x 10*
1.40x 10*
1.40 x 10*
1.40 x 10*
1.40x 10*
3.02 x 10*
Dioxin Congeners'*
2,3,7,8-TetraCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PentaCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HexaCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HexaCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDD
OctaCDD
Furan Congeners'*
2,3,7,8-TetraCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PentaCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PentaCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HexaCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HexaCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HexaCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HeptaCDF
OctaCDF
1.08 x 10-"
6.78 x 10-"
8.95 x 10-"
1.66 x 10-'°
1.09 x 10-'°
1.24 x lO'9
6.15x 10-9
8.22 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
2.99 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
5.80 x 10*
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
2.16x 10-11
9.46 x 10-"
1.25x 10-'°
2.18x 10-'°
1.55 x 10-'°
1.69 x lO'9
9.80 x 10-9
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
8.77 x 10-"
3.45 x 10-'°
4.67 x 10-'°
1.43 x 10"9
1.33 x 10-9
1.50x lO'9
2.93 x 10-'°
9.30 x 10-9
1.22 x 10^
1.89 x 10*
1.15x 10-'°
4.35 x 10-'°
6.04 x 10-10
1.85x 10-9
1.71 x 10-9
1.96 x 10-9
3.85 x 10-'°
1.30 x 10*
1.80 x 10-'
3.62 x 10*
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
* a - Emission rate based on March 1993 and February 1994 trial burn results and waste profile
information; b - Emission rate based on August 1994 PIC testing results; c - Emission rates based
on 26 post-ECIS (Enhanced Carbon Injection System) installation test runs.
b CDD - chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CDF - chlorodibenzo-p-furan.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-13
STACK fflGH-END EMISSION RATES FOR PCB HOMOLOGS
AND DIOXIN/FURAN CONGENERS
Volume VI
Appendix VI-13
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-13
Stack High-End Emission Rates for PCB Homologs and Dioxin/Furan Congeners
Homolog/Congener
PCBs
Monochlorobiphenyl
Dichlorobiphenyl
Trichlorobiphenyl
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
Pentachlorobiphenyl
Hexachlorobiphenyl
Heptachlorobiphenyl
Octachlorobiphenyl
Nonachlorobiphenyl
Total PCBs
Estimated High-
End Emission
Rate (g/s)
Toxicity
Equivalent
Factor*
Calculated High-
End Emission
Rate (g/s)
2.99 x 10*
8.22 x 10*
5.80 x 10"8
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10-*
2.80 x 10-8
2.80 x 10*
—
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.99 x lO"8
8.22 x 10-8
5.80 x 10"*
2.80 x 10^
2.80 x 1O*
2.80 x 10-8
2.80 x 10"*
2.80 x 10-8
2.80 x 10*
3.38 x 10 '
Dioxins/Furans
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
2.16 x 10-"
9.46 x 10-"
1.25 x 10-'°
2.18x 10-'°
1.55 x ID'10
1.69x 10-'
9.80 x 10-9
1.15x 10-'°
4.35 x 10-'°
6.04 x 10-'°
1.85 x 10"9
1.71 x 10*
1.96x 10-9
3.85 x 10-'°
1.30 x 10*
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
2.16x 10-"
4.73 x 10-"
1.25 x 10-"
2.18x 10-"
1.55 x 10-"
1.69x 10-"
9.80 x lO'12
1.15x 10-"
2.18x 10'"
3.02 x 10-'°
1.85 x 10-'°
1.71 x 10-'°
1.96x 10-'°
3.85 x 10-"
1.30 x 10-'°
Volume VI
Appendix VI-13
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-13
Stack High-End Emission Rates for PCB Homologs and Dioxin/Furan Congeners
Homolog/Congener
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
Total PCDD/PCDF TEQ
Estimated High-
End Emission
Rate (g/s)
1.80 x 10-*
3.62 x 10*
-
Toxicity
Equivalent
Factor*
0.01
0.001
-
Calculated High-
End Emission
Rate (g/s)
1.80 x 10'"
3.62 x 10-"
. 1.26 x 10"'
From U.S. EPA (1989a).
Volume VI
Appendix VI-13
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
CHEMICAL SCORES - INHALATION
STACK EMISSION CHEMICAL SCREENING
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-14 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Formaldehyde
Lindane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Acetone
Hexachlorophene
Crotonaldehyde
Chloroform
Vinyl chloride
Nitrobenzene
Benzotrichloride
Pentachloronitrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol .
Hexachlorobutadiene
Acetophenone
Heptachlor
Acrylonitrile
Bromomethane
Anthracene
Hexachlorobenzene
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
6.07 x 10*
5.48 x Ifr5
l.lOx 10'5
2.90 x 10 3
3.20 x 10 5
1.39x 10*
4.07 x 10*
4.90 x 10*
l.lOxlO5
3.20 x la5
3.37 x 10-5
l.lOx 10 5
1.01 x 10^
2.93 x 10^
l.lOx 10-6
2.02 x 10*
9.80 x 10^
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10-5
Toxicity
Value
l.OOx 10 2
6.00 x 10 2
5.00 x 102
1.33 x 10'
2.00 x 10 '
2.00 x 10°
6.90 x 10°
l.OOx 10'
2.50 x 10-'
8.00 x 10-'
1.20x 10°
4.90 x 10-'
5.00 x 10°
2.40 x 101
l.OOx 10'
2.00 x 10'
1.20 x 102
l.SOx 10°
1.60x 10°
Score
6.07 x 102
9.13x 10*
2.20 x 10*
2.18x 10*
1.60 x 10*
6.95 x la5
5.89 x la5
4.90 x 10s
4.40 x 10-5
4.00 x la5
2.81 x 10-5
2.24 x 10-5
2.02 x 10-5
1.22x la5
l.lOx la5
1.01 x 10 5
8.17x 10-6
7.33 x 10-6
6.88 x 10^
Group Rank
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
2
6
3
3
4
5
4
7
8
1
6
All Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.968
0.983
0.986
0.990
0.992
0.993
0.994
0.995
0.996
0.996
0.997
0.997
0.997
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
Volume VI
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Phenol
Furfural
Pentachlorophenol
Pyrene
Chloromethane
1 ,4-Dioxane
Carbon disulfide
Di(n)butylphthalate
Acenaphthene
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Ethylene dibromide
PCBs
2,4-Dinitrophenol
o-Cresol
Tetrachloroethene
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
2.50 x lO'5
4.90 x 1O4
4.90 x 10^
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx IQr5
l.lOx la5
4.90 x 10^
4.94 x 10^
9.46 x 10-5
2.04 x 10-5
6.69 x 10*
1.03 x iO'3
6.19 x 1O4
1.15x 104
3.38 x la7
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx la5
8.02 x Ifr5 '
Toxicity
Value
4.00 x 10°
8.10x 10'
8.30 x 10'
1.90 x 10°
2.00 x 10°
2.10x 10°
2.10x 10°
1.00 x IO2
1.03 x IO2
2.00 x 10'
4.40 x 10°
1.90 x 10°
3.00 x IO2
2.00 x IO2
3.90 x 10'
1.20x 10'
4.00 x 10°
4.10x 10°
3.86 x 10'
Score
6.25 x 10*
6.05 x 10*
5.90 x 10*
5.79 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
5.24 x 10*
5.24 x 10*
4.90 x 10*
4.80 x 10*
4.73 x 10*
4.63 x 10*
3.52 x 10*
3.43 x 10*
3.10x 10*
2.95 x 10*
2.82 x 10*
2.75 x 10*
2.68 x 10*
2.08 x 10*
Group Rank
9
10
11
7
8
9
1
12
10
13
1
2
14
15
16
—
11
12
17
All Rank
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
• 35
36
37
38
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.998
0.998
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Ethylbenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Chlordane
Naphthalene
Vinyl acetate
p-Chloroaniline
Benzene
Xylenes
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Carbon tetrachloride
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Styrene
2-Hexanone
Trichloroethene
Ethylene oxide
Cumene
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
7.53 x KT1
l.lOxia5
1.10x10*
l.lOxltf3
6.43 x Iff3
6.69 x 10*
2.63 x 10-5
5.75 x KT4
6.69 x 10*
2.75 x 104
5.23 x lO"5
l.lOxia3
l.lOxlO-3
4.04 x 10-5
6.43 x 10-5
3.09 x la5
3.05 x ICT3
i.ioxia3
i.iox ia5
Toxicity
Value
4.00 x 102
6.00 x 10°
6.00 x 10-'
6.10x 10°
4.00 x 10'
4.80 x 10°
2.00 x 10'
5.00 x 102
6.20 x 10°
3.00 x 102
6.30 x 10'
1.60 x 10'
1.60x 10'
6.00 x 10'
1.00 x 102
5.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10'
2.00 x 10'
2.10x 10'
Score
1.88 x 10*
1.83 x 10*
1.83 x 10*
l.SOx 10*
1.61 x 10*
1.39 x 10*
1.31 x 10*
1.15x 10*
1.08 x 10*
9.18x 10-7
8.30 x 10-7
6.88 x 10-7
6.88 x 107
6.73 x 10-7
6.43 x 10-7
6.18x 107
6.10x 107
5.50 x 107
5.24 x 107
Group Rank
18
13
5
3
19
14
20
21
15
22
2
17
16
23
24
25
26
18
27
All Rank
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
. 54
55
56
57
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
f »dix VI-14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Trichlorofluoromethane
4-Nitroaniline
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Diethylphthalate
Hexachloroethane
Methoxychlor
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Maleic hydrazide
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Butylbenzylphthalate
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro- 1 ,2,2-Trifluoroethane
Isophorone
Acetaldehyde
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
4.90 x KT1
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10^
2.50 x 10s
3.60 x la5
l.lOx la5
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx lO'5
2.50 x 10-5
2.50 x 10 5
1.15x 10^
1.13x lO'5
1.33 x la5
l.lOx lO'5
l.lOx 10 5
3.30 x 10^
6.69 x 1O*
3.01 x 1O4
Toxicity
Value
1.00 x 103
1.40x 10'
1.40 x 10'
1.40x 10'
5.50 x 10'
8.00 x 10'
2.60 x 10l
2.60 x 10°
3.00 x 10'
9.00 x 10'
9.00 x 10'
4.36 x 102
5.20 x 101
6.90 x 10'
5.76 x 10'
6.20 x 10'
2.00 x 103
4.60 x 10'
2.22 x 103
Score
4.90 x 107
4.78 x 10-7
4.78 x 10-7
4.78 x 10-7
4.55 x 10-7
4.49 x 10-7
4.23 x 10-7
4.23 x lO'7
3.67 x 10-7
2.78 x 10-7
2.78 x 10-7
2.64 x 10"7
2.17x 10-7
1.93 x la7
1.91 x 10-7
1.77 x 10 7
1.65x 10 7
1.45 x 10-7
1.36x 10-7
Group Rank
28
19
20
21
29
3
22
6
23
31
30
7
24
25
32
4
33
26
34
All Rank
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Methyl-t-butyl ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Dimethylphthalate
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
2-Butanone
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
Chlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromoform
Ethylene thiourea
2-Methylnaphthalene
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
2.50 x 10s
2.50 x la3
6.69 x 10^
l.lOxia5
2.50 x Ifr3
7.40 x Itf3
2.50 x 10-5
9.80 x 10^
2.50 x 10s
l.lOxia3
l.lOxia5
l.lOxlO-3
l.lOxlO5
6.69 x 10*
2.50 x 10-3
2.50 x 103
l.lOxlO3
1.46 x 10-'°
4.18x 10-3
Toxicity
Value
2.00 x 102
2.36 x 102
7.00 x 10'
1.17x 102
3.00 x 102
1.00 x 103
3.80 x 102
l.SOx 104
4.00 x 102
2.00 x 102
3.77 x 102
4.50 x 102
6.00 x 102
3.77 x 102
l.SOx 103
6.00 x 103
2.90 x 103
6.50 x 10°
ND"
Score
1.25 x Itf7
1.06 x ia7
9.56 x 10*
9.40 x 10-"
8.33 x 10*
7.40 x 10*
6.58 x 10*
6.53 x 10*
6.25 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
2.92 x 10*
2.44 x 10*
1.83 x 10*
1.77x 10*
1.67x 10*
4. 17 x 10 '
3.79 x 109
2.25 x 10-"
—
Group Rank
35
27
28
5
36
37
38
39
40
41
29
42
43
30
44
45
46
31
4
All Rank
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
/ -ndix VI-14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
V J
APPENDIX VI-14
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
2-Chloronaphthalene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Dioxin/furan
4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether
2-Chlorophenol
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Chrysene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Acenaphthylene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
3 ,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
Bromodichloromethane
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
6.69 x 1O*
l.lOx 10-5
6.69 x 1O*
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 1O*
l.lOxlO-5
l.lOx 10s
1.26 x 10 »
6.69 x 1O*
l.lOx Ifr5
l.lOx ID'5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10-5
i.iox ia3
6.69 x ID"6
l.lOx 10 5
3.33 x la5
1.53 x 10*
Toxicity
Value
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Score
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Group Rank
4
4
4
4
2
32
2
2
—
32
32
2
32
2
2
4
32
32
47
AH Rank
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
Safrole
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Pentachlorobenzene
2,3 ,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Di(n)octylphthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4,4'-DDE
Chlorobenzilate
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3,3' -Dimethoxybenzidine
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
N-Nitrosodi-phenylamine
2,4-D
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
1.21 x 10*
1.15 x 104
l.lOx 1O5
4.76 x 10s
6.80 x 10^
2.63 x 105
l.lOx 1O5
6.69 x ID"6
l.lOxlO3
l.lOxlO5
6.69 x 10*
1.10x10-*
3.68 x ID"5
l.lOxlO5
l.lSxlO4
l.lOxlO-5
6.69 x 10-6
3.88 x 1O5
Toxicity
Value
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Score
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Group Rank
32
32
2
32
8
47
47
32
6
32
32
8
8
32
32
32
32
8
All Rank
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
/ ^ndix VI-14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
\ /
APPENDIX Vl-14
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Benzo(a)pyrene
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
i.ibx 10 5
Toxicity
Value
ND
Score
—
Group Rank
2
All Rank
95
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
No Data.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-15
CHEMICAL SCORES - INGESTION
STACK EMISSION CHEMICAL SCREENING
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-15 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VMS
Chemical Scores - Ingestion - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorophene
Hexachlorobenzene
PCBs
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octylphthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
4,4'-DDE
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chlordane
Pentachlorobenzene
lndeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Heptachlor
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
1.26 x 10 9
3.20 x 105
l.lOx lO'5
3.38 x 107
5.23 x 103
l.lOx 10 5
1.01 x 10*
l.lOx HT6
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
1.10x10*
4.76 x 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10*
l.lOx 10 5
3.37 x 105
3.68 x 10 5
K^
2.57 x 107
3.47 x 107
7.76 x 10s
2.45 x 106
2.00 x 107
1.15x 10s
6.46 x 104
5.75 x 106
1.29 x 10*
4.90 x 10*
2.09 x 10«
1.82x 10s
4.47 x 10*
1.23 x 105
1.58x 106
1.82x 10*
1.58x 10*
4.37 x 104
2.40 x 104
Toxicity
Value
1.00 x 10s
5.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
l.OOx 10'
2.00 x 102
2.60 x 102
2.00 x 10°
2.40 x 10°
l.OOx 101
3.80 x 10'
3.00 x 10°
1.20x 10'
7.20 x 10'
3.00 x 10°
4.00 x 10'
6.00 x 10°
7.20 x 10'
l.lOx 10'
7.00 x 10°
Score
3.24 x 103
2.22 x 102
8.54 x 10°
8.30 x 10°
5.22 x 10°
4.86 x 10°
3.26 x 10°
2.64 x 10°
1.42 x 10°
1.42x 10°
7.66 x 10-'
7.22 x 10 '
6.82 x 10 '
4.51 x 10'
4.36 x 10 -'
3.34 x 10 '
2.42 x ID'1
1.34x 10'
1.26x 10'
Group Rank
-
1
1
~
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
All Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.925
0.989
0.991
0.993
0.995
0.996
0.997
0.998
0.998
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Ar—ndix VI-15
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-15
Chemical Scores - Ingestion - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
2,4-D
Lindane
Chrysene
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pyrene
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Fluoranthene
Methoxychlor
Phenanthrene
Di(n)butylphthalate
2-Methylnaphthalene
Safrole
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
Acetophenone
Butylbenzylphthalate
2-Chloronaphthalene
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
3.88 x ID'5
5.48 x 105
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
3.33 x ID'5
l.lOx 10 5
6.80 x 10-6
l.lOxlO5
1.10x10-*
6.69 x 10*
2.04 x 10 5
4.18xl05
l.lSxlO4
1.21 x W
2.93 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10*
K.*
5.01 x 102
5.37 x 103
5.01 x 10s
7.08 x 102
2.45 x 105
1.29x 105
3.24 x 103
5.01 x 105
1.26x 104
1.32 x 10s
1.20 x 10s
3.55 x 104
4.07 x 104
1.29x 104
4.57 x 102
2.57 x 102
4.37 x 10l
6.92 x 104
1.32 x 104
Toxicity
Value
2.00 x 10 '
4.40 x 10°
9.90 x 10'
2.50 x 10 ]
9.80 x 10'
8.00 x 10'
8.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
1.40 x 10'
2.50 x 102
2.50 x 10'
7.00 x 10'
2.50 x 102
1.63 x 102
1.95x 10'
1.20x 10'
8.10x 10°
4.90 x 102
8.90 x 10"
Score
9.72 x 102
6.69 x 102
5.57 x 102
3.11 x 10 2
2.76 x ID'2
1.77 x 10 2
1.35 x 10 2
l.lOx 10 2
6.11x 10 3
5.80 x 1C'3
5.29 x 103
3.39 x 103
3.32 x 103
3.30 x 10 3
2.70 x 10 3
2.59 x 103
1.58 x 10 3
1.55 x 10-3
9.91 x 10^
Group Rank
7
8
6
5
6
7
7
8
9
1
10
2
3
3
8
9
10
4
4
All Rank
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000 "
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-15
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-15
Chemical Scores - Ingestion - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Fluorene
N-NHrosodi-phenylamine
4-Nitrophenol
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
Acenaphthylene
3,3' -Dimethoxybenzidine
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Acenaphthene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Hexachloroethane
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Cumene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Anthracene
2 ,4 ,6-Trichlorophenol
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
l.lOx 10s
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOxlO5
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
1.15x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOxlO5
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10s
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10-5
K«
1.02x 104
1.62x 104
1.45x 103
l.lOxlO2
1.26x 103
1.17x 104
6.46 x 10'
1.02 x 102
8.32 x 103
7.94 x 103
1.00 x 104
3.80 x 102
1.82x 10'
3.80 x 103
3.55 x 101
6.17x 10'
7.41 x 10'
3.55 x 104
5.01 x 103
Toxicity
Value
l.SOx 102
2.00 x 102
l.SOx 10'
2.50 x 10°
1.83 x 10'
1.76 x 102
1.92 x 10'
3.90 x 10°
2.00 x 102
4.00 x 102
5.50 x 102
1.30x 10'
6.50 x 10 '
2.90 x 102
3.00 x 10°
3.30 x 10°
6.70 x 10°
3.30 x 103
5.00 x 102
Score
6.25 x 10*
5.42 x 10*
5.37 x 10*
4.82 x \0*
4.60 x 10*
4.47 x 10*
3.87 x 10*
2.89 x 10*
2.78 x 10*
2.18x 10"*
2.00 x 10*
1.96 x 10*
1.87 x 10*
1.44 x 10*
1.30x 10*
1.25x 10*
1.22x 10*
1.18x 10^
l.lOx 10^
Group Rank
11
5
12
13
14
6
15
16
7
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
8
25
All Rank
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Ar-^ndix VI-15
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-15
Chemical Scores - Ingestion - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Nitrobenzene
o-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Diethylphthalate
p-Cresol
Benzole acid
p-Chloroaniline
Naphthalene
m-Cresol
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Furfural
Maleic hydrazide
Isophorone
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx lO'5
1.33 x 10 5
3.60 x 105
l.lOxlO5
1.13x 10s
6.69 x 10*
l.lOxlO-5
l.lOx lO'5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOxlO'5
l.lOx 10s
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10s
1.15x 10"
6.69 x lO*
K^
6.92 x 10'
9.77 x 10'
2.29 x 102
1.62 x 10'
3.16x 102
8.91 x 10'
7.24 x 10'
7.08 x 10'
2.29 x 103
9.33 x 10'
2.51 x 10'
1.41 x 102
1.20 x 103
7.08 x 10'
2.34 x 10'
2.45 x 10'
2.57 x 10°
4.79 x 10-'
5.01 x 10'
Toxicity
Value
7.80 x 10°
1.35 x 10'
3.20 x 10'
2.80 x 10°
1.85 x 102
1.80x 10'
1.70x 10'
1.00 x 10'
5.33 x 102
2.40 x 10'
4.80 x 10°
5.00 x 10'
4.40 x 102
1.60x 101
5.40 x 10°
7.50 x 10°
l.OOx 10'
3.80 x 10'
2.50 x 102
Score
9.76 x 10s
7.96 x 105
7.87 x 10-5
7.70 x 10-5
6.15x lO'5
5.45 x lO'5
4.82 x 10 5
4.74 x 1C'5
4.73 x 10s
4.28 x 10-5
3.50 x 105
3.11 x 10 5
3.01 x 10 5
2.96 x 10 5
2.90 x 10 5
2.19x 10 5
2.83 x 10*
1.45 x 10*
1.34x 10*
Group Rank
26
27
28
29
5
30
31
32
9
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
11
41
AH Rank
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
' 75
76
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-15
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-15
Chemical Scores - Ingestion - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Dimethylphthalate
Methyl-t-butyl ether
Phenol
1,4-Dioxane
Ethylene thiourea
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether
Bromophenyl phenyl ether
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
l.lOx 10s
2.50 x 10s
l.lOxlO5
4.94 x 10*
1.46x 10-'°
l.lOx 10s
6.69 x 10*
6,69 x 10*
K^
3.72 x 10'
1.74x 101
3.02 x 10'
4.07 x ID'1
2.19x 10-'
5.01 x 106
8.91 x 104
1.00 x 105
Toxicity
Value
3.38 x 102
4.00 x 102
5.23 x 102
1.00 x 103
1.00 x 10'
ND"
ND
ND
Score
1.21 x 10*
1.09x 10*
6.35 x 107
2.01 x 107
3.19x 10-'2
—
—
—
Group Rank
6
42
43
44
45
9
46
46
All Rank
77
78
79
80
81
82
82
82
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
No data.
Volume VI
A»"-ndix VI-15
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
CHEMICAL SCORES - AQUATIC (Kow-BASED)
STACK EMISSION CHEMICAL SCREENING
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-16 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Hexachlorophene
4,4'-DDE
Heptachlor
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Di(n)octylphthalate
Chlordane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
PCBs
Lindane
Benzo(a)anthracene
Pentachlorophenol
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Pentachlorobenzene
Anthracene
Methoxychlor
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
3.20 x ID'3
l.lOx 10-6
1.10x10*
l.lOx 10s
5.23 x 10'5
1.26 x 10 9
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10-6
1.01 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
3.38 x ID'7
5.48 x 10s
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10s
4.76 x 10-5
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10^
K™
3.47 x 107
5.75 x 10"
1.82 x 106
1.29x 106
2.00 x 107
2.57 x 107
7.76 x 10s
1.15x10"
2.09 x 106
6.46 x 104
2.45 x 10s
2.45 x 10*
5.37 x 103
5.01 x 105
1.23 x 10s
4.90 x 10*
1.82x 105
3.55 x 104
1.20x 105
Toxicity
Value
2.10x 10'
l.lOx 10°
5.20 x 10 '
5.00 x 10°
4.00 x 102
1.30 x 10-2
6.00 x 10°
9.40 x 102
2.40 x 10°
1.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10°
2.00 x 10°
2.00 x 10°
6.10x 10'
2.00 x 101
1.00 x 103
2.50 x 102
1.19x 10'
7.20 x 10°
Score
5.28 x 10'
5.75 x 10°
3.85 x 10°
2.83 x 10°
2.61 x 10°
2.49 x 10°
1.42x 10°
1.34x10°
9.58 x 10 '
6.52 x 10 '
5.40 x 10 '
4.15x 10'
1.47x 10'
9.04 x 10 2
6.77 x 102
5.39 x 102
3.46 x lO'2
3.28 x 10-2
1.84x 10 2
Group Rank
1
2
3
1
1
—
1
2
4
2
3
— •
5
2
4
3
5
1
6
All Rank
1
2
' 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.693
0.769
0.819
0.857
0.891
0.923
0.942
0.960
0.972
0.981
0.988
0.993
0.995
0.997
0.997
0.998
0.999
0.999
0.999
Volume VI
ix VI-16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
V J
APPENDIX \1-16
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Phenanthrene
Di(n)butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Xylenes
Ethylbenzene
Acenaphthene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Chlorobenzilate
2-Methylnaphthalene
Toluene
2 , 4 , 6-Trichlorophenol
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
6.69 x 10*
2.04 x 10 5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10-6
l.lOx 10 5
3.37 x 10-5
l.lOx 10 5
UOxlO5
5.75 x 10"
7.53 x 10"
6.69 x 10-6
6.80 x 10*
3.68 x 10 5
4.18x 10 5
1.03 x 10 3
l.lOx 10 5
K™
3.55 x 10"
4.07 x 104
1.32x 105
1.29 x 105
5.01 x 105
6.92 x 104
1.00 x 105
l.OOx 104
4.37 x 104
7.94 x 103
1.02 x 104
1.58 x 103
1.38 x 103
8.32 x 103
1.26x 104
2.40 x 10"
1.29x 104
5.62 x 102
5.01 x 103
Toxicity
Value
3.00 x 101
1.05 x 102
2.00 x 102
2.50 x 102
l.OOx 103
1.40 x 102
2.70 x 102
6.00 x 10'
l.OOx 103
1.00 x 102
1.30 x 102
1.06 x 103
1.40 x 103
8.50 x 10'
1.40 x 102
1.45 x 103
l.lOx 103
1.65x 103
1.80x 102
Score
7.91 x 103
7.90 x 103
7.25 x lO'3
5.67 x 103
5.51 x lO'3
5.44 x 10 3
2.48 x 10°
1.83 x 10 3
1.47 x 10 3
8.74 x 10"
8.66 x 10"
8.64 x 10*
7.43 x 10*
6.55 x MT4
6.11 x 10*
6.09 x 10"
4.90 x 10"
3.51 x 10"
3.06 x 10"
Group Rank
2
3
3
4
5
4
6
7
7
8
9
1
2
4
8
9
5
3
10
AH Rank
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.999
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethene
2-Chloronaphthalene
N-Nitrosodi-phenylamine
Styrene
2,4-D
Chloroform
Chlorobenzene
Diethylphthalate
Trichloroethene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10'5
6.69 x 10-6
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
3.33 x 10s
l.lOx 10s
2.75 x 10*
8.02 x 10 5
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10-6
4.04 x 10-3
3.88 x 10 5
4.07 x 10^
l.lOx 10s
3.60 x 105
3.09 x 10 5
2.50 x 10 3
K^
1.26 x 103
2.63 x 103
5.25 x 103
1.62x 104
2.29 x 103
2.69 x 103
3.24 x 103
7.08 x 102
5.37 x 102
4.68 x 102
1.32 x 104
1.45 x 103
8.71 x 102
5.01 x 102
8.32 x 10'
7.24 x 102
3.16 x 102
5.13x 102
1.00 X 102
Toxicity
Value
3.00 x 10'
l.lOx 102
2.50 x 102
5.00 x 102
1.35x 102
1.60x 102
5.96 x 102
8.00 x 10'
1.80x 103
5.40 x 102
1.60x 103
2.95 x 102
1.30x 103
1.00 x 103
l.SOx 103
5.90 x 102
9.40 x 102
1.70 x 103
3.05 x 102
Score
2.81 x 10*
2.63 x 10*
2.31 x 10^
2.17x 10^
1.87 x 10*
1.85 x 10^
1.81 x 10*
9.73 x ID'5
8.22 x lO'5
6.95 x 105
5.51 x 10-5
3.28 x 105
2.71 x 10 5
1.94x 10 5
1.88 x 10s
1.35x 10 5
1.21 x 10 5
9.32 x 10*
8.20 x 10*
Group Rank
11
4
5
6
7
6
12
13
7
8
8
14
9
10
10
11
5
12
14
All Rank
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
LOOO
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Ar ^dix VI-16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Benzene
4-Nitrophenol
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
2,4-Dimethylphenol
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Phenol
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
2-Chlorophenol
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
2-Nitrophenol
Bromoform
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Bromomethane
Methylene chloride
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2.50 x ID'5
l.lOxlO5
2.63 x 10 5
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
2.50 x 105
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10s
1.21 x 10^
l.lOxlO5
l.lOx 10s
2.50 x 10 s
6.69 x 10*
l.lOxlO5
2.50 x 10s
9.80 x 10^
6.19x 10^
l.lOx 10 5
K«,
1.00 x 102
1.20 x 103
1.35 x 102
l.lOx 102
4.27 x 102
2.29 x 102
3.02 x 102
1.02 x 102
3.02 x 10'
2.57 x 102
1.41 x 102
2.45 x 102
1.35 x 102
6.17x 10'
2.24 x 102
1.12x 102
1.55 x 10'
1.78 x 10'
7.41 x 10'
Toxicity
Value
3.05 x 102
1.69 x 103
6.40 x 102
2.30 x 102
1.00 x 103
6.60 x 102
2.00 x 103
3.30 x 102
1.00 x 102
. 1.00 x 104
5.60 x 102
1.00 x 103
1.50 x 103
2.30 x 102
1.50 x 103
2.00 x 103
l.lOx 104
9.70 x 103
9.90 x 102
Score
8.20 x 10*
7.85 x 10*
5.54 x 10*
5.24 x 10*
4.69 x 10*
3.82 x 10*
3.77 x 10*
3.41 x 10*
3.32 x 10*
3.11 x 10*
2.77 x 10*
2.70 x 10*
2.25 x 10*
1.79x 10*
1.64x 10*
1.40x 10*
1.38x 10*
1.14x 10*
8.24 x 107
Group Rank
13
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
19
20
21
18
19
22
20
21
22
23
23
All Rank
58
59
60
61
. 62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
. 74
75
76
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
2,4-Dinitrophenol
o-Cresol
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dimethylphthalate
Ethylene dibromide
Cumene
Carbon disulfide
m-Cresol
Formaldehyde
p-Cresol
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
p-Chloroaniline
Nitrobenzene
Crotonaldehyde
1 , 1 -DicMoroethane
Acetophenone
2-Hexanone
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2.02 x 10*
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 5
2.50 x 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
1.15x 10*
l.lOx 10s
9.46 x 105
l.lOx 10s
6.07 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
2.50 x 105
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10-5
1.39 x 10*
2.50 x 10-5
2.93 x 10*
6.43 x 10-5
2.50 x ID'5
K«,
1.78 x 10°
3.55 x 10'
9.77 x 10'
1.17x 102
3.72 x 10'
5.62 x 10'
3.80 x 103
1.00 x 102
9.33 x 10'
8.91 x 10 '
8.91 x 10'
9.33 x 10'
7.08 x 10'
6.92 x 101
4.27 x 10°
6.17x 10'
4.37 x 10'
2.40 x 10'
2.95 x 10'
Toxicity
Value
4.60 x 102
6.55 x 102
2.30 x 103
6.75 x 103
9.40 x 102
l.SOx 104
l.lOx 105
3.50 x 104
4.00 x 103
2.18x 103
4.00 x 103
1.08 x 104
2.40 x 103
4.04 x 103
3.50 x 103
1.20x 104
1.55x 105
2.14 x 104
1.20x 104
Score
7.81 x lO'7
5.96 x 107
4.67 x 10-7
4.35 x 107
4.35 x 107
4.31 x lO'7
3.80 x 107
2.70 x 107
2.57 x 10-7
2.48 x 107
2.45 x 10-7
2.16x ID'7
1.97 x 10 7
1.88 x 10 7
1.69x 10 7
1.28 x 10 7
8.25 x 10^
7.21 x 10-8
6.15x 10^
Group Rank
24
24
25
25
6
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
33
All Rank
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
A -ndix VI-16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Isophorone
2-Nitroaniline
Furfural
1,4-Dioxane
Vinyl acetate
Acetaldehyde
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Chloromethane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
4-Nitroaniline
Benzole acid
Acetone
Maleic hydrazide
3-Nitroaniline
2-Butanone
Ethylene thiourea
Dibromochloromethane
3,3' -Dimethoxybenzidine
Safrole
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
6.69 x 10*
6,69 x 10*
1.10x10*
4.94 x 10"1
6.43 x ID'5
3.01 x 10^
2.50 x 105
4.90 x 10^
1.33 x 10 5
6.69 x 10*
1.13x10*
2.90 x 10 3
1.15x10*
6.69 x 10*
7.40 x 10 5
1.46 x lO'10
2.63 x 10-3
1.15x 10^
1.15x 10"1
K*.
