United States EPA-905-R97-002f
Environmental Protection Agency May 1997
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Risk Assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI)
Hazardous Waste Incineration Facility (East Liverpool, Ohio)
VOLUME VI:
Screening Ecological Risk Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 5
Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Prepared with the assistance of
A.T. 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
-------
Risk Assessment for the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI)
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Facility (East Liverpool, Ohio)
VOLUME VI:
Screening Ecological Risk Assessment (SERA): Evaluation of Potential Risk
from Exposure to Routine Operating Emissions
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 5
Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Prepared with the assistance of:
A.T. Kearney, Inc. (Prime Contractor; Chicago, IL),
with Subcontract support from:
ENVIRON Corporation (Arlington, VA),
Midwest Research Institute (Kansas City, MO),
and Earth Tech, Inc. (Cambridge, MA)
under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0008
-------
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION M
A. Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment 1-1
B. Purpose and Scope of the SERA 1-3
1. Goals and Objectives of the SERA 1-3
2. Scope of the SERA 1-6
C. Report Organization 1-7
H. PROCESS OVERVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL DEVELOPMENT H-l
A. Problem Formulation n-1
1. Stressors E-2
2. Ecological Components H-3
3. Endpoint Selection H-3
B. Analysis n-4
1. Characterization of Exposure H-4
a. Exposure Scenarios H-4
b. Potential Exposure Pathways n-5
c. Potential Exposure Routes H-5
d. Exposure Point Concentrations H-6
e. Indicator Species H-6
2. Characterization of Ecological Effects n-8
a. Analysis Component n-8
b. ECOC Selection H-9
C. Risk Characterization n-11
m. SITE CHARACTERIZATION ffl-1
A. Physiographic Features of the Assessment Area HI-2
B. Land Use and Habitat Types Within the Assessment Area m-3
C. State Parks, Wildlife Areas, and Other Ecological Habitats m-5
D. Fauna and Flora Present Within the Assessment Area m-6
1. Birds m-6
2. Mammals m-8
3. Reptiles and Amphibians ffl-8
4. Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms ^ ffl-9
5. Assessment Area Flora HI-9
6. Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species ffl-9
7. Significant Habitats/Resources ffl-11
E. Summary and Analysis ffl-11
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ECOLOGICAL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN . . IV-1
A. Substances of Potential Concern in Stack Emissions IV-3
B. Development of Chemical-Specific Stack Emission Rates IV-4
C. Stack Emission ECOC Selection IV-5
1. Detailed Screening of Organic Chemicals IV-6
Volume VI ii
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
a. Exposure Analysis IV-9
b. Chemical Group Analysis IV-12
c. Evaluation Using Professional Judgement IV-15
2. Summary of Stack ECOCs IV-16
D. Substances of Potential Concern in Fugitive Emissions IV-17
1. Fugitive Inorganic Emissions - Ash Handling Facility IV-17
2. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions IV-18
E. Fugitive Emission ECOC Selection IV-18
1. Fugitive Inorganic Emissions IV-18
2. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions IV-19
a. Exposure Analysis IV-20
b. Evaluation Using Professional Judgement IV-22
3. Summary of Fugitive ECOCs IV-23
F. Development of Chemical-Specific Fugitive Emission Rates IV-24
G. Uncertainties in the ECOC Selection Process IV-25
1. Uncertainties Associated with Emission Rate Estimates IV-25
2. Uncertainties Associated with Dispersion Modeling IV-26
3. Other Uncertainties Associated with ECOC Selection IV-26
V. CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURE V-l
A. Exposure Scenarios V-l
B. Fate and Transport Mechanisms of the ECOCs V-3
C. Generalized Exposure Pathways V-5
D. Exposure Routes V-6
E. Indicator Species Selection V-7
1. General Considerations in Indicator Species Selection V-ll
2. Avian Indicator Species V-12
3. Mammalian Indicator Species V-13
4. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species V-15
F. Specific Exposure Pathways V-15
G. Estimation of Environmental Concentrations , V-15
1. Air Concentrations V-16
a. Stack Emissions V-16
b. Fugitive Emissions V-16
r. Cumulative Concentrations V-17
d. Background Air Concentrations V-17
2. Soil Concentrations V-17
a. Background Soil Concentrations V-l8
3. Surface Water and Sediment Concentrations . , V-l8
a. Background Surface Water and Sediment Concentrations V-20
4. Tissue Concentrations V-21
Volume VI jji
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
a. Earthworms V-21
b. Terrestrial Plants V-24
c. Fish V-27
d. Small Mammals V-28
5. Dietary Intakes V-30
H. Uncertainties in the Characterization of Exposure V-31
1. Uncertainties Associated with Fate and Transport Modeling . . . V-31
2. Uncertainties Associated with Exposure Modeling V-32
VI. CHARACTERIZATION OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS VI-1
A. Uncertainty Factors VI-2
B. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ground-Level Air VI-4
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
VH. RISK CHARACTERIZATION VE-1
A. Air VH-2
1. Stack Emissions VII-2
2. Fugitive Inorganic Emissions VTI-3
3. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions VII-3
4. Combined Emissions VTI-4
B. Soil Vn-5
1. Stack Emissions VII-5
2. Fugitive Inorganic Emissions VTI-6
3. Combined Emissions VII-6
C. Surface Water , Vn-6
1. Stack Emissions VII-7
a. Ohio River VII-7
b. Tomlinson Run Lake Vn-7
c. Little Beaver Creek VII-7
2. Fugitive Inorganic Emissions Vn-8
3. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions Vn-8
4. Combined Emissions VII-8
D. Sediment ,; VII-8
1. Stack Emissions Vn-9
a. Ohio River VII-9
Volume VI iv
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
b. Tomlinson Run Lake VII-9
c. Little Beaver Creek VH-10
2. Fugitive Inorganic Emissions VII-10
3. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions VII-10
4. Combined Emissions VJI-10
E. Food Chain VH-11
1. Stack Metal Scenarios VH-12
a. Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario Vn-12
b. Stack Expected Metal Scenario Vn-13
2. Stack High-End Organic Scenario VH-13
3. Fugitive Inorganic Emissions VH-14
4. Combined Emissions VII-14
F. Summary of Hazard Quotients by Exposure Scenario VH-15
1. Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario VH-15
2. Stack Expected Metal Scenario VH-16
3. Stack High-End Organic Scenario VH-17
4. Fugitive Inorganic Scenario VH-17
5. Fugitive Organic Scenario VH-17
G. Evaluation of Assessment Endpoints VH-18
1. Reproductive Integrity of Bird and Mammal Populations .... Vn-18
2. Biological Integrity of Terrestrial Plant Communities VH-19
3. Ecological Integrity of Aquatic Communities Vn-20
4. Integrity of Aquatic and Terrestrial Food Chains VII-20
5. Exposure Potential of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered
Species VH-21
6. Summary of Assessment Endpoint Evaluation VII-23
H. Risk Analysis VH-23
I. Uncertainties in the Risk Characterization VII-26
Vm. UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS Vm-1
EX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS IX-1
X. REFERENCES X-l
Volume VI
-------
TABLES
Page
Table n-1 Assessment and Measurement Endpoints Selected for the WTI
SERA H-12
Table H-2 Comparison of Toxicological Data Used in ECOC Selection and
Characterization of Effects n-13
Table ffl-l Land Use Statistics for Counties Within the Assessment Area .... ffl-15
Table DI-2 Forest Lands Within the Assessment Area m-16
Table ffl-3 Forest Ownership Within the Assessment Area HI-17
Table m-4 Forest Types Within the Assessment Area HI-18
Table ffl-5 Wetland Areas Within the Assessment Area Greater than 10 Acres
By Distance From the WTI Facility ffl-19
Table IQ-6 Wetland Areas Within the Assessment Area Less than 10 Acres By
Distance From the WTI Facility ffl-20
Table IH-7 State Parks and Major Wildlife Areas Within the Assessment Area . m-21
Table m-8 Other Ecological Habitats/Areas HI-23
Table ffl-9 Summary of Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species
Within the Assessment Area DI-24
Table ffl-10 Significant Habitats/Resources Within the Assessment Area m-26
Table IV-1 Chemicals Anticipated to be Emitted in Very Low Quantities For
Which Stack Emission Rates Were Not Estimated IV-29
Table IV-2 Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions . . . IV-30
Table IV-3 Detailed Chemical Screening - Exposure Analysis - Stack
Emissions IV-36
Table IV-4 Detailed Chemical Screening - Chemical Group Analysis - Stack
Emissions IV-37
Table IV-5 Chemicals to be Evaluated in the SERA - Stack Emissions -
Selection Method Summary • IV-43
Table IV-6
Volume VI
Media to be Evaluated for Each Selected ECOC - Stack Emissions . IV-45
VI
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table IV-7 Chemicals to be Evaluated in the SERA - Fugitive Emissions -
Selection Method Summary IV-47
Table IV-8 Media to be Evaluated for Each Selected ECOC - Fugitive
Emissions IV-48
Table IV-9 Estimated Concentrations of Metals and Total Cyanide in Fugitive
Fly Ash and Estimated High-End Emission Rates IV-49
Table IV-10 Estimated Emission Rates for Each Selected ECOC - Fugitive
Organic Vapor Emissions IV-50
Table IV-11 Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification of the Ecological
Chemicals of Concern IV-51
Table V-l Key Components of the Exposure Scenarios Used in the SERA .... V-35
Table V-2 Physical, Chemical, and Fate Characteristics of the ECOCs V-36
Table V-3 Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air
Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals V-40
Table V-4 Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air
Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Organics V-42
Table V-5 Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air
Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions - Ash Handling Facility V-43
Table V-6 Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air
Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions - Carbon Absorption Bed V-44
Table V-7 Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air
Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions - Tank Farm '. V-45
Table V-8 Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air
Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions - Open Waste Water Tank .... V-46
Table V-9 Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air
Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions - Truck Wash V-47
Table V-10 Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals . . V-48
Volume VI
vu
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table V-ll Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations - Stack Emissions -
Organics V-50
Table V-12 Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations - Fugitive Inorganic
Emissions V-51
Table V-13 Background Soil Concentrations for Metals V-52
Table V-14 Modeled Surface Water Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals . . V-53
Table V-15 Modeled Surface Water Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Organics . V-55
Table V-16 Modeled Sediment Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals V-56
Table V-17 Modeled Sediment Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Organics .... V-58
Table V-18 Modeled Surface Water Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions V-59
Table V-19 Modeled Sediment Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions V-60
Table V-20 Background Data for Surface Water V-61
Table V-21 Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For Plants and
Earthworms V-72
Table V-22 Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For
Plants and Earthworms - Stack Emissions - Metals V-74
Table V-23 Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For
Plants and Earthworms - Stack Emissions - Organics V-76
Table V-24 Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For
Plants and Earthworms - Fugitive Inorganic Emissions V-77
Table V-25 Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For Fish V-78
Table V-26 Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Fish - Stack
Emissions - Metals V-80
Table V-27 Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For,Fish - Stack
Emissions - Organics V-82
Volume VI
vin
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Table V-28 Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Fish - Fugitive
Inorganic Emissions V-83
Table V-29 Food Chain Model Input Variables V-84
Table V-30 Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Small
Mammals - Stack Emissions - Metals V-85
Table V-31 Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Small
Mammals - Stack Emissions - Organics V-87
Table V-32 Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Small
Mammals - Fugitive Inorganic Emissions V-88
Table V-33 Key Assumptions for Chapter V - Characterization of Exposure .... V-89
Table V-34 Stack Deposition Comparison by Distance and Direction from the
WTI Facility V-94
Table V-35 Stack Dispersion Comparison by Distance and Direction from the
WTI Facility V-95
Table VI-1 Summary of Uncertainty Factors Used in the SERA VI-13
Table VI-2 Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals -
Ground-Level Ambient Air Concentrations VI-14
Table VI-3 Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Soil
Fauna in Surface Soils VI-17
Table VI-4 Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Surface Water VI-19
Table VI-5 Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Sediment VI-21
Table VI-6 Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion VI-24
Table VI-7 Summary of Effects for Toxicological Benchmark Values VI-26
Table VI-8 Key Assumptions for Chapter VI - Characterization of Ecological
Effects r VI-34
Table VI-9 Summary of ECOCs Lacking Benchmarks VI-36
Volume VI ix
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table VH-1 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals -
Stack Emissions - Metals Vn-27
Table VII-2 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals -
Stack Emissions - Organics Vn-29
Table VII-3 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals -
Fugitive Inorganic Emissions - Ash Handling Facility VII-30
Table VII-4 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals -
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions - Carbon Absorption Bed VII-31
Table vn-5 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals -
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions - Tank Farm VQ-32
Table VQ-6 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals -
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions - Open Waste Water Tank .... VII-33
Table VII-7 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals -
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions - Truck Wash VII-34
Table VH-8 Summed Animal Inhalation Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC
Sources VH-35
Table VII-9 Summed Animal Inhalation Hazard Quotients - All Organic ECOC
Sources .VH-36
Table VG-10 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations With
Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Soil Fauna -
Stack Emissions - Metals VII-37
Table VTI-11 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations With
Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Soil Fauna -
Stack Emissions - Organics VH-39
Volume VI
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table Vn-12 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations With
Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Soil Fauna -
Fugitive Inorganic Emissions - Ash Handling Facility Vn-40
Table VH-13 Summed Plant and Soil Fauna Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC
Sources VH-41
Table vn-14 Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions -
Metals VH-42
Table vn-15 Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions -
Organics VII-44
Table vn-16 Comparison of Modeled Tomiinson Run Lake Surface Water
Concentrations With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Stack Emissions - Metals VII-45
Table vn-17 Comparison of Modeled Tomiinson Run Lake Surface Water
Concentrations With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Stack Emissions - Organics VQ-47
Table VII-18 Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Surface Water
Concentrations With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Stack Emissions - Metals Vn-48
Table Vn-19 Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Surface Water
Concentrations With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Stack Emissions - Organics VTI-50
Table Vn-20 Comparison of Modeled Surface Water Concentrations With
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Fugitive Inorganic ' .
Emissions - Ash Handling Facility VTI-51
Table VQ-21 Comparison of Modeled Surface Water Concentrations With
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Fugitive Organic
Vapor Emissions Vn-52
Table VH-22 Summed Surface Water Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC
Sources .' Vn-53
Volume VI
XI
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table Vn-23 Summed Surface Water Hazard Quotients - All Organic ECOC
Sources Vn-55
Table vn-24 Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Sediment Concentrations With
Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals VII-56
Table VT1-25 Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Sediment Concentrations With
Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics . . . vn-58
Table VTI-26 Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Sediment
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Stack Emissions - Metals VTI-59
Table VTJ-27 Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Sediment
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Stack Emissions - Organics VII-61
Table VTI-28 Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Sediment
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Stack Emissions - Metals Vn-62
Table VTI-29 Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Sediment
Concentrations With Toxicological Benchmark Values -
Stack Emissions - Organics VII-64
Table VTI-30 Comparison of Modeled Sediment Concentrations With Chronic
Toxicological Benchmark Values - Fugitive Inorganic Emissions -
Ash Handling Facility VII-65
Table VTI-31 Comparison of Modeled Sediment Concentrations With Chronic
Toxicological Benchmark Values - Fugitive Organic Vapor
Emissions VII-66
Table VH-32 Summed Sediment Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources . . VH-67
Table VII-33 Summed Sediment Hazard Quotients - All Organic ECOC Sources . VTI-69
Table VTI-34 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals With
Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions -
Meadow Vole , Vn-70
Volume VI
Xll
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Page
Table VII-35 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals With
lexicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions -
Short-tailed Shrew VH-72
Table VH-36 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals With
Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions -
Red Fox VH-74
Table VH-37 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals With
Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions -
Mink VE-76
Table VH-38 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals With
Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions -
American Robin VH-78
Table vn-39 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals With
Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions -
Belted Kingfisher VH-80
Table VH-40 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals With
Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions -
Red-tailed Hawk VH-82
Table VE-41 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack
Emissions - Meadow Vole VTI-84
Table VH-42 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack
Emissions - Short-tailed Shrew VH-85
Table VH-43 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs ' .
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack
Emissions - Red Fox VII-86
Table VH-44 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack
Emissions - Mink VTI-87
Volume VI
Xlll
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Table vn-45 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack
Emissions - American Robin VIt-88
Table vn-46 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack
Emissions - Belted Kingfisher VII-89
Table VH-47 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack
Emissions - Red-tailed Hawk VH-90
Table VH-48 Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals With
Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Fugitive Inorganic
Emissions - Ash Handling Facility VII-91
Table VH-49 Summed Ingestion Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources -
Maximum Impact Point/Ohio River Vn-95
Table VH-50 Summed Ingestion Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources -
Tomlinson Run Lake VII-96
Table Vn-51 Summed Ingestion Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources -
Little Beaver Creek VH-97
Table VII-52 Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One for all Exposure
Scenarios - Abiotic Media Vn-98
Table VH-53 Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One for All Exposure
Scenarios - Bird and Mammal Indicator Species VH-lOO
Table VH-54 Summary of Hazard Quotients Between 0.1 and 1.0 for all
Exposure Scenarios VH-102
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 VII-103
Volume VI
xiv
-------
Table VH-56
Table VH-57
TABLES
(continued)
Page
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 Vn-107
Summary of the Estimated Conservatism of Key Input Parameters
Used in the Exposure and Effects Characterizations For Each
Exposure Scenario Vn-110
Table VH-58 Key Assumptions for Chapter VH - Risk Characterization VH-112
Volume VI
xv
-------
FIGURES
Page
Figure 1-1 Location of the WTT Facility 1-9
Figure H-l Structure of Analysis for the WT1 SERA H-14
Figure n-2 Diagrammatic Conceptual Site Model for the WTl SERA - Stack
Emissions n-15
Figure H-3 Diagrammatic Conceptual Site Model for the WIT SERA - Fugitive
Emissions n-16
Figure m-1 Physiographic Regions in the Vicinity of the WIT Facility IH-27
Figure IQ-2 Land Use Within the WIT Assessment Area HI-28
Figure ffl-3 Location of Ecologically-Relevant Areas Within the Assessment
Area m-29
Figure m-4 Location of Special Category Rivers and Creeks Within the
Assessment Area ffl-30
Figure IV-1 Summary of the ECOC Screening Process for Organic Stack
Constituents IV-57
Figure IV-2 Summary of the ECOC Screening Process for Fugitive Organic
Vapor Constituents IV-58
Figure V-l Location of Emission Sources, Maximum Deposition Points, and
Maximum Air Concentration Points V-96
Figure V-2 Specific Exposure Pathways for Stack Exposure Scenarios V-97
Figure V-3 Specific Exposure Pathways for Fugitive Exposure Scenarios V-98
Volume VI xvi
-------
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 VT-9
Appendix VI-10
Appendix VI-11
Appendix VI-12
Appendix VI-13
Appendix VI-14
Appendix VI-15
Appendix VI-16
Appendix VI-17
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 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
Stack High-End Emission Rates for PCB Homologs and Dioxin/
Furan Congeners
Development of Chemical-Specific Stack and Fugitive Emission
Rates
Estimated Average and High-End Stack Emission Rates for Organic
Chemicals
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical Scores - Ingestion - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-based) - Sta,ck Emission Chemical
Screening
Volume VI
xvu
-------
APPENDICES
(Continued)
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
Appendix VI-27
Appendix VI-28
Appendix VI-29
Appendix VI-30
Appendix VI-31
Appendix VI-32
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-based) - Stack
Emission Chemical Screening
Log K,^ and Persistence Values for Organic Chemicals Evaluated as
Part of ECOC Screening
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical
Screening
Chemical Scores - Aquatic - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical
Screening
Chemical Score Estimation Based on Quantitative Structure-Activity
Relationships - Aquatic Exposures
Chemical Profiles for the ECOCs
Stack Dispersion and Deposition Summary by Distance and
Direction from the WTI Facility
lexicological 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 Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks
Risk Analysis Calculations
Volume VI
XV1I1
-------
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 in 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 from the WTI facility is presented in Volume HI of this report.
Atmospheric dispersion of emissions is discussed in Volume IV. Transport of chemicals in
the environment after deposition is discussed in Volume V, along with an evaluation of
potential human health risks. Following the U.S. EPA's mandate to "protect human health
and the environment", 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), and the recommendations from the Ecological Risk
Assessment Work Group review of the draft WTI Screening Ecological Risk Assessment
(U.S. EPA 1996a), the potential for ecological risks as a result of the routine operation of
the WTI facility is evaluated and detailed in 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 in 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
Volume VI 1-1
-------
potential exposures of rare, threatened, and endangered species, both as individual organisms
and as populations, to site-related stressors. There is, therefore, an overall greater degree of
complexity in assessing ecological risks. Numerous species, with different habitats, potential
exposures, and lexicological 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 major components to an ecological risk assessment. The first
component, problem formulation, is a systematic planning phase that includes: (1) the
definition of the purpose and scope of the ecological risk assessment, (2) the development of
a site-specific conceptual model, including the selection of ecologically-based assessment and
measurement endpoints, (3) the preliminary identification of the site-related stressors of
potential ecological concern, and (4) the characterization of the ecological resources present
in the area potentially affected by the site-related stressors. The second component of an
ecological risk assessment, analysis, characterizes the exposure to, and the potential adverse
ecological effects from, the stressors. The third component, risk characterization, uses the
results of the exposure and effects analyses to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological
effects associated with exposure to the stressors. It includes a summary of the assumptions
and the scientific uncertainties of the risk analysis, along with conclusions. The objective of
the risk characterization phase 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 the RCRA program (U.S. EPA 1994f) which is,
consistent with the principles outlined in 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, as warranted, using more site-specific
data, in place of conservative assumptions, to characterize risk. The assessment conducted
Volume VI 1-2
-------
for the WT1 facility, as presented in this volume, is a screening-level ecological risk
assessment (SERA).
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 (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
concentrations of the ecological chemicals of concern (ECOCs; the stressors) in ecologically
relevant environmental media, (2) the ecological receptors present in the vicinity of the WTI
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.
1. Goals and Objectives of the SERA
The SERA includes the following specific goals:
• To identify the chemical, exposure route, exposure pathway, and
receptor combinations for which potential risks are negligible 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 the chemical-exposure-receptor combinations indicating the
highest relative risks.
• To evaluate the presence of federal- and state-listed rare, threatened,"
and endangered species in the vicinity of the WTI facility, and the
likelihood that they would be significantly exposed to facility-related
ECOCs.
Thus, the primary objective of the WTI SERA is to identify those
combinations of chemicals, exposure routes, exposure pathways, and receptors for
which a potentially significant risk could feasibly exist under normal (routine) facility
Volume VI 1.3
-------
operating conditions. If any such chemical-exposure-receptor combinations are found,
the SERA would then provide the basis for conducting a more focused assessment
(PERA or DERA), or for implementing mitigating measures (such as chemical-
specific permit limits), as deemed appropriate by the risk manager(s).
To accomplish the primary objective of the SERA, four exposure scenarios are
developed and evaluated as follows:
a. Stack Expected Metal Scenario - one of two stack metal exposure
scenarios used in the SERA. This scenario includes, as a key
component, emission rates based on annual average estimates at full
facility capacity, as described in Volume HI of the Risk Assessment.
This exposure scenario is used to describe "expected" exposures, and to
evaluate potential risks, for stack metals under current, routine
operating conditions.
b. Stack High-End Organic Scenario - this exposure scenario evaluates
exposures to organic constituents from the facility stack and includes,
as a key component, emission rates based on "high-end" estimates, as
described in Volume HI of the Risk Assessment.
c. Fugitive Inorganic Scenario - this exposure scenario, which includes
emission rates based on "high-end" estimates as a component, evaluates
fugitive emissions of inorganic constituents from the ash handling
facility, as described in Chapter IV of the SERA.
d. Fugitive Organic Scenario - this exposure scenario, which includes
emission rates based on "best estimates" from available site-specific
data as a component, evaluates exposures to volatile organic
constituents from each of four identified fugitive organic vapor sources
within the facility boundaries, as described in Volume V of the Risk
Assessment.
In addition to emission rate estimates, each of the four exposure scenarios
outlined above includes other parameters such as estimated deposition rates, contact
rates, and/or uptake rates, to predict exposures for selected ecological receptors.
These exposure scenarios are described in detail in Section V. A of the SERA. These
four exposure scenarios are developed using conservative, yet realistic, emission
Volume VI j_4
-------
estimates based on current waste-feed profiles and facility operating conditions1, as
well as conservative or worst-case estimates of deposition, contact, and uptake rates
(such as modeling exposures at the maximum projected air concentration/deposition
points), as appropriate to a screening-level assessment.
A secondary objective of the WIT SERA is to evaluate potential ecological
risks associated with existing permit limits for the emission of metals from the WT1
facility stack. At present, the RCRA permit imposes2 hourly limits on the emissions
of ten metals, and it is anticipated that two additional metals3 will be regulated when
the final operating conditions are added to the permit.
To accomplish the secondary objective of the SERA, a fifth exposure scenario
is developed and evaluated as follows:
e. Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario - the second of two
stack metal exposure scenarios used in the SERA. This scenario
includes, as a key component, emission rate estimates 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.
This scenario is used to determine if significant ecological risks could result
from continuous operation of the facility at the current maximum hourly permit limits
for metals. Since the emission rates used in this scenario are derived by extrapolating
the allowable maximum hourly emission rates to an annual basis for continuous
operation of the facility (i.e., 8,760 hours per year), they significantly exceed the
realistic expected emission estimates. Since conservative or worst-case deposition,
contact, and uptake rates are also incorporated into this scenario, the resulting
1 The differences in terminology for emission rate estimates (i.e., high-end, average, and
best estimate) reflect the differences in the available data used to derive the estimates (see
Section V.A).
2 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.
3 In addition to the ten metals normally limited under 40 CFR 266.106, the U.S. EPA now
routinely limits emissions of nickel and selenium.
Volume VI 1-5
-------
exposures are likely to be significantly overestimated relative to more realistic or
expected exposures based on current operating conditions.
This SERA uses the screening-level methodologies, exposure scenarios, and
model input parameters determined to be most appropriate and relevant to the specific
operating conditions of the WTI facility and the site-specific conditions of the
surrounding areas. As such, these methodologies, exposure scenarios, and model
input parameters are, in combination, specific to this SERA and are not necessarily
appropriate for use in the evaluation of other hazardous waste combustion facilities
located in other areas of the country. It is not the explicit or implied purpose, nor the
Agency's intent, that the WTI SERA serve as a model for any current or future
SERAs at other RCRA-permitted hazardous waste combustion facilities, either in
Region 5 or in other U.S. EPA regions. In particular, the specific lexicological
benchmark values, model input parameters, and exposure scenarios contained within
this SERA should not be construed as necessarily being applicable to other facilities
or sites nor to constitute general Agency policy or guidance for ecological risk
assessments.
2. Scope of the SERA
Direct emissions to air, from both stack and fugitive releases, during routine
facility operations are considered the principal sources of emissions from the WTI
facility. As such, the scope of the SERA is confined to evaluating potential
ecological risks from routine stack and fugitive emissions, with one exception. The
exception is the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, which is intended to
evaluate the potential ecological risks from the existing stack metal permit limits, as
discussed in the previous subsection.
Routine emissions occur when the incinerator, air pollution control system,
and other ancillary equipment are functioning within normal operating parameters, for
example, the kiln temperature is within acceptable limits. Routine operations include
normal facility startup and shutdown. No increased stack emissions occur during
facility startup since existing permit conditions prohibit the introduction of hazardous
waste into the incinerator until the kiln reaches minimum operating temperature and
meets the other operating conditions specified by the permit. Similarly, planned
shutdowns involve shutting off the waste feed and properly burning out residue before
termination of incinerator operations (see Volume HI, Chapter V). Also included as
part of routine facility operations are fugitive emissions due to minor leaks and small
spills from valves and other equipment, as well as fugitive dust emissions from the
ash handling facility. Fugitive emissions which may occur during routine operations
are discussed in Volume ffl, Appendix ffl-l.
Volume VI 1-6
-------
Non-routine operations include process upsets, such as automatic waste feed
cutoffs leading to unplanned facility shutdowns, and catastrophic accidents, such as
fires or major spills. Process upsets may occur periodically during normal operation
of the WTI facility and are discussed in Volume III, Chapter V. Although brief
periods of high emissions may result from these events, potential process upset
emissions are not included in the risk assessment calculations (either in the SERA or
in the human health risk assessment) due to: (1) the significant uncertainties
associated with characterizing emissions during these short-term events, (2) the
expectation that the magnitude and duration of such potential emissions would be
quite limited compared to routine facility emissions, (3) the measures hi place at the
WTI facility to reduce the frequency and potential impact of such emissions, and (4)
the use of conservative assumptions in estimating routine emissions. In addition, the
potential for accidental releases of constituents from the facility are addressed, as
applicable and appropriate, in Volume VII and are outside the scope of the SERA.
Non-atmospheric releases to the environment, such as sludge disposal, are not
planned in the vicinity of the WTI facility. Ash will be disposed of at a remote
location outside of the Ohio-West Virginia-Pennsylvania area in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations. For these reasons, potential non-atmospheric releases
from the WTI facility are not evaluated in the SERA.
C. Report Organization
The SERA is divided into rune technical 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 SERA, as
follows:
Chapter I. Introduction - which describes the purpose and scope of the SERA, and
outlines the report organization.
Chapter II. Process Overview and Conceptual Site Model Development - which
describes the overall approach of the assessment, including the conceptual site model.
Chapter III. 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
Volume VI 1-7
-------
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 SERA, as follows:
Chapter V. Characterization of Exposure - in which exposure pathways and routes
are described, indicator species are selected, exposure scenarios are developed, and
the concentrations of stack and fugitive constituents in air, soil, surface 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 lexicological
benchmarks, are established for all relevant ECOC-pathway-receptor combinations for
each exposure scenario.
Chapters VII, Vm, and DC comprise the Risk Characterization component of the SERA, as
follows:
Chapter VCL Risk Characterization - in which media-specific exposure estimates
for each indicator species are compared to the appropriate criteria value or
lexicological benchmark to determine the potential for adverse impacts and the
magnitude of potential risks.
Chapter Vin. Uncertainty Analysis - in which the uncertainties associated with the
exposure and lexicological parameter values, the models, and the other assumptions
used in the SERA are summarized and the potential effects on Ihe analysis described.
Chapter IX. Summary and Conclusions - in which the major findings of the risk
characterization are briefly summarized and conclusions are drawn.
Details regarding the methodologies and data used hi the SERA are provided in
technical appendices.
Volume VI 1-8
-------
o
o
o
2
o
>
o
HANCOCK
t Virginia
Pennsylvania
CD
^
^5
0)
-------
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 receptors. This
Framework document, which is consistent with draft U.S. EPA Region 5 ecological risk
assessment guidance for RCRA facilities (U.S. EPA 1994f), outlines a process that includes
three distinct components (problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization), as
introduced in Chapter I. 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 provides general guidance on
developing 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 applied to the WTI SERA.
The structure of the analysis used for the WTI SERA is described below and is summarized
in Figure n-1. This structure follows the format used in the ecological risk assessment case
studies published by U.S. EPA (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 n-2 and H-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 in 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
Volume VI . n-1
-------
principal sources of stressors emitted from the WT1 facility into the environment4, (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 (based on parameters
such as volatility, solubility, partitioning, and 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 in
the conceptual site model diagrams (Figures n-2 and n-3) has a corresponding indicator
species or species group. For example, aquatic biota are selected as the indicator species
group potentially exposed to ECOCs in surface water and sediments, and the short-tailed
shrew is selected as an indicator species to represent a terrestrial insectivore that is
potentially exposed to ECOCs deposited onto soils via food chain transfer. 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 HI of the Risk Assessment. Chapter IV also describes the screening process
used to select the ECOCs from the chemicals expected to be present in the stack and
fugitive emissions.
4 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.
Volume VI n-2
-------
2. Ecological Components
U.S. EPA (1992b) defines an ecological component as any part of an
ecological system, including individuals, populations, and communities. Chapter HI
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). The assessment area, which includes parts of five
counties in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, is not the same as the "study
area" used in the human health risk assessment (HHRA; Volume V). 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 in 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 in Chapter HI.
The assessment area is composed of a mixture of terrestrial, wetland, and
aquatic habitats. The terrestrial component consists of (mostly deciduous) forests and
woodlots, woody scrub, agricultural areas, and rural residential or urban areas. The
Ohio River is the principal water body within the assessment area. 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 HI).
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
"ecological integrity of 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. The lowest
applicable chronic Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life
in freshwater systems would be an examp'e of a measurement endpoint that could be
used to evaluate the example assessment endpoint given above. The considerations
Volume VI H-3
-------
for selecting assessment and measurement endpoints are summarized in U.S. EPA
(1992b) and discussed in detail in Suter (1989, 1990, 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, such as chronic toxicity
benchmarks for fish, can be used to predict effects on an assessment endpoint at the
population or community level, for example, the ecological integrity of aquatic
communities. In addition, criteria or benchmark values designed to protect the vast
majority (95 percent) of the components of a community, such as 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 reflects 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 n-1.
B. Analysis
The analysis 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 stack and fugitive emissions. For each exposure scenario,
exposure point concentrations are estimated for the media applicable to each ECOC-
exposure pathway-receptor combination.
a. Exposure Scenarios
Five separate exposure scenarios are developed in the SERA and
include the: (1) stack projected permit limit metal scenario, (2) stack expected
metal scenario, (3) stack high-end organic scenario, (4) fugitive inorganic
Volume VI D-4
-------
scenario, and (5) fugitive organic scenario. As their names imply, the first
two scenarios evaluate stack metal emissions, the third scenario evaluates stack
organic chemical emissions, the fourth scenario evaluates inorganic emissions
from the ash handling facility fugitive source, and the last scenario evaluates
volatile organic emissions from the four on-site sources of fugitive vapors.
Each exposure scenario includes estimates of: (1) emission rates
(described in Chapter IV), (2) dispersion and deposition rates (described in
Volume IV), (3) contact rates, which incorporate the fate and transport
properties of the ECOCs in various abiotic and biotic media (see Chapter V),
and/or (4) uptake rates (see Chapter V). The components of these exposure
scenarios are generically outlined in the conceptual site model for the stack
(Figure n-2) and fugitive (Figure n-3) exposure scenarios, which are described
in detail in Chapter V. 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 in Chapter V).
b. Potential Exposure Pathways
As depicted in Figures n-2 and n-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.
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 onto 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.
Volume VI H-5
-------
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, where applicable, are depicted in
the conceptual site model diagrams (Figures U-2 and n-3).
d. Exposure Point Concentrations
Maximum predicted concentrations of the ECOCs in 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 in 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 in Chapter V. All
exposure scenarios assume a 30-year accumulation of persistent chemicals in
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,
the emissions for a particular ECOC are summed for all fugitive sources and
the stack source for ECOCs common to two or more sources. This provide's 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 Chapter V, 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
Volume VI U-6
-------
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).
Based on the potential exposure routes discussed in subsection E.B.l.c
and the habitats present within the assessment area in general (and at the
locations of highest potential impact in particular), the following indicator
species or species groups are chosen for use in 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 camivore/piscivore)
• Belted kingfisher (an aquatic avian piscivore)
• Aquatic biota (plants, invertebrates, and fish)
These species or species groups represent the range of taxonomic
groups, life history traits, and trophic levels of the species most likely to
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
Volume VI H-7
-------
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 VS) 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 ecological risk assessment that evaluates the ability of a stressor
to cause adverse effects under a particular set of circumstances. In the SERA,
this is an analysis of inherent effects or toxicity. U.S. EPA (1992b)
distinguishes between direct effects and indirect effects5. 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. An example of these two
types of effects is a reduction in the size of a prey population, due to exposure
to a stressor (direct effect), which results in a reduction in the size of a
predator population due to a decrease in the abundance of available prey
(indirect effect). The SERA focuses primarily on direct effects; indirect.
5 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.
Volume VI H-8
-------
effects are discussed qualitatively as part of the evaluation of assessment
endpoints in Chapter Vn.
Measurement endpoints (as described above) provide the means to
assess the potential effects of the ECOCs on ecological receptors. At the
screening level, the measurement endpoints are published criteria/guideline
values or toxicological benchmark values derived from the literature. No
Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs) based on growth and reproductive
endpoints are utilized, where available, to derive benchmark values. 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 most 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
adverse effects. AWQC values are commonly used in 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 and the risk
characterization (Table n-2). This difference is a function of differing
objectives. The purpose of the ECOC selection process is to choose the most
appropriate chemicals for more detailed effects analysis and risk
characterization from among the hundreds of chemical constituents potentially
present in 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.
Volume VI n-9
-------
ECOC selection focuses on inhalation and ingestion exposures for
terrestrial receptors and surface water exposures for aquatic receptors (Table
n-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 (typically mortality) and study durations evaluated in acute
studies are more uniform among chemicals and therefore introduce less
subjectivity to the ECOC selection process than would, for example, chronic
effects data based on many endpoints and study durations. 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 since the
inherent chronic toxicity for ecologically relevant endpoints is more important
at this stage of the assessment than during ECOC selection.
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.
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 refined6, 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.
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
6 For this reason, the toxicity values used in the ECOC selection process (Chapter IV) may
differ from those used in the characterization of ecological effects (Chapter VI) for the
chemicals and exposure routes common to these two analyses.
Volume VI n-10
-------
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
lexicological 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 applicable
criteria/guideline value or lexicological benchmark value (based on no-effect levels) is
selected along wilh a generally conservative exposure estimate. This approach is intended to
provide a conservative, screening-level assessment of risk to ensure that risks are not likely
to be underestimated. II should be noled, however, that the degree of conservatism of the
selected lexicological benchmark values is difficull lo 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. Uncertainly factors
are used to compensate for these uncertainties (see Chapter VI).
Volume VI 11-11
-------
TABLE II-l
Assessment and Measurement Endpoints Selected for the WTI SERA
Assessment Endpoint
Reproductive integrity of selected bird and mammal indicator
species populations within the WTI assessment area
Biological integrity of terrestrial plant communities present within
the WTI assessment area
Ecological integrity of aquatic communities present in
representative water bodies within the WTI assessment area
Integrity of aquatic and terrestrial food chains within the WTI
assessment area to assess potential indirect effects to upper
trophic level bird and mammal species
Exposure potential of rare, threatened, and endangered species
known or likely to be present within the WTI assessment area
Corresponding Measurement Endpoint
Lowest literature-derived chronic No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL)
values for reproductive effects from dietary exposures of an avian or mammalian
species
Lowest literature-derived chronic NOAEL values for reproductive or growth
effects from foliar (air) and root (soil) exposures of a terrestrial plant species
Lowest applicable chronic Ambient Water Quality Criteria (or their equivalent)
and sediment benchmarks for freshwater aquatic systems
Chronic NOAEL benchmarks (for air, soil, surface water, sediment, and dietary
ingestion) for key lower trophic level organisms in terrestrial (plants, soil fauna,
and small mammals) and aquatic (plants, invertebrates, and fish) food chains
Documented presence of rare, threatened, and endangered species, based on
published records, in the portions of the WTI assessment area associated with
maximum exposures
VI
-------
TABLE 11-2
Comparison of Toxicological 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 guideline values or chronic toxicity data for fish
and invertebrates
Chronic toxicity data for terrestrial plants
Chronic toxicity data for terrestrial plants
Chronic toxicity data, primarily for earthworms
* See text for an explanation of why acute data were used during ECOC selection.
Volume VI
11-13
-------
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Stressors: Inorganic and organic chemicals emitted from the WTI incinerator stack (or emtted 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 soi in terrestrial, wetland, and aquatb 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, reservors, and wetlands within
the assessment area; terrestrial (birds, mammals, and reptOes) 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 Ohb River (the point of maximum deposition and air concentrations).