5.01 x 10'
7.08 x 10'
2.57 x 10°
4.07 x 10 '
5.37 x 10°
2.69 x 10°
1.55 x 10'
8.13 x 10°
1.62x 10'
2.45 x 10'
7.24 x 10'
5.75 x 10 '
4:79 x 10 '
2.34 x 10'
1.91 x 10°
2.19x 10 '
1.74 x 102
6.46 x 10'
4.57 x 102
Toxicity
Value
1.04x 10"
1.95 x 104
1.20x 103
1.00 x 104
l.SOx 10"
5.30 x 104
2.60 x 104
5.50 x 10s
3.00 x 104
2.40 x 104
1.46 x 10s
4.46 x 105
2.60 x 10"
8.20 x 104
1.60 x 10s
l.SOx 10"
ND"
ND
ND
Score
3.22 x 10-"
2.43 x 10-8
2.36 x 10*
2.01 x 10-"
1.92 x 10*
1.53 x 10*
1.49x 10*
7.24 x 10-'
7.19x 10-»
6.84 x 10-9
5.61 x 109
3.74 x 10-9
2.12x 10-'
1.91 x 10 9
8.81 x 10'°
1.77x 10 15
—
—
—
Group Rank
32
33
34
35
34
35
36
37
36
37
38
38
11
39
39
40
40
41
41
All Rank
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
. Ill
112
112
112
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Bromodichloromethane
4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Acenaphthylene
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chloroethane
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Methyl-t-butyl ether
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-
Trifluoroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Ethylene oxide
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Ethyl methacrylate
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Benzotrichloride
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
l.lOx 10 5
1.53 x 10^
6.69 x 10"6
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10-6
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 5
9.80 x 10-4
6.69 x 10-6
2.50 x 10s
3.30 x 10^
4.90 x 10^
3.05 x 105
6.69 x 10*
4.90 x 10"1
4.90 x 10^
3.20 x 105
K™
5.01 x 106
1.26 x 102
8.91 x 104
4.47 x 106
1.17x 10*
2.51 x 101
1.58x 10*
1.58x 106
3.47 x 10'
3.80 x 102
1.74x 101
1.45x Iff
3.39 x 102
6.03 x 10 '
1.82x 10'
3.89 x 10'
1.45 x 102
8.32 x 102
Toxicity
Value
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Score
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Group Rank
6
40
41
6
9
41
6
6
40
41
41
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
All Rank
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
' 112
112
112
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
AP--ndix VI-16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Vinyl chloride
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
4.90 x \0*
*„,
3.16 x 10'
Toxicity
Value
ND
Score
—
Group Rank
40
All Rank
112
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
No data.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
CHEMICAL SCORES - AQUATIC (WATER SOLUBBLTTY-BASED)
STACK EMISSION CHEMICAL SCREENING
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-17 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Formaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1 ,4-Dioxane
Acetone
Maleic hydrazide
Crotonaldehyde
Bromomethane
Furfural
Methylene chloride
Phenol
Acetaldehyde
Chloroform
Lindane
Vinyl acetate
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
Toluene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Butanone
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
6.07 x 10*
2.02 x 10*
4.94 x 10*
2.90 x 10'3
1.15x 10"
1.39 x 10*
9.80 x 10*
l.lOx lO'5
6.19x 10*
l.lOx 10s
3.01 x 10"
4.07 x 10*
5.48 x 10s
6.43 x 105
2.50 x 10s
2.50 x 10s
1.03 x 10 3
l.lOx 10 5
7.40 x 10-5
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
8.14x 10°
3.52 x 10°
2.11x10'
1.38x 10'
1.73 x 101
1.22x 10°
2.54 x 10 '
2.25 x 10°
2.15x 10-'
1.13x 10-'
2.13x 10°
3.30 x 10 2
2.10x 10"
9.20 x 10 -'
2.64 x 102
2.64 x 10 2
3.25 x 10-3
9.30 x 10 2
3.24 x 10°
Toxicity
Value
2.18x 103
4.60 x 102
1.00 x 104
4.46 x 10s
2.60 x 104
3.50 x 103
l.lOx 104
1.20x 103
9.70 x 103
1.00 x 102
5.30 x 104
l.SOx 103
2.00 x 10°
l.SOx 104
3.05 x 102
3.05 x 102
1.65x 103
6.55 x 102
1.60x 10s
Score
2.27 x 10^
1.55x 10-*
1.04x 10^
9.00 x 10*
7.66 x 10*
4.83 x 10*
2.27 x 10*
2.06 x 10*
1.37x 10*
1.24 x 10*
1.21 x 10*
7.47 x 10-9
5.75 x 10-'
3.29 x Itf9
2.17x Ifr9
2.17x 10*
2.03 x 109
1.56 x 10 9
l.SOx 10 9
Group Rank
1
2
1
3
1
4
5
2
6
3
7
8
2
9
11
10
12
4
13
All Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.437
0.735
0.935
0.952
0.967
0.976
0.981
0.985
0.987
0.990
0.992
0.994
0.995
0.995
0.996
0.996
0.997
0.997
0.997
Volume VI
Ar—ndix VI-17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Dimethylphthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Xylenes
Chloromethane
2-Hexanone
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Ethylene dibromide
2-Chlorophenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
Diethylphthalate
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
6.69 \ 10*
l.lOxlO'5
l.lOxlO5
l.lOx 10 5
2.63 x ID'5
8.02 x 10 5
7.53 x IV4
2.75 x 10^
5.75 x 10-4
4.90 x 10^
6.43 x 10 5
l.lOxlO5
l.lSxKT4
l.lOx 10s
l.lOxlO5
2.50 x 105
2.50 x 10 5
6.69 x 10"6
3.60 x 10 5
Water
Solubility
(moI/L)
4.75 x 10 2
2.36 x 10-2
8.79 x 102
2.57 x 10 2
1.84x 10 2
4.06 x 10 3
1.09x lO'3
3.43 x 10°
9.23 x 10^
5.56 x 10-'
1.50x10'
3.80 x 10 2
5.31 x 102
1.74x 10 2
2.46 x 10 3
1.84x 10 2
2.30 x 10 2
1.22x 10 3
6.53 x 103
Toxicity
Value
2.30 x 102
2.30 x 102
9.40 x 102
3.30 x 102
6.40 x 102
5.40 x 102
1.40 xlO3
1.80 x 103
1.06 x 103
5.50 x 10s
2.14x 104
9.90 x 102
l.SOx 104
5.60 x 102
8.00 x 10'
l.SOx 103
2.00 x 103
3.00 x 10'
9.40 x 102
Score
1.38 x 10 9
1.13x la9
1.03 x 10 '
8.57 x 10-'°
7.54 x la10
6.03 x 10 10
5.87 x 10 10
5.25 x 10-'°
5.03 x 10'°
4.96 x la10
4.49 x 10-'°
4.22 x 10-'°
4.07 x 10-'°
3.41 x ia'°
3.38 x la10
3.06 x 10 10
2.87 x ID'10
2.72 x 10-'°
2.50 x la10
Group Rank
5
6
1
7
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
8
21
9
10
22
23
11
2
All Rank
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.997
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
Volume VI
Appendix VI-17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-D
Acetophenone
o-Cresol
Nitrobenzene
p-Chloroaniline
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Hexachlorobutadiene
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
p-Cresol
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
m-Cresol
Bromofonn
Carbon disulfide
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2.50 x 105
2.50 x 105
l.lOx 10 5
3.88 x 10 5
2.93 x 10^
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOxlO5
6.69 x 10*
1.33 x 10^
1.01 x 10*
1.21 x 10*
2.50 x 105
l.lOx 10 5
2.50 x 10s
l.lOx lO'5
2.50 x 103
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10s
9.46 x 10-5
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
2.54 x 10 '
1.16x 10-'
9.66 x 10-3
3.73 x lO0
7.23 x 102
2.72 x 10 2
4.13x 10-2
4.02 x 10 2
2.40 x 10-'
1.02 x 10-5
8.40 x 10 3
4.75 x 10 2
8.88 x 10-3
6.91 x 103
3.04 x 102
2.17x 10 2
2.87 x 10 2
9.93 x 103
2.64 x lO'2
Toxicity
Value
2.60 x 104
1.20x 104
6.60 x 102
1.00 x 103
1.55 x 105
2.30 x 103
4.04 x 103
2.40 x 103
3.00 x 104
1.00 x 101
1.00 x 104
1.20x 104
1.00 x 103
2.00 x 103
4.00 x 103
6.75 x 103
4.00 x 103
l.SOx 103
3.50 x 104
Score
2.45 x 10-'°
2.42 x 10-'6
1.61 x la10
1.45 x 10 10
1.37x lO'10
1.30 x Ifr10
1.13xia10
1.12x 10-'°
1.07 x 10 10
1.04x 10-'°
1.02x 10-'°
9.90 x 10"
9.77 x 10-"
8.63 x 10-"
8.36 x 10"
8.05 x 10"
7.90 x 10 "
7.28 x 10 "
7.14x 10"
Group Rank
24
25
12
3
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
26
27
28
20
29
21
30
31
All Rank
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
0.999
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Ap—ndix VI-17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
V
APPENDIX \1-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroethene
Styrene
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Chlorobenzene
4-Nitroaniline
Isophorone
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
N-Nitrosodi-phenylamine
3 ,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
Anthracene
Hexachloroethane
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2.50 x 10 5
3.09 x 10 5
4.04 x 10-5
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOxlO5
l.lOx 10'5
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x ID"5
3.33 x 105
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10-6
Water
Solubility
(niol/L)
2.87 x 102
3.63 x 103
1.91 x 10 3
4.54 x 10 3
4.99 x 10*
5.90 x 10*
2.39 x 10'3
1.45 x 10-'
6.11 x 10'2
4.85 x 10*
1.03 x 10 3
3.88 x 10*
2.12 x 10 5
9.86 x 10 5
1.30x 10*
2.28 x 10^
4.02 x 10 2
1.54x 10-'
1.23 x 10*
Toxicity
Value
l.OSx 104
1.70x 103
1.30x 103
1.00 xlO3
l.lOx 102
1.35x 102
5.90 x 102
2.40 x 104
1.04x 104
1.60 x 102
2.95 x 102
5.96 x 102
1.19x 10'
6.00 x 10'
1.00 x 102
l.SOx 102
1.95x 104
8.20 x 104
8.50 x 10'
Score
6.64 x 10-"
6.60 x 10-"
5.93 x 10-"
5.00 x 10-"
4.99 x 10 "
4.81 x 10-"
4.45 x 10-"
4.05 x 10-"
3.93 x 10-"
3.34 x 10-"
2.34 x 10-"
2.17x 10-"
1.96 x 10"
1.81 x 10"
1.43 x ia"
1.39 x 10-"
1.38x 10"
1.25x 10-"
9.71 x 1012
Group Rank
32
33
34
35
36
1
37
22
23
38
24
25
2
26
27
28
29
30
3
All Rank
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Phenanthrene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Di(n)butylphthalate
Benzole acid
2-Methylnaphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Methoxychlor
Fluorene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Heptachlor
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10s
6.80 x 10*
2.04 x 10 5
1.13x 10-5
4.18x 10s
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 5
3.68 x ID'5
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10s
3.37 x lO'5
4.76 x 10 5
l.lOx 10*
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
2.16x 10^
1.29x 10 3
9.59 x 10 5
2.12x ID'5
2.03 x 10*
7.46 x 10 5
1.79x 10 5
3.91 x 102
7.25 x 10-3
4.69 x 10*
5.01 x 107
3.41 x 105
9.42 x 10*
4.82 x 10*
5.48 x 105
2.71 x ID'7
1.65x 10 5
2.91 x 10*
1.78x 10-7
Toxicity
Value
2.50 x 102
1.69x 103
1.30x 102
3.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10°
1.40 x 102
l.OSx 102
1.46x 10s
l.lOx 103
2.00 x 10'
6.00 x 10°
1.45x 103
1.40 x 102
7.20 x 10°
5.00 x 102
5.00 x 10°
1.00 x 103
2.50 x 102
5.20 x 10 '
Score
9.49 x 10 12
8.43 x 10 -12
8.12x 10-'2
4.73 x 10-'2
4.46 x 10-12
3.62 x 10-'2
3.48 x 10-'2
3.02 x 10-'2
2.76 x 10-'2
2.58 x 10-'2
9.18x 10 -"
8.65 x 10-'3
7.40 x 10 l3
7.36 x la13
7.34 x 10 13
5.96 x 10 l3
5.55 x 10-'3
5.55 x 10 l3
3.76 x 1013
Group Rank
39
31
32
4
33
4
3
34
5
35
36
5
4
6
6
1
7
37
8
All Rank
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
ix VI-17
V
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Ethylene thiourea
2-Chloronaphthalene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Chlordane
4,4'-DDE
Cumene
PCBs
Chrysene
Hexachlorophene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dioxin/furan
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Di(n)octylphthalate
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
1.46 x 10-'°
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOxlO5
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10*
i.iOx 10*
l.lOx 10*
l.lOx 10 5
3.38 x 107
1.10x10*
3.20 x 10 5
5.23 x 10 5
1.26 x 10 9
l.lOxlO'5
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx ID'5
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
4.48 x 10'
7.05 x 10-5
4.31 x 10*
4.43 x 10*
8.52 x 107
6.03 x 10-6
1.50 x 10 7
4.40 x 10^
3.19x 10^
1.24 x 10 7
8.52 x 10-7
4.97 x 109
9.72 x 10 9
7.15x lO'9
5.35 x 10*
1.16x 10-9
5.98 x 10-"
2.10x 10 7
2.10x 10 7
Toxicity
Value
l.SOx 10"
1.60x 103
2.00 x 102
2.50 x 102
6.10x 10'
2.70 x 102
2.40 x 10°
l.lOx 10°
l.lOx 10s
2.00 x 10°
1.00 x 103
2.10x 10'
4.00 x 102
1.30x 1O2
1.00 x 103
9.40 x 102
ND"
ND
ND
Score
3.63 x 10-13
2.95 x 10 f3
2.37 x 10 l3
1.95 x 10-13
1.54x10"
1.49x 10 13
6.90 x 1014
4.40 x 10-14
3.19xl014
2.09 x 10 '"
9.37 x 1015
7.57 x lO15
1.27 x 10-15
6.93 x 10 16
5.88 x lO16
1.36 x 10 17
—
—
—
Group Rank
38
7
8
2
3
39
9
10
40
-
4
11
5
.~
5
6
6
6
6
All Rank
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
112
112
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Acenaphthylene
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether
Benzo(g , h, i)pery lene
Bromodichloromethane
Safrole
3,3' -Dimethoxybenzidine
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Methyl-t-butyl ether
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-
Trifluoroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Ethylene oxide
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Ethyl methacrylate
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Benzotrichloride
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10 3
1.53 x 10"
1.15x 10"
1.15x 10"
2.63 x 10s
9.80 x 10"
6.69 x 10-6
2.50 x 10 5
3.30 x 10*
4.90 x 10-4
3.05 x 10-5
6.69 x 10*
4.90 x 10"
4.90 x 10*
3.20 x 10s
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
8.11 x 10 5
1.41 x lO'1
6.93 x 10*
5.20 x 10*
2.00 x 10 2
4.18x 10 3
4.49 x 10 2
1.35x 10 2
9.56 x 10 2
5.22 x 10-3
2.21 x 10-'
1.03x 10 3
6.01 x lO'3
1.31 x 10'
2.09 x 10 '
8.31 x 10-2
1.69 x 10 2
2.02 x 10 3
Toxicity
Value
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Score
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Group Rank
9
41
41
6
40
41
41
40
40
41
41
40
40
40
41
40
40
40
All Rank
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
A—<*idix VI-17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Vinyl chloride
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
4.90 x 10*
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
1.07x ID'1
Toxicity
Value
ND
Score
—
Group Rank
40
AH Rank
112
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
* No data.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-18
CHEMICAL PROFILES FOR THE ECOCS
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 1 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-18
CHEMICAL PROFILES FOR THE ECOCS
1. Aluminum
a) Summary of Fate
Because aluminum is an element, it does not degrade. Aluminum is widely
distributed in the earth's crust in combination with oxygen, fluorine, silicon, and
other constituents (HSDB 1995). Based on its high K,, (1,500 in Baes et al. [1984]),
aluminum would be expected to adhere significantly to paniculate matter. In areas
where the pH of soil or water are low, or concentrations of dissolved organic material
are high, aluminum concentrations in surface water and groundwater are expected to
be elevated relative to areas with high pH or low dissolved organic material. Based
on its Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization
should not be a significant fate process. Aluminum is not expected to bioconcentrate
significantly in plants or aquatic organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
In groundwater and surface water, an equilibrium with the solid form
establishes the amount of aluminum that is available in dissolved form. At neutral
pH, aluminum is relatively insoluble in water (HSDB 1995). The lower the pH of the
water, the more aluminum will be available in dissolved form (HSDB 1995). When
high amounts of dissolved organic material or fulvic acid are present in soils,
aluminum concentrations in lakes and streams are increased. In general, decreasing
pH results in increased concentration of aluminum in groundwater and surface water
(ATSDR 1990a).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Because of its reactivity, aluminum is not found as a free metal in nature.
Aluminum has only one oxidation state (+3), and its behavior (fate and transport) in
the environment depends upon its coordination chemistry and the characteristics of the
local environmental system. Aluminum partitions between solid and liquid phases by
reacting and complexing with water molecules and electron-rich onions such as
chloride, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, phosphate, and negatively-charged functional
groups (ATSDR 1990a). Based on its high Kd (1,500 in Baes et al. [1984]),
aluminum would be expected to adhere significantly to paniculate matter. At a pH
greater than 5.5, naturally-occuning aluminum compounds exist predominantly in an
undissolved form such as gibbsite, A1(OH)3, or aluminosilicates, except in the
presence of high amounts of organic material or fulvic acid (ATSDR 1990a).
d) Fate in Biota
High acid levels in soil result in more aluminum available for biouptake by
plants. A plant uptake factor of 0.004 for leafy vegetables and 0.00065 for
reproductive plant parts has been reported (ATSDR 1990a); thus, aluminum is not
expected to bioconcentrate in plants to a significant degree (ATSDR 1990a).
Bioconcentration of aluminum in fish is a function of pH and total organic carbon
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
(ATSDR 1990a). Aluminum is not expected to bioconcentrate significantly in aquatic
organisms and is not known to biomagnify in aquatic or terrestrial food chains (Wren
et al. 1983).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Wildlife may be exposed to aluminum through both natural and anthropogenic
sources. Exposure may occur through inhalation of airborne particles, the ingestion
of soil, or ingestion of dissolved aluminum in drinking water. Dermal absorption is
not a significant route of exposure. Aluminum has not been shown to be carcinogen,
but the data set is poor (ATSDR 1990a). Inhalation of aluminum particles has been
shown to cause fibrosis in the lungs. Ingestion of aluminum may lower the amount of
inorganic phosphorous in the blood and bones. Some studies have shown decreases in
pup growth and neurological development while others have not. Excessive
consumption of aluminum has been linked to neurological disorders in humans but has
not been shown to cause similar problems in other animals.
2. Antimony
a) Summary of Fate
Because antimony is an element, it does not degrade. Antimony is a widely-
occurring compound in the earth's crust. Antimony is typically associated with small,
submicron particles. While volatilization should not be a significant fate process,
based on the Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), antimony
has been found to volatilize when heated. Antimony is typical of the more volatile
metals, which may volatilize when heated and condense when cool. It is dispersed by
wind and removed by gravitational settling and dry and wet deposition (ATSDR
1990b). Based on its Kd (45 in Baes et al. [1984]), antimony would be expected to
adhere to paniculate matter. However, antimony's anionic nature suggests that it may
not adhere to organic matter. Results of studies on the relative mobility of antimony
in the environment vary widely. The environmental conditions and form of antimony
contribute to its environmental fate. Antimony is not expected to bioconcentrate
significantly in plants or aquatic organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
Antimony is relatively insoluble in water (HSDB 1995). Most antimony found
in surface and groundwater is associated with paniculate matter (ATSDR 1990b).
Antimony can be reduced and methylated by microorganisms in the aquatic
environment, and become mobilized (ATSDR 1990b). Based on its Henry's Law
Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization from surface water
should not be a significant fate process. However, antimony has been found to
volatilize from emission sources when heated.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Since antimony has an anionic character, it is expected to have little affinity
for organic carbon. Some studies suggest that antimony is fairly mobile under diverse
environmental conditions, while others suggest it is strongly adsorbed to soil (ATSDR
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
1990b). Based on its K,, (45 in Baes et al. [1984]), antimony would be expected to
adhere to soil particles.
d) Fate in Biota
Antimony uptake in plants is not expected to be significant (Baes et al. 1984).
Antimony is not expected to bioconcentrate significantly in aquatic or terrestrial
organisms and is not known to biomagnify in food chains (Bysshe 1988).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Antimony exhibits four oxidation states, although the +3 state is the most
common arid stable. Wildlife may be exposed to antimony through both
anthropogenic (nonferrous metal mining, smelting, and coal combustion) and natural
(volcanoes, sea-salt spray, forest fires) sources. Exposure to antimony may occur
through inhalation of airborne particles or the ingestion of soil. Exposure through
ingestion of water or dermal contact is not expected to be significant. Inhalation
exposure to high levels of antimony has been shown to cause myocardial damage,
interstitial lung fibrosis, lung tumors, renal effects, and cancer. Oral exposure has
been shown to cause cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematological, neurological, and
developmental effects (ATSDR 1990b; HSDB 1995).
3. Arsenic
a) Summary of Fate
Because arsenic is an element, it does not degrade. Arsenic can undergo a
complex series of transformations, including oxidation-reduction reactions, ligand-
exchange, and biotransformation (ATSDR 1993a). Arsenic is widely distributed in
the earth's crust. Based on the Kd of arsenic (value of 200 reported in Baes et al.
[1984]), it would be expected to adsorb to particulate matter. Based on its Henry's
Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization may not always be
a significant fate process, although some arsine complexes have been found to
volatilize (ATSDR 1993a). Some uptake of arsenic in plants and aquatic organisms is
expected to occur. Biomagnification in aquatic food chains does not appear to be
significant.
b) Aquatic Fate
Arsenic as a free element is rarely found in natural waters. Soluble inorganic
arsenate (+5 oxidation state) predominates under normal environmental conditions
(HSDB 1995). Soluble forms of arsenic may be carried long distances in lotic water
bodies. However, arsenic may be adsorbed from water onto sediments or soils,
especially clays, iron oxides, aluminum hydroxides, manganese compounds, and
organic material (HSDB 1995). Sediment-bound arsenic may be released to water by
chemical or biological alterations of arsenic species. Based on its Henry's law
constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization is not expected to be a
significant fate process, although some arsine chemicals have been found to volatilize
(ATSDR 1993a).
Volume VT External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 4 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
c) Terrestrial Fate
Most arsenic found in nature is associated with soil or rock. Arsenic is found
in the earth's crust at an average concentration of 2 ppm. Based on the Kj (value of
200 reported in Baes et al. 1984) of arsenic, it would be expected to adsorb to
paniculate matter. Because arsenic tends to adsorb to soils or sediments, leaching
usually results in transportation of arsenic only over short distances (ATSDR 1993a).
d) Fate in Biota
Arsenic will be taken up by plants under certain environmental conditions, but
generally at concentrations less than the surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984).
Bioconcentration in aquatic organisms generally occurs in algae and lower
invertebrates, with reported BCF values hi freshwater species ranging from 0 to 17
(U.S. EPA 1992c; ATSDR 1993a). Biomagnification in aquatic food chains does not
appear to be significant (ATSDR 1993a).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Arsenic appears to be nutritionally essential or beneficial in trace amounts.
Arsenic is a teratogen and a carcinogen that can cross the placenta! barrier and cause
fetal malformations and death. It is a carcinogen in humans but evidence of
carcinogenicity in other animals is limited. Arsenic levels are low in most living
organisms but are elevated in marine biota (where it occurs in the form of
arsenobetaine and poses little risk to organisms). Arsenic is bioconcentrated by
organisms, but is not biomagnified in the food chain. Arsenic exists in four oxidation
states, as organic or inorganic forms. Its bioavailability and toxic properties are
modified by numerous biological and abiotic factors that include physical and
chemical forms of arsenic tested, the route of administration, the dose, and the
species of animal. In general, inorganic forms are more toxic than organic forms,
and trivalent species are more toxic than pentavalent species. Arsenic may be
absorbed by ingestion, inhalation, or through permeation of the skin or mucous
membranes (Eisler 1988a).
4. Barium
a) Summary of Fate
Because barium is an element, it does not degrade. Barium is widely
distributed in both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Based on its K,, (60 in Baes
et al. [1984]), barium would be expected to adhere to particulate matter. Although
barium is found in most aquatic environments, most barium precipitates out in the
form of insoluble salts (U.S. EPA 1986a). Transport of barium by suspended
sediments in lotic water bodies may be significant. Based on its Henry's Law
Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization should not be a
significant fate process. Barium is not expected to bioconcentrate significantly in
plants or freshwater aquatic organisms.
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 5 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
b) Aquatic Fate
Barium occurs naturally in most surface water and groundwater. In
groundwater and surface water, barium is likely to precipitate out of solution as an
insoluble salt (U.S. EPA 1986a). The chemical form of barium largely dictates its
adsorption to soils and sediments. Barium may be transported by suspended
sediments in lotic water bodies. Barium in sediments is found largely in the relatively
insoluble form of barium sulfate and also in the insoluble form of barium carbonate.
Humid and fulvic acid have not been found to increase the mobility of barium
(ATSDR 1990c). Based on its Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA
[1992c]), volatilization from surface water should not be a significant fate process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its Kd (value of 60 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), barium would be
expected to adsorb to soil and sediment. Soils with high cation exchange capacity
adsorb barium and limit its mobility. Barium is more mobile and more likely to be
leached from soils in the presence of chloride due to the solubility of barium chloride
relative to other forms of barium (ATSDR 1990c).
d) Fate in Biota
Barium will be taken up by plants under certain environmental conditions, but
generally at concentrations less than the surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984). While
bioconcentration has been found to be significant in marine systems, it is less
significant in freshwater systems (ATSDR 1990c).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Under natural conditions, barium is stable in the +2 valence state and is found
primarily in the form of inorganic complexes. Wildlife exposure to barium can come
from anthropogenic (mining and refining of barium-based chemicals, combustion of
coal and oil) and natural sources. Exposure can occur through the ingestion of water
or soil. Inhalation and dermal contact are not significant routes of exposure. Oral
exposure to high levels of barium may cause cardiovascular, respiratory,
gastrointestinal, renal, hepatic, and reproductive effects (ATSDR 1990c).
5. Beryllium
a) Summary of Fate
Because beryllium is an element, it does not degrade. Beryllium
concentrations in water are typically several orders of magnitude lower than
concentrations in surrounding sediment or soil. Based on its Kj (650 in Baes et al.
[1984]), beryllium would be expected to adhere significantly to paniculate matter.
Based on its Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]),
volatilization should not be a significant fate process. Beryllium is not expected to
bioconcentrate significantly in plants or aquatic organisms.
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 6 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
b) Aquatic Fate
Beryllium is relatively insoluble in cold water, even under acidic conditions.
Beryllium occurs naturally in most surface water and groundwater. Beryllium is
found in water at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than surrounding
sediment and soil (ATSDR 1993g). At high pH, formation of soluble complexes with
hydroxide ions may increase the solubility and mobility of beryllium (ATSDR 1993g).
Beryllium may be transported by suspended sediments in lotic water bodies. Based
on its Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization from
surface water should not be a significant fate process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Beryllium is found in the earth's crust at concentrations of 2 to 10 ppm (HSDB
1995). Based on its high K,, (value of 650 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), beryllium
would be expected to adsorb strongly to soil and sediment. Most beryllium found in
the environment is expected to be adsorbed to sediment and soil (ATSDR 1993g).
d) Fate in Biota
Beryllium will be taken up by plants under certain environmental conditions,
but generally at concentrations less than the surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984).
Bioconcentration is not expected to be significant in aquatic or terrestrial organisms
and beryllium is not known to biomagnify in food chains (ATSDR 1993g; Bysshe
1988).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Beryllium exists in the form of oxides and a number of water soluble
compounds. Wildlife exposure to beryllium can come from anthropogenic (primarily
coal combustion) and natural sources. Storage of absorbed beryllium occurs in the
bones, but short-term retention may occur in the liver, kidney, and lungs. Because
absorption through the gastrointestinal tract is poor, most beryllium absorption occurs
in the lungs. Dermal absorption of beryllium is unlikely to occur. Beryllium can
cause respiratory, cardiovascular, hematological, hepatic, renal, and immunological
effects, as well as cancer (ATSDR 1993g; HSDB 1995).
6. Cadmium
a) Summary of Fate
Because cadmium is an element, it does not degrade. Based on its Kd (6.5 in
Baes et al. [1984]), cadmium would be expected to adhere somewhat to paniculate
matter. Cadmium is more mobile in the aquatic environment than most other heavy
metals. Based on its Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]),
volatilization should not be a significant fate process, although some cadmium is
known to occur in the vapor phase in the environment (Galloway et al. 1982).
Cadmium has also been found to enter the atmosphere as suspended paniculate matter
from natural and anthropogenic sources (HSDB 1995; ATSDR 1993b). Some
bioconcentration of cadmium may occur.
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 7 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
b) Aquatic Fate
Cadmium is relatively insoluble in water. However, it is more mobile in the
aquatic environment than most other heavy metals. Cadmium concentrations in the
aquatic environment are inversely related to the pH and the concentration of organic
material (ATSDR 1993b). Cadmium may be transported by suspended sediments in
lotic water bodies. Based on its Henry's law constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA
[1992c]), volatilization should not be a significant fate process. However, cadmium
has been found to enter the atmosphere as suspended paniculate matter from sea
spray, industrial emissions, combustion of fossil fuels, or the erosion of soils (HSDB
1995; ATSDR 1993b).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Cadmium concentrations in unpolluted soils are highly variable. Based on its
Kd (value of 6.5 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), cadmium would be expected to
adsorb somewhat to soil and sediment. Cadmium in soil may leach into groundwater,
especially under acidic conditions (ATSDR 1993b).
d) Fate in Biota
Cadmium may bioaccumukte in terrestrial food chains, but biomagnification is
generally not significant (Eisler 1985a). Cadmium will be taken up by plants under
certain environmental conditions, but generally at concentrations less than the
surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984). Bioconcentration should not be significant in
most aquatic systems (ATSDR 1993b).
e) Summary of Toxicity
There is no evidence that cadmium is biologically essential or beneficial.
Wildlife may be exposed to cadmium in the vicinity of smelters and urban
industrialized areas. Cadmium is a known teratogen and carcinogen, a probable
mutagen, and has been implicated in severe deleterious effects to both fish and
wildlife (including decreased growth, inhibited reproduction, and population
alterations). Freshwater biota are the most sensitive group of organisms while
mammals and birds are relatively resistant to the toxicological properties of cadmium.
Freshwater and marine organisms have been found to bioconcentrate measurable
amounts of cadmium when exposed to water containing cadmium concentrations not
previously considered hazardous to public health or to many species of aquatic life
(Eisler 1985a).
7. Chromium
a) Summary of Fate
Because chromium is an element, it does not degrade. Based on its high Kd
(850 in Baes et al. [1984]), chromium would be expected to adhere significantly to
paniculate matter. Most chromium in water will be associated with particulate matter
and will ultimately be deposited to sediment. Based on its Henry's Law Constant
(value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization should not be a significant fate
process, although chromium can be associated with particulate matter in the
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 8 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
atmosphere (ATSDR 1993h). Chromium is not expected to biomagnify in aquatic and
terrestrial systems.
b) Aquatic Fate
Chromium is relatively insoluble in water. Most of the chromium present in
water will be associated with paniculate matter and will eventually be deposited to
sediment. Chromium may be transported by suspended sediments in lotic water
bodies. Although most of the chromium in surface waters will be present as Cr(VI),
a small amount may be present as Cr(IQ) organic complexes (HSDB 1995). Based on
its Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization from
surface water should not be a significant fate process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Chromium is present in soil mainly as an insoluble oxide and is therefore not
very mobile (ATSDR 1993h). Formation of soluble complexes with plant detritus and'
low soil pH may lead to some mobilization. Based on its high K,, (value of 850
reported in Baes et al. [1984]), chromium would be expected to adsorb strongly to
soil and sediment.
d) Fate in Biota
Chromium will be taken up by plants under certain environmental conditions,
but generally at concentrations less than the surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984).
Bioconcentration was not found to be significant in aquatic organisms
(bioconcentration factor in rainbow trout of approximately one) and there is no
indication of biomagnification in aquatic or terrestrial food chains (ATSDR 1993h).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Chromium is an essential element in trace amounts. Wildlife are exposed to
elevated levels of chromium in the vicinity of electroplating and metal finishing
industries, publicly-owned municipal treatment plants, tanneries, oil drilling
operations, and cooling towers. Hexavalent chromium is the most biologically active
chromium species, although there is little known about organo-chromium compounds,
water soluble species, or their interactions in complex mixtures. At high
environmental concentrations, chromium is a mutagen, teratogen, and carcinogen. No
biomagnification of chromium in food chains has been observed, and concentrations
are usually highest at the lowest trophic levels. The lexicological properties of
chromium are modified by a variety of biological and abiotic factors. Sensitivity to
chromium varies widely, even among closely related species (Eisler 1986c).
Chromium exposure is primarily through ingestion but may also occur through
inhalation. Toxicological effects of chromium include developmental, reproductive,
neurological, immunological, renal, and hepatic effects (ATSDR 1993h).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 9 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
8. Copper
a) Summary of Fate
Because copper is an element, it does not degrade. Copper is widely
distributed in nature in its elemental state, and in sulfides, arsenites, chlorides, and
carbonates. Based on its Kj (35 in Baes et al. [1984]), copper would be expected to
adhere somewhat to particulate matter. Based on its Henry's Law Constant (value of
zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization should not be a significant fate process,
although copper may be associated with particulate matter in the atmosphere. Copper
is not expected to bioconcentrate significantly in plants or aquatic organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
Copper is relatively insoluble in hot and cold water, but is soluble under acidic
conditions (HSDB 1995). Most of the copper found in water is associated with
particulate matter and will ultimately be deposited to sediment. Copper may be
leached into water from sediment and soil under acidic conditions. Copper may be
transported by suspended sediments in lotic water bodies (ATSDR 1989g). Based on
its Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization from
surface water should not be a significant fate process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its K,, (value of 35 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), copper would be
expected to adsorb somewhat to soil and sediment. Copper will adsorb to organic
matter, carbonate minerals, clay minerals, or hydrous iron and manganese oxides.
Copper will leach from soils with low pH and little organic carbon (ATSDR 1989g).
d) Fate in Biota
Copper will be taken up by plants under certain environmental conditions, but
generally at concentrations less than the surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984). The
measured bioconcentration factor of copper hi fish ranged from 10 to 100, indicating
little potential for bioconcentration. Field studies have not indicated any potential for
biomagnification in the food chain (ATSDR 1989g).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Copper is an essential element for living organisms. Copper displays four
oxidation states and can be found hi nature hi elemental form as well as hi a variety
of compounds. Wildlife are exposed to copper from both natural and anthropogenic
(mining and smelling) sources. Copper exposure can occur through inhalation of
airborne particles, ingestion of soil or water, and dermal contact. It is unclear
whether airborne copper is absorbed through the lungs. Copper has been found to
cause immunological, hematological, hepatic, renal, neurological, and developmental
effects (ATSDR 1989g; HSDB 1995).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 10 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
9. Lead
a) Summary of Fate
Because lead is an element, it does not degrade. Based on its Kd (900 in Baes
et al. [1984]), lead would be expected to adhere strongly to paniculate matter. Lead
is tightly bound to soil and sediment with virtually no leaching under natural
conditions except in cases of extremely low pH (HSDB 1995; ATSDR 1993d). Based
on its Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization
should not be a significant fate process, although lead may be associated with
paniculate matter in the atmosphere. Formation of tetramethyl lead under anaerobic
conditions may lead to volatilization (ATSDR 1993d). Lead may bioconcentrate in
aquatic organisms under certain environmental conditions, but biomagnification has
not been detected.
b) Aquatic Fate
Lead is relatively insoluble in hot and cold water, but is soluble under acidic
conditions (HSDB 1995). Most of the lead found in water is associated with
paniculate matter and is ultimately deposited to sediments. Lead may be transported
in colloidal particles or as larger undissolved particles of lead carbonate, lead oxide,
or lead hydroxide in lotic water bodies (ATSDR 1993d). Based on its Henry's law
constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization should not be a
significant fate process although tetramethyl lead may volatilize under anaerobic
conditions (ATSDR 1993d).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its K,, (value of 900 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), lead would be
expected to adsorb significantly to soil and sediment. Lead is tightly bound to most
soils with virtually no leaching under natural conditions except in cases of extremely
low pH (HSDB 1995; ATSDR 1993d). However, relatively volatile tetramethyl lead
can be formed in anaerobic lake sediments and subsequent loss of lead through
volatilization can occur (HSDB 1995).
d) Fate in Biota
Lead will be taken up by plants under certain environmental conditions, but
generally at concentrations less than the surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984). Some
high BCFs have been measured for lead (92,000 in freshwater algae and 726 for
rainbow trout), but median BCFs are significantly lower (725 for algae and 42 for
fish) (ATSDR 1993d). Biomagnification in the food chain has not been detected
(ATSDR 1993d).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Lead does not appear to be beneficial or essential to living organisms.
Wildlife are potentially exposed to toxic levels of lead through various routes:
migratory waterfowl that frequent hunted areas and ingest lead shot; avian predators
that consume game wounded by hunters; wildlife near smelters, refineries, and lead
battery recycling plants; wildlife that forage near heavily traveled roads; and aquatic
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 11 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
life near mines, metal finishing industries, organo-lead industries, or areas where lead
arsenate pesticides are used. Lead may bioconcentrate in organisms, accumulating in
the soft tissues during short-term exposure and in the bones and teeth during long-
term exposure. Lead exposure may cause reduced survival, impaired reproduction,
and reduced growth (Eisler 1988b). Lead has also been shown to cause neurological
effects such as decreased learning ability in developing organisms (ATSDR 1993d).
10. Mercury
a) Summary of Fate
Because mercury is an element, it does not degrade. Based on its Kd (10 in
Baes et al. [1984]), mercury would be expected to adhere somewhat to paniculate
matter. Based on its Henry's Law Constant (7.0 x 10~3 in U.S. EPA [1992c])
volatilization should be a significant fate process. Mercury bioconcentrates
significantly in aquatic organisms and biomagnifies in the food chain in its principal
organic form (methyl mercury).
b) Aquatic Fate
Mercury is soluble in water at a concentration of 3.0 x 10"2 mg/L (U.S. EPA
1994c). Most of the mercury found in water is associated with paniculate matter and
will ultimately be deposited to sediments. Based on its Henry's law constant (value of
7.0 x 10'3 in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization should be a significant fate process.
Bioconversion and subsequent volatilization and bioaccumulation are significant fate
processes in the aquatic environment (ATSDR 1989a).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its K,, (value of 10 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), mercury would be
expected to adsorb somewhat to soil and sediment. Leaching is not an important fate
process for mercury. Mobilization of mercury from sediment and soil can occur
through chemical or biological reduction to elemental mercury and bioconversion to
volatile organic forms (ATSDR 1989a).
d) Fate in Biota
Mercury will be taken up by plants under certain environmental conditions, but
generally at concentrations less than the surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984).
Methylated forms of mercury are readily accumulated by aquatic organisms.
Bioconcentration factors of about 1,000 have been measured for fish and algae while
bioconcentration factors of 100,000 have been measured for freshwater invertebrates
(ATSDR 1989a). Mercury is known to biomagnify in both terrestrial and aquatic
food chains (Wren et al. 1983).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Evidence suggests that mercury is not an essential or beneficial element for
living organisms. Forms of mercury with relatively low toxicity can be transformed
into highly toxic forms, such as methylmercury, through biological and other
processes. Organo-mercury compounds, especially methylmercury, are always more
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 12 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
toxic than inorganic forms. Mercury can be bioconcentrated in organisms and
biomagnified through the food chain. Mercury is a mutagen, teratogen, and
carcinogen, and causes embryocidal, cytochemical, and histopathological effects.
Some species of fish and wildlife have been found to contain high levels of mercury
that are not attributable to human activities. Natural background levels of mercury
are often close to levels that may produce toxicity (Eisler 1987a).
11. Nickel
a) Summary of Fate
Because nickel is an element, it does not degrade. Nickel occurs in low
concentrations in both soil and water. Based on its K,, (150 in Baes et al. [1984]),
nickel would be expected to adsorb to paniculate matter. Based on its Henry's Law
Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization should not be a
significant fate process, although nickel may be associated with paniculate matter in
the atmosphere. Nickel is not expected to bioconcentrate significantly in plants or
aquatic organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
Nickel has a high solubility in water (ATSDR 1993i). The fate of heavy
metals in aquatic systems depends on the partitioning between soluble and solid
paniculate phases. Most of the nickel in aquatic systems is in the paniculate phase
and is ultimately deposited to sediment. Nickel may be transported by suspended
sediments in lotic water bodies (ATSDR 1993i). Based on its Henry's law constant
(value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization from surface water should not be
a significant fate process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its Kd (value of 150 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), nickel would be
expected to adsorb to soil and sediment. Nickel has been found to adsorb strongly to
sediment and soil. Soil properties such as texture, bulk density, pH, organic matter,
the type and amount of clay materials, and certain hydroxides influence the retention
and release of nickel in sediment and soil. Oxides of manganese and iron, and to a
lesser extent clay materials, are the most important adsorbents in soil (ATSDR
1993i).
d) Fate in Biota
Nickel will be taken up by plants under certain environmental conditions, but
generally at concentrations less than the surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984). The
measured bioconcentration factors for nickel ranged from 40 to 100 in fish and 100 to
259 in invertebrates, indicating little potential for significant bioconcentration.
e) Summary of Toxicity
Nickel can exist in five oxidation states, but the most important one in the
environment is +2. Wildlife exposure to nickel can come from both natural
(volcanoes, forest fires, and sea spray) and anthropogenic (smelting and combustion
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 13 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
of fossil fuels) sources. Exposure can occur through inhalation of airborne particles,
ingestion of soil or sediment, and dermal contact. Nickel can cause hepatic, renal,
respiratory, immunological developmental, and reproductive effects, as well as
cancer. Nickel can also have indirect effects on a number of enzyme systems
(ATSDR 1993i; HSDB 1995).
12. Selenium
a) Summary of Fate
Because selenium is an element, it does not degrade. The behavior of
selenium in the environment is influenced by its oxidation state and subsequent
behavior of its different chemical compounds. Based on its K,, (300 in Baes et al.
[1984]), selenium would be expected to adhere to paniculate matter. Based on its
Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization should not
be a significant fate process, although some selenium is known to occur in the vapor
phase in the environment (Galloway et al. 1982). Selenium may also be associated
with particulate matter in the atmosphere. When present in soluble form, selenium is
expected to bioaccumulate and may biomagnify (ATSDR 1989b).
b) Aquatic Fate
Selenium is relatively insoluble in water, but is soluble under acidic conditions
(HSDB 1995). Selenium will be found in water in the forms of salts and acids.
Sodium selenate is one of the most mobile selenium compounds in the environment
due to its high solubility and inability to adsorb to particles (ATSDR 1989b).
Selenium may be transported by suspended sediments in lotic water bodies. Based on
its Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization from
surface water should not be a significant fate process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its K,, (value of 300 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), selenium would
be expected to adsorb to soil and sediment. Selenium is relatively immobile in soils
with low pH and high amounts of organic material. In alkaline, well oxidized soil
environments, selenates are the major selenium species, and are very mobile due to
their high solubility and ability to adsorb to soil particles (ATSDR 1989b).
d) Fate in Biota
In environments favoring the soluble forms of selenium, it can be taken up
readily by plants. Selenium is readily bioaccumulated by aquatic organisms. There is
some evidence that selenium may biomagnify under natural conditions (ATSDR
1989b).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Selenium is an essential element and is beneficial to organisms in trace
amounts. Selenium deficiency may be nearly as significant lexicologically as an
excess of selenium. Selenium poisoning in fish and wildlife may occur due to
selenium released by anthropogenic activities (including fossil fuel combustion and
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 14 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
metal smelling) or due to naturally high levels of selenium in a particular area. There
is a dearth of information on the importance of chemical and biological
transformations, valence states, and isomers of selenium. Selenium metabolism and
degradation are both significantly affected by interactions with various heavy metals,
agricultural chemicals, microorganisms, and numerous physico-chemical factors.
Documented effects of selenium deficiency or poisoning vary widely, even among
closely-related taxonomic groups (Eisler 1985b). Observed effects of selenium
toxicity include reduced fetal growth, fetal toxicity, reduced longevity, hepatitis, and
cirrhosis (ATSDR 1989b).
13. SUver
a) Summary of Fate
Because silver is an element, it does not degrade. Silver occurs in the earth's
crust at a concentration of about 0.1 ppm. Silver is relatively insoluble in water, but
solubility increases with decreasing pH. Based on its K,, (45 in Baes et al. [1984]),
silver would be expected to adhere to paniculate matter. Based on its Henry's Law
Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization should not be a
significant fate process, although silver may be associated with paniculate matter in
the atmosphere. Silver may bioconcentrate to some extent in aquatic organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
Silver is relatively insoluble in hot and cold water, but is soluble under acidic
conditions (HSDB 1995). Most of the silver found in water is associated with
paniculate matter and will ultimately be deposited to sediment. Sorption and
precipitation processes are effective in reducing the dissolved concentration of silver
(HSDB 1995). Silver may be transported by suspended sediments in lotic water
bodies. Based on its Henry's law constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]),
volatilization should not be a significant fate process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its K,, (value of 45 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), silver would be
expected to adsorb to soil and sediment. Magnesium dioxide, ferric compounds, and
clay minerals all have some degree of adsorptive affinity for silver and are involved
hi its deposition to sediments. Silver will be more mobile under acidic conditions
(HSDB 1995).
d) Fate in Biota
Silver will be taken up by plants under certain environmental conditions, but
generally at concentrations less than the surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984). Algae,
daphnia, freshwater mussels, and fathead minnows were all found capable of
accumulating silver to some extent. Studies have not indicated that biomagnification
in the food chain is significant (HSDB 1995).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VMS 15 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
e) Summary of Toxicity
Wildlife can be exposed to silver through a variety of anthropogenic (smelting,
coal combustion, steel and iron production, and refuse incineration) and natural
sources. Silver is physically and physiologically cumulative in the body. Exposure
can occur through the inhalation of airborne particles, ingestion of soil, and dermal
absorption of certain forms. The only study located on the inhalation effects of silver
reported ultrastructural damage and disruption of cells of the trachea! epithelium in
rabbits. Repeated oral exposure in animals has been shown to produce anemia,
cardiac enlargement, growth retardation, degenerative changes in the liver, and death
(ATSDR 1990d; HSDB 1995).
14. Thallium
a) Summary of Fate
Because thallium is an element, it does not degrade. Thallium is soluble in
water in the form of chloride, sulfate, carbonate, bromide, and hydroxide, but
thallium may precipitate out in solid mineral phases (ATSDR 1990e). Based on its Kj
(1,500 in Baes et al. [1984]), thallium would be expected to adhere strongly to
paniculate matter. Based on its Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA
[1992c]), volatilization should not be a significant fate process, although thallium may
be associated with paniculate matter in the atmosphere. Thallium is not expected to
bioconcentrate significantly in plants or aquatic organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
Thallium is relatively insoluble in hot and cold water, but is soluble under
acidic conditions (HSDB 1995). Thallium in water exists primarily as a monovalent
ion, although thallium may be trivalent in strongly oxidizing water. Thallium is
soluble in water in the form of chloride, sulfate, carbonate, bromide, and hydroxide,
but thallium may precipitate out in solid mineral phases (ATSDR 1990e). Thallium
found in water may be associated with paniculate matter and will ultimately be
deposited to sediment. Thallium may be transported by suspended sediments in lotic
water bodies. Based on its Henry's Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA
[1992c]), volatilization from surface water should not be a significant fate process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its Kd (value of 1,500 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), thallium would
be expected to adsorb strongly to soil and sediment. Studies have confirmed the
adsorption of thallium to sediment and clay (ATSDR 1990e).
d) Fate in Biota
Thallium will be taken up by plants under certain environmental conditions,
but generally at concentrations less than the surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984). The
maximum measured bioconcentration factor of thallium in the bluegill sunfish was 34,
indicating little potential for bioconcentration (ATSDR 1990e).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 16 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
e) Summary of Toxicity
Wildlife can be exposed to thallium through a variety of anthropogenic
(leaching during ore processing, emissions from cement factories, and coal-burning
power plants) and natural sources. In nature, thallium does not occur in the elemental
state but is present as an oxide, hydroxide, sulfate, or sulfide. Exposure to thallium
occurs primarily through the ingestion of water, sediment, and soil. Exposure to
thallium in significant amounts may cause cardiovascular, developmental,
neurological, and reproductive effects as well as death (ATSDR 1990e).
15. Zinc
a) Summary of Fate
Because zinc is an element, it does not degrade. Zinc occurs mainly in the
+2 oxidation state in the environment. Based on its Kd (40 in Baes et al. [1984]),
zinc would be expected to adhere to paniculate matter. Based on its Henry's Law
Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA 1992c), volatilization should not be a significant
fate process, although zinc may be associated with paniculate matter in the
atmosphere. Some bioconcentration of zinc may occur in aquatic organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
Zinc is relatively insoluble in hot and cold water, but is soluble under acidic
conditions (HSDB 1995). Most of the zinc found in water is associated with
paniculate matter and will ultimately be deposited to sediments. Zinc may be leached
into water from sediment and soil under acidic conditions. Zinc may be transported
by suspended sediments in lotic water bodies (ATSDR 1992d). Based on its Henry's
Law Constant (value of zero in U.S. EPA [1992c]), volatilization should not be a
significant fate process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its Kj (value of 40 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), zinc would be
expected to adsorb to soil and sediment. The mobility of zinc in soil is dependent
upon the solubilities of the speciated form of the compound and on soil properties
such as cation exchange capacity, pH, and redox potential. The mobility of zinc
increases with decreasing pH under oxidizing conditions, and at a lower cation
exchange capacity in soil (ATSDR 1992d). Zinc in a soluble form, such as zinc
sulfate, is fairly mobile in most soils, but is limited by its rate of dissolution (ATSDR
1992d).
d) Fate in Biota
Zinc will be taken up by plants under certain environmental conditions, but
generally at concentrations less than the surrounding soil (Baes et al. 1984).
Bioconcentration factors for 12 aquatic species ranged from 4 to 24,000, indicating
some potential for bioaccumulation (ATSDR 1992d).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 17 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
e) Summary of Toxicity
Zinc is an essential element and is beneficial to organisms in trace amounts.
Zinc deficiency has severe adverse effects on all stages of growth, development,
reproduction, and survival. Zinc and its compounds induce testicular sarcomas in
birds and rodents when injected directly into the testes, but zinc is not carcinogenic
by any other route. Toxicity affects the pancreas and bones in birds and mammals,
and the gill epithelium in fish. Zinc interacts with many other chemicals to produce
altered patterns of accumulation, metabolism, and toxicity (Eisler 1993). High levels
of zinc exposure have been shown to cause fetal resorption, still births, and increased
pre-implantation losses in rats (ATSDR 1992d). Exposure to zinc occurs primarily
through ingestion but may also occur through inhalation. Dermal absorption is not a
significant route of exposure.
16. Cyanide
a) Summary of Fate
Many chemical forms of cyanide are present in the environment, including free
cyanide, metallocyanide complexes, and synthetic organocyanides, also known as
nitriles. The fate of cyanide in the environment will vary considerably based on its
form. Hydrogen cyanide is a gas and has a relatively slow degradation rate in air (up
to 11 years), and the atmosphere will be the ultimate sink for this compound (ATSDR
1993c). Other forms of cyanide are less persistent in the atmosphere and may persist
between 30 days and one year (Eisler 1991). Degradation and volatilization will be
significant fate processes in the aquatic and terrestrial environments. Bioaccumulation
is not expected to be significant (ATSDR 1993c).
b) Aquatic Fate
The only Henry's Law Constant located was for hydrogen cyanide (5.1 x 10-2
atm-m3/mol) and indicates rapid volatilization from surface water. Volatilization of
cyanide is affected by temperature, pH, wind speed, and cyanide concentration.
Existing data indicate that absorption of hydrogen cyanide to suspended solids and
sediment will not be significant, but soluble metal cyanides show stronger metal
adsorption (ATSDR 1993c).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Volatilization of hydrogen cyanide would be a significant fate mechanism in
soils at a pH <9.2. Although cyanide has a low affinity for sorption to soil, it is
usually not detected in groundwater, most likely due to fixation by trace metals
through complexation or transformation by soil microorganisms. High concentrations
of cyanide will result in leaching to groundwater due to toxic effects on
microorganisms (ATSDR 1993c).
d) Fate in Biota
The simple metal cyanides and hydrogen cyanide do not accumulate hi
organisms. However, fish from water with soluble silver and copper cyanide
complexes had metal cyanides in their tissues. There is no evidence of
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 18 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
biomagnification of cyanides in the food chain (ATSDR 1993c). Cyanide is a
naturally-occurring compound in many organisms.
e) Summary of Toxicity
Wildlife can be exposed to cyanide through a variety of natural (metabolic
product of numerous plants) and anthropogenic (insecticides, synthetic fibers,
metallurgy) sources. Exposure to cyanide may occur through the ingestion of water,
sediment, soil, and food, and through the inhalation of air. Exposure to various
forms of cyanide has been found to cause respiratory, cardiovascular, hematological,
renal, neurological, and developmental effects, as well as death (ATSDR 1993c;
Eisler 1991). Although many forms of cyanide are present in the environment, free
cyanide (CN~) is the primary toxic agent (Eisler 1991).
17. Anthracene
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^, value, anthracene should adsorb strongly to soil and
sediment. Based on its water solubility (1.29 mg/L), it may be found hi water at low
concentrations. In surface water, anthracene will be rapidly degraded by photolysis.
Degradation in soil is significantly slower. Reported BCF values range from 162 to
17,000.
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its water solubility (1.29 mg/L), anthracene will be present in the
water column at low concentrations. Based on its high log K^ (4.41) value,
anthracene should adsorb to sediments. Based on its Henry's Law Constant,
volatilization from surface water should be a significant fate process. The reported
half-lives hi surface water range from 0.58 to 1.7 hours based on photolysis.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its high log K^ (4.41) value, anthracene should adsorb to soil.
Based on its water solubility (1.29 mg/L), some leaching may occur. Based on its
vapor pressure (1.95 x 10"* mm Hg), volatilization from soil should not be a
significant fate process. The reported half-lives of anthracene in soil range from 50
days to 1.26 years.
d) Fate in Biota
Based on its log K^ (4.41) value, anthracene may bioaccumulate in biota.
Measured BCF values ranged from 162 in goldfish to 17,000 in the scud (HSDB
1995).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Anthracene is a product of incomplete combustion and wildlife may be
exposed to it through a number of natural (coal tar, volcanoes, and forest fires) and
anthropogenic (combustion of fossil fuels, wood burning stoves, furnaces, and power
plants) sources. Exposure to anthracene may occur through the ingestion of water,
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 19 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
sediment, and soil, and through the inhalation of paniculate matter. Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), such as anthracene, have been found to cause
hematological, hepatic, reproductive, and developmental effects, as well as cancer. A
phototoxic effect has been observed in fish exposed to anthracene (ATSDR 1989c;
HSDB 1995).
18. Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)
a) Summary of Fate
Due to its low water solubility (0.0038 mg/L), BaP would not be expected to
occur at high concentrations in surface water nor in groundwater. When BaP is
exposed to sunlight, photolysis is a significant fate process. Significant
biodegradation may also occur. BaP will be strongly adsorbed to sediment and soil
(log KO,. = 6.6). Based its Henry's Law Constant (1.55 x 10"6), volatilization is not
expected to occur. BaP has the potential to bioaccumulate in the food chain based on
its high log KO,, (6.11), but it is readily metabolized by most organisms (Eisler
1987b).
b) Aquatic Fate
BaP has a low water solubility (0.0038 mg/L). Because of its high log K^.
value (6.6), BaP should adsorb strongly to sediments and suspended organic material.
The low vapor pressure (5.49 x 10"9 mm Hg) and Henry's Law Constant (1.55 x 10~6
atm-m3/mol) suggest that volatilization will not be an important fate process.
Reported half-lives in surface water are very short, ranging from 0.37 to 1.1 hours
based on photolysis (HSDB 1995). Biodegradation may also occur (HSDB 1995).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Because of its high log K^ value (6.6), BaP should adsorb strongly to soil.
Given its low water solubility, BaP would not expected to leach into groundwater
significantly. BaP has, however, been detected in groundwater although the
mechanism of transport is not clear (HSDB 1995). The low vapor pressure and
Henry's Law Constant suggest that volatilization from soil will not be an important
fate process. Half-lives in soil and groundwater ranges from 57 days to 1.45 years
and 114 days to 2.90 years, respectively (HSDB 1995).
d) Fate in Biota
BaP has the potential to bioaccumulate in the food chain because it has a high
log KO,, (6.11), but it is readily metabolized by most organisms (Eisler 1987b). A
relatively low BCF of 500 has been reported in biota (HSDB 1995).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Benzo(a)pyrene is a product of incomplete combustion and wildlife may be
exposed to it through a number of natural (coal tar, volcanoes, and forest fires) and
anthropogenic (combustion of fossil fuels, wood burning stoves, furnaces, and power
plants) sources. Exposure to benzo(a)pyrene occurs through the ingestion of sediment
and soil, and through the inhalation of paniculate matter. Benzo(a)pyrene has been
Volume VI • External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 20 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
found to cause hematological, hepatic, reproductive, and developmental effects, as
r^ well as cancer (ATSDR 1989c; HSDB 1995).
19. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP)
a) Summary of Fate
Based on vapor pressure (1.50 x 10"7 mm Hg) and Henry's Law Constant
(2.70 x 10-7 atm-m3/mole), BEHP should not volatilize from soil or water (HSDB
1995). The low water solubility (0.285 mg/L) and relatively high log K^ and log
values of 7.30 and 3.98, respectively, indicate that this compound adsorbs onto solids
and is likely to partition to biota. Bioaccumulation in fish is actually much lower,
based on laboratory studies, due to rapid metabolism. In the presence of acclimated
microbes, BEHP is readily biodegraded (Howard 1989, 1991).
b) Aquatic Fate
BEHP has a relatively low water solubility. The log K^. value of 3.98
reported for BEHP indicates a high potential for this compound to adsorb to solids.
The half-life in surface water is two to three weeks. The ultimate fate of BEHP in
aquatic systems will depend upon the outcome of the competitive processes of
adsorption and biodegradation. Sediment-associated BEHP may be susceptible to
biodegradation in aerobic sediments. Howard et al. (1991) report a range of
anaerobic half-lives for BEHP of 42 to 389 days and aerobic half-lives of 5 to 23
days.
I
c) Terrestrial Fate
The low water solubility and high K^. values for BEHP indicate that it will
readily adsorb to soils. The accumulation of BEHP in soils may, however, be offset
by degradation by aerobic microbes. Soil microflora significantly degrade phthalates
under aerobic conditions, and at a much slower rate under anaerobic conditions (U.S.
EPA 1987a). The overall fate of BEHP in terrestrial soils, therefore, appears to be
controlled by sorption to solids and biodegradation by aerobic microbes.
d) Fate in Biota
Based on the reported log K^,, value of 7.30, BEHP should have a high
potential to bioaccumulate. BEHP is reported to have a half-life in fish of as little as
1.5 hours, and log BCF values for BEHP in aquatic organisms have been reported to
range from two to four (HSDB 1995). Barron et al. (1989) showed that BEHP is
actually metabolized in the gill tissue of fish and therefore does not accumulate
systemically to any great extent. Barron et al. (1989) reported measured BCFs in
small rainbow trout of between 42 and 113 (equivalent to log BCFs of 1.62 to 2.05).
No data for terrestrial organisms were reported.
e) Summary of Toxicity
Wildlife can be exposed to BEHP through a variety of anthropogenic (released
% in the production and waste disposal of plastic products) and natural (reported as a
( possible natural product in both plants and animals) sources. Exposure to BEHP
\i<-_~X
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 21 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
occurs through the ingestion of water, sediment, and soil and through the inhalation of
air. Inhalation of BEHP has been found to cause hepatic and respiratory effects.
Oral exposure to BEHP has been found to cause gastrointestinal, hepatic,
developmental, reproductive, and renal effects, and possibly cancer (ATSDR 1993e;
HSDB 1995).
20. Di(n)octyl phthalate (DNOF)
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its vapor pressure (1.40 x 10"* mm Hg) and Henry's Law Constant
(2.20 x 10"* atm-m3/mole), DNOP should not volatilize significantly from soil but
may volatilize from water (HSDB 1995; Montgomery and Welkom 1990). The
relatively high log K^ and log K^ values (8.06 and 4.28, respectively) indicate that
this compound adsorbs onto solids and is likely to partition to biota. Bioaccumulation
in fish is actually much lower, based on laboratory studies, and this may be due to
metabolism or biodegradation (HSDB 1995).
b) Aquatic Fate
The log K,,,. value of 4.28 reported for DNOP indicates a high potential for this
compound to adsorb strongly to suspended solids and sediment. The half-life in
surface water is one to four weeks. DNOP will degrade in aquatic systems after
acclimation, but at a slower rate than shorter chain dialkyl phthalates. The log K^
value indicates a potential to bioaccumulate, but measured BCF values have varied
(HSDB 1995).
c) Terrestrial Fate
The high K^ value (4.28) for DNOP indicates that it will readily adsorb to
soils. The low vapor pressure (1.40 x 10^ mm Hg) indicates that volatilization from
surface soils will not be an important fate process. Surfactants, fulvic acid, dispersed
fats or oils, or other substances with substantial hydrophobic character are likely
candidates for solubilizing phthalates in the environment (HSDB 1995).
d) Fate in Biota
Based on the reported log K^ value of 8.06, DNOP should have a high
potential to bioaccumulate, but measured BCF values have varied. DNOP was found
to have little or no bioconcentration in the carp. After 24-hour exposures,
mosquitofish, daphnia, and snails had log BCF values of 0.06, 3.97, and 2.64
respectively. Mosquitofish placed in a 33-day ecosystem on day 30 had a log BCF of
3.97 (HSDB 1995).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Wildlife can be exposed to DNOP through a variety of anthropogenic (released
in the production and waste disposal of plastic products) and natural (reported as a
possible natural product in both plants and animals) sources. Exposure to DNOP
occurs through the ingestion of water, sediment, and soil, and through the inhalation
of air. Oral exposure has been shown to cause developmental, liver, teratogenic
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 22 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
(through interperitoneal exposure of mothers), and immune system effects (HSDB
1995).
21. 4,4'-DDE
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its high log K^. (4.70) value, 4,4'-DDE should adsorb strongly to
sediment and soil. 4,4'-DDE has a low water solubility (0.010 mg/L) and would not
be found in the water column in significant concentrations unless associated with
suspended solids. Photolysis is a significant fate process in surface water, but
degradation in soil is slow. Reported BCFs for 4,4'-DDE range from 28,600 in
zooplankton to 180,000 in the bluegill.
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its high log K^ (4.70) value, 4,4'-DDE should partition strongly to
sediment. Based on its low water solubility (0.010 mg/L), most 4,4'-DDE found in
the water column would be associated with suspended solids. Based on its Henry's
Law Constant (2.34 x lO'5 atm-m3/mol), volatilization from surface water would not
be a significant fate process. The reported half-lives for 4,4'-DDE in surface water
range from 15 hours to 6.1 days based on photolysis.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^ (4.70), 4,4'-DDE is expected to adsorb strongly to soils
and leaching should not be an important fate process. Based on its vapor pressure
(6.5 x 10"6 mm Hg), 4,4'-DDE would be expected to volatilize extremely slowly from
surface soil. The reported half-lives for 4,4'-DDE in soil ranged from 2 to 15.6
years based on biodegradation.
d) Fate in Biota
Significant bioaccumulation of 4,4'-DDE is expected in aquatic organisms.
Reported BCFs for 4,4'-DDE range from 28,600 in zooplankton to 180,000 in the
bluegill.
e) Summary of Toxicity
4,4'-DDE is a synthetic organic pesticide and does not have any natural
sources. It is an impurity in commercial DDT formulations and is also a
biodegradation product of DDT. The use of DDT has caused 4,4'-DDE to be
released to the environment and it may be found in both sediment and soil, or be
present in the water column when associated with suspended organic material. 4,4'-
DDE has been found to cause hepatic, immunological, neurological, developmental,
and reproductive (egg shell thinning) effects, as well as increased incidence of liver
and lung tumors (ATSDR 1992c; HSDB 1995).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 23 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
22. Hexachlorophene
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^. (4.96) and log K^, (7.54) values, hexachlorophene should
partition strongly to soil, sediment, and biota. Hexachlorophene has a low water
solubility (4.0 x 10'3 mg/L). Abiotic and biotic degradation of hexachlorophene are
expected to be slow (HSDB 1995). Based on its log BCF of 5.5, hexachlorophene is
expected to bioaccumulate in organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its high log K^. (4.96) and log K,^ (7.54) values, hexachlorophene
should partition strongly to sediments and biota. Based on its low water solubility
(4.0 x 10~3 mg/L), most hexachlorophene found in water would be associated with
suspended solids. Based on its Henry's Law Constant (5.48 x 10"13), hexachlorophene
would not be expected to volatilize significantly. A biodegradation half-life in
sediments of 290 days has been reported (HSDB 1995).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K,,,. value (4.96), hexachlorophene should adsorb strongly to
soil and leaching should not be an important fate process. Based on its vapor
pressure (4.6 x 10~* mm Hg), hexachlorophene would be expected to have extremely
slow volatilization from surface soil. Biodegradation data are not available in soil.
d) Fate in Biota
Based on its water solubility (4.0 x 10~3 mg/L) and log K^ (7.54) values,
hexachlorophene would be expected to bioaccumulate in biota. This is confirmed by
hexachlorophene's log BCF value of 5.5 (HSDB 1995).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Hexachlorophene is a synthetic organic fungicide and bactericide and does not
have any natural sources. When hexachlorophene is released to the environment, it
partitions strongly to sediment and soil, where it may be ingested by wildlife.
Wildlife exposure may also occur through the ingestion of suspended organic material
in water or through dermal absorption. Hexachlorophene has been shown to cause
neurological, hepatic, developmental, and reproductive effects. The central and
peripheral nervous system and the retina appear to be the most sensitive target tissues
(U.S. EPA 1986b; HSDB 1995).
23. 2,4-D
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^. (1.81) value, 2,4-D is not expected to adsorb to soil and
sediment to a great extent. 2,4-D has a moderately high water solubility (628 mg/L).
2,4-D would be expected to degrade readily in surface water and surface soil (HSDB
1995). Based on its log BCF of 0.85, 2,4-D is not expected to bioaccumulate
significantly in organisms.
.Volume VI . External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 24 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its log K,,, (1.81) value, 2,4-D is not expected to adsorb to sediments
to a great extent. The biodegradation half-life of 2,4-D in surface water is 10 to >50
days. Based on its water solubility (628 mg/L), a significant portion of 2,4-D
released to water should remain in the water column. Based on its vapor pressure
(1.05 x 10'2 mm Hg) and Henry's Law Constant (1.02 x 10'8 atm-m3/mol),
volatilization of 2,4-D from surface water should be low.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^. (1.81) value, 2,4-D should adsorb relatively weakly to
soil and leaching will be an important fate process. Based on its vapor pressure (1.05
x 10'2 mm Hg) and Henry's Law Constant (1.02 x lO"8 atm-mVmol), 2,4-D would be
expected to have very slow volatilization from surface soil. Estimated half-lives in
soil range from less than a day to several weeks.
d) Fate in Biota
Based on its water solubility (628 mg/L) and log K^, (2.70) values, 2,4-D
would not be expected to bioaccumulate in biota. This is confirmed by 2,4-D's log
BCF value of 0.85 (HSDB 1995).
e) Summary of Toxicity
2,4-D is a synthetic organic chemical registered in the U.S. as a herbicide for
the control of broadleaf plants and as a plant-growth regulator. Wildlife may be
exposed to 2,4-D through the ingestion of water, sediment, and soil. 2,4-D has been
found to cause cardiac, neurological, hepatic, reproductive, and developmental
effects, as well as cancer. In general, 2,4-D is relatively non-toxic to water and soil
microorganisms at recommended field application rates. Fish larvae are the most
sensitive aquatic life stage but are unlikely to be affected under normal usage. Long-
term adverse effects on fish are observed only at concentrations higher than those
produced by normal application rates. Although 2,4-D is generally classified as non-
toxic for beneficial insects such as honey bees and natural enemies of pests, some
adverse effects have been reported for the early life stages and adults of some insects.
2,4-D has generally been found to have a low toxicity to birds. Data on voles
indicate that the herbicide poses no hazard (IPCS 1989d; HSDB 1995).
24. Heptachlor
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its high log K^. (4.48) value, heptachlor should adsorb strongly to
sediment and soil. Heptachlor has a low water solubility (0.18 mg/L) and would not
be found in the water column in significant concentrations unless associated with
suspended solids. Hydrolysis is a significant fate process for heptachlor in both soil
and surface water. Reported BCFs for heptachlor ranged from 3,800 in the
mosquitofish to 37,000 in snails (HSDB 1995).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 25 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its high log K«. (4.48) value, heptachlor should partition strongly to
sediment. Based on its low water solubility (0.18 mg/L), most heptachlor found in
the water column would be associated with suspended solids. Based on its Henry's
Law Constant (1.48 x 10~3 atm-m3/mol), some volatilization from surface water may
occur. The reported half-lives for heptachlor in surface water range from 23.1 hours
to 5.4 days based on hydrolysis.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^ (4.48), heptachlor is expected to adsorb strongly to soils
and leaching should not be an important fate process. Based on its vapor pressure (4
x 10"4 mm Hg), heptachlor would be expected to have extremely slow volatilization
from surface soil. The reported half-lives for heptachlor in soil range from 23.1
hours to 5.4 days based on hydrolysis.
d) Fate in Biota
Reported BCFs for heptachlor range from 3,800 in the mosquitofish to 37,000
in snails (HSDB 1995).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Heptachlor is a synthetic organic chemical used as an insecticide. Wildlife
exposure to heptachlor may occur through the ingestion of soil and sediment and may
also be absorbed dermally. Heptachlor has been shown to cause hepatic effects,
developmental effects, and cancer in experimental animals (HSDB 1995).
25. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
a) Summary of Fate
PCBs are very stable compounds and are slow to degrade chemically or
biologically under ambient environmental conditions. Microbial degradation depends
on the degree of chlorination and the position of the chlorine atom on the biphenyl
molecule. Less chlorinated biphenyls (three or fewer chlorine atoms) are more
readily degraded by bacteria than are more chlorinated biphenyls (five or more
chlorine atoms). In general, PCBs are relatively insoluble in water, but are freely
soluble in the lipids of organisms. PCBs are strongly adsorbed to soils and sediments
and are known to bioaccumulate and biomagnify in the food chain (Eisler 1986a).
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on their high log K^. (5.86) values, PCBs should partition strongly to
sediments. Based on their low water solubility (3.10 x 10~2 mg/L), most PCBs found
in water would be associated with suspended solids. Based on their Henry's Law
Constants (2.50 x 10^ atm-m3/mol), some volatilization from surface water might be
expected. However, sorption to sediment will compete with any potential
volatilization.
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 26 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^ (5.86) value, PCBs should adsorb strongly to soil and
leaching should not be an important fate process. Based on its vapor pressure (7.70 x
105 mm Hg), PCBs would be expected to have extremely slow volatilization from
surface soil. Biodegradation data are not available in soil.
d) Fate in Biota
Ingestion of PCBs on paniculate matter is a source of exposure to terrestrial
and aquatic organisms. PCBs are also known to bioaccumulate and to biomagnify
within the food chain (Eisler 1986a). Some uptake into plants is also possible but is
expected to be low relative to uptake by animals.
e) Summary of Toxicity
PCBs are synthetic organic chemicals and do not have any natural sources.
Wildlife may be exposed to PCBs through the ingestion of soil and sediment.
Exposure may also occur through the ingestion of suspended organic matter in the
water column. The skin and liver are the major sites of pathology, but the
gastrointestinal tract, immune system, and nervous system are also targets. PCBs
have been found to cause a wide variety of effects including hematological, hepatic,
immunological, developmental, and reproductive effects. PCBs may also cause
cancer and death. In general, PCB homologs with high K^ values, and high numbers
of substituted chlorines in adjacent positions, constitute the greatest environmental
concern. Basic chemical information is lacking on many homologs and biological
responses to homologs or mixtures vary widely, even among closely related
taxonomic species. In field studies, PCB residues in birds correlate with
embryotoxicity in populations. Laboratory studies have shown that PCBs reduce the
reproductive capacity of sea mammals (confirmed by field studies) and mink (Eisler
1986a; IPCS 1993a; ATSDR 1993f; HSDB 1995).
26. Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its high log K^ (6.43) value, dioxin should partition strongly to soil
and sediment. Dioxin has a very low water solubility (2 x 10'10 mg/L). Measured
bioconcentration is significant, but an elimination half-life of 14 days has been
measured (HSDB 1995). Dioxin may also biomagnify in food chains (Eisler 1986b).
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its high log K^ (6.43) value, dioxin should partition strongly to
sediments. Based on its extremely low water solubility (2 x 10"10 mg/L), virtually all
dioxin found in water would be associated with suspended solids. Based on its
Henry's Law Constant (1.62 x lO'5 atm-m3/mol), some slow volatilization of dioxin
may occur, although this will compete with sorption to paniculate matter. Photolysis
near the water's surface may be significant. The persistence half-life in lakes has
been estimated to be in excess of 1.5 years (HSDB 1995).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 27 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^ (6.43) value, dioxin should adsorb strongly to soil and
leaching should not be an important fate process. Based on its vapor pressure (7.4 x
10~10 mm Hg), dioxin would not be expected to significantly volatilize from surface
soil. Photodegradation on terrestrial surfaces may be an important fate process. The
persistence half-life of dioxin on soil surfaces varies from less than one year to three
years, but half-lives in soil interiors may be as long as 12 years (HSDB 1995).
d) Fate in Biota
Based on its water solubility (2 x 10~10 mg/L) and log K^ (7.41) values, and
its lipophilic nature, dioxin is expected to bioaccumulate hi biota. Mean BCF factors
of 29,200 (dry weight) and 5,840 (wet weight) were measured in fathead minnows for
a 28-day exposure with an elimination half-life of 14.5 days. Log BCFs of 3.2 and
3.9 were determined for rainbow trout and fathead minnows (HSDB 1995). Dioxin
may also biomagnify in food chains (Eisler 1986b).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Dioxin is present as a trace impurity in some manufactured chemicals (such as
herbicides and chlorophenols) and industrial wastes. The number of chlorine atoms in
dioxin can vary from one to eight to produce up to 75 positional isomers. Some of
these isomers are extremely toxic while others are thought to be relatively innocuous.
2,3,7,8-TCDD is the most extensively studied and toxic of the dioxin isomers.
2,3,7,8-TCDD is the most toxic synthetic compound ever tested under laboratory
conditions. Exposure may occur through the ingestion of soil or sediment, or through
the ingestion of suspended organic material in water. Exposure to dioxin can result in
delayed and acute mortality as well as carcinogenic, teratogenic, mutagenic,
histopathologic, immunotoxic, and reproductive effects. These effects vary widely
among species. Dioxin in Lake Ontario has been associated with poor reproduction in
herring gulls. It has also been linked to the death of livestock and wildlife in eastern
Missouri in 1971 (Eisler 1986b; ATSDR 1989f; HSDB 1995).
27. Hexachlorobenzene
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^ (4.0) value, hexachlorobenzene should adsorb moderately
to soil and sediment. Hexachlorobenzene has a low water solubility (6.20 x 103
mg/L). No significant degradation was noted in screening biodegradation tests in
activated sludge, or in soil (HSDB 1995). Based on its log BCF of 4.16,
hexachlorobenzene is expected to bioaccumulate in organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its log Kw (4.0) value, hexachlorobenzene should adsorb to
sediments. The reported half-life in surface water is eight hours. Based on its water
solubility (6.20 x 10"3 mg/L), almost all hexachlorobenzene present in the water
column should be associated with suspended solids. Based on its Henry's Law
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 28 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Constant (1.3 x 10~3 atm-m3/mol), volatilization of hexachlorobenzene from surface
water may be a significant fate process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^ (4.0) value, hexachlorobenzene should adsorb to soil and
leaching will not be an important fate process. Based on its vapor pressure (1.9 x
10'5 mm Hg), hexachlorobenzene would be expected to have very slow volatilization
from surface soil. A half-life of 1,530 days was reported for volatilization from soil
(HSDB 1995).
d) Fate in Biota
Based on its water solubility (6.20 x 10~3 mg/L) and log K^ (5.89) values,
hexachlorobenzene would be expected to bioaccumulate in biota. This is confirmed
by hexachlorobenzene's log BCF value of 4.16 (U.S. EPA 1992c).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Hexachlorobenzene is a synthetic organic chemical and does not have any
natural sources. Wildlife exposure may occur through the ingestion of soil or
sediment, or through the ingestion of suspended organic material in water. Tissue
concentrations of chlorinated benzenes in fish and terrestrial species were highest for
hexachlorobenzene. Hexachlorobenzene has been found to cause delayed and acute
mortality, hematological, hepatic, immunological, neurological, reproductive, and
carcinogenic effects (U.S. EPA 1985b; ATSDR 1989e; HSDB 1995).
28. Hexachlorobutadiene
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log !£„. (3.71) value, hexachlorobutadiene should adsorb to soil
and sediment. Hexachlorobutadiene has a moderately low water solubility (4.0
mg/L). Hexachlorobutadiene was found to degrade completely after 7 days incubation
under aerobic conditions. Hexachlorobutadiene will react with photochemically-
produced hydroxyl radicals and ozone in the atmosphere. Based on its log BCF of
3.76, hexachlorobutadiene is expected to bioaccumulate in organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its log K^ (3.71) value, hexachlorobutadiene should adsorb to
sediments. Based on its water solubility (4.0 mg/L), hexachlorobutadiene will occur
in solution and will also be adsorbed to suspended solids. Based on its Henry's Law
Constant (1.03 x 10'2 atm-m3/mol), volatilization of hexachlorobutadiene from surface
water should be a significant fate process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^ (3.71) value, hexachlorobutadiene should adsorb to soil.
Based on its water solubility (4.0 mg/L) some leaching may occur. Based on its
vapor pressure (0.15 mm Hg), volatilization from surface soil may occur.
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 29 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
d) Fate in Biota
Based on its water solubility (4.0 mg/L) and log K^ (4.81) values,
hexachlorobutadiene may bioaccumulate in biota. This is confirmed by
hexachlorobutadiene's log BCF value of 3.76 (U.S. EPA 1992c). The BCF for
rainbow trout ranged from 5,800 to 17,000 (HSDB 1995).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Hexachlorobutadiene is a synthetic organic chemical and does not have any
natural sources. Wildlife exposure may occur through the ingestion of water,
sediment, or soil, or through the inhalation of air. Inhalation of hexachlorobutadiene
has been shown to cause respiratory and developmental effects as well as acute
mortality. Oral exposure to hexachlorobutadiene has been shown to cause renal,
hematological, hepatic, neurological, reproductive, developmental, and carcinogenic
effects, as well as mortality (ATSDR 1992b). Hexachlorobutadiene is moderately to
very toxic to aquatic organisms. Hexachlorobutadiene is slightly to moderately toxic
to adult rats, moderately toxic to male weanling rats, and highly toxic to female
weanling rats (IPCS 1994).
29. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
a) Summary of Fate
Its high log K^ (3.63) indicates that hexachlorocyclopentadiene should adsorb
to sediment and soil. Its water solubility (2.0 mg/L) indicates that leaching to
groundwater will be relatively minor. Hydrolysis and photolysis are reported to be
the dominant fate pathways in surface water. Photolysis may also play an important
role in surface soil. Reported BCF values ranged from < 11 in the fathead minnow
to 1,634 in the mosquito (HSDB 1995).
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its log K^ (3.63) value, hexachlorocyclopentadiene should adsorb to
sediment. Based on its water solubility (2.0 mg/L), hexachlorocyclopentadiene should
be present in the water column only at low concentrations and should be associated
with suspended solids. Its Henry's Law Constant (2.7 x 10"2 atm-m3/mol) indicates
that volatilization from surface water would be a significant fate process. The half-
life in surface water ranged from 1.0 minute to 7.2 days based on photolysis and
hydrolysis.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based to its log K^ (3.63) value, hexachlorocyclopentadiene would be
expected to adsorb strongly to soil. Due to its low water solubility (2 mg/L) leaching
to groundwater should be slow. Its low vapor pressure (0.080 mm Hg) indicates that
volatilization from soil would not be a significant fate process. Reported half-lives in
soil ranged from seven days to four weeks based on aqueous biodegradation.
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 30 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
d) Fate in Biota
Some moderate bioaccumulation may occur. Reported BCF values range from
< 11 in the fathead minnow to 1,634 in the mosquito (HSDB 1995).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene is a synthetic organic chemical and does not have
any natural sources. Wildlife exposure may occur through the ingestion of water,
sediment, and soil, or through the inhalation of air. Inhalation of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene has been found to cause hematological, immunological,
neurological, pulmonary, and ocular effects. Oral exposure to
hexachlorocyclopentadiene has been found to cause hepatic, renal, gastrointestinal,
neurological, and acute mortality effects. Low concentrations of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene have been shown to be toxic to aquatic life.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene appears to be most toxic when administered by inhalation,
and is a severe primary irritant (IPCS 1991d; HSDB 1995).
30. Pentachlorobenzene
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its high log K^ (4.19) value, pentachlorobenzene should adsorb
strongly to sediment and soil. Pentachlorobenzene has a low water solubility (0.24
mg/L) and would not be found in the water column at significant concentrations
unless associated with suspended solids. Volatilization from surface water is expected
to occur. Reported BCFs for pentachlorobenzene range from 3,400 in the bluegill to
260,000 in the guppy (HSDB 1995).
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its high log K^ (4.19) value, pentachlorobenzene should partition
strongly to sediment. Based on its low water solubility (0.24 mg/L), most
pentachlorobenzene found in the water column would be associated with suspended
solids. Based on its Henry's Law Constant (7.1 x 10~* atm-m3/mol), volatilization
from surface water will be a significant fate process. The reported half-lives for
pentachlorobenzene in surface water range from 194 to 345 days based on
biodegradation.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K,,. (4.19), pentachlorobenzene is expected to adsorb strongly
to soils and leaching should not be an important fate process. Based on its vapor
pressure (0.016 mm Hg), pentachlorobenzene would be expected to have extremely
slow volatilization from surface soil. The reported half-lives for pentachlorobenzene
in soil ranged from 194 hours to 345 days.
d) Fate in Biota
Some bioaccumulation of pentachlorobenzene is expected. Reported BCFs for
pentachlorobenzene range from 3,400 in the bluegill to 260,000 in the guppy (HSDB
1995).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 31 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
e) Summary of Toxicity
Pentachlorobenzene is a synthetic organic chemical and does not have any
natural sources. Wildlife exposure may occur through the ingestion of soil, sediment,
and surface water, or through the inhalation of air. In general, the toxicity of
chlorinated benzenes increases as the number of substituted chlorine atoms on the
molecule increases. Oral administration of pentachlorobenzene caused neurological,
hepatic, reproductive, and developmental effects (U.S. EPA 1985b; HSDB 1995).
31. Pentachlorophenol
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^. (3.54) value, pentachlorophenol should adsorb to soil and
sediment. Pentachlorophenol has a moderate water solubility (14.0 mg/L).
Pentachlorophenol does biodegrade but may require several weeks for acclimation
(HSDB 1995). Based on its log BCF of 2.62, this chemical may have some potential
to bioaccumulate in organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its log K^. (3.54) value, pentachlorophenol should adsorb to
sediments. Based on its water solubility (14.0 mg/L), pentachlorophenol will occur in
solution and will also be adsorbed to suspended solids. Based on its Henry's Law
Constant (2.75 x 10"6 atm-nrVmol), volatilization of pentachlorophenol from surface
water should be a slow process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^ (3.54) value, pentachlorophenol should adsorb to soil.
Based on its water solubility (14.0 mg/L), some leaching may occur. Based on its
vapor pressure (1.10 x 10"* mm Hg), volatilization from surface soil should be a slow
process.
d) Fate in Biota
Based on its water solubility (14.0 mg/L) and log K^, (5.09) values,
pentachlorophenol may bioaccumulate in biota. This is confirmed by
pentachlorophenol's log BCF value of 2.62, which indicates some potential for
bioaccumulation (Howard 1991).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Pentachlorophenol is a synthetic organic chemical and does not have any
natural sources. Wildlife exposure may occur through the ingestion of water,
sediment, and soil. It may also enter the body through inhalation or dermal contact.
Its toxic action results from its ability to interfere with the production of high energy
phosphate compounds essential for cell respiration. Pentachlorophenol is fetotoxic
and teratogenic, but evidence for mutagenicity or carcinogenicity is incomplete.
Commercial preparations of pentachlorophenol often contain variable amounts of toxic
impurities, such as chlorophenols, hexachlorobenzene, phenoxyphenols, dioxins, and
dibenzofurans, that contribute to its toxicity. Pentachlorophenol is rapidly
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 32 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
accumulated and excreted and has little tendency to persist in living organisms. Algae
appear to be the most sensitive aquatic organisms. Oral exposure to
pentachlorophenol has been found to cause immunological, developmental,
reproductive, hematological, hepatic, renal, immunological, neurological, and
carcinogenic effects, as well as mortality (Eisler 1989; IPCS 1987; ATSDR 1992e;
HSDB 1995).
32. 1,4-Dioxane
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^ (1.23), 1,4-dioxane would not be expected to adsorb to
sediment. 1,4-Dioxane is miscible in water and would therefore be found in the
water column. Biodegradation and volatilization are both expected to be slow. Based
on its log K™ (-0.39), 1,4-dioxane has little potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic
organisms.
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its log K^ (1.23), 1,4-dioxane would not be expected to adsorb to
sediment. 1,4-dioxane is miscible in water and would therefore be found in the water
column. It's Henry's Law Constant (4.88 x 10"6 atm-m3/mol) indicates that
volatilization from surface water would be slow. The half-life in surface water is four
weeks to six months based on unacclimated aerobic biodegradation.
c) Fate in Aquatic Biota
No bioconcentration data were available for 1,4-dioxane. Based on its K^
(-0.39), 1,4-dioxane has little potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms.
d) Summary of Toxicity
1,4-dioxane is a synthetic organic compound and does not have any natural
sources. Exposure to 1,4-dioxane is expected to occur primarily through the ingestion
of water or absorption through the skin with lesser exposure occurring through
inhalation. Oral exposure to 1,4-dioxane has been found to cause hepatic, renal,
neurological, gastrointestinal, developmental, and carcinogenic effects (HSDB 1995).
33. Acetone
a) Summary of Fate
Its high vapor pressure (231 mm Hg) and moderate Henry's Law Constant
(3.67 x 10"5 atm-m3/mol) suggest that acetone will volatilize readily. Due to its low
log K^ (-0.24) and log K^ (0.34) values, acetone will not adsorb to sediment,
suspended organic material, or soil. Acetone is miscible with water.
Bioconcentration in aquatic organisms is not significant.
b) Aquatic Fate
Because acetone is characterized by a low log KO,. value (0.34), it is not
expected to adsorb to sediment or suspended organic material. Acetone is miscible
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 33 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
with water and may therefore partition to the water column. Based on its Henry's
Law Constant of 3.67 x Ifr5 atm-mVmol, acetone will volatilize from water with an
estimated half-life of 20 hours. Acetone is readily biodegradable (HSDB 1995).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Due to its low log K,,,, value, acetone is not expected to adsorb to soil, and,
because it is miscible with water, acetone may leach into groundwater. Its high vapor
pressure (231 mm Hg) suggests that acetone will volatilize rapidly from soil. Acetone
readily biodegrades hi soil (HSDB 1995).
d) Fate in Biota
The low log KOW value for acetone suggests that this chemical has little
potential for bioaccumulation. This is supported by a measured bioconcentration
factor of 0.69 (HSDB 1995).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Acetone is emitted to the atmosphere from both natural (vegetation, volcanoes,
forest fires) and anthropogenic (vehicular exhaust, chemical manufacturing,
woodburning and pulping, refuse and polyethylene combustion) sources. Wildlife
exposure to acetone may occur through inhalation, ingestion of water, or dermal
absorption through the skin. In general, acetone has a relatively low toxicity to
organisms. Inhalation exposure has been found to produce respiratory, hematological,
hepatic, renal, immunological, neurological, developmental, and reproductive effects,
as well as mortality. Oral exposure has been found to cause gastrointestinal,
hematological, hepatic, renal, neurological, reproductive, and developmental effects,
as well as mortality (ATSDR 1992a; HSDB 1995).
34. Acetonitrile
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^ (1.20), acetonitrile would not be expected to adsorb to
sediment or soil. Acetonitrile is miscible in water and should leach readily to
groundwater. Volatilization is expected to be slow and biodegradation is expected to
be moderate. Based on its log K,^ (-0.34), acetonitrile has little potential for
bioaccumulation.
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its log K^ (1.20), acetonitrile would not be expected to adsorb to
sediment. Acetonitrile is miscible in water and would therefore be found in the water
column. It's Henry's Law Constant (2.93 x 10"5 atm-mVmol) indicates that
volatilization from surface water would be slow. The half-life in surface water is one
to four weeks based on aerobic river die-away test data.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^. (1.20), acetonitrile would not be expected to adsorb to soil
and should leach readily into groundwater. Its vapor pressure (88.81 mm Hg)
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 34 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
indicates that acetonitrile should volatilize from surface soil. The half-life in soil is
one to four weeks based on aerobic biodegradation.
d) Fate in Biota
Bioconcentration data were not available for acetonitrile. Based on its log K<,w
(-0.34), bioaccumulation is not expected to occur.
e) Summary of Toxicity
Acetonitrile is emitted to the environment from both natural (combustion of
vegetation) and anthropogenic (release from petrochemical facilities) sources.
Wildlife exposure to acetonitrile may occur through inhalation, ingestion of water, or
dermal absorption through the skin. Animal studies show that different species vary
widely in susceptibility to acetonitrile in single dose studies by various routes. In
general, acetonitrile has a low toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial microorganisms,
freshwater invertebrates, and fish. Acetonitrile induces toxic effects similar to those
seen in cyanide poisoning, although the onset of symptoms is somewhat delayed
compared to inorganic cyanides or other saturated nitriles. Inhalation has been found
to cause pulmonary hemorrhage, vascular congestion, hepatic, renal, reproductive,
and developmental effects. Oral exposure has been found to cause developmental
effects. Dermal application causes systemic toxicity in mammals (U.S. EPA 1987b;
IPCS 1993b; HSDB 1995).
35. Acrylonitrile
a) Summary of Fate
The moderately high vapor pressure (107.8 mm Hg) and Henry's Law
Constant (1.10 x 10"4 atm-m3/mol) for acrylonitrile indicates that volatilization is an
important fate process for this chemical. Due to its low log K^. (-0.07) value,
acrylonitrile is not expected to bind to soil, sediment, or suspended organic material.
Its water solubility of 75,000 mg/L indicates that acrylonitrile is highly soluble in
water.
b) Aquatic Fate
Due to its low log K^ (-0.07) value, acrylonitrile is not expected to bind to
sediment or suspended organic material. Its high water solubility (75,000 mg/L)
suggests that acrylonitrile is likely to partition to the water column. With a
moderately high Henry's Law Constant of 1.10 x Ifr4 atm-m3/mol, acrylonitrile would
be expected to volatilize readily from water. The expected half-life for this process is
1 to 6 days. Biodegradation is likely to be slow (HSDB 1995).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Due to its low log K^ (-0.07) value, acrylonitrile is not expected to bind to
soil. Its moderately high vapor pressure (107.8 mm Hg) suggests that volatilization is
an important fate process for acrylonitrile. The high water solubility of acrylonitrile
suggests that it will leach readily into groundwater. Biodegradation from soil is
expected to be rapid (Howard 1989).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 35 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
d) Fate in Biota
Because of its low log K^, value, acrylonitrile is not expected to
bioaccumulate. A bioconcentration factor of 48 has been reported for this chemical
(HSDB 1995).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Acrylonitrile is a synthetic organic compound and does not have any natural
sources. Wildlife exposure to acrylonitrile may occur through inhalation, ingestion
of water, or dermal absorption through the skin. Inhalation exposure to acrylonitrile
has been found to cause renal, hepatic, respiratory, developmental, neurological, and
carcinogenic effects, as well as mortality. Oral exposure to acrylonitrile has been
found to cause developmental, reproductive, hematological, carcinogenic effects.
Dermal application of acrylonitrile has also been found to have a general toxic effect
(congestive plethora and hemorrhages) (ATSDR 1989d; HSDB 1995).
36. Chloroform
a) Summary of Fate
Due to the high vapor pressure (246 mm Hg) and high Henry's Law Constant
(4.35 x 10"3 atm-m3/mol) for chloroform, volatilization is expected to be an important
fate process for this chemical. Its low log K^ (1.53) value suggests that chloroform
should not adsorb to sediment, suspended organic material, or soil. This is further
supported by its relatively high water solubility (7,950 mg/L), which indicates that
chloroform should readily partition to surface water and groundwater. Significant
bioaccumulation is not expected to occur.
b) Aquatic Fate
Because of its low log K^. value, chloroform should not adsorb appreciably to
sediment, suspended organic material, or soil. The relatively high water solubility of
chloroform (7,950 mg/L) suggests that it will partition strongly to the water column.
Based on its high Henry's Law Constant (4.35 x 10~3 atm-m3/mol), chloroform is
expected to volatilize readily from water. The half-life in surface water based on
volatilization is 36 hours to 10 days (Howard 1989).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Due to its high vapor pressure (246 mm Hg), chloroform would be expected to
volatilize significantly from soil. Because of its low log K,,, value, chloroform is not
expected to adsorb strongly to the soil. Its high water solubility (7,950 mg/L)
suggests that chloroform will leach rapidly from the soil to groundwater.
d) Fate in Biota
Because of its low log K^ (1.92) value, chloroform is not expected to
bioaccumulate. This is supported by measured bioaccumulation factors of 10.35 and
less (HSDB 1995).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 36 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
e) Summary of Toxicity
Chloroform is a man-made and naturally-occurring compound, although
anthropogenic sources (chloroform manufacture and use, formation in chlorinated
drinking water, and municipal and industrial waste water) are responsible for most of
the chloroform in the environment. Wildlife exposure to chloroform may occur
through inhalation, ingestion of water, or dermal absorption through the skin.
Inhalation exposure to chloroform has been found to cause respiratory, hepatic, renal,
immunological, neurological, developmental, reproductive, and carcinogenic effects,
as well as mortality. Oral exposure to chloroform has been found to cause
gastrointestinal, hematological, hepatic, immunological, neurological, renal,
developmental, reproductive, and carcinogenic effects, as well as mortality. Dermal
exposure to chloroform has been found to cause renal effects in rabbits (ATSDR
1991b; HSDB 1995).
37. Crotonaldehyde
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^. (1.70), crotonaldehyde would not be expected to adsorb to
sediment or soil. Crotonaldehyde is highly soluble (181,000 mg/L) in water and
should leach readily to groundwater. Volatilization is expected to be slow and
biodegradation is expected to be rapid. Based on its log K^,, (0.63), crotonaldehyde
has little potential for bioaccumulation.
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its KO,. (1.70), crotonaldehyde would not be expected to adsorb to
sediment. Crotonaldehyde has a solubility of 181,000 mg/L and would therefore be
found in the water column. It's Henry's Law Constant (1.96 x 10~5 atm-m3/mol)
indicates that volatilization from surface water would be slow. The half-life in
surface water is one to seven days based on unacclimated aerobic biodegradation.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^. (1.70), crotonaldehyde would not be expected to adsorb to
soil and should leach readily into groundwater. Its vapor pressure (19 mm Hg)
indicates that crotonaldehyde should volatilize from surface soil. The half-life in soil
is one to seven days based on unacclimated aerobic biodegradation.
d) Fate in Biota
Bioconcentration data were not available for crotonaldehyde. Based on its log
(0.63), bioaccumulation is not expected to occur.
e) Summary of Toxicity
Crotonaldehyde is emitted to the environment from both natural (certain
vegetation, volcanoes, and forest fires) and anthropogenic (automobile exhaust, wood
and polymer combustion) sources. Wildlife exposure to crotonaldehyde may occur
through the inhalation of air or the ingestion of water. Inhalation exposure has been
Volume VT External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 37 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
found to cause pulmonary effects. Oral exposure has been found to cause hepatic,
neurological, reproductive, and carcinogenic effects (HSDB 1995).
38. Dimethylamine
a) Summary of Fate
Dimethylamine's high vapor pressure (1,520 mm Hg) indicates that
volatilization will occur readily from soil and its Henry's Law Constant (1.77 x 10"5
atm-m3/mol) suggests that volatilization may be an important fate process in water as
well. Because of its relatively low log K^ (2.64) value, dimethylamine will not
adsorb appreciably to sediment, suspended organic material, or soil. Its extremely
high water solubility (1,630,000 mg/L) suggests that dimethylamine will strongly
partition to surface water and groundwater. Biodegradation occurs readily and there
is little potential for bioaccumulation.
b) Aquatic Fate
Because of its relatively low log K^. (2.64) value, dimethylamine will not
adsorb appreciably to sediment or suspended organic material. Its extremely high
water solubility (1,630,000 mg/L) suggests that dimethylamine will strongly partition
to the water column. The Henry's Law Constant (1.77 x 10~3 atm-m3/mol) suggests
that volatilization from water should occur. The estimated half-life for this process is
35 hours. Biodegradation will be rapid (HSDB 1995).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Because of its relatively low log K^. value, dimethylamine is not expected to
adsorb appreciably to soil. Its extremely high water solubility suggests that dimethyl
amine will rapidly leach from soil to groundwater. Because of its high vapor pressure
(1,520 mm Hg), volatilization is expected to be an important fate process for
dimethylamine. Biodegradation is rapid and will occur readily (HSDB 1995).
d) Fate in Biota
Based on estimated bioconcentration factors and due to its low log K^ (-0.38)
value, dimethylamine is not expected to bioaccumulate in biota.
e) Summary of Toxicity
Dimethylamine is emitted to the environment from both natural (natural
component of many foods and mammalian bodily wastes) and anthropogenic (released
during its manufacture and use as a chemical intermediate, an antioxidant, rubber
accelerator, and in dyes and textile chemicals) sources. Wildlife exposure to
dimethylamine may occur through inhalation of air or the ingestion of water.
Inhalation exposure has been found to cause respiratory corneal, hepatic, and
reproductive effects (HSDB 1995).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 38 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
39. Dimethylhydrazine
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K,,,. (-0.91) dimethylhydrazine would not be expected to
adsorb to sediment or soil. Its water solubility (100 mg/L) indicates that it may leach
to surface water and groundwater. Volatilization of dimethylhydrazine is expected to
be slow. The half-life in soil and surface water is estimated to be 14 to 195 seconds
based on hydrolysis. Based on its log K^ (-0.93), it has little potential to
bioaccumulate.
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its log K^. (-0.91) dimethylhydrazine would not be expected to
adsorb to sediment. Its water solubility (100 mg/L) indicates that it may leach into
groundwater. Based on its Henry's Law Constant (4.58 x 10"3 atm-m3/mol),
volatilization from surface water would be slow. The half-life in soil is estimated to
be 14 to 195 seconds based on hydrolysis.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K,,,, (-0.91) dimethylhydrazine would not be expected to
adsorb to soil. Its water solubility (100 mg/L) indicates that it will leach into
groundwater. Based on its vapor pressure (20.93 mm Hg), some volatilization from
surface soil will occur. The half-life in soil is estimated to be 14 to 195 seconds
based on hydrolysis.
d) Fate in Biota
No bioconcentration data were available for dimethylhydrazine. Based on its
log KW (-0.93), it has little potential to bioaccumulate.
e) Summary of Toxicity
Dimethylhydrazine is a synthetic organic compound and does not have any
natural sources. Wildlife exposure to dimethylhydrazine may occur through the
inhalation of air, ingestion of water, or dermal absorption through the skin.
Inhalation exposure to dimethylhydrazine has been found to cause respiratory,
neurological, and hematological effects. Oral exposure to dimethylhydrazine has been
found to cause developmental, hematological, and carcinogenic effects. Dermal
exposure has resulted hi corneal opacity (HSDB 1995). Dimethylhydrazine is
moderately toxic to aquatic organisms (HSDB 1995).
40. Formaldehyde
a) Summary of Fate
The low Henry's Law Constant (3.27 x 10"7 atm-m3/mol) for formaldehyde
indicates that this chemical would not be expected to volatilize from water, but its
high vapor pressure (3,883 mm Hg) indicates that volatilization from soil is an
important fate process for this chemical. The low log K^. (0.56) value for
formaldehyde suggest that this chemical will not adsorb to soil, sediment, or
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 39 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
suspended organic material. Formaldehyde is up to 55 percent soluble in water. It is
rapidly degraded and has little potential for bioaccumulation (Howard 1989).
b) Aquatic Fate
The low log K,,,. (0.56) value for formaldehyde suggests that this chemical will
not adsorb to sediment or suspended organic material. Its low Henry's Law Constant
(3.27 x 10'7 atm-m3/mol) indicates that formaldehyde would not be expected to
volatilize from water. Formaldehyde undergoes rapid biodegradation by bacteria;
biodegradation takes place in a few days (HSDB 1995).
c) Terrestrial Fate
The low log KO,. value for formaldehyde suggests that this chemical will not
adsorb to soil, but its fate in soil is unknown (HSDB 1995). Its high vapor pressure
(3,883 mm Hg) indicates that formaldehyde is readily volatilized from surface soil.
Formaldehyde is up to 55 percent soluble in water and therefore may be available for
leaching into groundwater.
d) Fate in Biota
Bioconcentration of formaldehyde is not expected to occur in biota and has not
been shown to occur (HSDB 1995). This is supported by the low log K^ (-0.05)
value reported for this chemical.
e) Summary of Toxicity
Formaldehyde is emitted to the environment from both natural (forest fires,
animal wastes, microbial products, vegetation) and anthropogenic (combustion sources
such as automobiles, wood burning, power plants, and refineries; release during
manufacture of urea-formaldehyde, phenol-formaldehyde, and melamine resins; and
emissions from particleboard and paneling) sources. Wildlife exposure to
formaldehyde may occur through the inhalation of air, ingestion of water, or dermal
absorption through the skin. Formaldehyde is used as a disinfectant to kill viruses,
bacteria, fungi, and parasites, but it is only effective at relatively high concentrations.
Algae, protozoa, and other unicellular organisms are relatively sensitive to
formaldehyde. Inhalation of formaldehyde has been found to cause pulmonary,
hepatic, renal, and carcinogenic effects. Oral exposure to formaldehyde has been
found to cause reproductive, developmental, and carcinogenic effects. Dermal
exposure has been found to produce hepatic and developmental effects (IPCS 1989b;
HSDB 1995).
41. Hydrazine
a) Summary of Fate
Due to the low reported log K^ (-1.0) value for hydrazine, it would not be "
expected to adsorb significantly to sediment, suspended organic material, or soil.
Hydrazine has a high water solubility (28,200 mg/L). The Henry's Law Constant of
1.73 x 10"9 atm-m3/mol indicates that volatilization from surface water will be slow
while the vapor pressure of 14.4 mm Hg indicates that hydrazine should volatilize
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 40 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
readily to the atmosphere from surface soils. Biodegradation is not expected to be
significant at high hydrazine levels, but may be an important fate process at low
levels (HSDB 1995). Hydiazine is not expected to accumulate significantly in biota.
b) Aquatic Fate
Due to its high water solubility (28,200 mg/L), hydrazine would be found in
the water column. The low Henry's Law Constant of 1.73 x 10~9 atm-m3/mol
indicates that hydrazine volatilization from surface water will not be a significant fate
process, the reported half-life in surface water is 8.3 days (Howard 1989).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^. value, hydrazine would not be expected adsorb
significantly to soil. The moderate vapor pressure reported for hydrazine (14.4 mm
Hg) indicates that it should volatilize readily from surface soils. Its water solubility
suggests that hydrazine will leach readily from soil.
d) Fate in Biota
The water solubility and log K^ values for hydrazine suggest that it will not
bioaccumulate significantly in biota. This is confirmed by a reported log BCF of 2.5
(HSDB 1995).
e) Summary of Toxicity
Hydrazine is emitted to the environment from both natural (nitrogen fixation
by algae) and anthropogenic (aerospace propellant and boiler water treatment agent).
Wildlife exposure to hydrazine may occur through the inhalation of air, ingestion of
water, or dermal absorption through the skin. Inhalation exposure has been found to
cause hepatic, renal, pulmonary, and neurological effects. Oral exposure has been
found to cause hematological, developmental, and carcinogenic effects (HSDB 1995).
42. Vinyl Chloride
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its high vapor pressure (2,660 mg Hg) and Henry's Law Constant
(0.056 atm-m3/mol), volatilization should be an important fate process for vinyl
chloride. Based on its low log K,,,. (0.39) value, vinyl chloride is not expected to
partition to soil, sediment, or suspended organic material. Vinyl chloride has a high
water solubility of 1,100 mg/L. Bioconcentration is not expected to be significant for
vinyl chloride.
b) Aquatic Fate
Due to its low log K^, (0.39) value, vinyl chloride would not be expected to
adsorb to sediments or suspended organic material. Its high water solubility (1,100
mg/L) indicates that vinyl chloride would be expected to partition to the water
column. Its high Henry's Law Constant (0.056 atm-m3/mol) indicates that
volatilization from surface water will be an important fate process for vinyl chloride.
Its reported half-life hi surface water is 672 to 4,320 hours (Howard et al. 1991).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 41 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
c) Terrestrial Fate
Due to its low log K^, (0.39) value, vinyl chloride is not expected to adsorb to
soil. Because of its high water solubility (1,100 mg/L), vinyl chloride would be
expected to leach to groundwater. Its vapor pressure (2,660 mm Hg) indicates that
volatilization from surface soil will be an important fate process for vinyl chloride.
The reported half-life in surface soil is 672 to 4,320 hours (Howard et al. 1991).
d) Fate in Biota
Based on its low log K^, value (1.50) vinyl chloride would not be expected to
bioconcentrate.
e) Summary of Toxicity
Vinyl chloride is a synthetic organic compound and does not have any natural
sources. Wildlife exposure to vinyl chloride may occur through the inhalation of air
or the ingestion of water. Inhalation exposure to vinyl chloride has been found to
cause respiratory, hematological, hepatic, renal, immunological, neurological,
developmental, reproductive, and carcinogenic effects, as well as mortality. Oral
exposure to vinyl chloride has been found to cause hematological, hepatic, dermal,
and carcinogenic effects, as well as mortality (ATSDR 1991a; HSDB 1995).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-18 42 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - INHALATION
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-19 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Aluminum: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Oig/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Hamster
Rat
33,000
1,000,000
4 h/d; 3 days
4 hours
NOAEL - death, reproductive effects
NOAEL - death, reproductive effects
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Hamster
429
4,200
10,000
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 6 months
6 h/d; 20 days
NOAEL
LOAEL - respiratory effects
LOAEL - respiratory effects
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
Volume VI
Ap»-ndix VI-19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Antimony: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0«g/ni3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Guinea pig
799,000
1,395,000
799,000
1,395,000
30 minutes
30 minutes
NOAEL
LOAEL - increased mortality
NOAEL
LOAEL - increased mortality
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
m
1,600
2,200
17,480
17,480
36,000
36,000
209,000
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 13 weeks
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 12 months
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 6 weeks
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 1 year
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 1 year
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 1 year
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 1 year
4 h/d; 63-78 days
LOAEL - respiratory effects
LOAEL - respiratory effects
LOAEL - respiratory effects
LOAEL - respiratory effects
NOAEL - death
LOAEL - respiratory effects
NOAEL - death
Decreased number of offspring; difficulty conceiving
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Organism
Concentration
(pg/m3)
Arsenic: Inhalation Toxicity
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
9 Rat
6* Mouse
2,100,000
3,470,000
2 hours
2 hours
LCX
LC10
ATSDR 1993a
ATSDR 1993a
Chronic Endpoints
Mouse
Mouse
m
2,900
28,500
2,000
20,000
4 h/d; day 9-12 of gestation
4 h/d; day 9-12 of gestation
4 h/d; day 9-12 of gestation
4 h/d; day 9-12 of gestation
4 h/d; day 9-12 of gestation
No significant fetal effects
9.9% decrease in fetal weight
Fetotoxic
NOAEL
LOAEL - 29% fetal deaths; 62% skeletal malformations
Eisler 1988a
ATSDR 1993a
Volume VI
Ar"
-------
Barium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Otg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
-------
Beryllium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
teg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mammals
Rat
Monkey
Rat
Hamster
Monkey
Rat
Rat
Dog
Hamster
Guinea pig
Monkey
Rat
Cat
34
40
150
184
210
210
210
430
860
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 72 weeks
100 days
4 hours
6 h/d; 7-17 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 6 months
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 6 months
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 6 months
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 51-100 days
4 hours
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 51 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 51 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 51 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 51 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 51 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 51 days
Increased mortality - females
NOAEL - death
LC»
LC»
Increased mortality
Increased mortality
Increased mortality
LCjo
LCso
LCro
LC*
LCg)
LC100
LC*.
LCjo
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
V J
Beryllium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Rabbit
Mouse
Mouse
Guinea pig
Cat
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
2,000
2,000
3,000
4,020
4,020
Duration
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 51 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 51 days
2 hours
4 hours
4 hours
Effect
LC10
LC10
LCjo
LCjo
LCjo
Reference
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Rat
Rat
Dog
Monkey
Monkey
Monkey
Hamster
Monkey
Rat
&8
21
34
35
40
40
198
210
620
620
620
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 80 weeks
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 72 weeks
4-8 h/d; 5-6 d/w; 30 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 51-100 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 51-100 days
6 h/d; 30 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 12-23 months
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 12-23 months
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 12-23 months
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 12-23 months
NOAEL
LOAEL - lung inflamation
Lung inflamation; decreased body weight
NOAEL - immunological effects
Emphysema
Emphysema
Emphysema
Lung inflamation
NOAEL - immunological effects
NOAEL - immunological effects
NOAEL - immunological effects
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
IPCS 1990b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Beryllium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Dog
Rat
Concentration
0*g/m3)
3,600
30,000
Duration
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 40 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 15 days
Effect
Emphysema
Respiratory distress
Reference
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
Volume VI
Ap^-ndix VI-19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Cadmium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
C*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Rat
25,000
33,000
30 minutes
IS minutes
LQo
lAo
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1993b
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Rat
—
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
? Rat
m
160
90
100
160
160
1,000
600
1,000
2,800
5 h/d x 5 d/w x 20 weeks
22 h/d x 7 d/w x 18 months
—
5 h/d x 5 d/w x 4-5 months
5 h/d x 5 d/w x 4-5 months
24 h/d x 21 days
6 h/d x 5 d/w x 62 days
4 h/d; GD 1-22
NOAEL
LOAEL - increased duration of estrus cycle
30% mortality
Wildlife inhalation threshold
Reduced viability of progeny
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased fertility
Reduced fetal body weight
NOAEL - reproduction
Increased mortality in offspring; lower fetal and
offspring body weight
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
Eisler 1985a
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
IPCS 1992c
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Chromium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
G*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
? Rat
0 Rat
Rat
6* Rat
9 Rat
6* Rat
6* Rat
? Rat
6* Rat
29,000
31,000
33,000
35,000
45,000
70,000
82,000
87,000
137,000
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
LC»
LCa
LC*
LCM
LC*
lAo
LCs)
LC*
LCjo
Chronic Endpoints
—
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Cat
1
100
1,810
15,500
115,000
—
22 h/d; 7 d/w; 18 months
2 h/d; 2 d/w; 12 months
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 2 years
1 h/d; 4 months
Wildlife inhalation threshold
NOAEL - systemic effects
Emphysema
NOAEL - systemic effects
No adverse effects
ATSDR 1993h
ATSDR 1993h
ATSDR 1993h
ATSDR 1993h
ATSDR 1993h
ATSDR 1993h
ATSDR 1993h
ATSDR 1993h
ATSDR 1993h
Eisler 1986c
ATSDR 1993h
ATSDR 1993h
ATSDR 1993h
Eisler 1986c
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Copper: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
G*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
Rabbit
ii
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 4-6 weeks
NOAEL - respiratory and immunological effects
ATSDR 1989g
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
11
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Cyanide: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rock dove
Canary
Cat
Rabbit
Mouse
Rat
S8P '
115,536
120,000
120,000
126,672
144,768
224,808
350,088
60 'minutes
30 minutes
10 minutes
10 minutes
30 minutes
35 minutes
5 minutes
5 minutes
LCjo
LC»
LC1CO
LC100
LC*
LC*
LCW
LCjo
ATSDR 1993c
ATSDR 1993c
Eisler 1991
Eisler 1991
ATSDR 1993c
ATSDR 1993c
ATSDR 1993c
ATSDR 1993c
Chronic Endpoints
Dog
31,320
30 min/d, every other
day, for 4 weeks
Dyspnea; vomiting; vascular and cellular central
nervous system lesions
ATSDR 1993c
Volume VI
A?—
-------
Lead: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Oig/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
Rabbit
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
2.5
10 - |P
1,000
3,000
10,000
Lifetime
1 year
24 h/d; GD 1-21
24 yd; GD 1-21
24 h/d; GD 1-21
No adverse effect
No direct effects but increased tissue levels
Fetal effects
Effects on newborn
Fetotoxicity
Eisler 1988b
Eisler 1988b
ATSDR 1993d
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
13
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Mercury: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
fog/mj)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
$ Rat
2,500
Not reported
lAs
U.S. EPA 1984a
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
Pigeon
6* Rat
9 Rat
Rat
-------
Nickel: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(Aig/m3)
Duration
Effect
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Mouse
Rat
Cat
Rat
60
700
800
1,600
3,600
3,600
67,000
100,000
190,000
240,000
23 h/d; 7 d/w; Lifetime
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 78 weeks
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 16 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 16 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 16 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 16 days
30 minutes
20 minutes
30 minutes
30 minutes
23 % lower survival time
30% increase in mortality
NOAEL - death
NOAEL - death
NOAEL - death
NOAEL - death
LCjo
LC^
LC*
LC*
Reference
ATSDR 19931
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
2 Rat
c? Rat
3 Mouse
400
400
800
1,600
800
1,600
800
1,600
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 13 weeks
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 13 weeks
GD 1-21
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 16 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 16 days
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - decrease in fetal birth weight
NOAEL
LOAEL - testicular damage
NOAEL
LOAEL - testicular damage
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 19931
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 19931
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
15
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Nickel: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
6 Rat
Rat
Mouse
(J Mouse
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Hamster
Concentration
0»g/m$)
900
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,800
3,600
7,900
7,900
50,000
60,000
Duration
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 16 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 13 weeks
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 13 weeks
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 16 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 13 weeks
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 13 weeks
IS minutes
15 minutes; GD 4-5
Effect
NOAEL
LOAEL - testicular damage
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - testicular damage
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - fertility rates
Decreased fetal viability; increased number of fetal
malformations
Reference
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 19931
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
Volume VI
Apnendix VI-19
16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Selenium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Acute Endpoints
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Rabbit
Rat
1,000
9,000
12,700
31,000
31,000
33,000
8 hours
4 hours
2 hours
4 h/d x 8 days
4 h/d x 8 days
Not reported
LCy, (H2Se)
LCX (H2Se)
LCjo (H2Se)
NOAEL - death (Se dust)
NOAEL - death (Se dust)
LC^
Reference
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
OHM/TADS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
—
m
—
Wildlife threshold
Eisler 1985b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Silver: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0«g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Ar—ndix VI-19
18
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Thallium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Zinc: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
*xiSJhitt
*t*W
5,600
3,700
5,000
6,300
3 h/d; 5 days
3 h/d; 6 days
3 h/d; 6 days
3 hours
NOAEL
LOAEL - impaired lung function
Impaired lung function
Impaired lung function
Decreased lung capacity
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
Eisler 1993
ATSDR 1992d
Volume VI
Ap~ndix VI-19
20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Acetone: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0»g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Acute Endpoints
Guinea pig
Rat
Guinea pig
Rat
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Rat
24,110,000
38,576,000
48,220,000
50,100,000
52,559,800
120,550,000
121,996,600
24 h/d x 2 days
4 hours
22-26 hours
8 hours
25 minutes - 23.4 hours
3-4 hours
2 hours
100% mortality
17% mortality
89% mortality
LC»
20% mortality
100% mortality
100% mortality
Chronic Endpoints
Mammal
(unspecified)
Rat
Mouse
Mouse
Rat
W&$.