Assessment Endpoints: (1) reproductive integrity of selected bird and mammal indicator species
populations within the WTI assessment area, (2) bblogical integrity of terrestrial plant communities
present within the WTI assessment area, (3) ecobgical integrity of aquatic communities present in
representative water bodies within the WTI assessment area, (4) integrity of aquatic and terrestrial
food chains within the WTI assessment area, and (5) exposure potental of rare, threatened, and
endangered species known or likely to be present within the WTI assessment area.
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 lexicological 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 are
used as the 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
TT.M
-------
^3 PROJECTS 01 4OOOACONCEPTUAL MODEL-STACK EMISSION
SOURCES
Stack ECOCs
r
D n a
ana
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Sediment
»«r«
HUUIcS
Inhalation
Foliar uptake
Root
5
<
i
»-
RECEPTORS
Birds
Mammals
-^-Herbivores
Earthworms
Birds
Mammals
^ Aquatic
I plants"
nsectivores
Carnivores
•Fish
Aquatic
invertebrates^S.^
zooplankton — Fish
Fish
Piscivores
I ^ Aquatic
plants "
•Fish
Benthic
invertebrates
Fish
Fisn
Piscivores
DIAGRAMMATIC CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR THE WTI SERA - STACK EMISSIONS
Figure
11-2
-------
QUANTUM 105MB.PROJECTS 01-4000ACONCEPTUAL MODEL-FUGITIVE EMIS2
SOURCES
Fugitive organic
vapor ECOCs
four sources
Fugitive inorganic ECOCs
(ash handling facility)
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Air
Air
Dispersion
I
Deposition
Dispersion
if Disper
Deposition
Sediment
Inhalation
Foliar uptake
Contact
RECEPTORS
• 1
r^
Foliar uptake -
i ^ Root
absorption
Contact/.
ingest ion
Contact
Contact
Birds
Mammals
Plants
^- Aquatic biota
Aquatic biota
Birds
Mammals
Plants
I
^ Plants •
-^•Herbivores
Carnivores
^ Earthworms —^tnsectivores
Birds
Mammals
Aquatic
plants
Aquatic
invertebratesv<
-------
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 a defined assessment area also
provides the basis for selecting appropriate indicator species and water bodies for risk
characterization, and 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 and analysis is presented in Section ULE.
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 ffl-1). 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 (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 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 in 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 in Pennsylvania
(Beaver and Washington), two counties in Ohio (Columbiana and Jefferson), and one county
in 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 in the HHRA 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 of the total health risk (see Volume V, Chapter
VO). The assessment area selected for use in the SERA is considered of sufficient size to
Volume VI HI-1
-------
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 Physiographic Province. The
glacial boundary from the last period of glaciation bisects this province as well as the
assessment area (Figure ffl-1). 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 ffl-1 (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 in 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
in the State of Ohio is located in this section; urban lands constitute approximately 17 percent
of this section's acreage. Approximately 26 percent of the total acres found in 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
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 in
Volume VI HI-2
-------
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 WIT facility is gently rolling, except
where the Ohio River, which is orientated in 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
m-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 JH-1).
This region of Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania is largely rural with scattered
beef, dairy, and agricultural farms. Relatively large tracts of land in 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 SFJIA 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
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
Volume VI _
-------
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 ffl-2
through ni-4. Total forested lands within this area equal approximately 160,000 acres
(55.7% of the total land area; Table DI-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 ni-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 ffl-4).
A total of 51 lacustrine (9) and palustrine (42) wetland areas7 greater than 10 acres (4
ha) have been identified within the assessment area (Table DI-5; Appendix VI-1), not
including two impounded 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 wetland greater than 10 acres (Blue Run Lake; see Figure ffl-3) occurs within a 5-
km radius of the WTI facility (Table HI-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 m-5). Other palustrine wetlands types present include
7 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).
Volume VI HI-4
-------
palustrine unconsolidated bottom (7%), palustrine emergent (10%), palustrine scrub-shrub
(2%), and palustrine open water (24%). The remaining palustrine wetlands greater than 10
acres in size present within the assessment area consist of combinations of the previously
listed palustrine wetland types (Table HI-5). No palustrine wetlands greater than 10 acres in
size occur within a 5-km radius of the WTI facility (Table m-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 in size occur within 1-km of the WTI facility; 70 wetlands less than 10
acres in 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 in 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 in Tables ffl-5 and ffl-6. If the Ohio River is included in 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 in
Pennsylvania) and, in Ohio, an exceptional warmwater habitat (OHDNR 1994b; OEPAJ993;
PADER 1994b). Other noteworthy streams include Service Creek (Beaver County,
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
f"
Four state parks (two with lakes over 10 acres in size), one state forest, three major
state wildlife management areas (one with lakes over 10 acres in size), and a number of other
Volume VI HI-5
-------
areas (e.g., state game lands) with ecological value are located completely or partially within
the assessment area (Figure ffl-3; Tables ffl-7 and IH-8). There are no National Parks (NFS
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 ni-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 (NFS 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 in 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 in Table ffl-8 and shown on Figure IQ-3. These include three
state game lands in 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, in 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
where data are available.
1. Birds
A total of 241 species of birds (including accidentals8) 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; Cruzan 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992,
1993, 1994; Kerr 1989; Meredith 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994; Smith 1989, 1990,
8 An accidental is a species observed outside of its normal geographic range and/or
migration corridors.
Volume VI ffl-6
-------
1991, 1992, 1993, 1994; Pennsylvania Game Commission 1995; 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 in 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
in 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 winter 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; 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 HI-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
Creek) to 59 (Beaver Creek) and the average number of individual birds per year
varied from approximately 1,325 (Raccoon Creek) to about 5,625 (Beaver Creek).'
The ten most common bird species observed during the winter are: (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
Volume VI m-7
-------
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
DI-7 and m-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 is available on the mammalian species present at one of the state
parks within the assessment area. At Raccoon Creek State Park, 26 speties 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 ffl-7 and ffl-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
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 55 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.
Volume VI ffl-8
-------
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
present at specific wildlife management areas and lakes/reservoirs within the
assessment area are listed in Tables III-7.
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 in 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, caddisflies (Cyrnellus), 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
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 (jame Commission 1994),
Volume VI III-9
-------
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 in 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 ffl-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
in 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 (in Pennsylvania) is listed as state threatened (Table HI-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
to possibly occur within the assessment area is the least shrew (Cryptotis parvd), a
state endangered species in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Game Commission 1994)
(Appendix VI-11). One state (Ohio) endangered amphibian is known to occur within
the assessment area (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 in West Virginia) are listed as state threatened and seven fish
Volume VI ffl-lO
-------
species (six in Pennsylvania and one in 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 (Wolffta papuliferd) (West Virginia endangered) and the wavy-rayed
lampmussel (Lampsilis fasiold) (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 in Ohio and one in Pennsylvania) are known to occur within the assessment
area (Table m-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 in 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 HI-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 habitats
(Figure m-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
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
Volume VI HI-11
-------
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 m-10).
Approximately 25 percent of the assessment area consists of 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 m-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 10 acres in size and 1,500 wetland areas
less than 10 acres in size occur within the assessment area (Tables m-5 and ffl-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 m-4).
The terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats, and the plant and wildlife communities
they support, are interspersed throughout the assessment area (Figure ffl-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
Raccoon Creek, Beaver Creek, Hillman, and Tomlinson Run State Parks, Brush Creek and
Highlandtown Wildlife Areas, and Hillcrest Wildlife Management Area (Figure ffl-3).
The habitat types, and habitat quality, in 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,
Volume VI HI-12
-------
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 WT1 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-iinpacted 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 DI-10). 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 WIT 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 historically abundant. 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.
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 in screening-level
Volume VI ffl-13
-------
assessments such as the WT1 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 in areas determined (based on dispersion modeling) to be at the points of
maximum air concentration and maximum deposition for fugitive and stack emissions (see
Chapter V). These habitats are in 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 WIT
facility emissions.
Volume VI ffl-14
-------
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,
WV*
11.0
24.3
0.0
57.9
6.3
<0.1
0.6
1 No tabular data were found for the Pennsylvania counties.
b From OHDNR (1994a).
c From McColloch and Lessing (1980).
Volume VI
m-i5
-------
Pennsylvania
Ohio
West Virginia
TABLE ffl-2
Forest Lands Within the Assessment Area
County
Total Forest Lands
(acres)
Total Lands
(acres)
Percentage
Forested*
Beaver
Washington
61,350
2,250
99,100
3,000
61.9
75.0
Columbiana
Jefferson
51,700
24,300
100,200
43,700
51.6
55.6
Hancock
ALL COUNTIES
21,750
161,350
43,500
289,500
50.0
55.7
These percentages may not agree with those in Table HI-1 for forest land since the data in Table
HI-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
-------
TABLE m-3
Forest Ownership Within the Assessment Area
County
Percentage
Federal
Government
State/Local
Government
Pennsylvania
Beaver
Washington
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ohio
Columbiana
Jefferson
0.0
0.0
West Virginia
Hancock
ALL COUNTIES
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
Private
100.0
100.0
96.8
100.0
10.0
2.4
90.0
97.6
Source: USDA (1994).
Volume VI
ffl-17
-------
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
7.7
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ohio
Columbiana
Jefferson
37.5
20.0
50.0
60.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
12.5
0.0
West Virginia
Hancock
AH 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-is
-------
TABLE III-5
Wetland Areas Within the Assessment Area Greater than 10 Acres By Distance From the WTI Facility
Wetland Type*
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
1"
0"
0
0"
6b
2
8k
7"
2
9"
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
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
III-I9
-------
TABLE III-6
Wetland Areas Within the Assessment Area Less than 10 Acres By Distance From the WTI Facility
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
1,165
Total
99
708
214
46
403
5
18
1
1,494
* Includes palustine wetlands only. See Appendix VI-2 for a listing of riverine wetlands within the assessment area.
Source: National Wetland Inventory maps.
Volume VI
111-20
-------
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 Areab
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
Longitude2
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 srnallmouth 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
IH-21
-------
TABLE IH-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.
Volume VI
HI-22
-------
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
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, 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
111-23
-------
TABLE III-9
Summary of Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species Within the Assessment Area
Distance From
the WTI Facility
(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 Groupb
Birds
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Mammals
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
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
Aquatic
Invertebrates
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
Plants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
1
8
15
24
Total
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
5
4
11
4
9
23
36
Volume VI
111-24
-------
TABLE III-9
Summary of Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species Within the Assessment Area
Distance From
the WTI Facility
(km)
TOTAL11
Status*
Endangered
Threatened
Special Concern
TOTAL
Taxonomic Group1*
Birds
4
1
0
5
Mammals
2
0
0
2
Reptiles/
Amphibians
1
0
0
1
Fish
1
2
7
10
Aquatic
Invertebrates
1
0
1
2
Plants
1
10
15
26
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.
d 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
-------
TABLE 111-10
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
LS - Locally Significant; RS - Regionally Significant; SWSR - State Wild and Scenic River.
b Source: 1 - OHDNR (1994b).
Volume VI
111-26
-------
c \ocad\OUOOOA\MOOOAB7
APPALACHIAN
PLATEAU
PROVINCE
\\ \ \ , I
x\-. KOONG570WN
Glaciated \x
Plateau
Section
-ASSESSMENT
AREA BOUNDARY
Pittsburgh
i Plateau
Section/
Unglaciated
Plateau/
Section
SOURCE BRAUNING (1992);
GREEN AND PAULEY (1987);
PETERJOHN AND RICE (1991)
0 20
Scale in Kilometers
40
Scale in Miles
PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE WTI FACILITY
Figure
m-1
-------
c \acod\FILE_SPECIFIC-iTIOn
SOURCE: USGS (1977a; 1977b; 1980)
EXPLANATION
|^H Urban or BuiH-Up Land
| ~]AgricuUure/Rangeland
I^^H Forested Land
BSSSffi* Barren Land
0
10
Scale in Miles
0 5 10
Scale in Kilometers
LAND USE WITHIN THE WTI ASSESSMENT AREA
Figure
ffl-2
-------
O
o
o
-z.
o
o
o
o
o
o
N>M
WELLSVILLE RESE
fELLOW CREEK S
-H 33
rn —
•n
g
m
—4
K) ---»-*---- --
O-4— <— i— tO>^lH>*>ppf:: SJ^jr^rn^
i^^^^mo— ^^^"^r-r~-r- C^ti^co
i«— — i ^ -• ***^3;or~^rn'TirTi^(~) t/i O m < ;o
|oooo2lm = 3S = S^o^?5S
irrrz->>>> = w"S2320"'
P1r,r,m-,2<^on^ -oC^iO vi5
trtOOOOSJ,n^J^ ^.-n^r-c — * S
-Ht/>t/»cfltrt?is;_^r*iri ^rnl~CIz ^2
— t A- M — — ^X7\ Z — ^i -< rn
f^OJCOCo-xin >-nn ^
T^ "t>5° >>>>
=° S^ w mj» m ^ x
Is i
Si
m z aj
m
•D m >
m L/>
t/> m
n s
33 n
•X
m
-c
— <
O
z
c
CD
33
O
>
m
® CHRISTMAS
D3
O
Q
2
-D
0
'•z
m
t/l
O
o w
-n m
m
— <
I >
m TJ
i/l -0
n m
z
> 0
30 i?
m x
1
-n
O
"
o
m
CO
o
2
o
m
CO I
O
Q
0)
nT
—i
w
to
m
to
s:
m
Z
—l
>
m
>
ru
o
o
Q_
0)
fD
CO
ro
Iro
HANCOCK
WEST VIRGINIA
-------
r
o
r>
o
2
O
on
13
o
>
o
o
—
m
CO
>
2
O
O
m
7\
oo
a
3
a
o
a
3
o'
I O
Q_
O)
o
3
a>
Iru
to
00
m
oo
oo
2
—l
>
m
>
oo|
o
Q
•i
HANCOCK
WEST VIRGINU
PENNSYLVANIA
10
ru
I -&.
OD
5 CD
-------
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 in 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 chemicals from among over 200 stack and 300 fugitive chemical
constituents. For inorganic chemicals, the selection of ECOCs was based primarily on
choosing those metals that are regulated under RCRA for air emissions. This also allowed
an evaluation of the potential ecological risks associated with existing permit limits for the
emission of metals from the stack (the secondary objective of the SERA) to be conducted.
Thus, all 12 identified metals for which projected permit limits have been developed9 are
included as stack ECOCs. Three additional metals (aluminum, copper, and zinc), which are
not currently regulated under RCRA for air emissions, 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 Panel (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 (see Section IV.D.l).
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 their selection. Only those chemicals selected as
ECOCs are evaluated in later chapters of the SERA. By focusing on the potential risk,from
the selected ECOCs, the SERA provides a thorough screening-level evaluation of routine
9 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, in addition to the ten metals normally limited under 40 CFR 266.106,
the U.S. EPA now routinely limits emissions of nickel and selenium.
Volume VI IV-1
-------
emissions from the WTI facility. If the risks identified for these ECOCs are considered to
be significant, further consideration of additional chemicals may be warranted as part of a
more detailed evaluation (DERA or PERA).
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 lexicological
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 partition 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 in 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). Increased confidence in the selection process
can be achieved by comparing the outcomes from more than one approach (U.S. EPA
1994h).
In the absence of an accepted ecologically-based methodology for selecting ECOCs
for this type of facility, organic ECOC selection in the SERA is based on the approach and
scoring algorithm used in the HHRA for noncarcinogenic effects (see Volume V, Chapter
IV) and is described hi 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 in 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 in place of human health lexicological values for the SERA.
To reduce the uncertainties involved in the ECOC selection process, and to ensure
lhal a potentially significanl chemical was nol overlooked, ihe selection process employed
multiple melhodologies. The overall approach, as well as Ihe componenl melhodologies,
may nol necessarily be appropriate for oiher combustion facilities. The best approach for
selecting ECOCs would need lo be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It is not the explicit or
implied purpose, nor Ihe Agency's inieni, lhat the methodologies used to select ECOCs in
this SERA serve as a model for any curreni or future SERAs at other RCRA-permitted
hazardous waste combustion facilities, either in Region 5 or in other U.S. EPA regions, nor
Volume VI IV-2
-------
should the incorporation of these methodologies in this SERA be construed to constitute
general Agency policy or guidance for ecological risk assessments.
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 Panel (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 WT1 performance tests are used to
provide an initial list of over 200 substances in stack emissions for consideration in tne risk
assessment (see Volume ffl, Chapter HI). 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)
metals, (4) acid gases, and (5) paniculate 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
wn 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 projected acid gas and paniculate matter
concentration estimates (Volume V, Chapter Vffl) are below ambient air quality standards.
Although these ambient air quality standards are human-health based, they suggest that risks
to ecological receptors are also 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-12), 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.
Volume VI IV-3
-------
In addition, the 17 dioxin/furan congeners are evaluated as total dioxin/fiiian.
Emission rates for the 17 dioxin/fiiran congeners are weighted using toxicity equivalency
factors (TEFs) relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the most toxic congener (see Appendix VI-12).
Since no standardized, accepted set of TEFs currently exists 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 carcinogenic
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
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 in the derivation of stack
emission rates. Statistical approaches are used in these derivations whenever possible, as
described in Volume ffl. The more conservative approaches used to derive stack emission
rates in Volume HI are applied to the SERA, as described in Appendix VI-13. 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 in Appendix VI-13 for PCDDs/PCDFs, other PICs and organic residues, and
metals. The resulting emission rate estimates are used in the screening process for selecting
organic stack ECOCs (described in this chapter) and as components of exposure scenarios
(introduced in Chapters I and n, and discussed in Chapter V).
The three sets of stack emission rate estimates used in the SERA are:
• 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 by direct extrapolation of the maximum hourly limits on stack metal
emissions, defined in the facility's existing RCRA permit, to annual average
Volume VI IV-4
-------
emission rate estimates for the continuous operation of the incinerator. Since
it is not anticipated that long-term facility operations would approach these
limits, these emission rate estimates greatly overestimate facility emissions
during routine operations. These emission rates are used only in the analysis
of potential ecological risks associated with the existing permit limits for the
emission of metals from the stack (the secondary objective of the SERA).
• 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 in Volume HI. These emission rates, which assume
continuous operation of the facility, provide conservative, yet realistic,
estimates of "expected" metal emissions from the facility stack under current,
routine operating conditions.
• 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 in Volume m10. For the SERA, these
emission rate estimates are used as annual average emission rates and assume
continuous operation of the facility.
C. Stack Emission ECOC Selection
The initial list of organic chemicals (developed as described in Section IV. A and in
Volume HI) is screened, using a two-step process, to select the ECOCs for evaluation in the
SERA (Figure FV-1). In the first step (initial screening), chemicals for which emission rates
10
The HHRA primarily uses arithmetic mean emission rate estimates for organics. The
high-end rates are applied in the HHRA sensitivity analysis for those chemicals for which
risks are predicted (Appendix VI-14 provides both the average and high-end emission
rates for organic stack constituents). The added conservatism of the SERA (use of only
the high-end rates) is consistent with a screening-level assessment.
Volume VI IV-5
-------
can not be estimated (see Volume HI) are eliminated11. This results in 31 organic chemicals
being screened out of the SERA (Table IV-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 WIT incinerator stack under normal operations, based on
estimated high-end emission rates.
• Bioaccumulation Potential. The octanol/water partition coefficient
(K^) 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^.
K^, values are used in the scoring algorithms since they are
readily available for the large number of chemicals evaluated.
11 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).
Volume VI IV-6
-------
However, actual BCF values are used, where available, in 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
each step up the food chain) is also considered, qualitatively, in the
ECOC selection process.
Toxicity. Relative toxicity to terrestrial animals and/or aquatic
organisms12, depending upon the exposure type 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 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. 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 as this exposure route is generally less well studied for
non-human receptors. The lack of a complete lexicological data set is
not considered to be a significant problem (see Section IV.G).
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 toxicitv 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
12 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.in the screening process.