5,304,200
26,521,000
5,304,200
15,912,600
15,912,600
26,521,000
24 h/d on GD 1-13
6 h/d x 7 d/w; GD 6-19
6 h/d x 7 d/w; GD 6-17
6 h/d x 7 d/w; GD 6-17
6 h/d x 7 d/w; GD 6-19
Post-implantation mortality
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased fetal weight
NOAEL
LOAEL - increased incidence of late resorption; decreased
fetal weight
NOAEL - reproduction
NOAEL - reproduction
Reference
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Acetonitrile: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
G*g/mJ)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rabbit
Guinea pig
Rat
9 Hamster
Rat
Cat
Dog
545,864
4,521,210
4,747,858
9,494,038
12,677,185
13,431,000
13,431,000
18,000,000
26,862,000
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
9 Hamster
Rat
Ipjepfi
672,000
3,022,000
8,395,000
3,022,000
90 days
1 hour
4 hours
4 hours
8 hours
1 hour
4 hours
Not specified
4 hours
lAo
LC*
LC*
LCjo
LCa,
Death
LCLO
LC»
LCu,
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 13 weeks
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 13 weeks
1 hour; GD 8
6 h/d; GD 6-20
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - fetal malformations
Post-implantation mortality
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1987b
HSDB 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1987b
U.S. EPA 1987b
U.S. EPA 1987b
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Ap"*odix VI-19
22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Anthracene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
"chronic"
Reduced body weight gain; effects on blood chemistry
HSDB 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
23
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Benzo(a)pyrene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Otg/mJ)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Ap*«;ndix VI-19
24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0»g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Rat
300,000
1,000,000
6 h/d; GD 6-15
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 28 days
NOAEL - developmental effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Chloroform: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Gtg/mJ)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
6* Mouse
? Mouse
9 Rat
244,000
415,000
3,377,000
21,960,000
47,702,000
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 6 months
1-3 hours
9 hours
4 hours
NOAEL - death
Increased mortality (60%)
LCjo
LCjo
LC^
ATSDR 1991b
ATSDR 1991b
ATSDR 1991b
RTECS 1995;
ATSDR 1991b
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Rat
9 Rat
a&iw
146,000
146,000
150,000
488,000
488,000
488,000
488,000
1,460,000
488,000
1,460,000
GD 7-14
7 h/d on GD 6-15
7 h/d on GD 7-16
7 h/d on GD 6-15
7 h/d on GD 6-15
7 h/d on GD 1-7
7 h/d on GD 8-15
7 h/d on GD 6-15
7 h/d on GD 7-16
Fetotoxicity; fetal death
Effects on fertility; developmental abnormalities of the
musculoskeletal system
Slight growth retardation
LOAEL - fetotoxicity; retarded development
Developmental abnormalities of the gastrointestinal system
Effects on fertility index; post-implantation mortality;
fetotoxicity
Craniofacial developmental abnormalities; 30-48 % decrease
in the ability to maintain pregnancy
NOAEL - reproduction
LOAEL - 73 % decreased conception rate
NOAEL - reproduction
LOAEL - decreased implantation
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1991b
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995;
ATSDR 1991b
ATSDR 1991b
ATSDR 1991b
Volume VI
Ar idix VI-19
26
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Chloroform: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
? Rat
2 Rat
6* Mouse
Concentration
fctg/m3)
500,000
1,460,000
1,950,000
Duration
7 h/d on GD 6-15
7 h/d on GD 6-15
4 h/d; 5 days
Effect
Low incidence of acaudate fetuses with imperforated anuses
Effects on fertility index; post-implantation mortality
Increase in abnormal sperm
Reference
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1991b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
27
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Crotonaidehyde: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Otg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rat
200,000
580,000
4,000,000
2 hours
2 hours
30 minutes
lAo
LCjo
LCso
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
20,000
7 h/d; 8 weeks
Changes in liver weight
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Ar-«ndix VI-19
28
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,4-D: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
29
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
4,4'-DDE: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Ar~ •'dix VI-19
30
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Dimethylamine: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(jig/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mammal
(unspecified)
Mouse
Rat
3,700,000
6,200,000
8,370,000
Not reported
2 hours
6 hours
LC^
lA,,
lAo
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rabbit
Guinea pig
Monkey
Rat
Mouse
Rabbit
127,000
127,000
127,000
127,000
127,000
229,000
229,000
249,000
7 h/d x 5 d/w x 18 weeks
7 h/d x 5 d/w x 18 weeks
7 h/d x 5 d/w x 18 weeks
7 h/d x 5 d/w x 18 weeks
7 h/d x 5 d/w x 18 weeks
1 year
1 year
7 h/d x 5 d/w x 18 weeks
Central lobular fatty degeneration and necrosis of parenchymal
cells of the liver
Central lobular fatty degeneration and necrosis of parenchymal
cells of the liver
Central lobular fatty degeneration and necrosis of parenchymal
cells of the liver
Central lobular fatty degeneration and necrosis of parenchymal
cells of the liver
Degeneration of testes
Changes in blood serum composition; weight loss or decreased
weight gam; biochemical changes in phosphatase
Changes in serum composition; weight loss or decreased
weight gain
Degeneration of testes
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
31
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Formaldehyde: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Otg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mammal
(unspecified)
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Mouse
Rat
Cat
Rat
92,000
203,000
400,000
497,000
516,672
578,000
917,280
984,000
Not reported
Not reported
2 hours
4 hours
4 hours
4 hours
2 hours
30 minutes
LCa,
LCX
LCX
LCjo
LCjo
LC*
Death
LCj,,
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1989b
NAS 1980
IPCS 1989b
NAS 1980
IPCS 1989b
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
6* Rat
9 Rat
m
m
•®
35
50
24 hour exposure 15
days prior to mating and
on GD 1-22
24 h/d on GD 1-22
24 hour exposure 20
days prior to mating and
on GD 1-22
8 hour exposure 60 days
prior to mating
4 h/d on GD 1-19
Effects on growth statistics of newborn; other postnatal effects
Biochemical and metabolic effects on newborn
Biochemical and metabolic effects on newborn
Effects on paternal spermatogenesis
Behavioral effects on newborn
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1989b
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1989b
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1989b
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Ap—dix VI-19
32
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Formaldehyde: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
6" Rat
9 Rat
Hamster
Rat
9 Rat
Mouse
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
499
4,992
3,600
12,000
12,480
24,800
15,000
Duration
6 months
4 h/d on GD 1-19
22 h/d; 7 d/w; 26 weeks
6 h/d on GD 0-15
6 h/d on GD 6-20
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 13 weeks
Effect
No reproductive effects
No reproductive effects
No adverse effects
No reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - Significant reduction of fetal body weight;
fetotoxicity
No adverse effects
Reference
NAS 1980
NAS 1980
IPCS 1989b
IPCS 1989b
HSDB 1995
IPCS 1989b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
33
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorobenzene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Oig/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Cat
Not reported
RTECS 1995
Rabbit
1,800,000
Not reported
RTECS 1995
Rat
3,600,000
Not reported
RTECS 1995
Mouse
4,000,000
Not reported
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
A- ndixVI-19
34
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorobutadiene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(/tg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mouse
Mouse
Mouse
533,000
370,000
2,500,000
7 h/d; 5 days
Not reported
4 hours
100% mortality
LCjo
LDLO
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
53,000
107,000
160,000
6 h/d; 15 days
6 h/d; GD 6-20
6 h/d; GD 6-20
NOAEL
NOAEL - reproductive effects
LOAEL - reduction in fetal body weight
ATSDR 1992b
RTECS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1992b
ATSDR 1992b
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
35
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Otg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rabbit
Rat
Guinea pig
Mouse
Mouse
Rat
Rabbit
Guinea pig
Rat
Mouse
Rabbit
6* Rat
Mouse
Rat
Guinea pig
Rat
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
10,900
15,200
15,900
17,800
23,500
34,500
35,100
35,100
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 216 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 216 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 216 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 216 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; up to 20 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; up to 20 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; up to 25 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; up to 30 days
5 seven-hour periods
3 seven-hour periods
7 hours
4 hours
3.5 hours
3.5 hours
2 seven-hour periods
2 seven-hour periods
NOAEL - mortality
NOAEL - mortality
NOAEL - mortality
80% mortality
100% mortality by the 20th day
100% mortality by the 20th day
67% mortality by the 25th day
NOAEL - mortality
LCu,
lAo
LCu,
LC*.
LC*
LCa,
LCLO
LCLO
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
RTECS 1995
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
Volume VI
Apn-ndix VI-19
36
/ \
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
V y
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
? Rat
9 Rabbit
Guinea pig
Rat
Guinea pig
Concentration
(|tg/m3)
39,000
58,000
79,200
80,300
150,600
Duration
4 hours
3.5 hours
3.5 hours
1 hour
1 hour
Effect
LC*
LC*
lAo
LC*
lAo
Reference
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Monkey
Rat
112
245
m
1,116
2,231
2,231
5,578
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 90 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 14 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 30 weeks
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 90 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 90 days
6 h/d; 2 weeks
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL - systemic effects
NOAEL - systemic effects
NOAEL - systemic effects
Weight loss; effects to lungs and blood
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1984b
HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1984b
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
37
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorophene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Otg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mouse
Rat
290,000
340,000
Not reported
Not reported
LC^
lA,
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
6* Rat
9 Rat
•Ii8#
33,500
33,500
1 month
24 h/d; GD 1-20
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased sperm count
Effects on live birth index
U.S. EPA 1986b
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
A-- -^dixVI-19
38
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
?
Hydrazine: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Otg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mouse
Rat
330,000
747,000
4 hours
4 hours
LCjo
lAo
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
1,000
4,000
6,560
24h/donGD 1-11
2 h/d on GD 7-20
1 year prior to mating
Fetotoxicity; fetal death
Post-implantation mortality
Toxic effects on ovaries and fallopian tubes
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
39
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Pentachlorobenzene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Ap~odix VI-19
40
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Pentachlorophenol: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Otg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
14,000
45 minutes
lAo
ATSDR 1992e
Chronic Endpoints
—
Mouse
Rat
500
225,000
355,000
—
Not reported
Not reported
Wildlife inhalation threshold
Behavioral effects
Behavioral effects
Eisler 1989
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
41
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Rabbit
Guinea pig
Mouse
Rabbit
Guinea pig
Rat
Rabbit
Guinea pig
Mouse
;u3Dj
liP
upe
.y$
5,400
5,400
8,600
8,600
8,600
8,600
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 213 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 213 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 213 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 213 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 121 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 121 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 24 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 24 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 24 days
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 24 days
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
Decreased weight gain
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
Volume VI
Ap- -dixVI-19
42
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Vinyl Chloride: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
G*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mammal
Rat
511,247
460,000,000
18 minutes
15 minutes
LCu,
LCjo
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
6 Rat
6 Rat
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-20
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - PLANTS
SOIL EXPOSURES
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-20 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Available Plant lexicological Benchmark Values - Soil Exposures"
Chemical
Alloway 1990
Metals and Cyanide
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
NAd
$
20
NA
NA
3
75
60
NA
100
0,3
100
5
*
i.
70
Bysshe 1988
Environment
Canada 1994"
Will and Suter
1994a
Kabata-Pendias
& Pendias 1984
Other Sources'
NA
NA
3
NA
NA
5
5
20
NA
$
i
50
5
NA
NA
300
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
143
40
90
|
900
15
NA
NA
NA
NA
490
50
%
10
500
10
3
1.
100
NA
50
9$
n
t
*
i
so
NA
;S-10
15-50
NA
$
i-8
75- 100
60 - 125
NA
100-400
&3-5
100
5- 10
a
I
70-400
None
None
3.4
None
None
None
None
None
None
46
None
None
None
None
None
100
Organics
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
> 17,500
NA
NA
NA
NA
None
None
Volume VI
Ar -rdix VI-20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Available Plant lexicological Benchmark Values - Soil Exposures'*
Chemical
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Alloway 1990
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bysshe 1988
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Environment
Canada 1994b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
Will and Suter
1994a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i?
Kabata-Pendias
& Pendias 1984
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Other Sources0
' $P
ill
SO*
.iHT
None
None
None
None
None
None
68.8
100
* All values are in mg/kg soil; literature values based on chemicals in nutrient solution were not used since these values were not comparible to
estimated surface soil concentrations.
b ECjj, values for seedling emergence in lettuce and radish.
° Lowest values from the following tables.
d Not Available.
Data are for 4,4'-DDT.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for Arsenic
Plant Species
Alfalfa
Barley
Peas
Rice
Scot's pine
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
3.4
9.5
25
50
250
Effect
Reduced growth
Reduced growth
Decreased yields
75 % decrease in yield
Death - seedlings
Duration
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Reference
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
Volume VI
A"- ndixVI-20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for Lead
Plant Species
Cassia spp.
Cassia spp.
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
46
500
Effect
No effect - germination
Seed germination decreased
87%; pollen germination
decreased 90%
Duration
Not specified
Not specified
Reference
Eisler 1988b
Eisler 1988b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for Zinc
Plant Species
Red maple seedling
Oak seedling
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
100
100
Effect
Lethal
Lethal
Duration
Not specified
Not specified
Reference
Eisler 1993
Eisler 1993
Volume VI
A- idix VI-20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for Bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Plant Species
Spinach
Pea
Brassica rapa
Oaks
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
10°
W
1,000
1,000
Effect
No effect - growth
No effect - growth
No effect - growth
Slight effect - growth
Duration
14-16 days
14-16 days
Not specified
Not specified
Reference
IPCS 1992b
IPCS 1992b
IPCS 1992b
IPCS 1992b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for 2,4-D
Plant Species
Cotton
Xanthosoma sagittifolium
Lettuce, Borough wonder
Beet, Detriot Red Globe
Parsnip, Offenham
Carrot
Turnip, early white milan
Brussel Sprouts
Cauliflower
Cabbage, Sutton's Primo
Phaseolus vulgaris
Spinach, Bison's 33
Amaranthus retroflexus
Brassica Napus, Zephyr
Brassica Campestris, Span
Astragalus cicer, deer milkvetch
Astragalus cicer, cicer milkvetch
Bean, Suttons Exhibition long pod
Bean, French Dwarf Masterpiece
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.00034"
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for 2,4-D
Plant Species
Cyperus esculentus
Flax
Soybean
Peanut
Rice
Sorghum
Tomato
Barnyard grass
Bushbean
Cucumber
Onion
Echium plantagineum
Panicum coloratum
Amphiachyris psilostachyia
Sonchus spp.
Onobrychis viciaefolla
Poa pratensis
Artemisia cana
Buffalograss
Amphiachyris dracunculoides
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.76
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.75
1.9
2.1
Effect
Rhizome number decrease 89%
Plant injury 20%
Plant injury 85%
Plant injury 15%
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant injury 100%
None
Plant injury 89% ,
Plant injury 28%
Bulb fresh mass decrease
Plant size decrease, plant number decrease
Plant injury 32%
Shoot dry mass decrease 12%
Shoot kill 99%
Plant injury 70%
Leaf fresh mass decrease 26 %
Leaf kill 90%
Plant injury 22%
Shoot dry mass - no effect
Duration
5 weeks
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
15 days
Not specified
30 days
Not specified
30 days
30 days
7 weeks
.3 months
60 days
Not specified
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for 2,4-D
Plant Species
Trifolium spp.
Medlcago spp.
Barley
Head Lettuce
Endive
Cenchrus dliaris
Chinese Cabbage
Broccoli
Kochia scoparia
Leaf lettuce
Kale
Parsley
Radish
Convolvulvus arvensis
Potato, chippewa
Delphinium barbeyi
Oat
Chenopodium album
Bean
Convolvulvus arvensis
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.6
2.8
2.9
3.44
3.44
3.44
3.44
Effect
Plant size decrease, plant number decrease
Plant dry mass decrease 50%
Seed growth decrease 10%
Plant kill
Plant kill
Shoot dry mass decrease 33%
Plant kill
Plant kill
Plant fresh mass decrease 44%
Plant kill
Plant kill
Plant kill
Plant kill
Plant kill 61%
Plant stunting
Plant kill 100%
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 87%
Plant number decrease 40%, plant size decrease 40%
Plant - no effect
Duration
Not specified
10 days
12 days
Not specified
Not specified
1 month
Not specified
Not specified
18 days
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
1 year
2 weeks
10 years
Not specified
54 days
Not specified
2 years
Volume VI
Apn*ndix VI-20
10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for 2,4-D
Plant Species
Setaria virlatis
Canada thistle
Bluestemgrass, king range
Boctelova curtipenduta
Setaria macrostachya
Cynodon dactylon
Corylus cornuta
Mung Beans
Asparagus
Geranium viscosissimum
Comandra umbellata
Eriogonum ovalipolium
Delphinium depauperatum
Erigeron corymbosus
Delphinium glaucenscens
Crepis acumlnata
Rumex spp.
Salix spp.
Purshia tirdentata
Pseudotsuga taxifolia
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
3.44
3.9
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.5
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
Effect
Plant injury 80%
Root dry mass decrease 87%
Plant injury 10%
Plant injury 33.%
Plant injury 30%
Plant injury 40%
Plant kill 94%
Plant injury
Plant injury
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 16%
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 16%
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 16%
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Duration
54 days
6 weeks
60 days
60 days
60 days
60 days
1 year
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
11
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for 2,4-D
Plant Species
Prunus virginiana
Senecio spp.
Sieversia ciliata
Zigadenus paniculatus
Viola spp.
Tetradymia canescems
Potentilla spp.
Potentilla fruticosa
Mestensia oblongifolia
Lupinus spp.
Helianthella uniflora
Opuntra polyacantha
Penestemon spp.
Populus tremuloides
Phlox canescens
Pinus contorta
Haplopappus spp.
Calochortus macrocaspus
Agrostis alboy
Agoseri spp.
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
Effect
Plant kill 16%
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 83%
Plant kill 16%
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 83%
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 83%
Plant kill 83%
Plant kill 83%
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 83%
Plant kill 16%
Plant kill 16%
Plant kill 16%
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Leaf fresh mass decrease 37%
Plant kill 50%
Duration
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
10 weeks
Not specified
Volume VI
A-- dix VI-20
12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for 2,4-D
Plant Species
Balsamorhiza sagittate
Agrostris palustris
Atenaria microphylla
Astragalus convallarius
Arnica fiilgens
Astraglus salinus
Astragalus miser practeritus
Agastache urticifolia
Ceanothus velutinus
Agastache ucticifolia
Castilleja
Juglans nigra
Sambucus canadensis
Rosa multlflora
Rhus typhina
Pinus spp.
Populus eugenes
Aesculus hippocastanum
Lonicera tatarica
Thuja occidentalis
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
Effect
Plant kill 83%
Leaf fresh mass decrease 51%
Plant kill 16%
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 16%
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 16%
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 16%
Plant kill 83%
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Duration
Not specified
1 month
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
13
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for 2,4-D
Plant Species
Elaeagnus umbellata
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Caragana arborescens
Cotoneaster divaricata
Comus amomum
Fagopyrum tartaricum
Timothy, climax
Triticum vulgare
Ambrosia psilostachya
Bentgrass, creeping
Corn
Acacia constricta
Larrea tridentata
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Fescue, Red Illahee
Goldenrod, Rock
Buckwheat
Glycine max merr
Artemisia tridentata
Soil Concentration
(rag/kg)
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
6.4
6.8
6.88
6.88
6.88
6.88
6.88
6.88
6.88
6.88
6.88
6.88
6.88
6.88
Effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant - no effect
Plant dry mass decrease
Seed number - no effect
Plant number decrease 12%, shoot fresh mass
decrease 19%
Stem number - no effect
Seed number - no effect
Harvest yield decrease 12%
Plant kill 80%
Plant kill 10%
Plant - no effect
Seed number - no effect
Plant kill 60%
Germination - no effect
Plant growth decrease 55 %
Plant kill 10%
Duration
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
17 days
1 year
126 days
1 year
1 year
83 days
Not specified
18 months
5 months
1 year
1 year
24 days
24 days
1 year
Volume VI
A- ^dixVI-20
14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for 2,4-D
Plant Species
Bean, Red Kidney
Fluorensia cerna
Galin soga ciliata
Orchard grass
Sorghum
Cyperus rstudus
Avena fatua
Sorghum
Taraxacum offlcinale
Sorghum
Festuca
Agropyron desertorum
Stellaria spp.
Amphiachyris dracunculoides
Ericameria austrotexana
Euphorbia esula
Alchemilla microcurpa bioss
Lamium amplexicaule
Bromus spp.
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
6.88
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.63
7.63
7.8
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
Effect
Plant number decrease 83 % , shoot fresh mass
decrease 26%
Plant kill 90%
Plant kill 12%, plant dry mass decrease 75%
Seed number - no effect
Plant growth decrease
Shoot fresh weight decrease 16%
. Plant fresh mass increase
Plant - no effect
Shoot dry mass decrease 54%
Shoot fresh mass decrease 55%
Leaf fresh mass decrease
Seed number decrease 45 %
Plant number decrease 98%
Shoot dry mass decrease 10%
Shoot cover decrease 37%
Shoot number - no effect
Plant number decrease 86%
Plant number decrease 40%
Plant seed - no effect
Duration
126 days
18 months
66 days
1 year
Not specified
Not specified
24 days
Not specified
1 year
10 days
7 weeks
10 months
50 days
Not specified
6 months
5 years
48 days
50 days
Not specified
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
15
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for 2,4-D
Plant Species
Veronica spp.
Ericameria austrotexana
Cirsium arvense
Solatium carolinese
Isocoma coronopifolia
Oat
Cirsium arvense
Convolvulvus arvensis
Asparagus
Bromus spp.
Dactylis glomerata
Sarcobatus vermiculatus
Festuca
Purshia tridentata
Acacia flavescens
Arbutus menziesii
Acacia famesiana
Acacia famesiana
Daffodil
Sinapsis alba
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
8.4
. 8.4
8.5
8.5
8.5
10.3
10.3
13.8
13.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
17.1
17.1
27.5
27.5
27.5
30.5
Effect
Plant number decrease 74%
Shoot cover - no effect
Root dry mass decrease 88%
Plant injury 100%
Plant kill 98%
Plant number decrease 20%, plant size decrease 40%
Plant kill 25%
Plant kill 25%
None
Plant seed decrease 24%
Plant seed size - no effect
Plant kill 72%
Plant seed size - no effect
Plant kill 84%
Plant number - no effect, shoot fresh mass - no effect
Leaf kill, plant injury
Plant cover - no effect
Plant cover decrease 25 %
Plant - no effect
Plant kill 100%
Duration
57 days
3 years
6 weeks
113 days
1 year
Not specified
2 year
2 years
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
1 year
Not specified
2 years
156 days
15 months
1 year
1 year
Not specified
Not specified
Volume VI
Ap-^dix VI-20
16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for 2,4-D
Plant Species
Adenostoma fasciculatlon
Abies concolor
Ademostoma sparsifolium
Quercus dumosa
Astragalus stenophyllus
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.3
502
Effect
Leaf injury 30%
Plant kill 68%, plant size decrease 52%
Leaf injury 20%
Plant number decrease 62%
Plant kill 83%
Duration
12 months
14 months
12 months
8 years
Not specified
All data from PHYTOTOX (1995).
* Value not used since it was inconsistent with the other reported data and cotton is not known to be grown in the assessment area.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for 4,4'-DDE
Plant Species
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Onion
Wheat
Corn
Cotton
Soybean
Cabbage
Soybean
Cotton
Wheat
Corn
Soybean
Cotton
Wheat
Corn
Soil Concentration
(rag/kg)
1.3
1.9
2.8
m
;•: '•: ••••:
10
10
10
10
11
30
30
30
30
50
50
50
50
Effect
No effect - plant size/yield
No effect - plant size/yield
No effect - plant size/yield
23 % increase hi seed germination
No effect
6% reduction hi seed germination
7% reduction in seed germination
15% reduction in seed germination
3-33% increase in flower sterility
24% decrease in seed germination
33 % decrease in seed germination
13 % decrease hi seed germination
18% decrease in seed germination
35% decrease in seed germination
17% decrease in seed germination
25% decrease hi seed germination
29% decrease in seed germination
Duration
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified •
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Reference
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
Note: All data are for DDT.
Volume VI
-ndix VI-20
18
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for Pentachlorophenol
Plant Species
Soybean
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
68.8
Effect
No effect
Duration
3 weeks
Reference
PHYTOTOX 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Plant Toxicity Values for PCBs
Plant Species
Soybean
Fescue
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
100
1,000
100
1,000
Effect
No significant effect - growth
Reduced growth
No significant effect - growth
Reduced growth
Duration
26 days
42 days
Reference
IPCS 1993a
IPCS 1993a
Volume VI
Ap -\dixVI-20
20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-21
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - SOIL FAUNA
SOIL EXPOSURES
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-21 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Available Soil Fauna Toxicological Benchmark Values*
Chemical
Will and Suter (1994b)
Earthworms
Soil Microorganisms
Other Sources"
Metals and Cyanide
Aluminum
•Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
—
-
60
-
-
20
0#
50
-
500
m
200
70
-
-
200
606
—
ioo
3,000
—
20
10
100
--
900
30
90
100
50
—
100
—
• ~
25
—
—
;18
32
32
0,016*
1,810
0.2C
40C
50
—
—
97
Organics
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
-
-
—
-
-
—
• —
-
-
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,000
—
—
—
0>03?44
2$d
25"
eta***
2sflOO
5
0,7^"
ftswrw
—
—
Volume VI
Appendix VI-21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Available Soil Fauna Toxicological Benchmark Values*
Chemical
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Will and Suter (1994b)
Earthworms
20
4
—
Soil Microorganisms
—
400
-
Other Sources"
QMS*
10
Qv023d
* All values are in mg/kg soil.
b See the following table for more details on these values.
LOEC divided by 5.
d Acute value divided by 1,000.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-21
External Review Draft.
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Toxicological Data for Earthworms and Other Soil Fauna
Chemical
Concentration
(mg/kg soil)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Metals and Cyanide
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
n
213
2.9 - 100
10
500
_>_ 10
25
50
39.2
46.3
100
200
300
> 300
> 300
> 300
326
> 1,000
1,100
1,800
1,843
56 days
Not specified
Not specified
12 weeks
6 weeks
3 weeks
Not specified
Not specified
56 days
56 days
16 days
16 days
16 days
14 days
56 days
56 days
42 days
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
No effect - mortality
LCM
Range of NOECs for 7 invertebrate species
NOEC for cocoon production
LCjo (survival)
Significant decrease in cocoon production
Significant effect - reproduction
Significant effect - growth
NOEC - cocoon production
ECjo - cocoon production
Significant decrease in sperm count
Significant decrease in sperm count
Significant decrease in sperm count
LC*
LCM
NOEC - mortality
21 % reduction in offspring for Folsomia
Candida (a collembolan)
LCX
LCX
Growth inhibition
LC^
Fisher and Koszorus 1992
Environment Canada 1994
van Straalen and Denneman 1989
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
van Gestel et al. 1992
Malecki et al. 1982
Spurgeon et al. 1994
Cikutovic et al. 1993
Spurgeon et al. 1994
Will and Suter 1994b
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
Environment Canada 1994
Hartenstein et al. 1981
Neuhauser et al. 1985a
Volume VI
Ap>-~r\dix VI-21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Toxicological Data for Earthworms and Other Soil Fauna
Chemical
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Concentration
(nig/kg soil)"
3,500
15
32
155
250
570
> 1,000
3&0
53.3
72
100
185
400
210
555
683
380
400
643
1,100
22,000
Duration
Not specified
Not specified
3 weeks
3 weeks
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
56 days
56 days
7 days
Not specified
7 days
56 days
56 days
14 days
Not specified
24 hours
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Effect
Mortality
LCX for Cr+6
No effect - growth, fertility, reproduction
ECjQ for cocoon production
50% decrease hi reproduction
lAo
LC*
NOEC - cocoon production
ECX - cocoon production
85 % reduction in numbers (nematodes and
arthropods)
Significant effects - growth and reproduction
No effect
70% reduction hi numbers (nematodes)
NOEC - mortality
LCW
LCM
lAo
LCX - nematode (C. elegans)
LCso
Growth inhibition
Mortality
Reference
Hartenstein et al. 1981
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
van Gestel et al. 1992
cited hi van Gestel et al. 1992
Environment Canada 1994
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
Spurgeon et al. 1994
Will and Suter 1994b
Malecki et al. 1982
Will and Suter 1994b
Spurgeon et al. 1994
Environment Canada 1994
Will and Siiter 1994b
Neuhauser et al. 1985a
Hartenstein et al. 1981
Hartenstein et al. 1981
Volume VI
Appendix VI-21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
lexicological Data for Earthworms and Other Soil Fauna
Chemical
Cyanide
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Concentration
(mg/kg soil)"
m
1,810
1,940
2,190
3,760
4,480
2,200
4,000
16,000
5,941
0.79
2.39
5.00
1
1
5
1
5
25
1.5
100
181
480
Duration
Not specified
56 days
56 days
56 days
56 days
14 days
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
60 days
10 days
60 days
Not specified
12 weeks
12 weeks
12 weeks
12 weeks
12 weeks
30 days
56 days
Not specified
Not specified
Effect
LCjo
NOEC - cocoon production
ECjo - cocoon production
NOEC - mortality
LCjo
LCjo
LC*
Significant effects - reproduction
Significant effects - growth
LCM
LC.JQ (inorganic)
LCj,, (inorganic)
LC100 (inorganic)
Significant decrease in insect emergence
No effect - regeneration (organic)
Reduced regeneration (organic)
NOAEL - mortality (organic)
21 % mortality (organic)
100% mortality (organic)
50% decrease in survival
No effect - mortality
LC*
Growth inhibition
Reference
Environment Canada 1994
Spurgeon et al. 1994
Surgeon et al. 1994
Environment Canada 1994
Malecki et al. 1982
Neuhauser et al. 1985a
Eisler 1987a; IPCS 1989a
cited in Sheppard et al. 1993
Eisler 1987a; IPCS 1989a
Eisler 1987a
cited in Sheppard et al. 1993
Fisher and Koszorus 1992
Environment Canada 1994
Hartenstein et al. 1981
Volume VI
Ap—\dix VI-21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Toxicological Data for Earthworms and Other Soil Fauna
Chemical
Mercury
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Concentration
(mg/kg soil)"
2,400
200
757
1,200
50
y?
199
276
289
745
1,010
470
662
500
2,000
662
700
1,300
26,000
Duration
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specfied
. 56 days
—
56 days
56 days
56 days
56 days
14 days
2 weeks
2 weeks
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Effect
Mortality
Significant effects - growth and reproduction
LC*
Growth inhibition; mortality
No effect - mortality
"Safe" soil level - earthworms
NOEC - cocoon production
EC* - cocoon production
NOEC - mortality
LC*
LC*
Reduced survival
Significant effects - reproduction
Significant effects - growth
LC*
LC*
Growth inhibition
Mortality
Reference
Hartenstein et al. 1981
Malecki et al. 1982
Neuhauser et al. 1985a
Hartenstein et al. 1981
Fisher and Koszorus 1992
Eisler 1993
Spurgeon et al. 1994
Spurgeon et al. 1994
Eisler 1993
Malecki et al. 1982
Neuhauser et al. 1985a
Environment Canada 1994
Hartenstein et al. 1981
Hartenstein et al. 1981
Organics
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
m*
> p$60
Not specified
Not specified
LC*
LC*
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
Environment Canada 1994
Volume VI
Appendix VI-21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Toxicological Data for Earthworms and Other Soil Fauna
Chemical
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol.
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
PCBs
PCBs
Concentration
(ing/kg soil)"
>iw
i? '
2,000
> $f
^f' -ift^t*
i|| - 238
10
12
33
16-52
28
32
40
55
50-87
83 - 2,298
94 - 1,094
111
<$$"
230"
Duration
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
4 weeks
4 weeks
Not specified
5 weeks
Not specified
3 weeks
3 weeks
2 weeks
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
5 days
5 days
Effect
LC*.
LC*
No effect
LCX
LC*.
Range of LC^s for 2 species and 2 soil types
NOEC - cocoon production
NOEC - mortality
LC*,
Range of LC^s for 1 species and 3 soil types
LC»
NOEC for cocoon production
No effect - cocoon production
ECjQ for cocoon production
LC»
Range of LC^s for 2 species and 4 soil types
Range of LC^s for 2 species and 2 soil types
LC*
LCa,
LCX
Reference
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
Roberts and Dorough 1984
IPCS 1989c
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
van Gestel et al. 1991
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
van Gestel and Dis 1988
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
van Gestel et al. 1992
cited hi van Gestel et al. 1992
van Gestel and Ma 1990
van Gestel and Ma 1988
Environment Canada 1994
Fitzpatrick et al. 1991
Rodriguez-Grau et al. 1989
Volume VI
Ap—^dix VI-21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Toxicological Data for Earthworms and Other Soil Fauna
Chemical
Concentration
(mg/kg soil)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
2,3,7,8-TCDD
9
10
10
85 days
20 days
30 days
No effect
Some mortality
100% mortality
Reinecke and Nash 1984
Note: All data are for earthworms unless otherwise specified.
" Data from contact tests (in fig/cm2) were extrapolated to soil exposures assuming a 1 cm soil depth and a soil density of 1.31 g/cm3. These
studies were used only if soil data were unavailable since they do not account for exposure via direct ingestion of soil.
b Based on data for acenaphthene.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-22
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - AQUATIC (SURFACE WATER)
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-22 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
U.S. EPA, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia
Chronic Freshwater Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Chemical
U.S. EPA'
Metals Gtg/L)
Aluminum
Antimony .
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
if
w
190
-
fca*
tsr
11
12°
33?
0.012
P®°
3$
@>i2
40"
110°
OH"
PA»
—
190
1510
-
23e
1.4e
11
12C
6.9°
0.20
170°
5xB
1.3
16
110°
—
219
m
4,iP
0.01 x 96 hi4
i.r
11
12e
3:2°
0,012
ISO0
m
—
13
110°
wv
»7
—
190
—
130
i.r
10
ue
3.2e
0.012
liSO0
£0
4.0°
—
90°
Organics (pg/L)
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Di(n)octylphthalate
-
2,600d
-
-
360°
1,240"
-
-
0.001f
—
-
3-0
?W$&
430
—
—
8.4
79
—
—
0.001f
—
—
~
86,000
129
—
—
909
389
—
—
0.001
—
—
— •
—
0,77
—
—
—
JS.7
—
—
0.000024r
—
—
3;0
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
U.S. EPA, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia
Chronic Freshwater Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Chemical
1,4-Dioxane
Dioxin/furan (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
U.S. EPA"
—
< 0.0001d
T-
0.0038
3.68"
9.3d
5.2d
-
-
—
9.5b
0.014
-
Off
-
-
-
0.001
-
-
-
-
—
-
p"
0.001
-
PA"
—
-
436
0.0038
-
2
1
-
-
—
9.5b
—
-
WV*
-
-
. -
-
Q.OQ074
-
-
.
~
-
-
Q;«X»79
525
U.S. EPA = Water Quality Criteria Summary (U.S. EPA 1991a).
OH = Ohio Water Quality Standards (OEPA 1993).
PA = Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy - Statement of Policy (PADER 1993).
WV = Specific Water Quality Criteria (WVDNR 1995).
b pH dependent criteria (7.5 pH used - see text).
0 Proposed criterion.
d Insufficient data to develop criteria. Value presented is the Lowest Observed Effect Level.
e Hardness dependent criteria (100 mg/L CaCO3 used - see text).
f For DDT.
Criterion not available.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Anthracene: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0«g/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mosquito (larvae)
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Fathead minnow
Sunfish
Bluegill
Bluegill
Daphnia magna
Bluegill
Fathead minnow
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Leopard frog
Leopard frog
Mosquito (larvae)
Fathead minnow
< 1 - 260
1.27-8.27
2.78 - 46
3.36 - 12.02
5.4
11.92-26.47
12.7
15
15
>. 15
19.1
20
21.03
25
65
150
360
24 hours
96 hours
96 hours
48 hours
15.75 hours
96 hours
9 - 72 hours
202 hours
5 hours
20 hours
7 hours
1 hour
3 hours
5 hours
30 minutes
1 hour
0.5 hour
LCjo
LCjo
LCs,
LCj,
LTjo
La*
Lethal
LT*
LTjo
LTso
LTjo
LC*
LTjo
LC*.
LC,,
LCX
LC*
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Daphnia magna
2.2
21 days
Reproductive - changes in brood parameters
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
ix VI-22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Anthracene: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Daphnia pulex
Green algae
Green algae
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Daphnia pulex
Bluegill (fingerling)
Rainbow trout (fingerling)
Concentration
(M?/L)
3.0
3.3 - 24.0
3.9 - 37.4
6
12
754
5,000
5,000
Duration
24 hours
24 hours
22 hours
6 weeks
6 weeks
48 hours
24 hours
24 hours
Effect
EC-jQ - behavior
ECjo - photosynthesis
ECjo - growth
No effect - reproduction
Decrease hi egg hatchability
ECjo - behavior
No effect - behavior
No effect - behavior
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Benzo(a)pyrene: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
G*g/L)
Duration
Effect
.Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Daphnia magna
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Daphnia pulex
Fathead minnow (larvae)
Fathead minnow
1.5
1.5
2.4
5.0
5.6
25
34 days
4 hours
34 days
96 hours
7 days
Unspecified
No effect on mortality rates relative to controls
LTs,
Increased mortality relative to controls
LC*
LT*
Acute effects
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
U.S. EPA 1988b
Chronic Endpoints
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Daphnid
Fathead minnow
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Green algae
Salmon (eggs)
American toad
Green algae
W
0.08
0.21
0.30
1.2
1.5
2.4
5.0
25
500
5,000
34 days
34 days
34 days
Unspecified
Unspecified
34 days
34 days
72 hours
24 hours
24 hours
Unspecified
Decreased growth relative to controls
No effect - hatching success
Decreased hatching success
Lowest chronic value
Chronic effects
No effect - morphological abnormalities
Increase in morphological abnormalities
ECj,, - growth
Decreased hatching
Growth decreased 14% from control
Decrease in photosynthesis
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Suter and
Mabrey 1994
U.S. EPA 1988b
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
ix VI-22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Benzo(a)pyrene: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
.American toad
Rainbow trout
Leopard frog
Bluegill
Brine shrimp (eggs)
Concentration
0«g/L)
5,000
5,000
> 5,000
> 5,000
10,000
Duration
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
48 hours
Effect
Growth decreased 5296 from control
Growth decreased 70 % from control
Growth (no effect; highest concentration tested)
Growth (no effect; highest concentration tested)
No effect on egg hatching rate
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Crotonaldehyde: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Bluegill
jgpo
96 hours
LCM
AQUIRE 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Ap—ndix VI-22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,4-D: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Acute Endpoints
Duckweed
Daphnia magna
Salmon fry
Stonefly nymph
Copepod adult
Rainbow trout
Amphipod
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Salmon fry
Rotifer
Common carp
Bluegill fingerling
Stonefly nymph
Salmon fry
Channel catfish fmgerlings
Mosquito larvae
Pumkinseed
Daphnia
Rainbow trout eggs
Concentration
G*g/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,600
1,850
2,200
3,200
4,200
5,000
5,000
5,100
8,000
8,500
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
11,000
11 days
3 weeks
96 hours
96 hours
48 hours
48 hours
48 hours
23 days
96 hours
31 hours
96 hours
24 hours
24 hours
96 hours
48 hours
24 hours
7 days
38 hours
27 days
Lethality
LCX
10% mortality
LCs,
LC*
lAo
LC*
LC*
13.3% mortality
Lethal
LC*
LC*.
lAo
43% mortality
< 10% mortality
No mortality
No mortality
LT*
LCjo
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Organism
Stonefly
Common carp
Daphnia magna
Banded killifish (YOY)
Daphnia magna neonate
White perch (YOY)
Salmon
Salmon fry
Salmon smolt
Salmon fingerling
Rainbow trout fingerling
Common carp
Cutthroat trout
Striped bass (YOY)
Largemouth bass eggs
Mosquito larvae
Pumpkinseed (YOY)
Common carp
Largemouth bass fingerlings
Green sunfish
2,4-D: Aquatic Toxicity
Concentration
(MJ/L)
15,000
15,300
25,000
26,700
36,400
40,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
64,000
70,100
81,600
91,800
94,600
96,500
100,000
110,000
Duration
96 hours
96 hours
48 hours
96 hours
48 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
8.3 days
96 hours
96 hours
7.5 days
24 hours
96 hours
96 hours
7 days
41 hours
Effect
LCjo
LQo
LA,,
LCso
lAo
LCjo
67% mortality
80% mortality
7% mortality
73% mortality
No mortality
Mass mortality
LC*
LCso
La*
LCso
LCso
LCso
10-20% mortality
No effect on mortality
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,4-D: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Goldfish eggs
Oligochaete
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
American eel (YOY)
Brown bullhead
Brown bullhead
Chronic Endpoints
Water milfoil
Water milfoil
Green algae
Duckweed
Parrot's feather (plant)
Water milfoil
Sago pondweed
Sago pondweed
Water milfoil
Green algae
Duckweed
Concentration
(pg/L)
119,100
122,200
236,000
263,000
263,000
300,600
1,000,000
2,500,000
Duration
8 days
7 days
48 hours
96 hours
72 hours
96 hours
7 days
7 days
Effect
LC*
LCso
LAo
LCa,
LC*
lAo
20% mortality
90% mortality
<_ 190
_< 120
0.00302
m
20
30
30
50
50
100
100
10 weeks
20 weeks
> 2 hours
11 days
1 week
11 weeks
11 weeks
11 weeks
70 days
42 days
1 1 days
Increased mortality; decreased growth
Decreased growth
Inhibited photosynthesis
No effect - growth
Seven percent decrease in transpiration
No effect - shoot biomass
No effect - total biomass
Decrease in total biomass
No effect - maximum shoot height
Decrease in maximum shoot height
27% decrease in growth
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
11
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,4-D: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Parrot's feather
Daphnia pulex
Green sunfish (eggs)
Rainbow trout fingerling
Bluegill fingerling
Green algae
Ceriodaphnla dubia
Copepod
Green algae
Common carp
Concentration
Otg/D
550
3,200
5,000
5,000
5,000
22,000
23,300
37,420
40,000
50,000
Duration
14 days
48 hours
8 days
24 hours
24 hours
2 weeks
7 days
48 hours
to 10 days
34 days
Effect
46% decrease in shoot weight;
48% decrease in transpiration
ECj,, - immobilization
No effect - hatching
No effect - behavior
No effect - behavior
No effect - abundance
Reproductive chronic value
£€50 - immobilization
Negligible growth
Increased mortality, decreased hatching;
decreased growth
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
A- ^ndixVI-22
12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Dimethylamine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(M5/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rainbow trout (egg/fry)
Rainbow trout (fingerling)
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Creek chub
Creek chub
Daphnia magna
Creek chub
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Guppy
Medaka
Medaka
1,150
10,000
17,000
20,000
30,000
50,000
50,000
85,000
118,000
120,000
210,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
50 days
30 days
96 hours
96 hours
24 hours
24 hours
48 hours
48 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
24 hours
48 hours
LC*.
Lethal
LC*
lAo
LC0
LCloo
LCjo
TLM
LCjo
LC*
LC*
LQo
LCjo
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Green algae
Rainbow trout (fry)
Daphnia magna
Green algae
Green algae
00
650-21,600
1,000- 15,000
1,400
6,200
190 hours
30 days
30 days
7 days
96 hours
No effect - biomass
Growth effects
Reproductive effects
Decrease in biomass
ECj,, - growth
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
13
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Organism
Green algae
Daphnia magna
Green algae
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Brook trout
Dimethylamine: Aquatic Toxicity
Concentration
(Mg/L)
9,000
10,000
30,000
46,000
48,000
500,000
Duration
96 hours
30 days
96 hours
96 hours
24 hours
4.4 days
Effect
EC5<) - growth
No effect - survival
ECjQ - growth
£€50 - immobilization
ECjo - immobilization
No toxicity
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Ar-~iidix VI-22
14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
\ J
Dimethylhydrazine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
-------
Dimethylhydrazine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Clawed frog embryo
Green algae
Clawed frog embyro
Concentration
(M?/L)
1,000
1,600
10,000
Duration
9 days
8 - 10 days
9 days
Effect
NOEC
EC^ - growth
Reproductive effects - 86% malformations
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Ap- -vlixVI-22
16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
1,4-Dioxane: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(Mg/L)
Duration
Effect
Acute Endpoints
Daphnia magna
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Fathead minnow
4,700,000
9,850,000
10,000,000
10,800,000
Chronic Endpoints
Blue-green algae
Green algae
Green algae
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Green algae
$$P$
5,600,000
5,600,000
6,210,000
8,450,000
10,000,000
> 10,000,000
24 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
LC^
LCM
LCjo
LCjo
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
AQUIRE 1995 .
8 days
Not specified
8 days
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
48 hours
Population growth
Toxicity threshold - population growth
Population growth
EC,,
EC*
EC100
Population growth
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,3,7,8^TCDD (Dioxin): Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Oig/L)
Acute Endpoints
Salmon
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Rainbow trout (fry)
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Medaka (embryo)
Medaka (embryo)
Salmon
Medaka (embryo)
Channel catfish
Mosquitofish
Medaka (egg)
0.000056
0.000176
0.000176
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.013
0.1
2.9
2,600
2,600
9,000
Duration
Effect
. Reference
24 hours
14 days
21 days
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
> 3 days
> 3 days
48 hours
> 3 days
32 days
15 days
6 days
12% mortality
No effect - mortality
Increased mortality
11% mortality
Mortality
25% mortality
Mortality
LCso
Mortality
LC*
Lethality
Lethality
LCso
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Salmon
Rainbow trout (fry)
Salmon
PPW
0.0001
0.00056
0.001
0.0056
21 days
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
Decreased growth
Decreased growth
No effect - food consumption
Decreased growth
Decreased food consumption
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Ar ^dix VI-22
18
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin): Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Snail
Medaka (eggs)
Medaka (eggs)
Concentration
0*g/U
0.0056
0.0056
0.056
0.01
0.2
3,500
14,000
Duration
24 hours
48 hours
24 hours
96 hours
55 days
3 days
3 days
Effect
No effect - food consumption
Decreased food consumption
Decreased food consumption
No effect - hatching
Decreased hatching
ECX - abnormalities
ECj,, - hatching
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorophene: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(j«g/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Bluegill
21
100
560
96 hours
96 hours
24 hours
LCso
LC0
^CHJO
AQUIRE 1995
U.S. EPA 1986b
U.S. EPA 1986b
Chronic Endpoints
Clawed toad (tadpole)
Ciliate protozoan
Ciliate protozoan
200
260
300
24 hours
24 hours
43 hours
Structural defects - nervous system
EC^ - growth and development
Population growth decrease
AQUIRE 1995
U.S. EPA 1986b
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
U.S. EPA 1986b
Voli»ne VI
A/ ix VI-22
20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hydrazine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(/*g/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Hyalella azteca
Bluegill
Guppy
Guppy
Channel catfish
Bluegill
Bluegill
Golden shiner
Bluegill
Aquatic sowbug
Guppy
Bluegill
Bluegill
Guppy
Bluegill
Bluegill
Guppy
Guppy
40 ,
430
610
820
1,000
1,000
1,080
1,120
1,200
1,300
1,580
1,600
1,700
3,320
3,800
3,800
3,850
3,850
48 hours
96 hours
96 hours
72 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
48 hours
96 hours
24 hours
24 hours
6 hours
24 hours
72 hours
96 hours
LCs,
No effect - lethality
LCs,
lAo
LCs,
LCs,
lAo
LCs,
LCs,
LCs,
LCs,
LCM
LCs,
LCs,
LCs,
LCs,
LCs,
LCs,
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hydrazine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Guppy
Guppy
Rainbow trout
Bluegili
Bluegill
Bluegili
Bluegill
Bluegili
Rainbow trout
Bluegill
Concentration
(MS/L)
3,980
4,600
6,000
7,700
12,400
12,900
37,700
68,400
146,000
265,000
Duration
48 hours
24 hours
76 hours
24 hours
6 hours
6 hours
1 hour
1 hour
0.5 hours
1 hour
Effect
LCM
LCjo
TLM
LC»
LCjo
LCW
LCjo
LCjo
LCloo
LC*,
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Green algae
Green algae
Green algae
Green algae
Green algae
Green algae
Green algae
Green algae
Green algae
1.0
2.0
2.0
3.3
y
6.1-20
10
20
20
72 hours
96 hours
7 days
14 days
6 days
72 hours
8 days
96 hours
7 days
NOEC - growth
NOEC - growth
NOEC - growth
NOEC - growth
NOEC - growth
ECj,, - growth
NOEC - growth
ECM - growth
ECjo - growth
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
/ >dix VI-22
22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hydrazine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
.Green algae
Green algae
Green algae
Fathead minnow (eggs)
Fathead minnow (eggs)
Rainbow trout (embryo)
Bluegill
Bluegill
Trout (fingerling)
Fathead minnow (eggs)
Fathead minnow (eggs)
Rainbow trout (embryo)
Blue-green algae
Concentration
0«g/L)
37
41
71
100
100
100
100
430
700
1,000
1,000
1,000
210,000
Duration
8 days
6 days
14 days
24 hours
22 days
48 hours
96 hours
96 hours
24 hours
24 hours
22 days
48 hours
1 hour
Effect
ECX - growth
ECj,, - growth
ECjQ - growth
NOEC - development
NOEC - development
NOEC - growth
Irregular swimming behavior
No effect - behavior
Loss of equilibrium
Development arrested
Developmental abnormalities
Decreased growth
Effects - photosynthesis
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
23
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Organism
Pentachlorobenzene: Aquatic Toxicity
Concentration
0*g/L)
Acute Endpoints
Guppy
Zebrafish (egg)
Guppy
Daphnia magna
Bluegill
Rainbow trout (fingerling)
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Daphnia magna
Bluegill
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
135
140
178
240
250
280
1,100
1,300
2,300
5,300
17,000
Chronic Endpoints
Fathead minnow
Zebrafish (egg)
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Ceriodaphnia dubia
55
110
350
520
Duration
Effect
Reference
4 days
28 days
14 days
21 days
96 hours
192 hours
48 hours
48 hours
24 hours
48 hours
24 hours
LC»
LC*
LCM
LCM
LCM
LCM
LQo
No effect - mortality
LC*
LC»
LCM
31 days
7 - 28 days
7 days
7 days
NOEC
NOEC - reproductive effects
Chronic reproductive value
EC*, - reproduction
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
IPCS 1991b
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
AQUIRE 1995
IPCS 1991b
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
A- ^dixVI-22
24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Pentachlorobenzene: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Ceriodaphnia dubla
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Algae
Algae
Algae
Concentration
fog/L)
710
900
1,300
1,980
6,630
Duration
4 days
4 days
4 hours
96 hours
96 hours
Effect
Chronic reproductive value
ECj,, - reproduction
ECX - primary productivity
ECjQ - cell growth
EC,,, - cell growth
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
IPCS 199 Ib
IPCS 1991b
IPCS 199 Ib
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-23
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - AQUATIC (SEDIMENT)
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-23 1 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Available Sediment Guideline Values
Chemical
Partitioning-Based Values (mg/kg)"
NYSDEC
USEPA
Calculated1*
SLC-Based Values (mg/kg)
Wisconsin1
MOE LEL
NOAA ER-L
NYSDEC
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
-
-
-
--
--
—
-
--
-
~
-
--
-
-
-
—
-
~
~
-
—
—
--
~
-
-
-
-
--
~
—
-
-
-
~
—
-
~
-
'
—
~
~
--
--
NAd .
NA
10
500
NA
1.0
100
100
50
0.10
100
1
NA
NA
too
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
0.6
m
n
*i
0.20
8
NA
0.5
NA
120
NA
2
33
NA
NA
5.0
80
70
35
0.15
30
NA
I
NA
120
NA
I
6
NA
NA
0.6
26
1$
31
0.15
16
NA
t
NA
120
Organics
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
NA
NA
NA
NA
542
0.00002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
~
Volume VI
/ Ndix VI-23
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
\ /
-
Available Sediment Guideline Values
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Di(n)octylphthalate
1 ,4-Dioxane
Dioxin/furan (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Formaldehyde.
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
Partitioning-Based Values (mg/kg)"
NYSDEC
NA
NA
5.99
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.000006
NA
0.0009
0.36
-------
Available Sediment Guideline Values
Chemical
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Partitioning-Based Values (mg/kg)a
NYSDEC
NA
1.20
0.042
NA
USEPA
NA
NA
0.585
NA
Calculated"
®>m
$•&
o.eo|
0.039
SLC-Based Values (mg/kg)
Wisconsin0
NA
NA
0.05
NA
MOE LEL
NA
NA
o.or
NA
NOAA ER-L
NA
NA
0.05
NA
NYSDEC
—
—
—
—
* Based on a three percent organic carbon level (see text).
b Calculated using the K^, values from Table V-2 and the surface water values from Table VI-4.
As reported in Hull and Suter (1994) and Beyer (1990).
d Not Available.
No Effect Level (NEL).
Volume VI
Ar idix VI-23
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Calculated Sediment Guideline Values*
Chemical
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Di(n)octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Dioxin/furan (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
K«
2.19
0.85
25,704
3,981,072
9,550
33.9
50.1
64.6
50,119
437
0.12
19,055
17.0
2,691,534
3.63
30,200
10,000
5,129
4,266
91,201
0.10
15,488
3,467
724,43'6
2.45
Chronic
AWQC (pg/L)
78,000
0.77
0.44
0.016
8.4
15.7
3.5
10
0.000024
150
400
3.0
115,000
0.0000076
436
0.001
0.00074
2.0
1.0
0.021
5.1
55
8.6
0.000079
525
Value (jig/g C)
170.8
0.00065
11.31
63.7
80.2
0.532
0.18
0.646
0.0012
65.55
0.048
57.17
1,955
0.020
1.58
0.03
0.0074
10.26
4.27
1.92
0.00051
851.8
29.8
0.057
1.29
TOC-Adj usted
Value (mg/kg)
5.12
0.00002
0.34
1.91
2.41
0.016
0.005
0.019
0.00004
1.97
0.0014
1.71
58.65
0.0006
0.047
0.0009
0.0002
0.308
0.13
0.057
0.00002
25.56
0.89
0.002
0.039
* Calculated using the K^ values from Table V-2, the surface water values from Table VI-4, and a
three percent organic carbon level.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-24
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - INGESTION
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
The following tables summarize lexicological information from the literature for the food chain ECOCs. Data
reported as ppm in the diet were converted to mg/kg body weight per day by multiplying the concentration in
the diet (ppm) by the food ingestion rate (kg/d) and dividing by body weight (kg). The data used for these
conversions were as follows:
Test Species
Quail1
Mallard
Passerines'"
Chicken
American kestrel
Pheasant
Dove
Screech owl
Mink
Rat
Mouse
Dog
Monkey
Guinea pig
Hamster
Body Weight (kg)
0.190
1.1
0.077
0.8
0.115
1.14
0.120
0.180
1.0
0.200
0.032
10
5.0
0.5
0.125
Food Ingestion Rate
(kg/d)
0.015
0.619 .
0.093
0.140
0.035
0.140
0.017
0.032
0.160
0.015
0.005
0.250
0.400
0.030
0.015
1 ppm diet equivilant
(mg/kg/d)
0.079
0.563
1.208
0.175
0.304
0.123
0.138
0.178
0.160
0.075
0.156
0.025
0.080
0.060
0.120
Data from U.S. EPA (1993d), Dunning (1993), and Newell et al. (1987).
* Based on the northern bobwhite.
b . Based on the American robin.
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
\ J
Aluminum: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)*
Duration
Effect
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
261
770
Single dose
Single dose
LD*
LD*
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
Mouse
9 Rat
Dog
Rat
Ringed dove
? Rat
Chicken
* Single dose
14
19
50
60
100
;ti0
155
245
GD 6-14
390 days
GD 6-19
6 months
30-90 days
4 months
GD 8-20
Not reported
LOAEL - reduced fetal weight
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - developmental effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Death of pups
Rickets; effects on blood chemistry
Reference
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
Opreskoet al. 1995
ATSDR 1990a
HSDB 1995
concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Antimony: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Rat
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
9 Rat
9 Mouse
Rabbit
Field vole
Field vole
Northern bobwhite
Concentration
(mg/kg-BVV/day)a
Duration
Effect
Reference
7,000
16,714
Single dose
Single dose
LDM
NOAEL - death
0.262
045
0.748
1.25
1.25 - 13.75
150
6,000
*#f
746- 1,342 days
542-909 days
GD 0-21
Lifetime
30-90 days
up to 60 days
12 days
6 weeks
Decreased lifespan
NOAEL
NOAEL - developmental effects
Reduced lifespan
Increased abortions
No harmful effects
No harmful effects
NOAEL
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
Opresko et al. 1995
HSDB 1995
Ainsworth et al. 1991
Ainsworth et al. 1991
Opresko et al. 1993
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
A \lix VI-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Arsenic: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Goat
Sheep
Fowl
Pig
Rabbit
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Mouse
Cattle
White-tailed deer
Rat
Mouse
Rat
California quail
Rat
2.5
5
6.5
6.5
8
8
10.4
15
15
15.1
25-47
26
33
34
39
39.4
44
47,6
110
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Not specified
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Acutely toxic
Acutely toxic
LD»
LD»
LD*
LD*
LD»
LD»
LD»
LDj,,
LDjo
lA,,
Toxic dose
Lethal dose
LD*
LD»
LD*
LD*,
LD^
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
OHM/TADS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
Eisler 1988a
OHM/TADS 1995
Eisler 1988a
ATSDR 1993a
OHM/TADS 1995
Eisler 1988a
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1993a
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
ATSDR 1993a
Eisler 1988a
ATSDR 1993a
Eisler 1988a
ATSDR 1993a
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Arsenic: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Rat
Mouse
Mallard
Mallard
Chicken
Ring-necked
pheasant
Mallard
Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
112
145
280
323
324
386
560
763
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
32 days
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
6 days
Single dose
Effect
LAo
LD*
LAo
lAo
lAo
LAo
lAo
iAo
Reference
OHM/TADS 1995
RTECS 1995
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
OHM/TADS 1995
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Rat
Mouse
Mouse
Cat
9 Hamster
? Mouse
Mouse
0.580
0.605
0.780
1
1.5
5
20
10
11
23
30 weeks prior to mating
35 weeks prior to mating
3 generations
3 generations
Not specified
During pregnancy
During pregnancy
1 day
Developmental abnormalities of the musculo-
skeletal system
Pre- and post-implantation mortality
Reduced litter size
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Chronic oral toxicity
Some fetal mortality
54% fetal death + malformations
Fetal death and malformations
NOAEL
LOAEL - teratogenicity; fetal mortality
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Eisler 1988a
ATSDR 1993a
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
ATSDR 1993a
Volume VI
/ Nidix VI-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Arsenic: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Hamster
Mouse
All data are
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)a
14
68
Duration
1 day
1 day
Effect
Prenatal mortality
Fetal malformations
Reference
ATSDR 1993a
ATSDR 1993a
for inorganic arsenic only. Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Barium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)a
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Mouse
Guinea pig
Dog
Rat
Rat
Rabbit
Rat
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
9 Rat
6 Rat
Rat
Rat
0.7
0.95
35
70
76
90
118
132
170
175
198
198
200
250
250
269
277
355
375
Duration
Effect
Reference
2 years
2 years
13 weeks
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
10 days
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
NOAEL - death
Reduced lifespan in males
NOAEL - death
Lowest lethal dose
Lowest lethal dose
Lowest lethal dose
LD»
LD»
Lowest lethal dose
LD*
LD7j
LD*
LDjo
LD*
Lowest lethal dose
LDjo
lAo
LD,,
LD*
ATSDR 1990c
ATSDR 1990c
ATSDR 1990c
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
ATSDR 1990c
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
ATSDR 1990c
ATSDR 1990c
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
ATSDR 1990c
ATSDR 1990c
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
Volume VI
A- ^dix VI-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Barium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Dog
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
Rat
Rat
* Single dose
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
400
418
640
800
1,980
3,000
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
2*
138
198
198
29 days before conception
and during pregnancy
10 days
Single dose
Effect
LD*
LDs,
LDso
LDW
LDjo
lAo
Increased mortality in offspring; embryotoxic
effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased ovary weight
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Reference
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
ATSDR 1990c
ATSDR 1990c
concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Organism
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Beryllium: Oral Toxicity
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
6.5
6.95
7.02
9.8
18 -20
18.3
18.8
19.1
86
120
140
200
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
„
m
0.95
31
3.2 years
898 days
2 years
Effect
Reference
LDjo
lAo
LDM
LD*
LD*
La*
LD*
LD»
LD*
LD»
bo*
LDM
IPCS 1990b
IPCS 1990b
IPCS 1990b
IPCS 1990B
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
NOAEL - systemic effects
NOAEL - systemic effects
NOAEL - systemic effects.
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
ATSDR 1993g
" Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
A -idix VI-24
10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Cadmium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Pheasant
Mouse
Chicken
Mouse
Northern
bobwhite
Dog
Guinea pig
Japanese quail
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rabbit
Rat
Mouse
Mallard
94
95.5
99
112
137
150
150
162
170
225
250
300
330
890
> 2,815
5 days
Single dose
20 days
Single dose
5 days
Single dose
Not specified
5 days
Single dose
Single dose
Not specified
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
5 days
LD*
LDs, at 96 hrs
LD*
LDjg at 8 days
LD,,
LD»
Death - lowest oral dose
LDjo
LDM at 8 days
LDjo at 14 days
Death - lowest oral dose
LD»
LDjo at 24 hrs
LD*
LD»
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
0.014
90 days
NOAEL - reproductive effects
IPCS 1992a
ATSDR 1993b
IPCS 1992a
ATSDR 1993b
IPCS 1992a
OHM/TADS 1995
Eisler 1985a
IPCS 1992a
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
Eisler 19 85 a
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1993b
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1992a
ATSDR 1993b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
11
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Cadmium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Rat
Dog
9 Rat
Rat
9 Rat
Mouse
9 Rat
9 Rat
Black duck
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
9 Rat
Rat
9 Rat
9 Mallard
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)-
0.73
5.5
ft 't<
!ml
1.0
10
1,5
1.9
1.9
2
2
£15
3.5
4
4
40
5
6.1
18.4
8.0
8.4
9
118
Duration
GD 6-20
3 months
6-9 weeks
3 months
GD 1-19
6 months
GD 7-16
GD 7-16
4 months
80 days
5 d/w; 1 1 weeks
5 d/w x 14 weeks
1 d/w x 10 weeks
GD 6-15
24 weeks
GD 1-20
90 days
Effect
NOAEL
Decreased fetal weight
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
Delayed ossification; reduced fertility
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Reduced fetal weight
Congenital abnormalities; reproductive failure
Delayed ossification
Increased resorptions
Offspring behavior
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
Increased duration of estrus cycle
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
Fetal malformations
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Decreased fetal weight
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased egg production
Reference
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
Opresko et al. 1995
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
Eisler 1985a
Opresko et al. 1995
Volume VI
A' Mix VI-24
12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Cadmium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Rat
Rat
9 Rat
2 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
Rat
6* Mallard
Rat
9 Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
12.5
14
19.7
21
21.5
23
25
25
30
60
31
66
40
40
50
100
113
155
220
Duration
GD 6-15
12 weeks
21-25 days
GD 0-20
Multigenerations
GD 1-22
GD 1-20
1 day
1 day
10 days
GD 7-16
GD 6-19
1 day
90 days
-------
Cadmium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Mouse
448
Multigenerations
Fetotoxicity
Fetal death
RTECS 1995
Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
/ Mix VI-24
14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
V J
Chromium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Acute Endpoints
9 Rat
? Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
-------
Organism
6 Mouse
$ Mouse
Am. black duck
6 Chicken
? Mouse
Rat
Rat
Chromium:
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
3.5
4.6
5.6
17.5
57
75
1,806
Duration
7 weeks
7 weeks
10 weeks
32 days
GD 1-19
3 months
5 d/w; 90 days
Oral Toxicity
Effect
Decreased spermatogenesis
Decreased spermatogenesis
Reduced survival
No adverse effects
Increased fetal resorptions; increase in gross
anomolies in offspring
Toxic threshold
NOAEL - developmental and reproductive effects
Reference
ATSDR 1993h
ATSDR 1993h
Eisler 1986c
Opresko et al. 1995
Eisler 1986c
ATSDR 1993h
Eisler 1986c
ATSDR 1993h
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
t> idix VI-24
16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Copper: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No studies were located regarding acute toxicity following oral exposure to copper.
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Rat
Mink
Chicken
Mallard
9 Mouse
9 Rat
1,2
1.52
12.9
22.8
29
78
104
155
152
35 weeks prior to mating
22 weeks prior to mating
50 weeks
10 weeks
98-101 days
1 month + GD 0-19
22 weeks prior to mating
Pre- and post-implantation mortality
Developmental abnormalities of the musculoskeletal system
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - mortality; weight gain
NOAEL - mortality; weight gain
NOAEL
Increased mortality
Developmental effects
Fetotoxicity; developmental abnormalities of the central
nervous system
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1989g
Opresko et al.
1993
Opresko et al.
1993
ATSDR 1989g
RTECS 1995
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Lead: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Japanese quail
Ringed turtle dove
Mallard
Guinea pig
Chronic Endpoints
Dog
9 Sheep
Rat
Rat
Japanese quail
Monkey
Mouse
Mouse
9 Rat
Rat
Monkey
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)»
Duration
Effect
Reference
12
24.6
75
107
1,330
0,32
0.5
0,7
3.5
0.9
1.13
11.3
1.3-5
1.5
2.2
3.5
3.5
3.8
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
LDj,,
LD»
Some deaths
Death
LD*
Eisler 1988b
Eisler 1988b
Eisler 1988B
Eisler 1988b
OHM/TADS 1995
Not specified
Entire pregnancy
27-39 weeks
63 days
12 weeks
5 d/w x 75 months
Not specified
Not specified
105-1 15 days; GD 1-21
84-91 days
8.5 months; GD 1-165
Chronic toxicological level
Abortion, miscarriage, and transitory sterility
NOAEL
Delayed vaginal opening in pups
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproduction
Impaired menstrual cycles
Reduced implantation success of ova
Reduced pregnancy rate
Immune suppression; decreased thymus weight
in pups
Delayed vaginal opening
NOAEL - developmental effects
Eisler 1988B
HSDB 1995
ATSDR 1993d
ATSDR 1993d
Opresko et al. 1995
ATSDR 1993d
Eisler 1988b
Eisler 1988b
ATSDR 1993d
ATSDR 1993d
ATSDR 1993d
Volume VI
VI-24
18
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Lead: Oral Toxicity
Organism
American kestrel
Mouse
6* Rat
Mallard
Rat
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
Northern bobwhite
Rat
American kestrel
Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Rat
Japanese quail
9 Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
11
19
22
45
90
25
28
34
39
390
64
79
100
200
125
625
141
300
390
395
520
Duration
6 months
38 weeks
60 days
12 weeks
56 days
3 12 days
GD 6-16
41 days; GD 1-21
6 weeks
During pregnancy
10 days
12 weeks
GD 1-2
GD 6-16
5 days
GD 7-20 and 10 days after
birth
Effect
No reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
Partial inhibition of spermatogenesis
Testicular atrophy
No effects
Delayed cortical development in pups
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
Decreased number of pregnancies
Decreased fetal weight
Growth effects
Some deaths in progeny
50% mortality of progeny
Reduced growth of nestlings
40% mortality of nestlings
Decreased number of implantations
Effects on fertility
Increased fetal resorptions; retarded skeletal
development; maternal toxicity
No effects
Biochemical and metabolic effects on newborn
Reference
Eisler 1988b
ATSDR 1993d
ATSDR 1993d
Eisler 1988b
ATSDR 1993d
ATSDR 1993d
ATSDR 1993d
ATSDR 1993d
Opresko et al. 1993
Eisler 1988b
Eisler 1988b
ATSDR 1993d
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1993d
Eisler 1988b
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Organism
9 Mouse
9 Goat, Sheep
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
Lead: Oral Toxicity
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
608
662
790
1,100
1,140
1,120
4,800
6,300
Duration
41 days; GD 1-21
Week 1-21 of gestation
Multigenerations
GD 1-22
14 days prior to mating
through 21 days after birth
Multigenerations
GD 1-16
GD 1-21
Effect
Behavioral changes in offspring
Behavioral effects on newborn
Fetotoxicity; fetal death
Developmental abnormalities of the blood and
lymphatic systems (including spleen and
marrow)
Behavioral effects on newborn
Fetotoxicity; fetal death
Cytological changes including somatic cell
genetic material in embryo or fetus
Effects on fertility index; pre-implatation
mortality
Reference
ATSDR 1993d
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
* Single dose concentrations are in tng/kg BW.
Volume VI
A- \dix VI-24
20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Mercury: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)a
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mink
Mallard
Quail
Quail
Ring-necked pheasant
Prairie chicken
House sparrow
Japanese quail
Gray partridge
Mule deer
Rock dove
Northern bobwhite
Rat
Quail
Chukar
Japanese quail
Whistling duck
Japanese quail
0.16
8.80
2.2
4
11.0
11.5
11.5
12.6
14.4
17.6
17.9
22.8
23.8
25.9
26.0
26.9
31.1
37.8
40
2 months
30-37 days
14 days
5 days
14 days
14 days
14 days
14 days
14 days
14 days
Single dose
14 days
14 days
Single dose
14 days
14 days
14 days
14 days
28 days
Fatal to 100% within 2 months
Fatal to 100% in 30-37 days
LD*
LD»
LD*
LD*
LD»
LD*
LDjo
LDjo
LD»
LD*
LD*
LDjo
LDX
LDM
LD»
LD*
LD86
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 198 7 a
Hill and Camardese
1986
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987 a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
ATSDR 1989a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Mercury: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Passerine bird
Chicken
Quail
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
50
60.0
235
Duration
6-11 days
14 days
5 days
Effect
LD33
LDjo
LD»
Reference
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Chronic Endpoints
Rhesus monkey
Rat
Rat
Mallard
Rat
0 Dog
Mink
Rat
Japanese quail
Quail
Ring-necked pheasant
Mink
Rat
0.016
0.052
0.160
0.05
0.25
0,06
0.10
94
645
0.25
0.15
0.45
0. 158 (inorganic)
0.1 58 (methyl)
0.176
0.2
4.0
During pregnancy
3 generations
52 days
3 generations
GD 1 - Postgestation
day 42
During pregnancy
93 days
During prenancy
1 year
Chronic
12 weeks
Not specified
GD 6-14
No adverse effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproduction
NOAEL
Fetal eye anomalies
Reduced egg production, hatching success
Fetal neurotoxicity
High incidence of stillbirths
NOAEL
LOAEL - mortality, weight loss, axatia
Behavioral effects in offspring
NOAEL - reproduction
Significant reproductive effects
Decrease hatching rate
"Signs of poisoning"
NOAEL
Fetotoxicity
Eisler 1987a
Opresko etal. 1995
ATSDR 1989a
Eisler 1987a
ATSDR 1989a
Eisler 1987a
Opresko et al. 1995
Eisler 1987a
Opresko et al. 1995
Scheuhammer 1987
Scheuhammer 1987
Eisler 1987a
ATSDR 1989a
Volume VI
Ar Nlix VI-24
22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Mercury: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Cat
Cat
Mammals
Quail
Rat
Kg
Rhesus monkey
Ring-necked pheasant
Japanese quail
Quail
Quail
Birds
Pheasant
Japanese quail
Chicken
Rat
S Mouse
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.32
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.6
0.6 (inorganic)
0.6
2.4
0.64
0.64
0.8
0.9 (methyl)
1.0
1.0
5.0
Duration
During pregnancy
78 + days
—
9 weeks
Not specified
During pregnancy
During pregnancy
70 days
3 weeks
Not specified
5 days
—
30 days
3 weeks
8 weeks
7 days
GD6-17
Effect
Increase in fetal abnormalities
Mean survival time was 78 days
Chronic mammalian threshold level
No mortality
Reduced fertility
High incidence of stillbirths
Maternal toxicity; aborted young
No mortality
LD*
Decreased gonad weight
Decreased egg fertility
Some deaths
LDM
Chronic bird threshold level (oral)
Reduced reproductive output
Reduced egg production, fertility of eggs,
and hatch rates
LOAEL - reproduction
Effects on male fertility
NOAEL
Fetal death
Reference
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 198 7 a
Eisler 1987a
Scheuhammer 1987
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
IPCS 1989a
Opresko et al. 1993
ATSDR 1989a
ATSDR 1989a
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
23
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Mercury: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Am. black duck
Mouse
Quail
Mallard
Mouse
9 Hamster
Chicken
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
1.7
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.8 (methyl)
5
15.7
31.4
17.5
Duration
28 weeks
Single dose (GD 8)
9 weeks
3 months
7 days
Single dose (GD 8-9)
8 weeks
Effect
Significant reproductive inhibition
NOAEL
Fetal death
No mortality
NOAEL
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
Fetal resorption
LOAEL - reproduction
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Reference
Eisler 1987a
ATSDR 1989a
Eisler 198 7 a
Opresko et al. 1993
ATSDR 1989a
ATSDR 1989a
Opresko et al. 1993
Volume VI
VI-24
24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Nickel: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Guinea pig
Rat
Rat
Rat
Mouse
9 Rat
cJ Rat
$ Mouse
$ Mouse
$ Rat
? Rat
Mouse
5
8.6
66
116
136
350
360
410
420
490
500
600
Not reported
91 days
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
LOu,
25% mortality
lAo
LD*
LD*.
LDjo
LD*.