However, chemicals known to be particularly phytotoxic (e.g., herbicides) are considered
for inclusion as ECOCs later in the screening process.
Volume VI IV-7
-------
bird and mammal wildlife species) during the analysis and risk
characterization components of the SERA.
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 (typically 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 and
study durations. Acute toxicity values are derived from acute Ambient
Water Quality Criteria or the lowest available LC50 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 analysis and risk
characterization components 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 in 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:
TV
where: ER = emission rate
K^ = octanol/water partition coefficient ,
TV = toxicity value
Volume VI IV-8
-------
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 score for exposure of mammals 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 general scoring
algorithm are also made for two of the four 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^ [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
percent 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 in 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,^ term is dropped from the general scoring algorithm
(Equation IV-1) to yield:
Score = — (IV-2)
TV
Volume VI IV-9
-------
Toxicity values used for inhalation are derived from laboratory tests of
inhalation exposures in small mammals (as described in Section IV. C.I); 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 in Appendix VI-15. Chemicals
accounting for the top 95 percent of the cumulative score for all chemicals are
listed in Table IV-3 under "Inhalation".
Based on this analysis, one chemical (formaldehyde) is selected as an
ECOC. Formaldehyde accounts for 96.8% of the total score for inhalation
exposures (Table IV-3).
(2) Ingestion. Some chemicals emitted from the WIT incinerator
stack are deposited in terrestrial habitats and may become incorporated into
food items, such as plants and soil invertebrates. A potential exposure route to
ecological receptors is ingestion of these food items. Since K^ is correlated
with the partitioning of chemicals between water, soil, and biota, it is a
relevant parameter for ingestion exposure. Thus, the general scoring
algorithm (Equation IV- 1) is used without modification.
Toxicity values used for ingestion are derived from laboratory tests of
ingestion exposures in small mammals (as described in Section IV. C.I); 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 in Appendix
VI- 16. Chemicals accounting for 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 6.4% of the cumulative score for ingestion exposures,
respectively, for a combined score of 98.9% (Table IV-3).
(3) Aquatic (Kow-based). Some chemicals emitted from the WTI
incinerator stack are directly deposited onto aquatic habitats and indirectly
deposited via runoff from surrounding terrestrial habitats. Some portion of the
emitted chemicals may subsequently partition to sediments or bioaccumulate in
food items, such as 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
Volume VI IV- 10
-------
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- 1) is used without modification.
Toxicity values used for K^-based aquatic exposure screening are
based on acute ambient water quality criteria or the lowest available LCJO
value for appropriate freshwater species, as described in Section IV. C.I.
Inputs to the scoring algorithm, calculated scores for each chemical, and
rankings are contained in Appendix VI-17. 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 based on ingestion
exposures. These eight chemicals account 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-4
below), the K^-based aquatic analysis does not account for these potential
exposures. Thus, the general scoring algorithm (Equation IV-1) is modified
for the water solubility-based aquatic exposure analysis by substituting water
solubility for K^, as follows:
Score = (ry-3)
TV
where: ER = emission rate
S = water solubility
TV = toxicity value
Volume VI IV-11
-------
Water solubilities are estimated from log K^,, values using the following
equation from Lyman et al. (1990)13:
log 1 = (L2l4)(LogKJ - 0.850 (IV-4)
ij
Toxicity values used for the water solubility-based aquatic exposure
analysis are based on acute ambient water quality criteria or the lowest
available LCSO value for appropriate freshwater fish, invertebrate, or algal
species, as described in Section IV.C.I. Inputs to the scoring algorithm,
calculated scores for each chemical, and rankings are contained in Appendix
VI-18. 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
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
13 This equation provides a reasonable estimate of water solubility, particularly considering
that relative solubility among chemicals is the objective of the screening. Estimates from
K^ are used in 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 in the analysis.
Volume VI IV-12
-------
organics14) based on general differences in physico-chemical 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 " 10-percent" criterion is intended to provide additional assurance that a
chemical which could potentially contribute significantly to ecological risk is
not overlooked due to a subtle chemical-specific characteristic that reduces its
score relative to the top-ranked chemical in the group. At the same tune, the
10-percent criterion is considered adequate to initially evaluate the potential
risks for the entire chemical group. If significant ecological risks are
predicted for the ECOCs within a group, then additional chemicals in that
group (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 (K^-based) exposures are used to rank chemicals within groups.
This approach is used 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.
14 PCBs and dioxin/furans are not included in 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).
Volume VI IV-13
-------
(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 nine15 higher molecular-weight PAHs, benzo(a)pyrene has
the highest score. It is tanked 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
ranks 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
IV-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
IV-4).
(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 as fugitive organic vapor ECOCs
(see Section IV.E.2).
15 No ecotoxicological data are available fcr dibenzo(a,h)fluoranthene so this chemical is
not included in the screening.
Volume VI IV-14
-------
(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 in 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 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
lexicological 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 in the environment (Appendix VI-19) and of relatively low toxicity
to aquatic organisms, is the highest ranked herbicide evaluated (Table IV-4).
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
chemical group analysis.
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 scored fourth for
Volume VI IV-15
-------
ingestion exposures (Appendix VI-16), 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 medium-specific data on the half-life of chemicals in air,
surface water, and surface soil. Howard et al. (1991) and HSDB (1995) are
the primary sources of half-life data. Appendix VI-19 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.
2. Summary of Stack ECOCs
Table IV-5 lists the 22 organic and 15 metal ECOCs selected to evaluate the
WTI incinerator stack emissions in the risk characterization component of the SERA,
along with 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
Volume VI IV-16
-------
provides additional assurance that a significant contributor to risk is not overlooked in
the SERA.
No metals were screened out as part of the ECOC selection process. The 15
metal ECOCs include all of the potentially significant metal constituents present in
WTI stack emissions under normal operating conditions.
Table IV-6 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 were selected are evaluated in subsequent sections of the SERA.
This applies to acrylonitrile, 1,4-dioxane, di-n-octylphthalate, and heptachlor, which
were selected based solely on aquatic exposures; these chemicals are only evaluated in
surface water and sediment (Table IV-6). This also applies to dioxin/furan, which
was 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 in surface water, sediment, and air.
Volatile organic ECOCs are not evaluated in surface soil or tissues (food chain
effects) since they are not expected to accumulate in 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 in 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
releases during the loading of fly ash from the electrostatic precipitator into trucks. The four
fugitive organic vapor emissions sources and the ash handling facility are discussed in more
detail in Volume ffl, Chapter IV.
1. Fugitive Inorganic Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
The combustion of waste materials typically results in 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 in relatively large quantities, generally has a very fine consistency (and is
Volume VI IV-17
-------
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 WIT, as discussed in Volume ffl.
In 1994, monthly samples of fly ash were collected from the ESP at the WIT 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 in fugitive ash
emissions. The metals that were detected in at least one sample of ash were identified
as substances of potential concern and include arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead,
nickel, selenium, and silver. Total cyanide was also detected in the fly ash samples
and, thus, is also identified as a substance of potential concern.
2. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
In Volume ffl, 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
organic vapor emissions from the WTI facility. To facilitate the selection of specific
chemicals for evaluation of fugitive organic vapor 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 (Appendix VI-20), serves as the starting point for fugitive
organic vapor chemical screening in the SERA.
E. Fugitive Emission ECOC Selection
Fugitive ECOCs are selected for the four fugitive organic vapor 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 the fugitive organic vapor sources and the ash handling facility.
1. Fugitive Inorganic Emissions
Since only seven metals, plus cyanide, were detected in fly ash samples, no
screening is conducted. Instead, all eight of these constituents.(arsenic, barium,
cadmium, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, and total cyanide) are selected as fugitive
Volume VI IV-18
-------
inorganic ECOCs. Except for cyanide, these inorganic constituents are also on the
ECOC list for stack emissions.
2. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
Fugitive organic chemicals of primary concern are volatile constituents present
in 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 fugitive organic vapor
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 in Section IV.D.2,
serves as the starting point for fugitive organic vapor chemical screening in the
SERA. The screening of these organic chemicals is conducted in two parts: (1)
exposure analysis, and (2) evaluation by professional judgement (Figure IV-2). Each
of these parts is described below. Chemical group analysis, used in 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 volatilke 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 in the SERA
screening of volatile organic stack constituents 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:
• 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
Volume VI IV-19
-------
vapor pressure (see Volume V, Chapter IV). This parameter is
functionally equivalent to the emission rate parameter used in the
screening of organic stack constituents. Estimated emission rates are
not used in the fugitive screening since the methodology used to
estimate fugitive organic vapor 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.l.
• Toxicity. Relative toxicity to terrestrial animals (via inhalation) and/or
aquatic organisms, depending upon the type of exposure evaluated, is
used as a screening criterion, as described in Section IV.C.l.
Persistence and bioaccumulation potential, parameters used qualitatively and
quantitatively, respectively, in the screening of stack emissions, are both considered
qualitatively in the second portion (professional judgement) of the fugitive organic
vapor emissions screening process.
a. Exposure Analysis
The exposure analysis is the first of two parts of the screening process
used to select fugitive organic vapor ECOCs. Consistent with the approach
used in the screening of stack volatile organic constituents, 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 percent 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.
Volume VI IV-20
-------
(1) Inhalation. The screening algorithm used for fugitive organic
vapor inhalation exposures, which is functionally equivalent to the algorithm
used for inhalation exposures during stack ECOC selection, is:
WV
, W(>T) OV-5)
Score =
TV
where: WV = waste volume
MW = molecular weight
VP = vapor pressure
TV = toxicity value
The toxicity values used 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 in Appendix VI-20.
Based on this analysis, one chemical (formaldehyde) is selected as an
ECOC. Formaldehyde accounts for over 99% of the total score for inhalation
exposures (Appendix VI-20).
(2) Aquatic (Water Solubility-based). The screening algorithm used
for fugitive organic vapor aquatic exposures, which is functionally equivalent
to the algorithm used for aquatic (water solubility-based) exposures during
stack ECOC selection, is:
Score =
WV.
it ix ••* if ^ t
(IV-6)
TV
where: WV = waste volume
MW = molecular weight
VP = vapor pressure
S = water solubility
TV = toxicity value
Water solubilities are estimated from log K^, values as described in
Section IV.C. La. 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
Volume VI IV-21
-------
algal species, as described in Section IV.C.l. Inputs to the scoring algorithm,
calculated scores for each chemical, and rankings are contained in Appendix
VI-21.
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% of the fugitive organic vapor cumulative
score for the water solubility-based aquatic analysis (Appendix VI-21).
b. Evaluation Using Professional Judgement
The second and final part of the detailed screening process to select
fugitive organic vapor 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 fugitive
organic 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 vapor
ECOCs.
Appendix VI-20 presents the results of the fugitive organic vapor,
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 Appendix VI-13).
Appendix VI-21 presents the results of the fugitive organic vapor
screening process for aquatic exposures. The five chemicals with the highest
Volume VI IV-22
-------
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 vapor ECOCs. Appendix VI-19 lists persistence and log Kw
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 61st, respectively, in the inhalation screening).
Acetonitrile, however, which scored 11th in the inhalation screening, is added
as an ECOC.
Chemicals with relatively high half-lives in water and/or high log K,^,
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.
3. Summary of Fugitive ECOCs
Table IV-7 lists the eight organic and eight inorganic ECOCs selected to
evaluate fugitive emissions in the risk characterization component of the SERA, along
with the method used for their 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-8 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
Volume VI IV-23
-------
evaluated in the remaining media. For volatile 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-8).
Fugitive organic vapor ECOCs, being volatile organic chemicals, are not evaluated in
surface soil or tissues since they are not expected to accumulate in these media based
on their chemical properties (high volatility and low bioaccumulation, respectively).
The eight chemicals selected as fugitive organic vapor 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
Chemical-specific emission rates are developed for each fugitive inorganic ECOC
selected for evaluation at the ash handling facility (Table IV-9). For each fugitive organic
vapor ECOC, chemical-specific emission rate estimates are developed for each of the four
identified fugitive organic vapor emission sources (Table IV-10), as described in Appendix
VI-13. As noted in Section IV.E, these emission rate estimates were not used in the ECOC
selection process but are used in Chapter V to estimate media concentrations.
Two sets of fugitive emission rate estimates (one for fugitive organic vapor emission
sources and one for fugitive inorganic emissions from the ash handling facility) are used as
components of exposure scenarios (see Chapter V) in the SERA as follows:
• 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.
Volume VI IV-24
-------
• Fugitive Organic Vapor 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.
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 used or
because of a lack of toxicity values) that may pose a potentially significant ecological risk.
The ECOC selection 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-11, provide a summary of the key uncertainties associated
with the ECOC selection process presented in this chapter.
Table IV-11 also provides qualitative rankings which describe: (1) the likely
magnitude and effect associated with each identified assumption or uncertainty, (2) the
relative importance of each assumption or uncertainty to the overall risk conclusions, and (3)
the magnitude of conservatism associated with each assumption or with the procedures
applied to reduce or mitigate the uncertainty. Assumptions or uncertainties which combine
relatively high magnitude effects, less conservatism, and relatively high importance to the
risk conclusions, are of most concern since they could result in underestimating the risks to
ecological receptors. Assumptions and uncertainties which exhibit these traits are given
particular attention in this section.
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 in the selection process. Despite the tests performed at the WTI incinerator,
there are limitations in 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 as well
as on the predicted waste characteristics is combined with data from trial burns and
Volume VI IV-25
-------
performance tests to derive best estimates of emissions. 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. The assumptions
relating to emission rate estimates (Table IV-11) all had levels of conservatism as high
or higher than either the magnitude of effects or the importance to the risk
conclusions, suggesting that risks are net likely to be 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 in 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 in Volume IV. A qualitative assessment
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 emission sources and chemical substances are
addressed in the ECOC selection process. It is considered unlikely that a significant
source of fugitive emissions remains unidentified and thus unaccounted for in the risk
assessment. While there may be some chemical constituents of the fugitive emissions
that are not included in the emission rate estimates, these potential underestimates in
emissions are considered to have a low magnitude effect on the outcome of the
SERA. Thus, it is unlikely that risks are underestimated to any significant degree for
fugitive emissions.
Approximately 60% (by mass) of the organic (PIC) stack emissions during
facility tests could not be characterized and therefore represents either additional
chemicals or additional mass of chemicals already identified. If this mass consists of
additional chemicals, the effect of this on the assessment would depend on the toxicity
of these additional chemicals relative to those which have been identified. If this
mass consists of already identified chemicals, then emission estimates for organic
constituents would be underestimated by about a factor of 2.5. Since the emission
rates of identified organic chemicals were not prorated to account for this
uncharacterized mass, this could lead to an underestimation of organic stack
emissions. This is addressed further in Chapter Vm.
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
Volume VI IV-26
-------
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 analyses 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. Those chemicals that have no relevant lexicological data were
eliminated as a practical matter during the screening process, and it is assumed that
the chemicals that are characterized (selected as ECOCs) account for the significant
majority of the potential risks.
For stack emissions, only three (one PAH and two ethers) of 84 chemicals
lacked toxicity values for ingestion exposures. Thirty-nine of 133 chemicals lacked
toxicity values for inhalation exposures. However, most of these chemicals were
PAHs, pesticides, and other relatively non-volatile chemical classes for which
exposures via inhalation would be expected to be much less significant than exposures
via ingestion (food chain) or aquatic pathways. For aquatic pathways, 22 of 133
chemicals lacked toxicity values. Toxicity values could be estimated for 20 of these
22 chemicals (all except indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene and benzo[g,h,i]perylene) using
available quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) (Appendix VI-22),
allowing scores to be calculated. While one of these 20 chemicals (ethylene oxide)
ranked as high as ninth overall based on these calculated scores (Appendix VI-22),
none of these 20 chemicals met the selection criteria for either of the two aquatic
exposure types nor for selection by chemical group. That is, using the QSAR toxicity
estimates, their overall scores were lower than those chemicals selected as ECOCs.
Thus, the incomplete toxicity data set for stack organic chemicals is not likely to have
a significant effect on either the chemical screening process or on the risk assessment
conclusions.
For fugitive organic vapor emissions, 29 of 96 chemicals lacked toxicity values
for inhalation exposures (Appendix VI-20). However, none of these 29 chemicals are
particularly volatile (vapor pressures are less than 10 mm Hg for all 29; Appendix
VI-20) so none would be expected to be released in significant quantities. For aquatic
exposures, 23 of 96 chemicals lacked toxicity values; six had vapor pressures
exceeding 10 mm Hg (Appendix VI-21). Toxicity values could be estimated for four
of these six chemicals (all except 1-methylbutadiene and butyl acetate) using available
quantitative structure-activity relationships (Appendix VI-22). Based on this analysis,
none of the four chemicals scored higher than 19th based on aquatic exposures
(Appendix VI-22) and did not meet the ECOC selection criteria. Thus, the
incomplete toxicity data set for fugitive organic vapor chemicals is not likely to have
Volume VI IV-27
-------
a significant effect on either the chemical screening process or on the risk assessment
conclusions.