LDW
LDso
LDso
LDM
lAo
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 19931
ATSDR 19931
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 199 Ic
IPCS 1991c
Chronic Endpoints
Chicken
Rat
Rat
$ Mouse
Mallard
&»$
50
50
90.6
113
4 weeks
Multiple generations
Multiple generations
GD 8-12
90 days
NOAEL - weight gain/metabolism
Decrease in the number of offspring per litter
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - developmental effects
No adverse effects
Opresko et al. 1993
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
Cain & Pafford 1981
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Nickel: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Mallard
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
450
Duration
90 days
Effect
NOAEL - survival; body weight
Reference
Cain& Pafford 1981
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
A- t,dix VI-24
26
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Selenium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rabbit
Cow
Guinea pig
Sheep
Mouse
Horse
Mule
Dog
Rat
Rat
Cattle
Swine
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
1
2
2.3
3.2 - 12.8
3.2-3.5
3.3
3.3
4
4.8-6
7
11
15
78
138
3,700
6,700
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Not specified
Single dose
Not specified
Not specified
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Not specified
Not specified
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
LDjo
LD*
lAo
Death
LD»
Minimum lethal oral dose
Minimum lethal oral dose
LDM
LDM
LDM
Minimum lethal oral dose
Minimum lethal oral dose
LD*
LD»
to*,
LD*
ATSDR 1989b
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1989b
Eisler 1985b
ATSDR 1989b
Eisler 1985b
Eisler 1985b
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
Eisler 1985b
Eisler 1985b
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
RTECS 1995
Chronic Toxicity
Rat
0.06
Lifetime
Minimum toxic concentration affecting longevity
Eisler 1985b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
27
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Selenium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Mouse
Mouse
Rat
9 Pig
Mouse
Mallard
Mallard
Japanese quail
Chicken
Mallard
Mallard
Mallard
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
0.17
6.34
0.34
0.35
1.05
0.41
0.42
0,4
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.1
<.2.8
5.6
14
56
5.6
5.6
11.3
22.5
45
Duration
48 days
48 days
1 year
6 weeks
3 generations
100 days
78 days
Not specified
Not specified
3 months
3 months
3 months
1 month
Not specified
16 weeks
Effect
NOAEL
Reduced fetal growth
NOAEL - reproductive effects
50% reduction in reproduction
No reproduction - females
Fetal, maternal toxicity
Fetal lethality; 50% reduction in number of offspring
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproductive effects
Reduced hatching success
Reduced hatching success
No effects
No effect - egg hatching rate
Reduced egg hatching; reduced growth and reproduction
Fatal
Reduced hatching success (organic form of Se)
No effect - survival and body weight
Decreased body weight; 25% mortality
Decreased body weight; 95% mortality
Decreased body weight; 100% mortality
Reference
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
Opresko et al.
1995
Opresko et al.
1995
Eisler 1985b
Eisler 1985b
Eisler 1985h
Eisler 1985b
Heinz and
Fitzgerald 1993
Volume VI
A ^ldixVI-24
28
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Selenium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Mallard
(ducklings)
Mallard
Mouse
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
5.6
11.3
22.5
45
8.4
134
Duration
6 weeks
21 weeks
Multigenerations
Effect
No effect - mortality and growth
No mortality; decreased growth
Mortality
Mortality
Decreased hatching success; increase in defective
embryos
Fetotoxicity; fetal death
Reference
Heinz and
Fitzgerald 1993
Heinz and
Fitzgerald 1993
RTECS 1995
* Single dose exposures are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
29
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Silver: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Toxicity
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Rat
100
181
362
1,680
2,820
Single dose
2 weeks
4 days
Single dose
lAo
NOAEL - mortality
25% mortality
Mortality
LD*
Jorgensen et al. 1991
ATSDR 1990d
ATSDR 1990d
Jorgensen et al. 1991
Chronic Toxicity
No studies were located regarding chronic reproductive toxicity following oral exposure to silver.
Volume VI
A ^dix VI-24
30
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Thallium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Guinea pig
Dog
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)*
Duration
Effect
Reference
0.2
1.4
2.3
4.5
5
15
15.8
16- 19
20
29
32
39
90 days
36 weeks
15 weeks
15 weeks
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
NOAEL - mortality
Increased mortality
Increased mortality
Increased mortality
LDu,
Lethal
LD*
U^
LOu,
LDs,
LDs,
LD*
ATSDR 1990e
ATSDR 1990e
ATSDR 1990e
ATSDR 1990e
ATSDR 1990e
OHM/TADS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1990e
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1990e
ATSDR 1990e
Chronic Endpoints
0 Rat
6* Rat
0.1
0&
GD6-9
60 days
Changes in offspring behavior
Adverse effects - sperm motility/spermatogenesis
ATSDR 1990e
ATSDR 1990e
" Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
31
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Zinc: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Toxicity
Mouse
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
86
204
237
293
337
350-800
528
605
623
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
LDW
LDM
LD»
LD*
LDW
LDM
LDjo
LDM
lAo
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
Eisler 1993
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
Chronic Toxicity
Chicken (chicks)
Mink
? Rat
Dog
9 Chicken
17.5
350
350
525
700
1,400
2,800
W.9
25
25
up to 31
21 days
21 days
30 days
30 days
4 weeks
5 weeks
5 weeks
25 wk
GD 0-20
up to 1 year
up to 9 months
No effect
Slight decrease in growth
Slight decrease in growth
Significant decrease in growth
No effect on growth or survival
80% mortality
100% mortality
NOAEL - developmental and reproductive effects
NOAEL - developmental effects
No effect
No effect on progeny
Eisler 1993
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
Eisler 1993
Eisler 1993
Volume VI
A Mn VI-24
32
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Zinc: Oral Toxicity
Organism
-------
Zinc: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
9 Chicken
1,750
2 days
Ceased laying
Eisler 1993
Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
A dix VI-24
34
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
C / ( 'i ' "•• -
Anthracene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Acute Endpoints
Red-winged blackbird
House sparrow
> 111.
> 244
Single dose
Single dose
Effect
LDM
LDjo
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
3,306
Not reported
" Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Carcinogenicity
Reference
Schafer et al. 1983
Schafer et al. 1983
Eisler 1987b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
35
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Benzo(a)pyrene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Acute Endpoints
Rat/Mouse
50
Not reported
LDM
Chronic Endpoints
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
Mouse
9 Mouse
10
40
iO
40
160
40
40
40- 160
75
75
100
100
100
120
133.3
1,280
GD 7-16
During pregnancy
GD7-16
During pregnancy
14 days of pregnancy
GD 7-16
During pregnancy
GD 12-14
GD 7-16
Multiple generations
16 days prior to mating
through 5 days after birth
GD 2-10
19-29 days
16 days prior to mating
through 5 days after birth
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased pup weight
Reduction in fertility and reproductive capacity
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased pregnancy maintenance
Near complete sterility in offspring
Effects to embryo/fetus
Sterility in female offspring
Increased resorption; fetal death
Effects on newborn
Effects on newborn growth
Effects on litter size
Maternal effects - oogenesis
Fetal resorption
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Effects on newborn
Reference
Eisler 1987b
ATSDR 1989c
HSDB 1995
ATSDR 1989c
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1989c
ATSDR 1989c
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Ar ^dixVI-24
36
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Benzo(a)pyrene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Rat
9 Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
1,344
2,000
Duration
IS days prior to mating
through 5 days after birth
28 days prior to mating
plus GD 1-22
Effect
Effects on live birth index
Increase in stillbirths; effects on newborn growth .
Reference
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
* Single dose concentrations are in rng/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
37
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate: Oral Toxicity
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Guinea pig
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rabbit
Rabbit
26,000
26,000
30,000
30,000
30,600
33,900
34,000
Chronic Endpoints
Ring dove
9 Rat
6* Rat
Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
<5 Rat
-------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate: Oral Toxicity
Organism
6 Rat
Rat
Rat
Chicken
9 Rat
<5 Rat
Pheasant
6 Mouse
9 Chicken
9 Rat
6 Rat
(J Rat
6 Rat
6 Rat
6* Rat
6 Rat
(J Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
100
1,000
200
200
350
357
666
1,055
450
600
650
875
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Duration
5 days - postpartum
2 years
1 year
4 weeks
CD 0-20
3 days prior to mating
5 days
21 d prior to mating
up to 230 days
42 days
14 days - postpartum
14 days - postpartum
5 days - postpartum
14 days - postpartum
10 days - postpartum
14 days - postpartum
14 days - postpartum
Effect
NOAEL
Reduced testes weight and changes in testes structure
NOAEL - reproductive effects -
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Decrease in egg production and body weight
NOAEL
Decreased maternal body weight
Fetal resorptions
Effects to paternal testes, epididymis, sperm duct, prostate,
and seminal vesicles
No effect - mortality
Paternal effect on spermatogenesis
Cessation of egg production; effects to ovary
Decreased testicular weight and tubular damage
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Changes in testicular cells
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Reversible decrease in testicular weight (40%)
Testicular damage
Decreased testicular weight and tubular damage
Reference
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
IPCS 1992b
ATSDR 1993e
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1992b
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1992b
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
Volume VI
Annendix VI-24
39
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Mouse
Rat
3 Guinea pig
Rat
Rat
$ Rat
9 Rat
Rat
Rat
6 Rat
Monkey
9 Mouse
Mallard
Rat
(5 Rat
(5 Rat
(5 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
1,000
1,055
1,200
1,300
1,700
1,700
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,040
2,800
2,800
2,800
2,800
2,800
4,882
9,756
7,140
Duration
7 days of pregnancy
5 days - postpartum
10 d prior to mating
Multigenerations
Not specified
14 days - postpartum
3-5 d during lactation
2 years
15 days
10 days - postpartum
14 days
GD 1-17
5 days
10 days - postpartum
10 days - postpartum
10 days - postpartum
10 days - postpartum
GD 12
GD 1-21
Effect
Musculoskeletal abnormalities
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Paternal effects on testes, epididymis, and sperm duct
Effects on post-implantation mortality
Significant decrease in placenta! weight
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Decreased milk synthesis; decreased pup weight gain
Testicular damage
Decreased testicular weight; damaged spermatogenic cells
Testicular damage
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Fetal death, CNS, eye, ear, and cardiovascular effects
No effect - mortality
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Decreased testes weight (30%) and tissue damage
Testicular damage; decreased weight of seminal vesicles
Testicular damage
Slight increase in dead, resorbed, malformed fetuses
Significant increase in dead, resorbed, malformed fetuses
Fetotoxicity
Reference
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1993e
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Thomas et al. 1978
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1992b
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR I993e
ATSDR 1993e
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
A- ^dix Vl-24
40
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Bis(Z-ethylhexyl) Phthalate: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Mouse
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
9,766
10,000
78,880
Duration
12 d during gestation
GD 6-15
GD 6-13
Effect
Musculoskeletal abnormalities
Fetotoxicity
Decreased litter size
Reference
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
" Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
41
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,4-D: OralToxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Dog
Chukar
Rat
Mouse
Mouse
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Guinea pig
Ring-necked
pheasant
Rat
Hamster
Mouse
Chicken
100
100
200-400
275
300
347
370
375
375
443
469
472
500
500
521
541
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
lAo
LD*.
to*
lAo
LD*
lAo
LDM
LD»
LD*
lAo
LDs,
LA,
lAo
LDj,
lAo
LDW
OHM/TADS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
HSDB 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
A \iK VI-24
42
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,4-D: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Mule deer
Japanese quail
Rock dove
Rabbit
Mallard
Chicken
Chronic Endpoints
Birds/mammals
9 Rat
Rat
9 Mouse
5 Rat
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Hamster
9 Rat
9 Mouse
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)a
600
668
668
800
> 1,000
4,000
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Effect
U^
LA,,
LDW
LDLO
LD*
LD*
W
25
75
87.5
100 - 150
125
147
200
220
221
Lifetime
GD 6-15
4 weeks
GD 8-12
GD 6-15
GD 6-15
Not reported
GD7-11
GD 1-22
Not reported
NOAEL
NOAEL - developmental effects
NOAEL - toxic effects
Reduced birth weight; maternal toxicity
Fetotoxicity; developmental abnormalities
Developmental abnormalities in offspring
Decreased fetal weight
Decrease in litter size
Developmental abnormalities in offspring
Increased fetal mortality
Reference
OHM/TADS 1995
HSDB 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
HSDB 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
43
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,4-D: OralToxicity
Organism
9 Mouse
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
438
500
707
900
1,000
Duration
GD 8-12
GD 6-15
GD 11-14
GD 6-14
GD 6-15
Effect
Effects on newborn growth
Fetotoxicity; developmental abnormalities; effects
on newborn growth
Fetotoxicity; fetal death; developmental
abnormalities
Decreased litter size; developmental abnormalities
Fetotoxicity; fetal death; developmental
abnormalities
Reference
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
* Single dose concentrations are in rng/kg BW.
Volume VI
A xlix VI-24
44
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
4,4'-DDE: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Northern bobwhite
Japanese quail
Ring-necked
pheasant
Japanese quail
Mouse
Mouse
Rat
Mallard
Hamster
65
68
102
107
700
810
880
2,011
> 5,000
5 days
5 days
5 days
5 days
Not reported
Single dose
Single dose
5 days
Not reported
LDjo
lAo
LD*
LDso
LDW
lAo
IA,,
LD*
LD»
Chronic Endpoints
Brown pelican
American kestrel
American kestrel
Dog
Rat
0.028
PI
1.8
I
5
1
10
> 1 year
Not reported
Not reported
2 generations
2 generations
NOAEL - reproduction
Decrease in eggshell thickness
Decrease in eggshell thickness
NOAEL
LOAEL - premature puberty
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproductive effects
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992c
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992c
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
Opresko et al. 1993
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
ATSDR 1992c
ATSDR 1992c
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
45
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
4,4'-DDE: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Mouse
Am. black duck
Japanese quail
Mallard
Mouse
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Dog
9 Rat
6* Rat
9 Rat
Mouse
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
1
13
1.1
2.0
2.0
2.4
6.5
32.5
10
10
12
12.1
21.85
28
34
Duration
70 weeks
4 years
14 weeks
6 months
15 months
Lifetime - 5 generations
Lifetime
5 d/w; 9 weeks
5 d/w; 14 months
78 weeks
78 weeks
GD 15-19.
78 weeks
Effect
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased survival
Reduced eggshell thickness; decreased
reproductive success
LOAEL - reproduction
Eggshell thinning
NOAEL - reproduction
NOAEL
LOAEL - increase in pre-weaning mortality rate
NOAEL - reproduction
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Maternal and fetal toxicity
Increased mortality
Increased mortality
NOAEL - developmental effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Reference
ATSDR 1992c
Longcore and Stendell
1977
Opresko et al. 1993
Newell et al. 1987
ATSDR 1992c
ATSDR 1992c
ATSDR 1992c
ATSDR 1992c
ATSDR 1992c
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
ATSDR 1992c
ATSDR 1992c
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
A \lix VI-24
46
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorobenzene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Quail
Ring-necked
Pheasant
Cat
Rabbit
Rat
Mouse
Mallard
Rat
Guinea pig
Quail
Concentration
(mg/kg-Bw/day)1
Duration
Effect
Reference
5
45
617
1,700
2,600.
3,500-10,000
4,000
> 5,000
10,000
73,000
76,400
1 generation
5 days
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
LD»
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LDS
lAo
lAo
LDjo
LD»
ATSDR 1989e
Hill and
Camardese 1986
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Japanese quail
Mink
Rat
9 Japanese quail
0.08
0.16
i.6
1.6
Not specified
Not specified
2 years - 4 generation
90 days
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Fetal and postnatal toxicity
NOAEL - reproduction
Reduced egg production and hatchability
Coulston and
Kolbye 1994a
Coulston and
Kolbye 1994a
ATSDR 1989e
HSDB 1995
Opresko et al.
1993
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-24
47
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorobenzene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Japanese quail
9 Rat
9 Mammal
(unspecified)
9 Rat
9 Rat
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-Bw/day)'
6.3
10
27.6
40
60
88
120
212
556
600
625
1,000
6,450
Duration
90 days
Exposure continuous during
2 consecutive litters
66 days prior to mating
through 28 days after birth
GD 10-13
Multigenerations
6 : 70 days prior to mating
9 : 70 days prior to mating
through 22 days after birth
GD6-21
14 days prior to mating
through 17 days after birth
96 days prior to mating
through 21 days after birth
GD6-17
GD 8-12
GD7-16
GD 1-22 + 21 days after
birth
Effect
Reduced egg production and hatchability
92.6% neonatal lethality
Effects on weaning or lactation index
Musculoskeletal developmental abnormalities
Effects on weaning or lactation index
Effects on growth
NOAEL - developmental effects
Biochemical and metabolic effects on newborns
Effects on weaning or lactation index
Effects on weaning or lactation index
Biochemical and metabolic effects on newborns
Effects on live birth index
Effects on viability index
Craniofacial developmental effects
Urogenital developmental effects
Developmental effects on blood and lymphatic systems
Developmental effects on immune system
Reference
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1989e
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
" Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
f idix VI-24
48
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorobutadiene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
9 Rat
? Rat
6 Rat
? Mouse
-------
Hexachlorobutadiene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Japanese quail
9 Rat
Quail
Rat
6 Mouse
9 Rat
9 Rat
Mouse
9 Rat
Rat
9 Rat
Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
0.25
0.80
2
20
2.4
7.5
10.9
15
15
150
19
20
45
178
4,000
Duration
90 days
GD 1-22
3 months
6 wk + gestation/lactation
13 weeks prior to mating
18 weeks
18 weeks
13 weeks
148 days
6: 13 wk prior to mating
9: 13 wk prior to mating
through 3 wk after birth
GD 1-22
6*: 13 wk prior to mating
9: 13 wk prior to mating
through 3 wk after birth
Effect
NOAEL
LOAEL - chick survival
NOAEL
13% decreased neonatal weight
No effect - body weight, egg production, survival .
Reduced fertility, litter size, and pup weight
Spermatogenesis
Reduced pup weight
NOAEL
Infertility
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Biochemical and metabolic effects on newborns
Effects on growth
Growth effects
Reference
IPCS 1994
ATSDR 1992b
Newell etal. 1987
IPCS 1994
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992b
ATSDR 1992b
ATSDR 1992b
ATSDR 1992b
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
VI-24
50
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Acute Endpoints
Rat
6 Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
9 Rat
Rabbit
6 Rat
Rat
Mouse
6* Rat
9 Rat
Mouse
9 Rabbit
6 Rat
Rat
Mouse
9 Rat
113
150
280
300
300 - 630
315.
420
425
500
505
510
530
600
640
650
651
680
690
Duration
Effect
Single dose
Not reported
Single dose
Not reported
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
LD»
Death
LDu,
Death
LD*
LD*.
LDLO
LD»
LD»
LD»
LD*
LDu,
LD»
LD*
LDLO
LDM
LDX
LDW
Reference
OHM/TADS 1995
HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1984b
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1984b
OHM/TADS 1995
RTECS 1995
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
OHM/TADS 1995
RTECS 1995
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
51
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Rat
Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
926
1,300
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
Effect
LD»
LDM
Reference
U.S. EPA 1984b
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Rabbit
9 Rabbit
id
30
75
75
975
GD6-15
GD 6-15
GD 6-15
GD 6-18
NOAEL
LOAEL - maternal toxicity
NOAEL - teratogenicity, embryotoxicity,
fetotoxicity
NOAEL - teratogenicity, embryotoxicity,
fetotoxicity
Developmental abnormalities in offspring .
U.S. EPA 1984b
U.S. EPA 1984b
HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1984b
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
A MixVI-24
52
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorophene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
6* Rat
Rat (suckling)
Dog
Goat
Rabbit
Rat
9 Rat
(JRat
Guinea pig
? Rat
Mouse
Rat
Mouse
Rat (weanling)
Rat
Rat
9 Rat
6
9
15-30
30
40.7
56
56
58-87
60
63-87
67
67
120
120
137
187
435
Single dose
Single dose
Not reported
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Not reported
Single dose
6: 14 wk prior to mating
?: 14 wk prior to mating
through 3 wk after birth
Single dose
GD 15-22 and 21 days after
birth
LDM
LD»
ID*
LD*
LD*
LDW
LDM
LDW
LDM
LDW
LDM
LDa,
LD»
LDW
LDjo
LD^
LDW
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1986b
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1986b
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
53
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorophene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Northern
bobwhite
Mallard
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Rat
Dog
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
6* Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BVV/day)"
$7$ "
1,450
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
Effect
LD«
LD*
Reference
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
M
4.5
3.75
5
7.5
10
20
15
30
15
30
25
37.5
40
50
3 generations
3 generations
63 days prior to mating
GD 7-19
GD 7-15
GD 6-15
GD 15 through lactation
63 days prior to mating
GD 8-20
Entire pregnancy
GD7-8
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproduction
NOAEL - reproduction
Spermatogenesis effects
NOAEL - fetotoxicity
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproduction (number of litters)
NOAEL
LOAEL - reduced fetal body weight; increased
incidence of fetal malformations
NOAEL
LOAEL - increased stillbirths; reduced survival at
weaning
Spermatogenesis effects
Fetal effects - reduced birth weight; cleft palate
NOAEL - developmental effects
Craniofacial abnormalities
Opresko et al. 1993
U.S. EPA 1986b
U.S. EPA 1986b
RTECS 1995
U.S. EPA 1986b
U.S. EPA 1986b
U.S. EPA 1986b
U.S. EPA 1986b
RTECS 1995
U.S. EPA 1986b
U.S. EPA 1986b
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
VI-24
54
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Hexachlorophene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)*
75
Duration
Throughout pregnancy
Effect
NOAEL - developmental and reproductive effects
Reference
U.S. EPA 1986b
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
55
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Organism
Pentachlorobenzene: Oral Toxicity
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Acute Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Rat
6" Rat
<$ Mouse
9 Mouse
940
1,080
1,125
1,175
1,370
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
$ Rat
$ Rat
$ Rat
9 Mouse
9 Rat
tl
23
17
27
50
50
100
100
180 days
180 days
GD 6-15
GD 6-15
GD6-15
GD 6-15
Effect
Reference
LDs,
LDj,
IA,,
lAo
LDM
HSDB 1995
IPCS 1991b
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1991b
HSDB 1995
IPCS 1991b
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1991b
HSDB 1995
IPCS 1991b
NOAEL
LOAEL - reduced survival of offspring
NOAEL
LOAEL - maternal toxicity; effects to pups
Increased incidence of extra ribs
LOAEL - fetal death
NOAEL - teratogenic effects
NOAEL - teratogenic effects
U.S. EPA 1985b
IPCS 1991 b
IPCS 1991b
U.S. EPA 1985b
U.S. EPA 1985b
HSDB 1995
IPCS 1991b
U.S. EPA 1985b
Volume VI
/ Ndix Vl-24
56
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Pentachlorobenzene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
-------
Pentachlorophenol: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Rat
Frog
Rat
Mouse
Dog
Rat
Rat
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Mouse
Mouse
Rat
Mouse
Eastern chipmunk
6 Rat
Dog
Hamster
27
27
36
50
65
70
78
80
80-160
100
117
6* 117
0 177
125-275
6* 129
? 134
138
146
150
168
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Not specified
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*,
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992e
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992e
Eisler 1989
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992e
OHM/TADS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992e
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1992e
Eisler 1989
HSDB 1995
Eisler 1989
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
A- ^dix VI-24
58
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Pentachlorophenol: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
9 Mallard
9 Ring-necked
pheasant
Japanese quail
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
175
180
210
211
300
320-330
380
504
250
300
400
475
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
2x/week; 1-3 months
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
5 days
5 days
5 days
5 days
Effect
lAo
lAo
LD»
LD»
LA,,
LDM
I'D*
LDM
LD0
LD3j
LDM
LDW
Reference
HSDB 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
HSDB 1995
ATSDR 1992e
ATSDR 1992e
OHM/TADS 1995
Hudson et al. 1984;
Eisler 1989
Hudson et al. 1984;
Eisler 1989
Eisler 1989
Chronic Endpoints
$ Rat
9 Hamster
Rat
9 Mouse
L2
6.0
1.25-20
1.5
3.0
3.0
3
8 months
8 months
GD 5-10
12 weeks
62 days
2 years
24 months
No effect
No effect
Increase in fetal deaths and resorptions
NOAEL
No reproductive effects
No adverse effects
NOAEL - reproduction
Eisler 1989
HSDB 1995
Eisler 1989
Eisler 1989
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
59
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Pentachlorophenol: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
6* Mouse
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
Chicken
9 Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
4
13
43
5
5
15
30
5
13
5
30
10
13
15
15
25
50
60
100
200
400
120
Duration
181 days
GD6-15
GD 6-15
GD 6-15
GD6-15
22 months
181 days
GD 6-15
Not reported
7 d/w x 2 generations
GD 6-15
GD9
8 weeks
8 weeks
8 weeks
GD8-11
Effect
NOAEL
10% decreased fetal body weight
Embryo lethality
Fetal anomalies
NOAEL
Fetotoxicity
Decreased fetal weight; skeletal anomolies
NOAEL
Increased incidence of resorptions
NOAEL
Increased incidence of resorptions
No effects
Reduced crown to rump length
Increased skeletal alterations
No effect
Delayed ossification of the skull
Decreased litter size
100% fetal resorption
Fetotoxicity
No effects
Decreased body weight
Decreased body weight
Homeostatis
Reference
ATSDR 1992e
ATSDR 1992e
ATSDR 1992e
ATSDR 1992e
ATSDR 1992e
Eisler 1989
HSDB 1995
Eisler 1989
HSDB 1995
ATSDR 1992e
Eisler 1989
RTECS 1995
Eisler 1989
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
A ^idix VI-24
60
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Pentachlorophenol: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Rat
4,000
77 d prior to mating
through 28 d after birth
Growth effects in young
RTECS 1995
Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-24
61
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-
BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mink
Rat
Mink
Northern bobwhite
Ring-necked pheasant
Japanese quail
Rat
Mink
Rat
Mallard
Rat
Rat
European starling
Red-winged blackbird
Brown-headed cowbird
Mouse
Mallard
Mink
1.25
2.5
7.1
50
135
175
500
750
1,010
1,100
1,295
1,315
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,900
> 2,000
4,000
9 months
2 years
28 days
5 days
5 days
5 days
Single dose
Single exposure
Single exposure
5 days
Single exposure
Single exposure
4 days
6 days
7 days
Single exposure
Single dose
Single exposure
LDX
34% decreased survival
LD*
u^
LD*
LD»
LD»
LD*
LD»
LDM
LDX
LDjo
LD*
LDjo
IA,
LD^
LDM
LD*,
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
Eisler 1986a
Eisler 1986a
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
Eisler 1986a
Eisler 1986a
RTECS 1995
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
Volume VI
fi ^dix VI-24
62
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-
BW/day)"
4,250
Duration
Single exposure
Effect
LD»
Chronic Endpoints
Monkey
Monkey
9 Mink
Mink
Monkey
Monkey
Monkey
Monkey
Mink
Rat
Mink
Mink
0.007
0.03
0.008
0.03
0.008
0.5
1.75
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.13
1.3
13.5
0.16
0.32
0.8
0.18
12 months
18 months
66 days
160 days
Not specified
238 days
12 months
15 months
18 months
6 months
42 days
8 months
8 months
4 months
6 months
NOAEL
18% reduction in birth weight
NOAEL
15% decreased birth weight
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Severe reduction in number of kits produced
Complete reproductive failure
Reproductive failure
Death
100% fetal death
Decreased spennatogenesis; decreased libido
72% infant death
50% infant death
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - developmental effects
Increased liver weight
50% neonatal death
NOAEL - reproductive effects
LOAEL - reproductive failure
Reproductive failure
Delayed growth; 89% neonatal death
Reference
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
IPCS 1993a
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR I993f
Volume VI
Anuendix VI-24
63
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Monkey
9 Rhesus monkey
9 Mink
Chicken
Rat
Chicken
9 Mink
Screech owl
Mink
9 Cottontail rabbit
9 Mouse
Ringed turtle dove
Mourning dove
White-footed mouse
Ring-necked pheasant
Concentration
(mg/kg-
BW/day)'
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.224
2.24
0.32
1.5
0,35
0.9
0.4
$3
0.9
1
12.5
1.25
12.5
1.4
1.4
5.5
1.5
1.57
Duration
38 weeks
6 months
4 months
9 weeks
129 days
Not specified
Not specified
39 weeks
2 breeding seasons
247 days
28 days (gestation)
108 days
3 months
6 weeks
up to 18 months
17 weeks
Effect
No conception; post-implant bleeding and abortion
Reproductive effects
NOAEL
Decreased reproduction rates and litter size
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - developmental effects
15-24% decreased litter size
No reproductive impairment
Reproductive impairment
Decreased reproduction rates and litter size
No reproductive impairment
No reproduction
NOAEL
Embryotoxicity
NOAEL
55% decreased conception
Reproductive impairment
Inhibited nesting behavior
Inhibited nesting behavior
Decreased reproductive success
NOAEL - reproduction
Reference
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
Newell et al. 1987
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
Newell et al. 1987
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
Eisler 1986a
Linzey 1987; 1988
Opresko et al. 1993
Volume VI
A dix Vl-24
64
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Oral Toxicity
Organism
6* Chicken
9 Chicken
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Guinea pig
Mouse
9 Rat
European ferret
Raccoon
Japanese quail
Northern bobwhite
9 Monkey
9 Monkey
European ferret
9 Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-
BW/day)"
3.5
3.5
2.0
4.0
2.5
5
15
2.5
3.0
5.0
3
32
3.2
3.9
4
4
4.3
4.3
4.8
20
6.9
35.4
Duration
8 weeks
8 weeks
GD 6-15
GD 6-15
GD 18-60
30 days
9 days during lactation
9 months
Not specified
"Long-term"
"Long-term"
2 months
2 months
4 months
67 days
Effect
NOAEL - semen characteristics
NOAEL - fertility and egg hatchability
NOAEL
LOAEL - neurobehayioral effects
NOAEL
12% decreased fetal weight
65% decreased fetal survival
34% increase in fetal death
NOAEL
LOAEL - mortality and reproductive effects
NOAEL
Decreased male fertility; 52% decreased fetuses
Reproductive failure
Weight loss; loss of appetite
No reproductive effects
No reproductive effects
Resorption or abortion in 2 of 3 females
Decreased conception in 1 of 4 females
Complete reproductive failure
LD*
NOAEL - developmental effects
31-45% decreased litter size
Reference
IPCS 1993a
IPCS 1993a
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
Newell et al. 1987
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
Newell et al. 1987
Eisler 1986a
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
Newell et al. 1987
ATSDR 1993f
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
65
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Rat
Mallard
9 Rat
American kestrel
9 Rabbit
9 Mouse
Mouse
White-footed mouse
-------
Organism
9 Mammal
(Unspecified)
9 Mammal
(Unspecified)
9 Rat
Polychiorinated Biphenyls: Oral Toxicity
Concentration
(mg/kg-
BW/day)'
325
325
420
Duration
30 days prior to mating
and GD 1-36
30 days prior to mating
and GD 1-36
21 days after birth
Effect
Stillbirths
Effects on live birth index and viability index
Effects on growth statistics
Behavioral effects on newboms
Reference
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
fi7
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,3,7,8-TCDD: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
9 Guinea pig
Mink
Dog
Chicken
Monkey
Guinea pig
Rabbit
Mouse
Northern bobwhite
Rat
Rat
Chicken
9 Rat
Dog
0.0005
0.0006
0.0021
0.0042
0.001
O.OOJ
0.002
0.006
0.010
0.0114
0.015
0.020
0.022
0.025
0.045
0.100
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
21 days
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
LDs,
LDs,
LDs,
LDs,
lAo
Some death
LDjo
LDs,
LDs,
LDs,
LDs,
LDs,
LDs,
LDs,
LDs,
LDs,
RTECS 1995
U.S. EPA 1990c
HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1990c
RTECS 1995
Eisler 1986b
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995;
U.S. EPA 1990c
Eisler 1986b;
U.S. EPA 1990c
RTECS 1995
U.S. EPA 1990c
Eisler 1986b;
U.S. EPA 1990c
HSDB 1995
Eisler 1986b
Volume VI
/»' >dix VI-24
68
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,3,7,8-TCDD: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Mallard
Rabbit
Ringed turtle dove
Frog
Hamster
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
> 0.108
0.115
> 0.810
1
1.16
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Effect
LD»
LD*
LD*.
LD»
LDW
Reference
Eisler 1986b;
U.S. EPA 1990c
RTECS 1995;
U.S. EPA 1990c
Eisler 1986b;
U.S. EPA 1990c
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995;
U.S. EPA 1990c
Chronic Endpoints
0 Rat
0 Rat
Rhesus monkey
Rat
Ring-necked
pheasant
Rat
9 Monkey
Chicken
o.ooooot
d.ooobi
0.0000015
0.0000017
0.000012
0,000014
0.000075
0.000092
0.0001
3 generations
1 day prior to mating
7-29 months
GD 15
10 weeks
GD 15
46 weeks prior to
mating through 17
weeks after birth
Not specified
No reproductive effect
Decreased litter size, survival and growth
Maternal effects to uterus, cervix, and vagina
Some abortions of fetuses
Effects to male reproductive organs
NOAEL - reproduction
Decreased sperm production in offspring
Behavioral effects
NOAEL for mortality
HSDB 1995;
Eisler 1986b;
U.S. EPA 1990c
RTECS 1995
Eisler 1986b
HSDB 1995
Opresko et al.
1993
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
U.S. EPA 1990c
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
69
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Organism
9 Mouse
9 Rabbit
9 Rat
Rat
Hamster
Rat
9 Mouse
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Rat
Hamster
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Hamster
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
0.0001
0.001
0.0001
0.00025
0.0005
0.001
0.000125
0.0005
0.000127
0.00018
0.00127
0.001
0.0015
0.0019
0.002
0.0022
0.009
0.012
0.018
2,3,7,8-TCDD: Oral Toxicity
Duration
GD 6-15
GD 6-15
GD6-15
Multigenerations
GD 7 or 9
Multigenerations
10 days of pregnancy
GD 1-3
GD 10
14 days prior to mating
GD 7 or 9
12 days of pregnancy
GD 10-13
9 days of gestation
Effect
NOAEL
Cleft palate
No significant prenatal mortality; no maternal toxicity
Maternal toxicity; 42% prenatal mortality
Maternal toxicity; 22% prenatal mortality
Maternal toxicity; 100% prenatal mortality
NOAEL
LOAEL - increased fetal mortality, early and late
resorptions
Effects to urogenital system, live birth indes, and weaning
or lactation index
1 1 % increase in kidney abnormalities
Effects on fertility and newborn growth
Effects to urogenital system
Fetotoxicity
Occlusion of ureter by epithelial cells
Increased pre- and post- implantation loss; fetal growth
retardation
Fetal mortality
Craniofacial abnormalities
Increased post-implantation mortality, fetal death
Fetal death
Reference
HSDB 1995
Peterson et al.
1993
HSDB 1995;
Peterson et al.
1993; RTECS
1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
K \dix VI-24
70
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
2,3,7,8-TCDD: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
Monkey
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
0.020
0.100
0.200
0.235
107.
Duration
14 days after pregnancy
through 3 days after
birth
GD 7-16
28 days prior to mating
through 21 days after
birth
4 years
Effect
Effects on growth statistics
NOAEL
LOAEL - maternal toxicity; prenatal mortality
Abnormalities to immune and reticuloendothelial system
Behavioral effects
Reference
RTECS 1995
Peterson et al.
1993
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
71
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
( APPENDIX VI-25
ALLOMETRIC SCALING OF TOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS
-------
Ingestion Toxicologies! Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Aluminum
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Dog
Red Fox
Mink
Ringed Dove
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
14
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.28""
60
11"
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.28
0.43
0.52
60
'73
107
11.0
13.1
6.6
11.1
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
10.0.
4.50
1.00
0.155
0.077
1.22
0.147
• Body weights for the rat and dog were from Newell et al. (1987), for the ringed dove were from
Dunning (1993), and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
c Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 10.
d Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Antimony
Test Species
Indicator Species
Mouse
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
Northern Bobwhite
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.35
94.8te
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.35
0.34
0.41
0.10
0.15
94.8
119
60
101
Body Weight
(kgr
0.032
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
0.190
0.077
1.22
0.147
' Body weights for the mouse were from Newell et al. (1987), for the northern bobwhite were from
U.S. EPA (1993d), and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
c Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Arsenic
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
California Quail
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.58
47.6C
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.12"
0.48d
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.12
0.18
0.22
0.06
0.08
0.48
0.59
0.29
0.50
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
0.170
0.077
1.22
0.147
' Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987), for the California quail were from
Dunning (1993), and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
0 Lowest acute LDg, value for an avian wildlife species.
d Acute U>x value divided by 100.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Barium
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
No Data for Birds
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
26
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.104**
-
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.104
0.159
0.193
0.048
0.070
-
Body Weight
(kg)*
0,200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
-
* Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species were from
Section V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
c Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
d Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Digestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Beryllium
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
No Data for Birds
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.07b
-
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.07
0.11
0.13
0.03
0.05
-
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
-
Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species were from
Section V.
b Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Cadmium
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Dog
Red Fox
Mink
American Black Duck
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
-
2.15°
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
1.5"
0.75
0.45"
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
1.50
2.29
2.78
0.75
0.92
1.33
0.45
0.87
0.44
0.74
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
10.0
4.50
1.00
1.10
0.077
1.22
0.147
* Body weights for the rat and dog were from Newell et al. (1987), for the American black duck
were from U.S. EPA (1993d), and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Highest NOAEL which was lower than the lowest LOAEL.
c Lowest chronic value for an avian wildlife species.
d Chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Chromium
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
American Black Duck
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
2.4
0.10b
Toxicity Benchmarks
(mg/kg/d)
2.40
3.66
4.44
1.10
1.60
0.10
0.19
0.10
0.17
Body Weight
(kg)«
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
1.10
0.077
1.22
0.147
1 Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987), for the American black duck were from
U.S. EPA (1993d), and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Copper
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Mink
Red Fox
Mallard
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
1.2
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.24k
12.9
2.9°
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.24
0.37
0.44
12.9
8.9
2.9
5.6
2.8
4.8
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
1.00
4.50
1.10
0.077
1.22
0.147
* Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987), for the mink and mallard were from U.S.