Volume VI IV-28
-------
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-TetrachIorobenzene
o-Toluidine
p-Toluidine
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Volume VI
IV-29
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
CAS Number
Inorganics
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
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)a
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)a
—
1.6 x 10*
1.1 x 10"
5.5 x 10'
3.6 x 10-6
1.9x 10"
1.5 x 10"
—
1.2x 10-3
8.8 x 10'2
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*
1.6x 10-'
7.1 x ID'7
9.4 x ID'5
4.3 x 10-5
1.4x 10-3
5.0 x 1O*
4.7 x 10"
1.5 x lO"5
3.4 x 10-5
1.2x 10"
Organics
Acenaphthenete
Acenaphthylenete
Acetaldehyde"
Acetone0
Acetophenonee
Acrylonitrile*
Anthracene"
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 10-6
3.01 x 10"
2.90 x 10°
2.93 x 10^' 1
2.02 x 10" I
l.lOx lO'5
2.63 x lO'3
1.13x lO'3
3.20 x lO'3
l.lOx 10 5
Volume VI
IV-30
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Benzo(a)pyrenebf
Benzo(b)fluoranthenebf
Benzo(g,h,i)perylenebf
Benzo(k) fluoranthenebf
bis(2-chloroethoxy)methanebe
bis^-chloroethyOethei*
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)etherbc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatef
Bromodichloromethanef
Bromoformbf
Bromomethanebf
Bromophenyl phenylether1*
2-Butanonef
Butylbenzylphthalatebf
Carbon disulfidef
Carbon tetrachloride'
Chlordanebf
4-Chloro-3-methylphenolbe
p-Chloroanilinete
Chlorobenzenebf
Chlorobenzilate6
Chloroethanebf
Chloroformf
Chloromethanebf
2-Chloronaphthaleneb°
2-Chlorophenolbf
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether1"
Chrysenebf
m-Cresolbf
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
108-39-4
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)m
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
*-*
—
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)'
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10'3
l.lOx 10'3
6.69 x 10-6
1.33 x 10 5
6.69 x 10^
5.23 x 10'3
1.53 x 10"
l.lOx lO'5
9.80 x 10-*
6.69 x 10^
7.40 x ID'3
l.lOx ID'3
9.46 x 10-3
2.75 x 10"
l.lOx lO"6
6.69 x lO"6
6.69 x 10-6
l.lOx 10'3
3.68 x ID'3
9.80 x 10"
4.07 x 10" -
4.90 x 10"
6.69 x 10-6
l.lOx lO'3
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx 10'3
l.lOx 10 3
Volume VI
IV-31
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
o-Cresolbf
p-Cresolbf
Crotonaldehyde"
Cumenebf
2,4-iy
4,4'-DDEbf
Dibenz(a,h)anthracenebf
Dibenzo(a,h)fluorantheneM
Dibromochloromethane"
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzenebf
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzenebf
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzenebf
3 ,3 '-Dicfalorobenzidine6
DichJorodi fluoromethanebf
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane"
1 ,2-Dichloroethanebf
l,l-Dichloroethenebf
trans- 1 .2-Dichloroethenebf
2 , 4-Dichlorophenolbf
1 ,2-Dichloropropanebf
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropenebf
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropenebf
Diethylphthalatef
3,3' -Dimethoxybenzidine0
2,4-Dimethylphenolbf
Dimethylphthalatebf
Di-n-butylphthalatef
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenolbf
2,4-Dinitrophenolbf
CAS Number
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
542-75-6
84-66-2
119-90-4
105-67-9
131-11-3
84-74-2
534-52-1
51-28-5
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)a
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)a
l.lOx 10'3
l.lOx 10-5
1.39 x 10"
l.lOx ID'5
3.88 x lO'5
l.lOx 10^
l.lOx lO'5
l.lOx lO'5
2.63 x 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx ID'5
l.lOx 10'5
3.33 x 10'5
4.90 x 10"
2.50 x 10-5
2.50 x ID'5
2.50 x 10'3
2.50 x 10-5
l.lOx lO'5
2.50 x 10 5
2.50 x ID'5
2.50 x 10-5
3.60 x lO'5
1.15x 10"
l.lOx ID'5
l.lOx 10-5
2.04 x 10-3
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10 5
Volume VI
IV-32
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluenebf
2,6-Dinitrotoluenebf
l,4-Dioxanee
Dioxin/furand
Di-n-octylphthalatebf
Ethyl methacrylatebf
Ethylbenzenef
Ethylene dibromide'
Ethylene oxidee
Ethylene thiourea"
Fluoranthenebf
Fluorene1*
Formaldehyde0
Furfural"
Heptachlorkf
Hexachlorobenzenekf
Hexachlorobutadienee
Hexachlorocyclopentadienebf
Hexachl oroethanebf
Hexachlorophene0
2-Hexanonebc
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrenebf
Isophorone1*
Lindane"
Maleic hydrazidec
Methoxychlor1"'
Methyl t-butyl ether1"'
4-Methyl-2-Pentanonebf
Methylene chloridef
CAS Number
121-14-2
606-20-2
123-91-1
(1746-01-6)
117-84-O
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
108-10-1
75-09-2
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)'
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
f *
—
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)*
l.lOx 10'5
l.lOx lO'5
4.94 x 10-1
1.26 x 10-9
l.lOx lO'5
4.90 x 10"
7.53 x 10-*
1.15x 10"
3.05 x lO'3
1.46x 10-'°
l.lOx lO'3
6.69 x 10-6
6.07 x 10"
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx lO'3
1.01 x 10*
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10s
3.20 x lO'5
6.43 x 10 5
l.lOx 10s
6.69 x 10-6 '
5.48 x lO'5
1.15x 10"
l.lOx 10-6
2.50 x ID'3
2.50 x lO'3
6.19x 10"
Volume VI
IV-33
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
2-Methylnaphthalenec
Naphthalene"
2-Nitroanilinebc
3-Nitroanilinete
4-Nitroanilinebe
Nitrobenzene1"5
2-Nitrophenolte
4-Nitrophenolbf
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylaminee
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylarnine1*
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine1*
Total PCBsc
Pentachlorobenzenec
Pentachloronitrobenzenec
Pentachlorophenolbf
Phenan throne1*
Phenolbf
Pyrenebf
Safrole'
Styrenef
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethanebf
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethanebf
Tetrachloroethenef
2,3 ,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol<:
Toluenef
1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-
trifluoroe thanec
1 ^^-Trichlorobenzene"
1,1,1 -TrichloroethaneM
CAS Number
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
—
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
108-88-3
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)*
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
_^ * '
—
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)4
4.18x lO'3
l.lOx 10's
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10-3
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx lO'5
1.21 x 10-*
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10-6
3.38x lO'7
4.76 x 10's
3.37 x 10'3
l.lOx 10'5
6.69 x 10"*
l.lOx 10'5
l.lOx lO'3
1.15 x 10"
4.04 x 10'3
l.lOx 10'3
l.lOx 10'3
8.02 x 10'5
6.80 x 10-"
1.03 x 10°
3.30 x 10*
l.lOx 10'3
2.50 x 10'5
Volume VI
IV-34
-------
TABLE IV-2
Chemicals Remaining After Initial Screening - Stack Emissions
Chemical
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethanebf
Trichloroethenef
Trichlorofluoromethanebf
2,4,5-Trichlorophenolbf
2 , 4 ,6-Trichlorophenolkf
Vinyl acetate1"
Vinyl chloride"
Total xylenesf
CAS Number
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-O6-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
—
Projected Permit
Limit (g/sec)*
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Estimated Emission
Rate (g/sec)"
2.50 x 103
3.09 x lO'5
4.90 x 10-1
l.lOx 10'5
l.lOx lO'5
6.43 x 10-5
4.90 x 10-1
5.75 x 10-1
' Emission rates based on current projected permit limits for metals are from U.S. EPA (1994b).
Estimated emission rates for metals are developed as specified in Volume HI, Chapter HI (see
text). For organics, emission rates are high-end estimates developed as specified in Volume IU,
Chapter ffl (see text).
b Emission rates are based on the detection limit for these chemicals.
0 Based on the sum of nine PCB homologs (see Appendix VI- 12).
d Based on Toxicity Equivalents for 17 dioxin and furan congeners relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD (see
Appendix Vl-12).
c Estimated emission rate using data from other than August 1994 performance tests (see text).
' Based on August 1994 performance tests.
Volume VI
IV-35
-------
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
Digestion
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorophene
3.24 x 103
2.22 x 102
0.925
0.989
Aquatic (K^-Based)
Hexachlorophene
4,4'-DDE
Heptachlor
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Di-n-octylphthalate
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°
0.693
0.769
0.819
0.857
0.891
0.923
0.942
0.960
Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based)
Formaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,4-Dioxane
Acetone
2.27 x 10^
1.55 x 10"6
1.04 x 10-6
9.00 x 10*
0.437
0.735
0.935
0.952
Volume VI
IV-36
-------
TABLE IV-4
Detailed Chemical Screening - Chemical Group Analysis - Slack Embskm
Chemical
men-End
EmbrtMi
Rate (|/i)
Higher Mottrubr-Wrigt.1 rAH>
Berao(a)pyreiM
Dibenz(a,h)anthraoene
lndeno( 1 ,2,3-od)pyrenc
Beiuo(b)fluoranlhcne
Benzo(k)fluDraiilhenc
Bcnzo(a)afiUuaoerB
Chryaenc
Pyrerc
Benzo(g,h,i)p:rylene
Lower Mokoihr-Wrtjlil PAlb
AnUiractM
Phenanduene
Flucnanlhene
2-MelhylmptHh.lene
2-Chlonwphthilene
AocnpbthcDc ,
F|i»rene
Acenaphthylene
NaphUvlene
nilhafalfl.
BbO^hyl.^Dph.a.,.
Di-n-oclylphthilale
Di-n-ouylpRthalale
1. IOE-05
1. IOE-05
1. IOE-05
1. IOE-05
1. IOE-05
1 IOE-05
1. IOE-05
1 IOE-05
I.IOE-05
*-
Toitc«j
Value
Infotflo
Score
n
Group
Rank
All
Rank
InhabUoa
Toxldty
Value
Scon
Group
Rank
All
Rank
Aquatic (KJ
Toikkjr
Value
I 29E+06
4.90E+06
4.47E+06
I.58E+06
1.58E+06
S.OIE-fOS
5.01E+OS
1 29h+05
5.0IE+06
10
38
72
40
72
500
»
80
ND
I.42E+00
1 42E+00
6.82E-OI
4 36E-OI
2 42E-OI
I.IOE-02
S.57E«2
1 77E-02
-
1
2
3
4
5
8
6
7
9
9
10
13
15
17
27
22
25
82
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.1
ND
—
_
_
_
_
_
5.24E-06
—
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
95
95
95
9S
95
95
95
26
95
5.0
1000
ND
ND
ND
61
1000
250
ND
I IOE-05
669E-06
1 IOE-05
4.I8E-05
6.69E-O6
6.69E-06
6.60E-06
6.69E-06
I.IOE-05
5.23E-05
1. IOE-05
2.04E-05
3.5SE+04
3.55E+04
I.32E+05
I.29E+04
I.32E+04
8.32E+03
1 .62E+04
I.I7E+04
2.29E+OJ
2.00E+07
I.15E+08
4.07E+04
3300
70
250
163
89
200
200
176
533
200
260
250
1 I8E-04
339E-O3
5.80E-03
3.30E-03
9.91 E*)
2.78EXM
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
5.22E+00
4.86E+00
332&03
1
2
>
5
6
32
1.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.9
ND
ND
6.1
7.33E-06
—
—
—
—
3.52E-06
—
—
I.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
ND
135
Scon
2 83E+00
5.39E-02
^
9.04E-02
5.5IE-03
5.67E-03
_
Group
Rank
1
3
6
6
6
2
J
4
6
AH
Rank
4
16
112
112
112
14
24
23
112
3.28E-02
7.91 E-03
7.25E-03
4.90E-04
5.5IE-05
6.55E-04
2.I7E-O4
I.87E-O4
63
ND
44
8.30E-07
—
4.63E-O6
2
6
1
49
95
30
400
940
105
2.6IE+00
1 34E+00
790E-03
1
2
3
5
8
4
6
9
7
18
20
22
36
49
33
42
112
43
1
2
3
5
8
21
Water
Sohiblllljr
tmol/L)
2.71 E«7
5.35E-08
5.98E-08
2.IOE-07
2.IOE-07
8.52E-07
8.52E-07
4.43E-06
5.20E-08
2.I2E-05
2.I2E-05
4.3IE-06
7.25E-05
7.05E-05
1.23E-04
5.48E-05
8. HE-OS
5.90E-04
9.72E-09
1 I6E49
I.79E45
Aquatic (Water SotublWy)
Scon
596E-13
5.88E-I6
1.54E-I3
9.37E-15
I.95E-I3
I.96E-1I
4.73E-I2
2.37E-I3
2.76E-I2
2.95E-13
9.7IE-I2
7.34E-I3
I.27E-15
136E-17
348E-I2
Croup
Rank
,
5
6
6
6
3
4
2
2
4
8
5
7
3
,
9
,
5
4
3
AH
Rank
92
110
112
112
112
100
106
99
TO
to
98
85
97
76
91
112
108
111
83
Volume VI
IV-37
-------
TABLE IV-4
Detailed Chemical Screening - Chemical Group Analysis - Slack Embslon
Chemical
Bulylbenzylphlhalale
DielhylphlhiUle
Dimslhylphlh»feHe
Emkulon
Rate (g/s)
I.IOE-05
3.60E-05
I.IOE-05
"-
6.92E+04
3 16E+02
3.72E+OI
ToxlcHj
Value
490
185
338
IntaXki
Scon
I.55E-03
6.I5E-05
1.2IE-06
•
Group
Rank
4
5
6
All
Rank
37
62
77
InhafaUon
ToilcHy
Value
62
80
117
Scon
1.77&07
4.49E-O7
9.40E-08
r.,«d«-
Hexachloropheiw (G)
4,4'-DDE (1)
HepuchJor (1)
Chlordatv (I)
Undine (1)
PentachloKxiilfoooizen: (H/F)
Chlorobenzible (A)
2,4-D (H)
Melhoxychlor (I)
2,3,4,6-Tclnchktnphenal (F)
Maleic hydnuuK (H)
Volatile OrfaBln
Formaldehyde
Acetone
Crotonaldehyde
Chloroform
Vinyl chloride
Bcnzolrichloridc
Acrylonitrile
Bromomelhuic
3.20E-05
1.IOE-O6
I.IOE-06
1.IOE-O6
5.48E-05
3.37&05
3.68E-O5
3.88E-05
I.IOE-06
6.80E-06
I.15E-04
6.07E-04
2.90E-03
I.39E-04
4.07E-04
490E-04
3.20E-05
2.02E-04
9.80E-04
3 47E+07
5 75E+06
I.82E+06
209E+06
5 37F+03
4.37E+04
2.40E+04
5.01E+02
l.20E-f05
1 .26E+CM
4.79E-01
8.9IE-01
5.75E-01
4.27E+00
8.32E+OI
3.16E+OI
8.32E+02.
I.78E+00
1.55E+OI
5.0
24
60
30
4 4
II
7.0
0.2
25
14
38
2.22E+02
2.64E+00
3.34E-OI
7.66E-01
669E-02
I.34E-01
I.24E-OI
9.72E-02
5.29E-03
6.IIE-03
I.45E46
1
2
4
3
8
5
6
7
10
9
11
2
8
16
11
21
18
19
20
30
28
75
0.2
ND
O.I
0.6
0.06
1.2
ND
ND
2.6
ND
436
1 60E-O4
—
I.IOE-05
1 83E-06
9.I3E-04
28IE-05
—
—
423E-07
—
2.64E-07
Group
Rank
4
3
5
All
Rank
73
63
80
Aquatic (IU
Toiktfy
Value
140
940
940
2
8
4
5
,
3
8
8
6
8
7
5
95
15
41
2
II
95
95
65
95
69
21
I.I
052
24
2.0
1000
1450
1000
7.2
140
26000
Score
S.44E-03
I.2IE-05
4.35E-07
Group
Rank
4
5
6
All
Rank
25
55
81
5.28E+OI
5.75E+00
3.85E+00
9.58E-01
1 .47E-OI
1.47E-03
6.09E-04
I.94E-05
1.84E-02
6.IIE-04
2.12E-09
0.01
13.3
2.0
6.9
10
0.8
20
120
6.07E-02
2.I8E-04
6.95E-05
5.89&05
4.90E-05
4.00E-05
I.OIE-05
8.I7E-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
4
6
7
8
10
16
17
2180
446000
3500
1800
ND
ND
460
11000
2.48 E-07
3.74E-09
1.69E-07
I88E-OS
_
—
7.81E-07
1.38E-06
,
2
3
4
5
7
9
10
6
8
11
1
2
3
9
13
28
35
52
19
34
108
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
9.42E-06
6.53E-03
8.79E-02
Aquatic (Water BohibUHy)
Soon
7.40E-I3
2.50E-10
I.03E-O9
Croup
Rank
4
2
1
All
Rank
89
38
22
4.97E-09
4.40E-08
I.78E-07
1.50E-07
2.IOE-O4
1 .65E-05
3.41 E-05
3.73E-03
4.82E-06
7.46&05
1.73E-r01
7.57E-I5
4.40E-I4
3.76E-I3
6.90E-14
5.75E-09
5.55E-13
8.65E-13
I.45E-IO
7.36E-I3
3.62E-12
7.66E46
28
38
30
10
40
40
24
22
86
107
91
53
112
112
77
74
8.I4E+00
I.38E+01
I.22E+00
3.30EXH
1.07E-OI
202E-03
3.52E+00
2.<4E-OI
2.27E-06
9.00E-08
4.83&08
7.47&09
I.55E-O6
2.27E-08
11
10
8
9
2
7
5
3
6
4
|
,
3
4
8
40
40
2
5
107
103
95
102
13
93
88
42
90
12
5
,
4
6
12
112
112
2
7
Vol'»ne VI
IV-38
-------
;======
TABLE IV-4
Detailed Chemical Screening - Chemical Croup Anah/ib - Slack Embitom
Chemical
1,2-Dichloioelhane
Dichlorodinuoromclhine
Elhyl meuiacryUle
Chjorornelhane
Carbon diiulfide
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Elhylene dibromide
Telrachloroethene
Elhylbenzene
Vinyl aoetale
Benzene
Total xylenei
Carbon letnichloride
Styrene
2-Hexanone
Trichloroelhene '.
Elhylene oxide
1,1,1 ,2-Tarachlorouhme
TrichlorofluoromethaDe
1,1-DichJoroelhene
1 ,3-Dichloropropene (as)
1,3-DichloroproDene (Iran.)
1 , 1 ,2,2-TelnchloroelhuK
High-End
Emhakm
Rate (*/«>
2.50E-05
4.90E-04
4.90E-04
4.90E-04
946E-05
1 03E-03
6.I9E-O4
1.I5E-04
8.02E-05
7.S3E-O4
6.43E-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
490E-04
2.50E-05
2.50E-05
2.50E-05
1 IOE-05
•-
2.95E+01
1.45E+02
3.89E+01
8.I3E+00
l.OOE+02
5 62E+02
I.TSE+OI
S.62E+OI
468E+02
I.38E+03
S37E+00
I.3SE+02
1.58E+03
S.37E+02
8.7IE-MH
2.40E+01
5.13E+02
6.03E-01
4.27E+02
3.39E+02
I.35E402
I.OBE+02
l.OOE+07
2.45E-|i02
Toxlcaj
Value
(•folk)
Scon
—
m
Group
Rank
—___
All
Rank
— —
Inhablton
Value
.;
40
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
Scon
a^BHaHHBBaiaMijM
6.25E-06
6.05E46
5.90E-06
490E-06
4.73E-O6
343E-06
3.10E-O6
2.95E-06
2.08E-O6
1.88E-06
I.6IE-06
I.3IE-06
1.15E-06
9.I8E-07
6.73E-07
6.43E-07
6.18E-07
6.10E-07
5.24E^T7
4.90E-O7
4.55E-07
2.78E-07
2.78&07
I.9IE-07
Group
Rank
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
All
Rank
20
21
22
29
32
33
34
38
39
43
45
48
52
53
54
55
L 57
58
62
67
72
Aquatic
-------
TABLE 1V-4
Detailed Chemical Screening - Chemical Croup Analyih - Slack Emlulom
Chemical
l.l,2-Trichlon>l,2,2-
Innuoroethane
Acxtaklehyde
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloiaelhane
4-M«hyl-2-Penunone
2-Bulanone
1,1-DichJotoclhanc
ChlonKthine
t ,2-DichlorDorofMwe
1,2-Dichlorabenzeiic
Chlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzenc
1,1,1-TrichknoelhuB
1,2-Dichloroelhene (tnm)
Bratnofoim
1,3-Dichloiobeffiene
DiWomDcWofOmelhane
BromodkWotomcllmi
High-End
Em to Ion
Rale ((/i)
3.30E-04
3.01 E-04
2.50E-05
2.50E-05
7.40E-05
250E-05
980E-04
2.50E-05
1 IOE-05
I.IOE-05
I.10E-05
2.50E-05
2.SOE-OS
I.IOE-05
1. IOE-05
2.63E-OS
1 53E-04
*_
I.45E+03
2.69E+00
I.I2E+02
I.55E+OI
I.91E+00
6.I7E+OI
3.47E+OI
9 33E+ 01
2 69E+ 03
7.24E+02
2 63E+03
3.02E+02
1.I7E+02
2.24E+02
5.23E+03
I.74E+02
1.26E+02
IngnUon
ToilcHj
Vak»
Soon
Group
Rank
Alt
Rank
Inhalation
Toitctty
Vakit
2000
2217
200
300
1000
380
15000
400
200
450
600
1500
6000
2900
ND
ND
ND
Score
I.65E-07
I.36E-O7
1.25E-07
8.33E-08
740E-O8
658E-08
6.53E-08
625E-08
5.50E-O8
2.44E-08
1 83E-O8
1.67E-O8
4.I7E-09
3.79&09
—
—
-
Group
Rank
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
<2
43
44
45
46
47
47
47
AH
Rank
74
76
77
81
82
83
84
85
86
88
89
91
92
93
95
95
95
Aquatic (K_>
Toik-Hy
Value
ND
53000
2000
26000
160000
12000
ND
10825
160
590
no
2000
6750
1500
250
ND
ND
Score
-
1.53E-08
I.40E-06
I.49E-08
8.8IE-IO
1.28E-07
—
2.I6E-07
t 85E-04
1.35&05
2.63E-04
3.77E-06
4.35E-07
1.64E-06
2 31 E-04
—
-
Group
Rank
40
35
21
36
39
31
40
29
6
11
4
17
25
20
5
40
40
All
Rank
112
101
73
102
110
92
112
88
44
54
40
64
80
72
41
112
112
SemhvbtUe Orranla
H«achk>rabuladknt
renUditorabcnzMM
HemcktoracTcfcpenladleDe
rentadiloroplieaol
4,6-DiniIn>-2-mclhylpheno]
1. IOE-05
1 01 E-04
4.76E-05
1. IOE-05
I.IOE-05
1. IOE-05
7.76E+05
6.4«E+04
1.82E+05
2.45E+05
I.23E+05
7.08E+02
1.0
2.0
12
98
3.0
0.25
8.54E+00
3.26E+00
7.22E-OI
2.76E-02
4.51 E-OI
3 IIE-02
1
2
3
6
4
5
3
7
12
24
14
23
1.6
5.0
ND
0.05
21
049
6.88E-06
2.02E-05
—
2.20E-04
5.24E-06
2 24E^)5
6
4
32
1
9
3
19
13
95
3
25
12
6.0
10
250
5.0
20
80
I.42E+00
6.52E-OI
3.46&02
5.40E-01
6.77E-02
9.73E45
1
2
5
3
4
13
7
10
17
11
15
46
Water
(moW,)
1 03E-03
2.13E+Ot
2.30E-O2
2.54E4)!