EPA (1993d), and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
c Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Lead
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Dog
Red Fox
Mink
Japanese Quail
American Robin
Belted Kingfisher
American Kestrel
Red-tailed Hawk
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
-
-
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.70
0.32
1.13
15
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.70
1.07
1.30
0.32
0.39
0.57
1.13
1.38
1.17
15
8.3
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
10.0
4.50
1.00
0.170
0.077
0.147
0.115
1.22
* Body weights for the rat and dog were from Newell et al. (1987), for the quail were from Dunning
(1993), for the American kestrel were from U.S. EPA (1993d), and for the indicator species were
from Section V.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Mercury
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Dog
Red Fox
Mink
Mallard
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
0.1
0.06
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.032
0.02b
0.15
0.012"
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.032
0.049
0.059
0.020
0.024
0.15
0.012
0.023
0.012
0.020
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
10.0
4.50
1.00
1.10
0.077
1.22
0.147
' Body weights for the rat and dog were from Newell et al. (1987), for the mallard were from U.S.
EPA (1993d), and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
11
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Nickel
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
Chicken
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
50
_
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
1.0"
0.428"1
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
1.00
1.52
1.85
0.46
0.67
0.428
0.768
0.385
0.654
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
0.80
0.077
1.22
0.147
* Body weights for the rat and chicken were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species
were from Section V.
b Lowest chronic .LOAEL value divided by 5.
c Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
d Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
12
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Selenium
Test Species
Indicator Species
Mouse
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fax
Mink
Japanese Quail
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.034k
0.4
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.034
0.033
0.040
0.010
0.014
0.40
0.49
0.24
0.41
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.032
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
0.170
0.077
1.22
0.147
• Body weights for the mouse were from Newell et al. (1987), for the quail were from Dunning
(1993), and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
13
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Silver
Test Species
indicator Species
Mouse
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
No Data for Birds
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
100
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
1.0"
-
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
1.00
0.96
1.17
0.29
0.42
'
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.032
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
-
* Body weights for the mouse were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species were
from Section V.
" Acute value divided by 100.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
14
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Thallium
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
No Data for Birds
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.7
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.0028"°"
-
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.0028
0.0043
0.0052
0.0013
0.0019
-
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
. 4.50
1.00
'
" Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species were from
Section V.
b Lowest chronic LQAEL value divided by 5.
c Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
d Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
15
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Zinc
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Dog
Red Fox
Mink
Chicken
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
-
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
2.5"
25
20.8
14*
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
2.5
3.8
4.6
25
31
20.8
14
25
13
21
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
10.0
4.50
1.00
0.80
0.077
1.22
0.147
• Body weights for the rat, dog, and chicken were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator
species were from Section V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 10.
c Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
d Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
16
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Anthracene
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
Red-winged Blackbird
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
3,300
> 111
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
66W
o.iir
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
66
101
122
30
44
0.111
0.101
0.051
0.086
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
0.053
0.077
1.22
0.147
* Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987), for the red-winged blackbird were from
Dunning (1993), and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Acute LDjo value divided by 1000.
6 Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
17
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicoiogical Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Benzo(a)pyrene
Test Species
Indicator Species
Mouse
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
No Data for Birds
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
10
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.02W
-
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.020
0.019
0.023
0.006
0.008
-
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.032
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
-
* Body weights for the mouse were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species were
from Section V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
° Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 10.
d Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
18
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
Ring dove
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
5
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.1"°
0.222d
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.10
0.15
0.19
0.05
0.07
0.222
0.248
0.124
0.211
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
0.119
0.077
1.22
0.147
* Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987), for the ringed dove were from Dunning
(1993) for the mourning dove, and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
0 Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 10.
d Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
19
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
2,4-D
Test Species
Indicator Species
Mammals
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
Birds
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
10
10
Toxicity Benchmarks
(mg/kg/d)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
0.077
1.22
0.147
' Body weights for the indicator species were from Section V.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
20
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
4,4'-DDE
Test Species
Indicator Species
Mouse
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Dog
Red Fox
Mink
Brown Pelican
Belted Kingfisher
American kestrel
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
-
-
0.91
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
6.5
1.0
0.028
0.182"
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
6.50
6.27
7.61
1.00
1.22
1.78
0.028
0.062
0.182
0.201
0.101
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.032
0.037
0.017
10.0
4.50
1.00
3.44
0.147
0.115
0.077
1.22
* Body weights for the mouse and dog were from Newell et al. (1987), for the American kestrel
were from U.S. EPA (1993d), for the brown pelican were from Dunning (1993), and for the
indicator species were from Section V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
21
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Hexachlorobenzene
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Mink
Red Fox
Japanese Quail
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
0.16
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
1.6
0.032"
0.08
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
1.60
2.44
2.96
0.032
0.022
0.08
0.10
0.05
0.08
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
1.00
4.50
0.170
0.077
1.22
0.147
' Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987), for the quail were from Dunning (1993),
and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
22
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Hexachlorobutadiene
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
Japanese Quail
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.20"
0.025"
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.20
0.30
0.37
0.09
0.13
0.025
0.030
0.015
0.026
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
0.170
0.077
1.22
0.147
• Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987), for the quail were from Dunning (1993),
and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
23
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Hexachlorocydopentadiene
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
No Data for Birds
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
1.00b
-
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
1.00
1.52
1.85
0.46
0.67
-
Body Weight
(kg)*
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
-
" Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species were from
Section V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
24
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Hexachlorophene
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Dog
Red Fox
Mink
Northern Bobwhite
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
5
575
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
1.5
0.2W
0.575°
Toxicity Benchmarks
(mg/kg/d)
1.5
2.3
2.8
0.20
0.24
0.36
0.575
0.721
0.361
0.613
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
10.0
4.50
1.00
0.190
0.077
1.22
0.147
' Body weights for the rat and dog were from Newell et al. (1987), for the northern bobwhite were
from U.S. EPA (1993d), and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Acute LDjo value divided by 1000.
d Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
25
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Pentachlorobenzene
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
MM
No Data for Birds
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
1.10"
-
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
1.10
1.68
2.04
0.51
0.74
'
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
-
* Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species were from
Section V.
b Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
26
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Pentachlorophenol
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
Chicken
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
.
.
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
1.2
2.0*
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
1.2
1.8
2.2
0.6
0.8
2.0
3.6
1.8
3.1
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
. 4.50
1.00
0.80
0.077
1.22
0.147
* Body weights for the rat and chicken were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species
were from Section V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
c Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
27
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
PCBs
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Mink
Red Fox
Eastern Screech Owl
Red-tailed Hawk
Chicken
American Robin
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
-
-
-
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.32
0.0016b
0.5
0.35
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.32
0.49
0.59
0.0016
0.0011
0.50
0.31
0.35
0.63
0.53
Body Weight
(kg)'
0.200
0.037
0.017
1.00
4.50
0.181
1.22
0.80
0.077
0.147
' Body weights for the rat and chicken were from Newell et al. (1987), for the eastern screech owl
were from Dunning (1993), and for the indicator species were from Section V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
28
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
Ring-necked Pheasant
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.000001
0.00000028bc
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.00000100
0.00000152
0.00000185
0.00000046
0.00000067
0.00000028
0.00000055
0.00000028
0.00000047
Body Weight
(kgf
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
1.14
0.077
1.22
0.147
' Body weights for the rat and pheasant were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species
were from Section V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
c Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
29
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
-------
APPENDIX VI-26
RISK ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
APPENDIX VI-26
RISK ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS
The screening-level analysis of potential risks to ecological receptors is based on a
comparison of exposure estimates to lexicological benchmarks. This quantitative aspect of
the SERA, which is termed the hazard quotient methodology, is a process that involves three
components, numerous steps, and numerous equations and calculations within each step.
This appendix illustrates the process. Because of the generally conservative (protective)
nature of the assumptions and data in the equations and calculations, there is reasonable
assurance that this risk analysis process does not underestimate ecological risks.
The three components of the hazard quotient methodology are exposure estimates,
lexicological benchmarks, and the hazard quotient values themselves. These three
components are addressed in Sections I, n and, ffl, respectively, of this appendix.
In Section I, the exposure estimates are eilher media concenlrations of a given
chemical (i.e., ground-level air, surface soil, surface water, and sedimenls) or dietary doses
based on chemical concenlrations in food items (e.g., tissues of plants and animals) and in
water thai are ingested. The estimated concentrations of a given chemical in ihe various
environmenlal media and in dietary items are a result of modeling Ihe entire process which
includes: (1) an emission rale (from a particular source, for example Ihe slack, and for a
particular scenario, for example Ihe stack high-end organic scenario), (2) a dispersion factor,
(3) a deposition rale, and (4) partitioning among the environmental media based on chemical
fate and transport (including uptake rates for bioaccumulative chemicals). Exposures are
eilher by direcl conlacl wilh these media (e.g., inhalation of air) or by food chain dieiary
contact (ingesting plants and/or animals thai have been in direcl conlacl wilh Ihe
environmental media). The steps in modeling the estimates of exposure, including the
calculation of emission rates, dispersion factors, deposition rates, and fate and transport
following deposition, are Ihe same as ihose for Ihe HHRA. Many of Ihe equations and
calculations for Ihese sleps are incorporated into Ihe example illustrations below by reference
to the appropriate sections of Ihe WTI Risk Assessmenl, specifically Volume DI -
Characterization of Ihe Nature and Magnilude of Emissions from the WTI Facility During
Routine Operations, Volume IV - Air Dispersion Analyses, and Volume V - HHRA
Appendix V-7 - Fate and Transport Model Equations and Parameter Values. Those
equations and calculations lhal are unique to Ihe SERA are detailed in Section I of Ihis
appendix.
In Section It, the chronic lexicological benchmark values are chemical- and media-
specific estimates of no adverse effect levels in ground-level air, surface soil, surface water,
sediment, and ingested dietary items. Example illustrations are provided for the derivation of
benchmark values.
In Section ffl, Ihe exposure estimates and lexicological benchmark values are
compared using a simple ratio, termed Ihe hazard quotient. Example illustrations are
provided.
Example illustrations of ihe process are provided for two ECOCs, nickel (under the
stack expected metal scenario) and pentachlorophenol (under the stack high-end organic
scenario). The steps in the exposure estimate component of the risk analysis process parallel
the exposure pathways shown in Chapter V, Figure V-2 of the SERA. The process would be
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 2 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
similar for other ECOCs, other exposure scenarios, and for the fugitive sources, but with
other values, specific to those situations, used as appropriate.
I. CALCULATION OF MEDIA CONCENTRATIONS AND DIETARY DOSES
Calculated media concentrations in air, surface soil, surface water, sediment, and
tissues are used in the SERA. In addition, doses from dietary intakes are calculated for the
seven bird and mammal indicator species. The derivation for each of these is described
below.
A. Air
Ground-level air concentrations are determined by multiplying the chemical-specific
and source-specific emission rate by the source-specific dispersion factor. The process used
to derive emission rates and dispersion factors is described in Volumes HI and IV,
respectively. The maximum dispersion factor for each source is used in the SERA in order
to obtain the maximum predicted air concentration for each source. Thus:
Ca = (EK) (DF)
where: C, = Air concentration (/xg/m3)
ER = Emission rate (g/sec)
DF = Dispersion factor Otg/m3 per g/sec emission rate)
The maximum stack dispersion factor is 0.91. The stack emission rate estimate for
nickel is 5.00 x 10"6 and for pentachlorophenol is 1.10 x 10"5. Thus for nickel:
C. = (5.00 x 10-*)(0.91) = 4.55 x 1Q-6 /ig/m3
and for pentachlorophenol:
Ca = (1.10 x 10-5)(0.91) = 1.00 x lO'5
B. Surface Soil
The methodology and input parameters used to calculate soil concentrations are
presented in Appendix V-7 (Section 1) of the HHRA (Volume V). The calculation
(Appendix V-7, Table 5) incorporates dry and wet deposition of particles and vapor over a
period of 30 years and includes a loss term encompassing leaching, soil erosion, surface
runoff, and degradation. The SERA uses the soil concentrations from the shallowest depth
modeled (0.01 meter), referred to as surface soil; these are the highest (most conservative)
modeled concentrations. In addition, modeled surface soil concentrations at the point of
maximum deposition are used in the SERA. For nickel, the resulting surface soil
concentration is 2.08 x 104 mg/kg and for pentachlorophenol is 1.97 x 10'5 mg/kg.
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 3 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
C. Surface Water and Sediment
The methodology and input parameters used to calculate surface water and sediment
concentrations are presented in Appendix V-7 (Section 4) of the HHRA (Volume V). The
calculations (Appendix V-7, Tables 26 and 27) account for chemicals entering the water body
via soil erosion, surface runoff, and direct deposition, and then steady-state partitioning
between dissolved and sorbed phases. The SERA uses the modeled surface water and
sediment concentrations at the point of maximum deposition, which occurs near a portion of
the Ohio River (two other water bodies, Tomlinson Run Lake and Little Beaver Creek, are
also evaluated but are not considered in this appendix; see Chapter V).
For nickel, the resulting surface water and sediment concentrations for the Ohio River
are 1.04 x 10~9 mg/L and 9.40 x 10"8 mg/kg, respectively. For pentachlorophenol, these
concentrations are 1.73 x 10~u mg/L and 1.80 x 10"9 mg/kg, respectively.
D. Tissues
Chemical concentrations in plant, earthworm, fish, and small mammal tissues
resulting from exposure to chemicals present in soil, sediment, and/or surface water are used
in the SERA to model potential food chain exposures at higher trophic levels. All tissue
concentrations are determined at the point of maximum deposition.
1. Plants
The methodology and input parameters used to calculate plant tissue
concentrations are presented in Appendix V-7 (Section 2) of the HHRA (Volume V).
The calculations (Appendix V-7, Table 12) account for root uptake plus direct
deposition plus air-to-plant transfer of vapor-phase chemicals. The SERA used the
uptake equations (Tables 13, 17, and 20) and the calculated plant tissue concentrations
presented in Appendix V-7 for above-ground leafy plants. For the SERA, the
estimated plant exposure duration is the entire year, representing the most
conservative exposure assumption possible. This is the only parameter value in these
equations that is modified from the HHRA input parameters specified in Appendix V-
7. The modification is made to account for continuous exposures of woody plants and
other wild vegetation over the entire year, as opposed to exposures to domesticated
crop species that are modeled in the HHRA, which only accumulate chemicals until
they are harvested.
For nickel, the resulting plant concentration is 5.64 x 10'7 mg/kg and for
pentachlorophenol is 7.75 x 106 mg/kg.
2. Earthworms
Estimated earthworm tissue concentrations are calculated to derive ingestion
exposures for indicator species (i.e., short-tailed shrew and American robin) that
consume soil invertebrates. This is done by multiplying the estimated maximum soil
concentration (at the point of maximum deposition; see Section 1.6 of this appendix)
by chemical-specific measured bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or calculated
bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for earthworms (presented in Table V-19 of the
SERA). The earthworm BAF value for nickel (0.72) is from Beyer et al. (1982) and
for pentachlorophenol (8.0) is from van Gestel and Ma (1988). Since multiplying the
soil concentration (in dry weight) by the BAF yields tissue concentrations in mg/kg
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 4 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
dry weight, the resulting values are divided by a factor of four to determine a wet-
weight value for subsequent ingestion modeling. This factor of four is based upon a
measured 25 percent average solids content in earthworms, as reported by Connell
and Markwell (1990) using data from Gish and Hughes (1982) to yield wet-weight
tissue concentrations as follows:
= (BAF)
CF
where: Cw = Concentration in earthworm (mg/kg wet weight)
C, = Concentration in soil (mg/kg dry weight)
BAF = Bioaccumulation factor (unitless)
CF = Dry-weight to wet-weight conversion factor
Thus, the estimated earthworm tissue concentration for nickel is:
Cw = [(2.08 x 10^)(0.72)] H- 4 = 3.75 x 10'5 mg/kg
and for pentachlorophenol is:
Cw = [(1.97 x 10'5)(8.0)] + 4 = 3.93 x 10's mg/kg
3. Fish
Estimated fish tissue concentrations are calculated to derive ingestion
exposures for indicator species (i.e., belted kingfisher and mink) that consume fish.
This is done by multiplying the estimated maximum surface water concentration (at
the point of maximum deposition and at two other water bodies; see Section I.C of
this appendix) by chemical-specific bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) for fish. BAF
values are derived as follows:
BAF = (BCF) (FCM)
where: BAF = Bioaccumulation Factor (L/kg)
BCF = Bioconcentration Factor (L/kg)
FCM = Food Chain Multiplier (unitless)
The chemical-specific BCFs are the highest available measured values from the
literature for applicable freshwater fish species. For nickel, the BCF is 61 (U.S.
EPA 1980e) and for pentachlorophenol the BCF is 1,066 (AQUIRE 1995). The food
chain multipliers are from U.S. EPA (1995b). Food chain multipliers for organic
ECOCs are selected using the chemical-specific log K^ value and are based on
consumption of trophic level 3 fish. Trophic level 3 is used since the piscivorous
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 5 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
indicator species used in the SERA (belted kingfisher and mink) consume fish
primarily from this trophic level (U.S. EPA 1995b). The food chain multiplier for
pentachlorophenol (log K^ of 5.09; U.S. EPA 1995a) is 3.597. Following the
guidance in U.S. EPA (1995b), a food chain multiplier of one is used for all metal
ECOCs except methyl mercury, where a measured BAF value is obtained directly
from the literature. Thus, the fish BAF for nickel is:
BAF = (61)(1) = 61
and for pentachlorophenol is:
BAF = (1,066)(3.597) = 3,834
Fish concentrations are determined as follows:
Cf = (CJ (BAF)
where: Cf = Concentration in fish (mg/kg wet weight)
C,™ = Concentration in surface water (mg/L)
BAF = Bioaccumulation Factor (L/kg)
Thus, the estimated fish tissue concentration for nickel is:
Cf = (1.04 x 10'9)(61) = 6.37 x 10'8 mg/kg
and for pentachlorophenol is:
Cf = (1.73 x 10-n)(3,834) = 6.63 x 10"8 mg/kg
4. Small Mammals
Tissue concentrations in meadow voles and short-tailed shrews (the two small
mammal indicator species) are calculated to derive ingestion exposures for the other
indicator species that consume small mammals as part of their diet (i.e., mink, red
fox, and red-tailed hawk). This is accomplished by assuming that, for ECOCs that
are not known to biomagnify in food chains, the concentration of the chemical in the
small mammal's tissues is in equilibrium with the concentration of the chemical in the
diet; thus, a diet to whole-body tissue BAF of one is assumed. This procedure is
used since data for diet to whole-body transfer of chemicals are generally unavailable
for most of the ECOCs. For the ECOCs known to biomagnify in terrestrial food
chains (mercury, dioxin, and PCBs), BAF values for diet-to-whole body transfer are
obtained for small mammals from the literature.
For both species of small mammal, the tissue concentration is calculated based
on the chemical concentration in each dietary food component (plus water) and the
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 6 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
percentage of the total dietary intake (food and water) each component represented, as
follows:
TCX =
CMC,) (PDC)-) (BAF) (FF)]
(BAF) (WF)]
where:
TCX =
PDC;
BAF
FF
MW
UCF
WF
Whole-body tissue concentration of chemical x 0*g/g)
Concentration of chemical x in food item i (/tg/g)
Percentage of diet for food item i
Diet to whole-body BAF (unitless)
Fraction of dietary intake composed of food (i.e. , daily
food ingestion rate [g food/day] divided by the sum of
the daily food and water ingestion rates [in g/day])
Concentration of chemical in water (/tg/L)
Unit Conversion Factor (/tg/L to mg/L) of 1,000
Fraction of dietary intake composed of water (i.e., daily
water ingestion rate [g water/day] divided by the sum of
the daily food and water ingestion rates [in g/day])
This equation was developed for this analysis and is a modified version (see
Chapter V of the SERA) of a standard dietary intake model (Ma et al. 1991). It
assumes that the tissue concentration is equal to the chemical dietary intake (via food
and water) multiplied by a diet-to-whole body BAF.
Concentrations of the ECOCs in plants and earthworms (dietary components of
the meadow vole and short-tailed shrew) are calculated as described in Sections I.D.I
and I.D.2 of this appendix. Soil concentrations (for incidental soil ingestion) and
surface water concentrations (for water ingestion) for the ECOCs are determined as
described in Sections I.B and I.C of this appendix. Water and food ingestion rates,
and dietary compositions, for the meadow vole and short-tailed shrew are summarized
in Table 1. Based on these ingestion rates, WF for the meadow vole and short-tailed
shrew are 0.37 (water ingestion rate of 6.5 divided by the sum of the food and water
ingestion rates, 17.6) and 0.32 (water ingestion rate of 3.8 divided by the sum of the
food and water ingestion rates, 11.75), respectively; FF would then be 0.63 and 0.68
for voles and shrews, respectively, since WF and FF must add up to one.
In the following calculations, the three terms within the {} are the plant tissue
concentration multiplied by the percent plant matter hi the diet, the earthworm tissue
concentration multiplied by the percent earthworms hi the diet, and the soil
concentration multiplied by the percent of the total diet from incidental soil ingestion.
Thus, nickel concentrations in the meadow vole are:
TC =
Ni
[{(5.64 x 10-7)(0.956)+(3.75 x 10-5)(0.02)+(2.08 x 10^)(0.024)} x 1 x
0.63] + [(1.04 x lO"6 -^ 1,000) x 1 x 0.37] = 3.96 x 10"6
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
and for the short-tailed shrew are:
TCNi = [{(5.64 x 10-7)(0. 122) +(3.75 x 10-5)(0.763)+(2.08 x lO^XO.HS)} x 1
x 0.68] + [(1.04 x 10-6 -e- 1,000) x 1 x 0.32] = 3.58 x 10s
Pentachlorophenol concentrations in the meadow vole are:
TCpcp = [{(7.75 x 10«X0.956)+(3.93 x 10-5)(0.02)+(1.97 x 1Q-5)(0.024)} x 1 x
0.63] + [(1.73 x 10-8 -s- 1,000) x 1 x 0.37] = 5.46 x 1O*
and for the short-tailed shrew are:
TCpcp = [{(7.75 x 10*)(0. 122) +(3.93 x 10-5)(0.763)+(1.97 x 10-5)(0.115)> x 1
x 0.68] + [(1.73 x 10-8 -5- 1,000) x 1 x 0.32] = 2.26 x 10s
E. Dietary Doses
Dietary intakes for each food chain ECOC are calculated for each applicable indicator
species (four mammals and three birds) using the following equation (modified from Ma et
al. [1991] by adding water ingestion):
. (FR) CMCj) (PDC)} + [(— |) OH)]
BW
where: DIX = Intake of chemical x (/tg/g-BW/day)
FR = Feeding rate (g food/day)
MCjj = Concentration of chemical x in food item i 0*g/g)
PDC; = Percentage of diet for food item i
MWX = Concentration of chemical x in water 0*g/L)
WI = Water ingestion rate (g water/day)
UCF = Unit Conversion Factor (/*g/L to mg/L) of 1,000
BW = Body weight (g)
Dietary doses for nickel and pentachlorophenol are calculated below, using the
American robin as an example indicator species. Input parameters are the media
concentrations calculated previously and the species-specific input variables from Table 1.
For nickel:
DINi = ([93.1 {(5.64 x 10-7)(0.056)+(3.75 x 10-5)(0.84)+(2.08 x
[{(1.04 x 10-*) + (1000)} 10.8]) + 77.3 = 6.40 x 10'5
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 g Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
and for pentachlorophenol:
([93.1 {(7.75 x 10-*)(0.056)+(3.93 x 10-5)(0.84)+(1.97 x 10-5)(0.104)}] +
[{(1.73 x 10-8) -r (1000)} 10.8]) + 77.3 = 4.28 x 10s
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 9 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
TABLE 1
Food Chain Model Input Variables
Species
Meadow vole
Northern short-tailed shrew
Red fox
Mink
American robin
Belted kingfisher
Red-tailed hawk
Water Intake
(g water/day)
6.5
3.8
383
105
10.8
16.2
72
Ingestion
Rate
(g food/day)
11.1
7.95
315
220
93.1
73.5
134.2
Dietary Composition (Percent)
Plants/
Fruits
95.6
12.2"
6.2
1
5.6
0
0
Earthworms/
Invertebrates
2
76.3"
0
0
84
0
0
Soil
2.4
11.5"
2.8
2.8"
10.4C
0
0
Fish/
Crayfish
0
0"
0
90.2
0
100
0
Small
Mammals
0
0"
91
6
0
0
100
Body
Weight (g)
37.0
16.9
4,500
1,000
77.3
147
1,220
Data from U.S. EPA (1993d) except where noted.
' . Data from Sample and Suter (1994).
b Red fox value used.
0 American woodcock value used.
Volume VI
Ar Mix VI-26
10
External Review Draft
Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
H. DETERMINATION OF TOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARK VALUES
In order to evaluate the potential effects of the projected maximum chemical
concentrations of the ECOCs in ground-level ambient air, surface soil, surface water,
sediment, and biological tissues (for a dietary ingestion pathway), chronic lexicological
benchmark values are obtained from agency criteria or guidelines, or are calculated from
data in the published literature, for each applicable indicator species and exposure pathway.
Computerized data bases of published values (e.g., RTECS, HSDB, OHM/TADS,
PHYTOTOX, and AQUIRE) and published literature reviews (e.g., the ecotoxicological
series written by R. Eisler of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are relied upon for most
data. When data are unavailable from these sources, the primary literature is used as a
supplemental information source.
No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs) based on growth and reproduction
endpoints are obtained, where available. Growth and reproduction are emphasized as
lexicological endpoints since they are particularly relevant, ecologically, to maintaining
viable populations and because they are generally the best studied chronic lexicological
endpoinls for ecological receptors. When chronic NOAEL lexicological benchmark values
are unavailable, estimates are derived or extrapolated from chronic Lowest Observed
Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) values or from acute Ihresholds using appropriate uncertainly
factors.
A. Air
Toxicological benchmark values for animal and planl species exposed to chemicals in
ground-level air are based on data obtained from dala bases and the literature. The lowesl
available value is selected for each ECOC. For nickel, the plant benchmark is 2.0 ng/m3
(Ecologistics Limited 1986); no planl benchmark value is available for penlachlorophenol
(See Chapter VI, Table VI-2). For animals, Ihe nickel inhalation benchmark value is 400
jug/m3 and Ihe inhalation benchmark for penlachlorophenol is 500 /xg/m3 (Appendix VI-19).
B. Surface Soil
Toxicological benchmark values for soil fauna and for terrestrial plants exposed to
chemicals in surface soils are based on dala obtained from dala bases and Ihe lileralure. For
nickel, the plant benchmark is 30 mg/kg, the lowesl available value (Appendix VI-20). For
penlachlorophenol, Ihe planl benchmark is derived by taking Ihe lowesl available value (20
mg/kg; Appendix VI-20) and dividing by a LOAEL to NOAEL uncertainly factor of 5, since
Ihis value is based on a chronic ECJ0. This resulis in a final benchmark value of 4 mg/kg
(See Chapter VI, Table VI-3).
For soil fauna, the nickel benchmark is based on the lowest available chronic value (a
LOAEL of 200 mg/kg; Appendix VI-21), adjusted using a LOAEL to NOAEL uncertainly
factor of 5. The final benchmark value is 40 mg/kg (see Chapter VI, Table VI-3). For
pentachlorophenol, the lowest available NOAEL value (4 mg/kg) is selected as the
benchmark (Appendix VI-21).
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 11 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
C. Surface Water
Toxicological benchmarks for aquatic biota exposed to ECOCs in surface water are
based on chronic U.S. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for the Protection of
Aquatic Life (U.S. EPA 1986a, 1991a), chronic Ohio Water Quality Standards (OEPA
1993), chronic Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards (PADER 1993), and chronic West
Virginia Water Quality Criteria (WVDNR 1995). Where criteria or standards differ among
these four sources, the lowest available criterion value is used.
The benchmark for nickel (160 /*g/L) is based on the chronic AWQC from U.S.
EPA, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (all are equivalent), which is adjusted based on a
surface water hardness value of 100 mg/L (see Chapter VI). The AWQC from Ohio is
higher and is not used (Appendix VI-22). For pentachlorophenol, the lowest AWQC (8.6
/ig/L) is from Ohio (Appendix VI-22); this value is used as the benchmark, adjusted based on
a pH of 7.5 (see Chapter VI). Hardness and pH adjustments are based on U.S. EPA
guidance (U.S. EPA 1986a).
D. Sediment
Toxicological benchmark values for aquatic biota exposed to ECOCs adsorbed to
sediments are based on available ecologically-based sediment criteria, guideline, or
benchmark values. Screening-level sediment guidelines have been developed by the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment (MOE 1993), the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC 1993), the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration
(NOAA) (Long and Morgan 1990), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (as
reported in Hull and Suter [1994] and Beyer [1990]), and U.S. EPA (1988b, as updated for
individual chemicals). Each of these sources was consulted to identify an applicable
toxicological benchmark value for each of the 15 metal and 25 organic ECOCs evaluated in
sediments.
If a sediment guideline value is not available for an organic chemical from the sources
cited above, a value is derived using the equilibrium partitioning approach (U.S. EPA
1988b), as follows:
Value (mglkg) = (K^ () (TOO)
where: K^ = Adsorption coefficient normalized to the organic content
of the sediment (from Table V-2); unifless
CWQC = Chronic water quality criterion (from Table VI-4); /tg/L
UCF = Unit conversion factor (ptg/L to mg/L) of 1,000
TOC = Total organic carbon content; percent
A TOC value of three percent, a default value used in the HHRA models (U.S. EPA
1994d) (see Volume V, Appendix V-7), is used. If a sediment guideline value for a metal is
not available from the sources cited above, the literature was searched in an attempt to obtain
an applicable screening-level value. The equilibrium partitioning approach, which is used for
organic chemicals, is not normally applied to metals.
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 12 . Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
For nickel, the sediment benchmark (16 mg/kg) is based on the lowest available
guideline value (Appendix VI-23). For pentachlorophenol, the benchmark value is calculated
based on the equilibrium partitioning formula outlined above, as follows:
Benchmark = (3,467)[(8.6)^-(l,000)](0.03) = 0.89 mg/kg
£. Dietary Ingestion
Toxicological benchmark values for dietary ingestion exposures are derived from the
literature for each of the seven bird and mammal indicator species and the 28 ECOCs (15
metals and 13 organics) evaluated for potential food chain effects. Toxicological information
from wildlife species is used, where available, but is supplemented by laboratory studies of
non-wildlife species (e.g., laboratory mice) where necessary. Uncertainty factors are used as
needed to derive chronic NOAEL values (see Table VI-1 of the SERA). The lowest
available and most applicable lexicological value is used when determining the ingestion
benchmarks for each bird and mammal indicator species. Determination of the most
applicable value for a particular indicator species considers the degree of taxonomic
relatedness and the degree of similarity in dietary preferences between the experimental
species for which data are available and each indicator species.
The derivation is a two-step process. First, "generic" lexicological benchmark values
are derived for mammals and birds. Next, these generic values are adjusted for each
indicator species based on allometric scaling.
1. Derivation of Generic Benchmarks
For nickel, the lexicological benchmark value for mammalian indicator species
is based on the lowest available mammalian value (50 mg/kg/day), as shown in
Appendix VI-24. Since this value is a LOAEL and data for only two mammalian
species are available, a LOAEL to NOAEL uncertainty factor of 5 and an interspecies
uncertainly factor of 10 are applied as follows:
Benchmark = (50 mg/kg/day) + [(5)(10)] = 1.0 mg/kg/day
The lexicological benchmark value for avian indicator species is based on the lowest
available avian value (21.4 mg/kg/day), as shown in Appendix VI-24. Since this
NOAEL value is based on a subchronic study and data for only iwo bird species are
available, a subchronic lo chronic uncertainly factor of 5 and an inlerspecies
uncertainly factor of 10 are applied as follows:
Benchmark = (21.4 mg/kg/day) + [(5)(10)] = 0.428 mg/kg/day
For pentachlorophenol, Ihe lexicological benchmark value for mammalian
indicator species is based on Ihe lowesl available mammalian NOAEL value (1.2
mg/kg/day), as shown in Appendix VI-24. The value for all uncertainty factors is
one when deriving this benchmark value since the study on which the benchmark is
based is of chronic duration, is based on a chronic NOAEL, and date for more than
three species are available. The lexicological benchmark value for avian indicator
species is based on Ihe lowest available avian NOAEL value (100 mg/kg/day), as
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 13 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
shown in Appendix VI-24. Since this value is based on a subchronic study and data
for only two bird species are available, a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5
and an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10 are applied as follows:
Benchmark = (100 mg/kg/day) •*• [(5)(10)] = 2.0 mg/kg/day
2. Allometric Scaling
The chronic lexicological benchmarks for birds and mammals are then adjusted
for each of the seven bird and mammal indicator species using the scaling factor
approach outlined in U.S. EPA (1995c). The allometric scaling approach is applied
to pairs of species within the same taxonomic class; for example, mammalian toxicity
data are used to predict toxic effects in mammals and avian toxicity data are used to
predict avian toxic effects. The scaling factor is used to translate experimentally
determined toxic daily intake information from one species to another by the
following formula:
where: D, = The intake or dose in an untested species a; mg/kg/day
Db = Experimentally determined intake in species b;
mg/kg/day
BW, = Body weight of untested species a; kg
BWb = Body weight of species b; kg
For nickel, the lexicological benchmark value for mammalian species (1.0
mg/kg/day) is based on data from the rat (body weight of 0.200 kg). As an example,
this benchmark value is adjusted for the meadow vole (body weight of 0.037 kg) as
follows:
Benchmark,^ = (1.0)[(0.200)-H(0.037)]a25 = 1.52 mg/kg/day
The lexicological benchmark value for avian species (0.428 mg/kg/day) is based on
data from the chicken (body weight of 0.80 kg). As an example, this benchmark
value is adjusted for the American robin (body weight of 0.077 kg) as follows:
Benchmark,^ = (0.428)[(0.80)-^(0.077)]°-25 = 0.768 mg/kg/day
For pentachlorophenol, the lexicological benchmark value for mammalian
species (1.2 mg/kg/day) is based on data from the rat (body weight of 0.200 kg). As
an example, this benchmark value is adjusted for the meadow vole (body weight of
0.037 kg) as follows:
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 14 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
Benchmark^,, = (1.2)[(0.200)-^(0.037)]°-25 = 1.8 mg/kg/day
The lexicological benchmark value for avian species (2.0 mg/kg/day) is based on data
from the chicken (body weight of 0.80 kg). As an example, this benchmark value is
adjusted for the American robin (body weight of 0.077 kg) as follows:
Benchmark^ = (2.0)[(0.80)-e-(0.077)]a25 = 3.6 mg/kg/day
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 15 Do Not Cite Or
-------
m. CALCULATION OF HAZARD QUOTIENTS
Hazard quotients, which are the expression of potential risk in the SERA, are
calculated by dividing the estimated media concentration or dietary dose by the appropriate
lexicological benchmark value:
HQ = -
where: HQ = Hazard Quolienl (unilless)
C = Concentration or Dose (units vary)
B = Benchmark Value (units vary)
In this section, Ihe media concentrations or dietary doses calculated in Section I are
compared wilh Ihe lexicological benchmarks from Section H.
A. Air
The air concentration from Section I is divided by Ihe planl and animal lexicological
benchmark values from Section n. For nickel:
Planl HQ = (4.55 x 1Q-6 /*g/m3) -=- (2.00 x 10° ^g/m3) = 2.28 x 10^
Animal HQ = (4.55 x 10^ /ig/m3) -r (4.00 x 102 /*g/m3) = 1.14 x 10"8
For penlachlorophenol:
No planl benchmark available
Animal HQ = (1.00 x Ifr5 jtg/m3) -e- (5.00 x 102 ^g/m3) = 2.00 x 10"*
B. Surface Soil
The surface soil concenlralion from Section I is divided by Ihe planl and soil fauna
lexicological benchmark values from Section n. For nickel:
Plant HQ = (2.08 x 10^ mg/kg) H- (3.00 x 101 mg/kg) = 6.94 x 10"6
Soil Fauna HQ = (2.08 x 10^ mg/kg) -s- (4.00 x 101) = 5.20 x W*
For penlachlorophenol:
Planl HQ = (1.97 x 10'5 mg/kg) -5- (4.00 x 10° mg/kg) = 4.92 x 10"*
Soil Fauna HQ = (1.97 x 10Ji mg/kg) -5- (4.00 x 10° mg/kg) = 4.92 x 10"6
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 16 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
C. Surface Water
The surface water concentration from Section I is divided by the AWQC value from
Section n. For nickel:
HQ = (1.04 x 10-6 ng/L) -5- (1.60 x 102 /*g/L) = 6.52 x 10'*
For pentachlorophenol:
HQ = (1.73 x lO'8 /*g/L) -s- (8.60 x 10° /*g/L) = 2.01 x 10
'*
D. Sediment
The sediment concentration from Section I is divided by the benchmark value from
Section n. For nickel:
HQ = (9.40 x 10-* mg/kg) + (1.60 x 101 mg/kg) = 5.87 x 10 9
For pentachlorophenol;
HQ = (1.80 x 10-9 mg/kg) H- (8.90 x 10'1 mg/kg) = 2.02 x 10 9
E. Dietary Ingestion
The calculated dietary dose from Section I (for the American robin) is divided by the
benchmark value (for the American robin) from Section n. For nickel:
Robin HQ = (6.40 x 10"5 mg/kg/day) -5- (7.68 x 10'1 mg/kg/day) = 8.33 x 10 s
For pentachlorophenol:
Robin HQ = (4.28 x Itf5 mg/kg/day) -5- (3.60 x 10° mg/kg/day) = 1.19 x 10 5
Volume VI External Review Draft
Appendix VI-26 17 Do Not Cite Or Quote
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agene*
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Bouievard, 12th Floor
Chicago, II 60604-3590
------- |