3.24E+00
4.75&02
9.56E-02
2.87E-02
4.85E-04
2.39E-03
4.99E-04
6.91E-03
2.I7E-02
9.93E-03
2.16E-04
I.35E02
2.00E-02
Aquatic (Water Sokiblllj)
Score
-
I.2IE-08
2.87E-10
2.45E-10
1.50E-09
9.90E-1I
—
6.64E-II
3.34E-H
4.45E-H
4.99E-11
8.63E-II
8.05E-II
7.28E-1 1
9.49E-I2
—
-
Group
Rank
40
7
23
24
13
26
40
32
38
37
3«
28
29
30
39
40
40
501E-07
1 .02E-05
29IE-06
2.03 E-06
4.69E-06
246E-03
9.I8E-13
I.04E-IO
5.55E-I3
446E-I2
2.58E-I2
3.38E-IO
36
18
37
33
35
10
Ad
Rank
112
11
36
39
19
50
112
58
67
64
62
52
54
56
77
112
112
87
48
94
81
86
34
Vo'-me VI
IV-40
-------
TABLE IV-4
Detailed Chemical Screening - Chemical Group Aiulysh - Slack EmbitoM
Chemical
3,3'-Dichlon>benzidiiic
Sifrole
N-NtlKModi-n-bulylamine
Bromophenyl phenylether
Hexachloroethuie
Aoelophcnofle
2,4,3-TnchJoiDpherol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
N-NitroaodiphenyUnune
4-Niln>phcnol
4-Chlon>-3-fnelhy [phenol
3,3'-Dunethoxybemidinc
2.4.6-TricWorophenoI
2,4-DinilnxoliKrc
Bii(2-chloiouopiopyl)elner
Bu(2-cnk>roelhaxy)mclhaiK
Cumenc v
2,4-Dinilrophenol
2-Nilrophcnol
2,6-Dinitfotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Craol, o-
2,4-Dbnelhylph=nol
B«(2-chloroelhyl>elher
Crcsol, p-
lilgh-End
EmtHkm
Rait ((/i)
3.33E-05
1.15E-O4
I.2IE-04
6.69E-06
I.IOE-05
2.93E-04
I.IOE-05
I.IOE-05
669E-06
I.IOE-05
669E-O6
1 I5E-04
I.IOE-05
I.IOE-05
6.69E-06
6.69E-06
I.IOE-05
I.IOE-05
669E-06
I.IOE-05
I.IOE-05
I.IOE-05
I.IOE-05
I.33E-05
1 IOE-05
K_
3.24E+03
4.57E+02
2.57E+02
1 .OOE+05
1 OOE +04
4 37E+OI
7.94E+03
I.02E+04
1 45E+03
I.IOE+02
1.26E+03
6 46E+ 01
5.01E+03
I.02E+02
3.80E+02
1.82E+01
3.80E+03
3.S5E+OI
6.I7E+01
7.41 E+OI
6.92E+OI
9.77E+01
2.29E+02
I.62E+OI
89IE+01
Ingest ton
Toilcty
Value
80
195
12
ND
550
8 1
400
180
18
25
18.3
192
500
3.9
13
0.65
290
30
3.3
6.7
7.8
13.5
32
2.8
18
Scon
I.35E-02
2.70E-03
2 59E-03
-
2.00E-O4
I.58E-03
2 I8E-O4
625E-04
537E-O4
482E-O4
460E-O4
3.87E-04
1.IOE-04
2.89E-04
I.96E-04
I.87E-O4
1.44E-04
I.30E4M
I.25E-04
1.22E-O4
9 76E-05
7.96E-05
787E-05
7.70E4)5
5 45E-05
Group
Rank
7
8
9
46
18
10
17
II
12
13
14
15
25
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
All
Rank
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
Tralcky
Value
ND
ND
ND
ND
26
24
ND
30
ND
377
ND
ND
ND
ND
70
6.2
20
4.0
377
ND
0.25
4.1
6.0
69
16
Inhablton
Score
_
—
—
4.23E-O7
I.22E-O5
—
367E-07
_
2.92E-08
_
—
—
—
9.56E«
I.08E-O6
5.50E-07
2.75E-06
I.77E-O8
—
440E-05
268E-06
1 .83E-O6
I.93E-07
688E-O7
Group
Rank
32
32
32
32
22
5
32
23
32
29
32
32
32
32
28
15
18
II
30
32
2
12
13
25
16
All
Rank
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
Aquatic (K_)
Tolktt;
Value
596
ND
10000
270
60
155000
100
130
295
230
30
ND
180
330
ND
ND
1 10000
655
230
990
4040
2300
660
30000
4000
Score
I.81E-O4
3.IIE-O6
2.48E-03
I.83E-03
8.25E-08
8.74E-04
8.66E-04
3.28E-05
5.24E-06
28IE-04
3.06E-04
3.4IE-06
3.80E-07
5.96E-07
I.79E-06
8.24E-07
1 88E-07
4.67E-07
3.82E-06
7.19E-09
245E-07
Group
Rank
12
41
20
6
7
31
8
9
14
16
II
41
10
18
41
26
24
22
23
30
25
17
36
28
All
Rank
45
112
67
26
27
93
29
30
50
61
39
112
38
65
112
112
83
78
71
76
90
79
63
104
87
Water
Solubility
-------
TABLE IV-4
Detailed Chemical Screening - Chemical Group Anah/>b - Slack Emkvloni
Chemical
Benzoic acid
Chloraaniline, p-
Cruol, m-
N-Nitrocodi-n-propylaminc
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-NitroanUine
3-Nilroaniline
4-Nilnoaniline
Phenol
Furfural
bophorone
Methyl l-butyl ether
1,4-Dknam
Ethylene thiourca
4-Chlorophenyl pnenyl ether
DtoiWTCB
Dioxin/funul
Total FCBi
HtCh-EiKl
Embalm
Ral.lf/i)
I.13E-05
6.69E-06
I.IOE-05
6.69E-06
I.IOE-05
I.IOE-05
6.69E-06
669E-O6
669E-06
1 IOE-05
I.IOE-05
6.69E-06
2.50E-05
4.94E-O4
1.46E-IO
6.69E-06
I.26E-09
3.38E-07
K-
7.24E+OI
7.08E+01
9.33E+OI
2.5IE+OI
1.4IE+02
I.20E+03
708E+OI
2.34E+OI
2 45E+OI
J 02E+01
2.S7E+00
5.0IE+OI
I.74E+OI
4.07E4I
2.I9E-01
8.9IE+O4
Toifctty
Value
17
10
24
4.8
30
440
16
5,4
75
523
10
250
400
1000
10
ND
1 r«e
-------
TABLE IV-5
Chemicals to be Evaluated in the SERA - Stack Emissions
Selection Method Summary
Chemical
Method of Selection
Exposure Analysis"
Chemical Group
Analysis
Professional
Judgement
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Xb
X"
X"
xb
xb
X"
X"
X"
X"
xb
xb
X"
X"
xb
xb
Organics
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Di-n-octylphthalate
Aquatic (WS)°
Aquatic (WS)
Aquatic (K)
Aquatic (K)
Aquatic (K)
Aquatic (K)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"
X
Volume VI
IV-43
-------
TABLE IV-5
Chemicals to be Evaluated in the SERA - Stack Emissions
Selection Method Summary
Chemical
1,4-Dioxane
Dioxin/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Method of Selection
Exposure Analysis*
Aquatic (WS)
Ingestion
Aquatic (K)
Inhalation
Aquatic (WS)
Aquatic (K)
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-44
-------
TABLE IV-6
Media to be Evaluated for Each Selected ECOC - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Projected
Permit Limit
(g/sec)
Estimated
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
Media to be Evaluated*
AA
ws
ss
T
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
—
1.6 x 10"
1.1 x 10"
5.5 x 10'
3.6 x 10"5
1.9x 10"
1.5 x 10"
—
1.2x ID'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
4.2 x 10-6
3.7 x lO'3
1.5 x 10"
3.3 x 10"*
1.6 x 10'5
7. 1 x ID'7
9.4 x ID'5
4.3 x 10-5
1.4x 10'3
5.0 x 10"6
4.7 x 10"
1.5 x 10-5
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
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
1,4-Dioxane
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.90 x 10-3
2.02 x 10"
l.lOx 10-s
l.lOx lO"5
5.23 x 10-5
4.07 x 10"
1.39 x 10"
3.88 x lO"5
l.lOx 10*
l.lOx lO'5
4.94 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
Volume VI
IV-45
-------
TABLE IV-6
Media to be Evaluated for Each Selected ECOC - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Dioxin/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Projected
Permit Limit
(g/sec)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Estimated
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
1.26 x 10-9
6.07 x 10"
l.lOx ID"6
l.lOx 10-5
1.01 x 1O*
l.lOx W5
3.20 x ID'3
4.76 x 10-3
l.lOx 10"5
3.38 x 10-7
4.90 x 104
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
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-46
-------
TABLE IV-7
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"
X"
xb
xb
X"
xk
xb
xb
X"
Xb
X"
xb
xb
xb
X"
X"
X"
xb
xb
X"
X"
x*
X"
X"
Organ! cs
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-47
-------
TABLE IV-8
Media to be Evaluated for Each Selected ECOC - Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Media to be Evaluated
Ambient Air
Inorganics
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Total Cyanide
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
Organics
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Volume VI
IV-48
-------
TABLE IV-9
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
-------
TABLE FV-10
Estimated Emission Rates for Each Selected ECOC - Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Emission Rate (g/sec)
Carbon
Absorption Bed
1.18x 10"3
3.19x lO'3
2.71 x ID'3
7.94 x 10-3
3.00 x 10"
2.28 x lO'3
6.74 x 10"
1.72x 10*
Tank Farm
1.12xlO-2
3.03 x 10"
2.57 x 10"
7.52 x 10"
2.84 x 10°
2.16x 10*
6.39 x 10-3
1.63 x 10'3
Open Waste
Water Tank
1.06 x 10-3
2.88 x 10'5
2.44 x 10'3
7.15x 10-3
2.70 x 10-*
2.05 x ID'3
6.07 x 10"
1.55 x 10^
Truck Wash
5.19x lO"5
1.41 x 10-6
1.19x 10^
3.50 x 10*
1.32x 10-3
1.01 x 10-6
2.98 x 10-3
7.58 x 10*
Volume VI
IV-50
-------
TABLE IV-11
Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern
Assumption
Basis
Magnitude
of Effect
Direction of
Effect
Importance to
Risk
Conclusions
Magnitude of
Conservatism
Emission Rate Estimates (see Volume III for more details)
Stack emission rates are estimated
based on trial bums 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
cas« DRE; the maximum value from
these approaches is used.
Non-detected organic chemicals are
present at the detection 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 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.
moderate
moderate
moderate
low
low
unknown
overestimate
likely
overestimate
overestimate
overestimate
high
high
high
high
moderate
high
high
high
high
high
Volume VI
1V-51
-------
TABLE IV-11
Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern
Assumption
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.
Emission rates for the stack expected
metal scenario are estimated from trial
burns, 9 months of expected waste feed
data, and thermodynamic modeling.
The trial burn 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.
Basis
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.
Best available data. Professional
judgment based on a review of
information on facility design and
operation, and predicted was'e
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.
Magnitude
of Effect
low
high
moderate
low
low
Direction of
Effect
unknown
overestimate
unknown
overestimate
variable
Importance to
Risk
Conclusions
low
high
high
low
low
Magnitude of
Conservatism
low
high
moderate to
high
moderate
low
Volume VI
IV-52
-------
TABLE IV-11
Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern
Assumption
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.
The same chemical composition is used
for all fugitive organic vapor sources.
Basis
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.
Professional judgment based on a
review of information on facility design
and operation, and predicted waste
characteristics.
Magnitude
of Effect
low
low
low
low
low
Direction of
Effect
overestimate
underestimate
underestimate
underestimate
unknown
Importance to
Risk
Conclusions
moderate
moderate
moderate
low
low
Magnitude of
Conservatism
high
low
moderate
low
unknown
Volume VI
IV-53
-------
TABLE IV-11
Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern
Assumption
Basis
Magnitude
of Effect
Direction of
Effect
Importance to
Risk
Conclusions
Magnitude of
Conservatism
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.
moderate
low
overestimate
unknown
high
moderate
high
moderate
Selection of the ECOCs
All stack chemicals of potential concern
have been identified and included in the
screening process.
'v
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,
approximately 60% of the material
mass from the trial burns could not be
characterized and therefore represents
either additional chemicals and/or
additional mass of those chemicals
already identified (Volume III, Chapter
V). If the 60% is proportionately
prorated across the chemicals already
identified, the exposure levels would
approximately double.
moderate
low
unknown if
additional
chemicals
to
underestimate
if more of
same
chemicals
high
moderate
to
low
Volume VI
IV-54
-------
TABLEIV-U
Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern
Assumption
The screening algorithm used to select
organic stack ECOCs retains the
chemicals that present the greatest
potential ecological risk.
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).
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).
The screening algorithm used to select
fugitive organic vapor ECOCs retains
the chemicals of most potential
ecological concern.
Basis
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.
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.
Simplifying assumption designed to
eliminate chemicals not present at
relatively high quantities in the waste
stream.
Professional judgement. The top 10%
of the chemicals with the highest scores
are selected to ensure that a chemical
with potentially significant ecological
risk is not overlooked.
Magnitude
of Effect
low
low
low
low
Direction of
Effect
unknown
underestimate
underestimate
unknown
Importance to
Risk
Conclusions
high
moderate
low
high
Magnitude of
Conservatism
high
low
low
high
Volume VI
IV-55
-------
TABLE IV-11
Key Assumptions for Chapter IV - Identification of the Ecological Chemicals of Concern
Assumption
Dichlorodifluoromethane, the fourth
highest ranked fugitive organic
chemical, is not selected as an ECOC
since an emission rate could not be
estimated.
Basis
The model used to estimate emission
rates for fugitive organic 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.
Magnitude
of Effect
low
Direction of
Effect
underestimate
Importance to
Risk
Conclusions
low
Magnitude of
Conservatism
low
Volume VI
IV-56
-------
PROJECTS 014000CSUMMARY-STACK CONSTITUENTS
r
i
r Initial List of 165 Organic ^\
V^ Stack Constituents J
\
-
(Initial Screening ^N
(Emission Rates) _J
\
r
[ Detailed Screening J
\
\
*
[ Exposure Analysis ] ( Chemical Group Analysis jf ProfessionalJudgement J
*
( ir^i^n^ C in«ac«i«n ^ C AQuatic ^ C Aquatic ^\ /Tlgher-Weight\ /Iower-Weigrt\ rphthaiatoc^
I innaiaiion i i inQcsuun i i /t- ^f\i~*-*\ J I /r\-.,«~*\ 1 1 r-»*i • II *-»*! • II ' iiuiciiaico
I ; v ) v(FbodChain)y I (Direct) ) \ PAHs / v PAHs ) v J
*******
1
Organic Stack ECOCs
I
* * *
fpest'c'des"^ C Volatile ^ /^emivolatile
V^ J ^Organics J ^Organics
* * 1
F
SUMMARY OF THE ECOC SCREENING PROCESS FOR ORGANIC STACK CONSTITUENTS
^|
\ '
igure
IV-1
-------
PROJECTS 014000CSUMMARY FUGITIVE CONSTITUENTS
I Initial List of 96 Substances J
[
I
Exposure Analysis
J
[
Professional Judgement
J
I
i
Inhalation
)
i
Aquatic
^\
J
I
Modified Exposure
Ana|ysjs
C
Other
Factors
1
r 1
(
r
J
Inhalation
J
i
)
^
(
1
Aquatic
1
)
1
r
J
Fugitive Organic Vapor ECOCs
SUMMARY OF THE ECOC SCREENING PROCESS FOR FUGITIVE ORGANIC VAPOR CONSTITUENTS
Figure
|V_2
TV.
-------
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 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 in 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 components 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 air, soil, surface water, sediment, and dietary components.
A. Exposure Scenarios
Each of the five exposure scenarios developed for the SERA, which were introduced
in Chapters I and n, incorporates one of the five emission rate estimates described in
Chapter IV. For simplicity, the names applied to the exposure scenarios (e.g., stack
expected metal scenario) correspond to those applied to the emission rate estimates (e.g.,
stack expected metal emission rates) to allow unambiguous matching of the emission rate
estimates used in each of the exposure scenarios. The addition of factors affecting rates of
deposition, contact, and/or uptake complete the exposure scenarios, as outlined in Table V-l.
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 exposure scenarios used in the SERA include the: (1) stack projected permit
limit metal scenario, (2) stack expected metal scenario, (3) stack high-end organic scenario,
(4) fugitive inorganic scenario, and (5) fugitive organic scenario. As their names imply, the
first two scenarios evaluate stack metal emissions, the third scenario evaluates stack organic
Volume VI V-i
-------
chemical emissions, the fourth scenario evaluates inorganic emissions from the ash handling
facility fugitive source, and the last scenario evaluates volatile organic emissions from the
four on-site sources of fugitive vapors. Exposure scenarios 2 through 5 are used to address
the primary objective of the SERA, the evaluation of potential risks from routine facility
operations. These four exposure scenarios are developed using conservative, yet realistic,
emission estimates based on current waste-feed profiles and facility operating conditions, as
well as conservative or worst-case estimates of deposition, contact, and uptake rates (such as
modeling exposures at the maximum projected air concentration/deposition points16), as
appropriate to a screening-level assessment. The stack projected permit limit metal scenario,
in contrast, is used to evaluate the secondary objective of the SERA, to determine if
significant ecological risks could result from continuous operation of the facility at the
current maximum hourly permit limits for metals. Since the emission rates used in this
scenario are derived by extrapolating the allowable maximum hourly emission rates to an
annual basis for continuous operation of the facility (i.e., 8,760 hours per year), they
significantly exceed the realistic expected emission estimates. Since conservative or worst-
case deposition, contact, and uptake rates are also incorporated into this scenario, the
resulting exposures are likely to be significantly overestimated relative to more realistic or
expected exposures based on current operating conditions.
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 (Table V-l). The use of maximum predicted concentrations of the
ECOCs in 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 factors such as large home ranges and
mobility. The summing of maximum media concentrations for ECOCs that are emitted from
both the stack and fugitive sources is also considered conservative since it assumes that the
points of maximum air concentration or deposition is the same for all sources. In actuality,
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. 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.
Volume VI V-2
-------
the points of maximum air concentrations or total deposition associated with the stack and
with each fugitive emission source occur at different locations, based on the results of the
dispersion modeling (Figure V-l).
Each of the four exposure scenarios used to evaluate the primary objective of the
SERA has a counterpart in the HHRA, although some of the components and values included
in these scenarios differ between the two assessments. In particular, the emission rate
estimates used in the SERA were based on high-end (95-percent UCL) estimates for the stack
high-end organic scenario and the fugitive inorganic scenario. In contrast, the HHRA used
average emission rate estimates for these two scenarios in the risk calculations, although the
high-end rates were included as part of the sensitivity analysis (see Chapter IV and Appendix
VI-13). Emission rate estimates used for the stack expected metal and fugitive organic
scenarios were comparable between the two analyses since available data did not allow high-
end emission rates to be estimated for these two scenarios (see Chapter IV and Appendix VI-
13). In addition to the emission rate estimates used, these four exposure scenarios differed in
other ways between the SERA and HHRA due to the differing goals and objectives of the
two analyses, particularly the higher conservatism applied to the SERA (since it is a
screening-level analysis and the HHRA is a Phase n analysis) and the differences in expected
exposures between human and ecological receptors. For example, the SERA used modeled
media concentrations calculated at the maximum predicted exposure points for conservatism,
whereas the HHRA used average media concentrations within broader geographical areas
(subareas). Other examples include the use of whole-body fish tissue concentrations in the
SERA versus fillet fish tissue concentrations in the HHRA, and the use of small mammal
dietary components for some indicator species in the SERA, an exposure component not
appropriate to the HHRA. In addition, the HHRA does not evaluate a stack projected permit
limit metal scenario since this scenario was considered inappropriate for a Phase n type of
analysis.
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
Volume VI V-3
-------
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 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 in the solid phase versus in the water
phase) or as K,,,. (Kd normalized to the organic carbon content of the solid phase; again
unitless) (Howard 1991). The higher the K^. or Kd 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 partition
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 (K^,) expresses the relative
partitioning of a compound between octanol (lipids) 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 in aquatic organisms, adsorption to soil or sediment particles, and
the potential to bioaccumulate in the food chain (Howard 1991). Typically expressed as log
K,^, 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 in determining whether there will be significant
loss of mass of a substance over time in the environment. The half-life (T1/2) of a compound
is typically used to describe losses from either degradation (biological or abiotic) or from
transfer from one compartment to 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.
Volume VI V-4
-------
Chemical profiles for each of the ECOCs are included in Appendix VI-23. 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 in the vapor phase in the environment (Galloway et al. 1982),
although only mercury was assumed to be in the vapor phase in the risk assessment (see
Volume V). Arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc are
known to bioaccumulate in 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-23).
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
in the environment. 2,4-D is more mobile but has limited persistence in 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 in biota to varying degrees, based on their relatively high
(> 3) log KW values. Dioxin/furans 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 in 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 n-2 and H-3). This
section describes the most relevant general exposure pathways in aquatic and terrestrial
habitats from air emissions and deposition based on the types of habitats and ecological
receptors present in the assessment area (see Chapter m), the fate and transport properties'of
the ECOCs (discussed above), and the selected ecological endpoints (see Chapter II). More
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:
Volume VI V-5
-------
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 "
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
Volume VI V-6
-------
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 such as 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 in Chapter m), (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 -
outlined in Section V.C, the assessment endpoints outlined in Chapter H, and-the general
guidelines presented in U.S. EPA (1991b):
Volume VI y_7
-------
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 assessment endpoints relating to the biological integrity of
terrestrial plant communities and the integrity of aquatic and terrestrial food
chains (see Chapter n). 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 lexicological information is
available (over 95 percent of the data used in the SERA for soil fauna is for
earthworms; see Chapter VI). However, other soil macrofauna (e.g.,
nematodes; see Chapter VI) and soil microorganisms are also considered
where data are available. Earthworms and other soil organisms are exposed to
chemicals present in soils, by direct contact and/or ingestion, and thus serve as
good indicators of potential effects to detritivores present in 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 assessment endpoint relating to the integrity of
aquatic and terrestrial food chains (see Chapter U). 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.
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
17 The vast majority (over 90 percent) of the data on which lexicological benchmarks are
based for terreslrial planls (see Chapter VI) are from studies of annual crop species (e.g.,
soybean, wheal, lomalo). The remaining dala are from studies of wildflower species
(e.g., black-eyed susan) and woody species (e.g., pines, oaks, maples). Il is assumed
lhal ihe derived benchmark values apply to all of Ihese lerreslrial planl lypes.
Volume VI V-8
-------
indicator species is linked to the assessment endpoint relating to the
reproductive integrity of selected bird and mammal indicator species
populations, as well as the assessment endpoint relating to the integrity of
aquatic and terrestrial food chains (see Chapter H). This indicator species is
selected to evaluate general exposure pathways 2 and 5 (outlined in Section
V.C) and is also included in pathway 6 as a dietary component for higher
trophic level species.
• Northern Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda) - 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 assessment endpoint relating to the reproductive integrity of selected bird
and mammal indicator species populations, as well as the assessment endpoint
relating to the integrity of aquatic and terrestrial 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 assessment endpoint relating to the reproductive integrity of
selected bird and mammal indicator species populations (see Chapter II). This
indicator species is selected to evaluate general exposure pathways 2, 6, and 9
(outlined in Section V.C). -
• 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
Volume VI V-9
-------
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 assessment endpoint relating to the
reproductive integrity of selected bird and mammal indicator species
populations (see Chapter n). 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 assessment endpoint relating to the reproductive
integrity of selected bird and mammal indicator species populations (see
Chapter n). 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 assessment endpoint relating to the reproductive integrity of selected
bird and mammal indicator species populations (see Chapter n). 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
level avian predator. The selection of this indicator species is linked to the
assessment endpoint relating to the reproductive integrity of selected bird and
mammal indicator species populations (see Chapter n). This indicator species
is selected to evaluate general exposure pathways 2, 6,. and 9 (outlined in
Section V.C).
Volume VI V-10
-------
• 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 assessment endpoints relating to the ecological integrity of
aquatic communities and the integrity of aquatic and terrestrial 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 (95 percent) 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
lexicological 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 in 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 (see Section
V.H).
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
(such as Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life) designed
to protect aquatic communities. This approach is consistent with U.S. EPA guidance
for screening-level ecological risk assessments (e.g., U.S. EPA 1989b).
Volume VI V-ll
-------
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 are representative of
the fauna and flora of the specific water bodies (Ohio River) or 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-l). 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 other developed areas.
2. Avian Indicator Species
Based on the data compiled in Chapter HI, 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.
The 241 avian species which may occur within the assessment area can be
divided into a number of broad groups: gamebirds, shorebirds, raptors, waterbirds/
waterfowl, and passerines/woodpeckers. 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 in Baes et al. (1984) relative to soil-
to-earthworm BCFs/BAFs outlined in Section V.G.4.a. For organics, earthworms are
expected to have much higher lipid contents 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 in Section V.C. as critical to the
SFJRA.
Shorebirds generally utilize wetland habitats which, except for portions of the
Ohio River, are relatively uncommon within 1-km of the facility (see Chapter HI).
The near shore areas of the Ohio River in 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 represent a terrestrial avian
insectivore over an upland shorebird species, such as the American woodcock, based
Volume VI V-l2
-------
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 (upper trophic level 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 within the food chain) to the many ECOCs that are
bioaccumulative chemicals. The red-tailed hawk is selected as this upper trophic level
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 in close proximity to the
facility since these species 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 in close proximity to the facility
since these species are rarer in 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 American 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
insectivore), mink (piscivore), and red fox (terrestrial carnivore), are selected from
Volume VI V-13
-------
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 precess.
The mammalian species known or likely to occur within the assessment area
can be divided into several broad categories: small mammals, 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
insectivore, 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. A bat
species was not selected as an indicator species since there is a general paucity of
information to allow exposure modeling for the transfer of ECOCs in water,
sediment, or soil to emerging (flying) insects which are then consumed by bats. In
addition, there is a general paucity of lexicological data from bat studies for most
chemicals other than a few metals and organochlorine pesticides (Clark 1981).
Among large camivores/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, in
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
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
Volume VI V-14
-------
relative to small herbivores (meadow vole) already selected as indicator species, based
on lower feeding rates (relative 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 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 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 ffl, and is evaluated in Chapter VII as part of the
evaluation of assessment endpoints.
F. Specific Exposure Pathways
General exposure pathways relevant to the SERA analysis were outlined in 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
in 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
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
Volume VI V-15
-------
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.
1. Air Concentrations
Ambient air concentrations for the ECOCs selected in Chapter IV for ambient
air are estimated based on the emission rates presented in 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 /*g/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
(see Chapter IV) 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 air dispersion model (as described in Volume IV).
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.
Volume VI V-16
-------
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 VTT). This is accomplished by conservatively assuming that the points
of maximum air concentrations for each source are colocated and summing the
air concentration estimates associated with each source. Similarly, the points
of maximum total deposition for each source are assumed to be colocated and
the soil, surface water, sediment, and/or tissue concentrations associated with
each source (described in the following sections) are summed.
d. Background Air Concentrations
No data were available to estimate background concentrations of the
ECOCs in ambient air near the WTI facility.
2. Soil Concentrations
Chemical constituents present in the stack gas emissions, and in 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 in
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
K,,,. values), it is expected that these constituents will be the major facility-related
chemicals deposited onto surface soils in the area surrounding the facility. Volatile
organic compounds are expected to remain largely in 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 in
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
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
t*
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
Volume VI V-17
-------
application of a soil loss constant, which considers 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 in Tables V-10 (metals; both exposure scenarios) and V-ll (organics) for
stack emissions and in Table V-12 for fugitive emissions from the ash handling
facility.
a. Background Soil Concentrations
No assessment area-specific data were available describing existing
background soil concentrations for the ECOCs. However, generic background
concentrations for the eastern United States and/or the state of Ohio were
available for the metal soil ECOCs (Table V-13); no data were located for the
organic soil ECOCs. Estimated soil concentrations of six metals (barium,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium) under the stack permit limit
metal scenario (Table V-10) exceed mean background soil concentrations
(Table V-13) by factors ranging from 2 (barium and mercury) to 830 (silver).
In contrast, estimated soil concentrations under the stack expected metal
scenario (Table V-10) and the fugitive inorganic scenario (Table V-12) were
below mean background concentrations (Table V-13).
It should be noted that portions of the assessment area, especially near
major urban and agricultural areas, will likely have soil concentrations for
some metal and organic constituents that exceed natural background levels due
to anthropogenic activities. Since data on assessment area-specific soil
concentrations were not available, the relative contribution of the WTI facility
to existing soil concentrations within the assessment area can not be
quantitatively evaluated. Anticipated inputs from the facility are expected to
be small (except for the six metals under the stack permit limit metal scenario)
in comparison to natural background levels (Table V-13). The implications of
this background comparison are discussed further in Chapter vn.
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
Volume VI V-18
-------
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
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 m). 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 HI-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 in 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
Volume VI V-l9
-------
between the mass of chemicals 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 in 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
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 in the following
subsection. 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-14 and
V-15 (surface water) and Tables V-16 and V-17 (sediment). The estimated surface
water (dissolved fraction) and sediment concentrations for the fugitive ECOCs are
presented in Table V-18 (surface water) and Table V-19 (sediment)18.
a. Background Surface Water and Sediment Concentrations
Recent (1990-1996) assessment area-specific data were available which
describe existing background surface water concentrations for some of the
ECOCs in the Ohio River and Little Beaver Creek (U.S. EPA 1994i, 1996b).
Although no data were found for Tomlinson Run Lake, some data were .-
available for Tomlinson Run, a tributary of the lake. Data were available for
all of the metal ECOCs except thallium in at least one of these three water
bodies. For the organic ECOCs, data were available only for chloroform in
the Ohio River (Table V-20). No data were located describing sediment
concentrations of the ECOCs in these water bodies. Estimated surface water
18 Surface water and sediment concentrations can not be estimated for total cyanide since
chemical partitioning factors are not available.
Volume VI V-20
-------
concentrations in each of these three water bodies (Tables V-14, V-15, and V-
18) were generally orders of magnitude less than measured concentrations (or
detection limits) for all ECOCs for which data were available (Table V-20) for
all exposure scenarios.
Existing concentrations of several metals in these three water bodies
exceed chronic surface water benchmarks (described in Chapter VI) and/or the
detection limits used were higher than chronic benchmarks. For the Ohio
River, aluminum, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc exceed surface
water benchmarks in at least one sample. Detection limits were higher than
benchmarks for aluminum, antimony, beryllium, chromium, mercury, and
silver. In Little Beaver Creek, aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc exceed
benchmarks in at least one sample and detection limits were higher than
benchmarks for chromium. No data were available for antimony, beryllium,
mercury, silver, or chloroform in Little Beaver Creek (Table V-20). Only
aluminum exceeded surface water benchmarks in Tomlinson Run; detection
limits for cadmium, lead, and mercury were higher than benchmark values.
No data were available for antimony, beryllium, chromium, silver, or
chloroform in Tomlinson Run (Table V-20).
4. Tissue Concentrations
Concentrations of all 15 metal stack ECOCs (for both exposure scenarios), 13
organic stack 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 metal fugitive ECOCs are estimated in earthworm, plant, fish,
and small mammal tissues from exposure to chemicals present in 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
19 Although not all of the selected metals are known to bioaccumulate to a significant
degree, all 15 metal stack ECOCs are evaluated for food chain transfer to estimate risks
associated with current projected permit limits (see Chapter IV).
Volume VI V-21
-------
maximum soil concentration (at the point of maximum deposition) by
chemical-specific bioconcentration factors (BCFs) or bioaccumulation factors
(BAFs), as presented in Table V-21. 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
(in this case, 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 in 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 in Table V-21 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 assumed to be
equal to the soil concentration. This is a conservative assumption based on the
data in Table V-21 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:
BCF ,
where: BCFS = bioconcentration factor of, the chemical from soil
into earthworms (unitless)
Volume VI V-22
-------
W
BCFW = bioconcentration factor of the chemical from
water into earthworms (unitless)
water-soil partitioning coefficient
lipid content (percent, as a fraction)
octanol-water partition coefficient (cnrVg soil)
non-linearity constant for bioconcentration from
water
fraction of organic carbon (unitless)
organic carbon partition coefficient (cm3/g soil)
Partitioning of organic compounds between water and soil is a function
of the compound's affinity for the organic carbon present in 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 in earthworms (0.84 percent or 0.0084) 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 (in dry weight) by the
measured or estimated BAF/BCF yields tissue concentrations in mg/kg dry
weight, the resulting values are divided by a factor of four to yield wet-weight
tissue concentrations; 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). Calculated earthworm tissue
concentrations (in mg/kg wet-weight) are presented in Tables V-22 (metals)
20 Although this equation estimates a BCF, not a BAF (since soil ingestion is not
considered), in practice, the resulting BCF values are generally higher than literature-
derived BAF values. For example, literature-derived values for PCBs and 4,4'-DDE are
6 and 16, respectively, while calculated values are 17 and 664, respectively. Use of this
equation, therefore, results in 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[>.]pyrene, and bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate).
Volume VI V-23
-------
and V-23 (organics) for stack emissions and in Table V-24 for fugitive
inorganic 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 HHRA (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 soil-to-plant
bioconcentration factors (as presented in Table V-21), 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). Soil-to-plant
BCFs for metals are from Baes et al. (1984)22 and soil-to-plant BCFs for
organic chemicals are calculated as described below.
(1) Soil-to-Plant Uptake. Travis and Arms (1988) have related
chemical uptake by plants from soils (via the roots) with the octanol-water
partition coefficient (K,,J 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) Oog^J (V-2)
where: Bv = bioconcentration factor in vegetation (unitless)
= octanol-water partition coefficient (unitless)
(2) Direct Deposition to Foliage. Direct deposition of chemicals to
leaf surfaces is calculated based on yearly estimates of wet and dry deposition
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.
Volume VI V-24
-------
rates, the interception fraction of this deposition by plants, and a calculated
plant surface loss coefficient based on chemical half-lives in the environment
using the following equation (from Volume V, Appendix V-7):
(1000) [Dyd + (Fw) (Dyw)} (Jfr.) [l - «-*»<»')] (y_3)
=
=
where: Pdj = 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)
Tp, = length of plant's exposure to deposition for the ith
plant group (years)
Yp; = 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 in the HHRA, which only
accumulate chemicals until they are harvested.
(3) Air-to-Plant Uptake. Chemical concentrations due to direct air-to-
plant transfer are calculated based on a biotransfer factor which relates
chemical-specific values of log K^ and Henry's Law Constant to plant uptake
Volume VI V-25
-------
for an assumed temperature, air density, and plant leaf density using the
following equation (from Volume V, Chapter VI):
Pv. - - (V-4,
where: Pv; = concentration of chemical due to air-to-plant
transfer in the i* plant group (mg chemical/kg
plant tissue, dry weight)
Cy = vapor-phase concentration of chemical in air due
to direct emissions (fig chemical/m3 air)
BVJ = air-to-plant biotransfer factor for the i* plant
group ([mg chemical/kg plant tissue, dry weight]/
[mg chemical/kg air])
VG,g = above ground plant correction factor (unitless)
p, = 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.
(4) Total Concentrations. The calculated plant tissue concentrations
are obtained by summing the results from the three equations described above
as follows:
CV = (flv.) (SO + Pdt + Pv. (V-5)
where: CV = total concentration of chemical in the i* 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)
Pdj = concentration of chemical in i* plant group due to
direct deposition (mg/kg)
PVJ = concentration of chemical in i* plant group due to
air-to-plant transfer (mg/kg)
The resulting total chemical concentration in plants is converted to a
wet-weight basis based on an estimated seven percent solids content in above-
ground leafy plant parts (Baes et al. 1984). This soliBs content is a weighted
average value from measurements of the water content in nine crop species.
Volume VI V-26
-------
Calculated plant tissue concentrations (in mg/kg wet-weight) are presented in
Tables V-22 (metals) and V-23 (organics) for stack emissions and hi Table V-
24 for fugitive inorganic 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 emissions
and fugitive inorganic emissions based on calculated surface water
concentrations using the model from Volume V, Appendix V-7. This model
uses chemical-specific BCFs, which are measured values from the literature
for applicable freshwater fish species, and assumes a fish lipid content, for
lipophilic chemicals, of seven percent as provided hi 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 developed
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 hi the SERA consume fish from this trophic level (U.S. EPA
1995c). Following the guidance in U.S. EPA (1995b), a food chain multiplier
of one is used for all metal ECOCs (including inorganic mercury) except for
methyl mercury. For methyl mercury, a measured BAF value is obtained
directly from the literature (rather than estimated from a BCF and food chain
multiplier). The BAF for total mercury is a weighted average of the inorganic
mercury BAF (75%) and the methyl mercury BAF (25%) (see Volume V,
Appendix V-7).23 Table V-25 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 in Volume V,
Appendix V-7. Calculated fish tissue concentrations (hi mg/kg wet-weight) are
23 A different estimation technique, resulting in a higher recommended total mercury BAF
for trophic level 3 fish, is proposed in the June 1996 draft of Jhe Mercury Study Report
to Congress (U.S. EPA 1996d). This new approach would increase calculated fish tissue
concentrations for mercury by a factor of 2.6 relative to those provided hi Table V-26.
Volume VI V-27
-------
presented in Tables V-26 (metals) and V-27 (organics) for stack emissions and
in Table V-28 for fugitive inorganic emissions.
d. Small Mammals
Tissue concentrations in meadow voles and short-tailed shrews (the two
small mammal indicator species) are calculated to model ingestion exposures
for the other indicator species (mink, red fox, and red-tailed hawk) that
consume small mammals as part of their diet. 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
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., soil 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 (in
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 diet to whole-body biotransfer in small mammals are obtained
from the literature. Woodward-Clyde (1991) reports a BAF of 4.3 (based on
literature review) for mercury transfer from plant tissue to small mammals 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. Thus, 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.
Volume VI V-28
-------
Based on the limited available data, the use of a small mammal diet 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 in each dietary component
(including incidental soil ingestion) and the percentage of the total dietary
intake each component represents, as follows:
where: TCX = whole-body tissue concentration of chemical x
= concentration of chemical x in food item i (/xg/g)
PDQ = proportion of diet for food item i
BAF = diet to whole-body BAF (unitless)
Equation V-6 was developed for this analysis and is a modified version
of a standard dietary intake model (see Equation V-7 below). It assumes that
the tissue concentration is equal to the chemical dietary intake multiplied by a
diet to whole-body BAF.
Concentrations of the food chain ECOCs in earthworms and plants
(dietary components of the meadow vole and short-tailed shrew) are calculated
as described in subsections V.G.4.a and V.GAb and are contained in Tables
V-22 through V-24. Soil concentrations (for incidental soil ingestion,
considered as a dietary component) for the food chain ECOCs are contained in
Tables V-10 through V-12. Food ingestion rates and dietary compositions for
the meadow vole and short-tailed shrew are summarized in Table V-29.
As mentioned above, BAFs for the ECOCs that are not known to-
biomagnify would be one, that is, a diet to whole-body BAF of one is
assumed. For the ECOCs that are known to biomagnify (mercury, PCBs, and
dioxin/furan), BAF values from the literature are used in Equation V-6.
Calculated tissue concentrations for the meadow vole and short-tailed shrew
are contained in Tables V-30 through V-32.
Volume VI V-29
-------
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):
(FK) (MCtt) (PDCfl
DT =
BW
where: DIX = intake of chemical x (/ig/g-BW/day)
FR = feeding rate (g food/day)
MCri = concentration of chemical x in food item i Gig/g)
PDQ = proportion of diet for food item i
MWj = concentration of chemical x in water (/ig/L)
WI = water ingestion rate (g water/day)
UCF = unit conversion factor (/xg/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
proportion). 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
animal. 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 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-29. ECOC concentrations in earthworms, plants, and fish are calculated as
described in subsections V.G.4.a, V.G.4.b, and V.G.4.C, respectively, and are
contained in Tables V-22 through V-24 for earthworms and plants, and in Tables V-
26 through V-28 for fish. For indicator species that ingest small mammals, tissue
concentrations for the meadow vole and short-tailed shrew are estimated as described
in subsection V.G.4.d and are contained in Tables V-30 through V-32.
The small mammal dietary component for the red fox, mink, and red-tailed
hawk is assumed to be composed of 50 percent voles and 50 percent shrews. This is
a simplifying, and generally conservative assumption. Shrews are estimated to have
higher tissue concentrations of ECOCs than voles but are unlikely to represent as
much as 50 percent of the small mammal portion of the diet df these predator species.
Volume VI V-30
-------
Dietary intakes for the indicator species are presented in Chapter Vn and are
calculated in a very conservative manner by assuming that the indicator species obtain
all of their 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 emissions and fugitive inorganic emissions.
H. Uncertainties in the Characterization of Exposure
The characterization of exposure begins with the selection and description of
representative exposure scenarios, in which key exposure pathways and routes link the
emission sources (through 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 part 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 in 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 the
rationale applied, for the selection of exposure scenarios is provided in Chapter n as part of
the conceptual site model and in Section V.A.
The following sections, and Table V-33, provide a summary of the key assumptions
and uncertainties associated with the characterization of exposure. Table V-33 also provides
qualitative rankings which describe: (1) the likely magnitude and effect associated with each
identified assumption or uncertainty, (2) the relative importance of each assumption or
uncertainty to the overall risk conclusions, and (3) the magnitude of conservatism associated
with each assumption or with the procedures applied to reduce or mitigate the uncertainty.
Assumptions or uncertainties which combine relatively high magnitude effects, less
conservatism, and relatively high importance to the risk conclusions, are of most concern
since they could result in underestimating the risks to ecological receptors. Assumptions and
uncertainties which exhibit these traits are given particular attention in this section.
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
Volume VI V-31
-------
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 chemicals 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 estimated 30-year lifetime of the WTI facility after accounting for losses due to
transport and limited degradation processes. This approach is more likely to
overestimate than underestimate exposures to ecological receptors.
The fate and transport models used do not account,for the existing
(background) levels of the ECOCs in the media evaluated. Thus, incremental
exposures (and risks) associated with the WTI facility relative to other sources is not
quantitatively assessed as part of the SERA; this is not unusual for a screening-level
assessment. Assessment area-specific background data were available only for surface
water and only for some of the ECOCs (mostly metals), precluding a complete
analysis. In addition, the output of the fate and transport models could not be
validated, so the level of uncertainty associated with the resulting media
concentrations is unknown, but is likely to be in a conservative (overestimating)
direction. Such validation would require that an ambient monitoring program be
implemented in order to quantify the effect of the WTI facility on the surrounding
area. While desirable, such a program would not be feasible or practical given the
lack of existing (baseline) background data for most media and chemicals and the very
large sample sizes that would be required to separate the influence of the WTI
incinerator from the large number of other sources in the surrounding areas. These
issues are discussed further in Chapter VHI.
2. Uncertainties Associated with Exposure Modeling
Information on habitats and biota from the site characterization component of
the SERA (Chapter HI) 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 to all important ecological components present in the assessment area.
Volume VI V-32
-------
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 exposure pathways and routes considered to be of primary
significance for given ecological receptors are considered for exposure modeling. For
example, while wildlife may be exposed to ECOCs via direct dermal exposure, this
route 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.
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 maximum points, then other areas can be modeled to determine
the spatial aspects of the risks. An evaluation of stack dispersion and deposition rates
with distance and direction from the WTI facility was conducted to demonstrate the
spatial aspects of exposure within (and beyond) the assessment area (Appendix VI-
24). The distance categories evaluated were 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 km from the
WTI facility in nine directions (40° radial increments). Stack deposition factors for
mass averaging (used in the fate and transport models for all inorganics, except
mercury) and surface averaging (used for mercury and all organic ECOCs) are listed
in Appendix VI-24. Relative to the point of maximum stack deposition (located 0.1-
km from the stack), deposition factors for all of the other points evaluated during this
analysis were an order of magnitude lower at 0.5 to 1-km from the stack, about two
orders of magnitude lower at 5 to 10-km, and about three orders of magnitude lower
at 20 to 50-km (Table V-34). As discussed in Section V.G.3, all major water bodies
within 10-km of the facility were considered when selecting areas for evaluation, so it
is unlikely that any significant aquatic habitats with significantly higher exposure
concentrations than the areas evaluated in the SERA exist within the assessment area.
The modeled water bodies included a high flow river (Ohio River), a lower flowing
creek (Little Beaver Creek), and a lake/wetland habitat (Tomlinson Run Lake).
Stack dispersion factors (used to estimate air concentrations) dropped off less
quickly from the maximum point (located about 1-km east of the stack) than did
deposition factors but were generally about an order of magnitude lower at 1-km from
the maximum point and about two orders of magnitude lower at distances of 10-km
from the maximum point (Table V-35).
Based on this analysis, the highest potential risk associated with the WTI
facility was addressed in the SERA through the evaluation of the points of maximum
Volume VI V-33
-------
air concentrations and deposition, and the evaluation of the major water bodies in
closest proximity to the WIT facility. In addition, the conservative manner in which
bioaccumulation and persistence were accounted for in the fate and transport models,
as well as in the exposure modeling, and the use of cumulative emissions over a 30-
year period for soils and sediments, suggests that exposures to the WTI facility
emissions were not underestimated in the SERA.
As with fate and transport models, best estimates from the literature are 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/BAFs, (5) water contents for plants and
earthworms, (6) food chain BAFs for small mammals, and (7) ingestion rates, body
weights, and dietary compositions for the indicator species.
Indicator species are assumed to be exposed continuously to the maximum
concentrations in air, soil, sediment, and surface water. This is a conservative
assumption for mobile species, including most of the indicator wildlife species
evaluated in the SERA. In addition, the wildlife indicator species are assumed to
obtain all of their diet from prey items exposed at the maximum media
concentrations. Since few, if any, individuals of these indicator species are expected
to be maximally exposed in this manner, due to home range and other considerations,
this is more likely to overestimate than underestimate exposure and risk.
Volume VI V-34
-------
TABLE V-l
Key Components of the Exposure Scenarios Used in the
Parameter
Emission Rate
Deposition Rate
Contact and Uptake
Processes and Rates
V
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
common to two or more
from all stack and fugitive sources are summed, on
emission sources.
a chemical-by-chemical basis, for those ECOCs
Volume VI
V-35
-------
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"
Insoluble1*
Soluble in
some forms'1
Soluble1
Insoluble11
Insoluble*1
Insoluble1"
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'"
Varies by
form
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'"
3.0 x 10 2h
Highly
soluble1"
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'"
LogK.w
(unitless)
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
—
Varies by
form
—
-
-
Kd
(L/kg)k
1.500-1
45"
200d
60"
650^
6.5"
850"
35"
Varies by
form
900*
Itf
150"
300-1
LogK.,
(unitless)k
--
—
-
~
—
--
..
—
Varies by
form
—
-
-
~~
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
—
—
-
—
—
--
~
~
Varies by
form
—
-
~
—
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m'/mol)
0*
0«
0'
0«
0*
0'
0«
0«
Varies by
form
0*
7.00 x 10° *
0'
0*
Half-Life
(surface water [sw]
and soil [s])
—
~
—
—
—
—
-
Varies by form
~
-
—
Voh-me VI
V-36
-------
TABLE V-2
Physical, Chemical, and Fate Characteristics of the ECOCs
Chemical
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
Water
Solubility
(mg/L)
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'1
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'1
Soluble under
acidic
conditions'1
Miscible"
Miscible"
7.50x 104'
1.29x 10° b
3.80 x 10 3°
2.85 x 10 ' k
7.95 x 103*
1.81 x 105b
LogK,,,.
(unitless)
—
—
—
-0.24"1
-0.34ra
0.25m
4.55m
6.11m
7.30m
1.92m
0.63b
Kd
(L/kg)"
45"
1,500"
40"
~
-
-
--
-
-
~
-
LogK^
(unitless)k
-
—
—
0.34e
1.20"
-0.07°
4.41b
6.60*"
3.98e
1.53*"
1.70b
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
--
--
—
2.31 x 102"
8.88 x 10' '
1.08 x 102"
1.95 x lO^
5.49 x 10'"
l.SOx 10 7b
2.46 x 102"
1.90 x 10lb
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m'/mol)
0'
0*
0*
3.67x Itf5"
2.93 x ia5"
l.lOx 1O4"
6.51 x iasb
1.55 x 10*f
2.70 x 10-7b
4.35 x la3'
1.96x 10 5k
Half-Life
(surface water [sw]
and soil [s])
--
—
—
sw = 24 - 168 hours
s = 24 - 168 hours"
sw = 1-4 weeks
s = 1 - 4 weeks"
sw = 1 - 23 days1
s = 1-23 days"
sw = 1-2 hours
s = 50 days - 1.26 years"
sw = 0.37 - 1.1 hours
s = 57 days - 1.5 yearsb
sw = 1-3 weeks
s = 1 - 3 weeks'"
sw = 4 - 26 weeks
s = 4 - 26 weeks"
sw = 1-7 days
s = I - 7 days"
Volume VI
V-37
-------
TABLE V-2
Physical, Chemical, and Fate Characteristics of the ECOCs
Chemical
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 •
Water
Solubility
(mg/L)
6.28 x 102'
l.OOx 10 2b
1.63 x 106"
Miscible0
3.00x 10ob
Miscible*
2.00 x ialob
Up to 55%
soluble"
l.SOx 10 "
6.20x 10 3*
4.00 x 10°<
2.00 x 10°b
LoglC
(unitless)
2.70m
6.76m
-0.38'
-O.93"
8.06m
-Q.391"
7.411
-0.05"1
6.26m
5.89"1
4.81m
5.39"1
Kd
(L/kg)k
--
--
--
-
--
-
~
-
-
-
--
-
LogK,,
(unitless)k
1.81"
4.70b
2.64""
-0.91k
4.28b
1.23"
6.43'
0.56'
4.48"
4.00*"
3.71"
3.63b
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
l.OSx 10 2b
6.50x 10^ b
1.52x 103"
2.09 x 10' b
1.40 x 10^c
3.80x 10"
7.40x 10-|0b
3.88 x 103"
4.00 x 10^"
1.90x 10 5<
l.SOx 10'"
8.00 x 10 2b
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-nWmol)
1.02 x 1O*"
2.34 x 105b
1.77x 10 5"
4.58 x 10 5b
2.20 x 10^b
4.88x 10-6"
1.62x 10 5b
3.27 x 10-7'
1.48x 10 3"
1.30x 10 3l
1.03 x 10 2"
2.70 x 102b
Half-Life
(surface water [sw]
and soil Is])
sw = 2 - 4 days
s = 10-50 days"
sw = 15 hours - 6.1 days
s = 2 - 15.6 years"
sw = 35 hr
s = rapid"
sw = 14-195 seconds
s = 14-195 seconds'1
sw = 7 - 28 days
s = 7 - 28 days"
sw = 4 weeks - 6 months
s = 4 weeks - 6 months"
sw = 46 days - 1.5 yrs
s = < 1 yr - 12 yrsb
sw = 1-7 days
s = 1 - 7 days"
sw = 23 - 129 hours
s = 23 - 129 hours"
sw = 2.6 - 5.7 years
s = 2.6 - 5.7 years"
sw = 1-6 months
s = 1 - 6 months"
sw = 1 minute - 7.2 days
s = 7 days - 4 weeks"
Volume VI
V-38
-------
TABLE V-2
Physical, Chemical, and Fate Characteristics of the ECOCs
Chemical
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
Total PCBs
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Vinyl chloride
Water
Solubility
(mg/L)
4.00 x 103 h
2.82 x 104k
3.10x 10 2h
2.40 x 10 lb
1.40x 10"
l.lOx 103"
LogIC
(unitless)
7.54m
-3.08f
6. 39'
5.26"1
5.09"
1.50"1
Kd
(L/kg)k
--
~
--
-
-
--
LogK^
(unitless)k
4.96f
-LOO0
5.861
4.19b
3.54*
0.39°
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
4.60 x \0*
1.44x 10' b
7.70 x 10 5h
1.60x 10 Zb
l.lOx IQf4'
2.66 x 103"
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-nrVmol)
5.48x ia'3k
1.73x 10 9b
2.50 x HT"1
7.10x 10^""
2.75 x 10^"
5.60 x 10 2o
Half-Life
(surface water [sw]
and soil [s])
sw = 8-11 months
s = 8 - 1 1 months"
sw = 1-7 days
s = 1 - 7 days"
sw = years
s = years"
sw = 194 - 345 days
s = 194-345 days"
sw = 1 hour - 5 days
s = 23 - 178 days"
sw = 4 weeks - 6 months
s = 4 weeks - 6 months"
Howard (1989, 1990, 1991, 1993).
k HSDB (1995).
Montgomery and Welkom (1990).
d Baes et al. (1984).
" . U.S. EPA (1990a).
f U.S. EPA (1990b).
« U.S. EPA (1992c).
h U.S. EPA (1994c).
1 U.S. EPA (1983a).
j Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological Profiles.
k Estimated value or not specified unless noted (* indicates measured value).
1 U.S. EPA (1994d).
U.S. EPA (1995a). '>
Howard et al. (199.1).
Volume VI
V-39
-------
TABLE V-3
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)a
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration Gig/m3)b
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.60x 10-*
1.10 x 10"
5.50 x 10'
3.60 x 10-6
1.90 x 10*
1.50x 10*
1.20x 10'3
8.80 x lO'2
2.20 x 10'
4.40 x 10°
3.30x 10°
5.50 x 10-'
1.46 x 10-"
l.OOx 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 10-2
2.00 x 10'
4.00 x 10°
3.00 x 10°
5.00 x ID'1
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
2.40 x 10*
4.20 x 10-6
3.70 x ID'5
1.50x 10*
3.30x 108
1.60x lO'5
7.10x lO'7
9.40 x 10'5
4.30 x 10'5
1.40x lO0
5.00 x 10-6
4.70 x 10*
l.SOx ID'5
3.40 x 10-5
2.18x 10"
3.82 x 10-6
3.37 x 10-5
1.37 x 10"
3.00 x ID"8
1.46 x ID'5
6.46 x ID'7
8.55 x ID'5
3.91 x IQ-5
1.27 x 10°
4.55 x 10-6
4.28 x 10"
1.37 x lO'5
3.09 x ID'3
Volume VI
V-40
-------
TABLE V-3
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)a
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration (/jg/m3)b
Zinc
1.20 x
1.09 x
See Chapter IV.
b Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 0.91.
Volume VI
V-41
-------
TABLE V-4 1
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
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexaciilorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Emission Rate
(g/sec)m
2.90 x lO'3
l.lOx lO'5
l.lOx 10'5
5.23 x 10'5
4.07 x 10-*
1.39x ID"4
3.88 x ID'5
l.lOx 10-6
6.07 x lO-4
l.lOx ID'5
1.01 x 10-1
l.lOx ID'3
3.20 x 10'3
4.76 x lO'3
l.lOx 10-3
3.38 x 10-7
4.90 x 10-1
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration (/ig/m3)b
2.64 x 10°
1.00 x ID'5 I
1.00 x 10'3
4.76 x lO'5
3.70 x 10^
1.26 x 10^
3.53 x ID'5
l.OOx 10-*
5.52 x 10-1
1.00 x 10-5
9.19x 10'5
l.OOx 10s
2.91 x 10-3
4.33 x 10-5
l.OOx 10-5
3.08 x 10-7
4.46 x 10-1 |
See Chapter IV.
6 Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 0.91.
Volume VT
V-42
-------
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
Emission Rate
(g/sec)»
3.31 x 10*
9.11 x 10"7
6.63 x 10-3
2.17x 10-5
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 G*g/m3)b
2.12x 1O4
5.83 x 103
4.24 x 10'3
1.39 x ID"3
2.70 x 10-3
9.47 x 10-6
l.SOx 10-5
1.67 x lO'3
• See Chapter IV for an explanation of emission rate calculations.
b Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 64.
Volume VI
V-43
-------
TABLE V-6
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Carbon Absorption Bed
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)"
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration (/tg/m3)b
Acetone
1.18x ID"3
4.47 x ID'3
Acetonitrile
3.19x 10-5
1.21 x
Chloroform
7.94 x ID'5
3.02 x
Dimetbylamine
3.00 x
1.14% 10'3
Formaldehyde
6.74 x 10"4
2.56 x ID'3
Hydrazine
1.72x IV6
6.53 x
1 See Volume HI for an explanation of emission rate calculations.
b Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 3.80.
Volume VI
V-44
-------
TABLE V-7
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Tank Farm
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Emission Rate
(g/sec)'
1.12X10-2
3.03 x 1O4
7.52 x HT1
2.84 x 10"3
6.39 x ID"3
1.63 x 10-5
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration Otg/m3)1*
1.60 x 10°
4.34 x lO'2
1.08 x 10-'
4.08 x 10'1
9.17x lO'1
2.34 x lO'3
a See Volume ffl for an explanation of emission rate calculations.
b Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 143.56.
Volume VI
V-45
-------
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
(g/sec)a
1.06 x lO'3
2.88 x 10-5
7.15x 10-5
2.70 x 10^
6.07 x 1O4
1.55 x 10-6
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration (/tg/m3)b
3.17x ID'1
8.59 x 103
2.13 x ID'2
8.06 x 10-2
1.81 x 10-'
4.62 x 10-1
' See Volume HI for an explanation of emission rate calculations.
b Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 298.68.
Volume VI
V-46
-------
TABLE V-9
Maximum Modeled Annual Average Ground-Level Air Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Truck Wash
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)a
Maximum Annual Average
Ground-Level Air
Concentration (j»g/m3)b
Acetone
5.19x I0r5
1.50 x 10'2
Acetonitrile
1.41 x
4.07 x 10-*
Chloroform
3.50 x
1.01 x 10°
Dimethylamine
1.32 x 10-5
3.82 x lO'3
Formaldehyde
2.98 x 10-5
8.59 x 10'3
Hydrazine
7.58 x
2.19x lO'5
See Volume in for an explanation of emission rate calculations.
Based on a maximum dispersion factor of 288.70.
Volume VI
V-47
-------
TABLE V-10
Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
Maximum Modeled Soil
Concentration (mg/kg)*
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
i.eox 10*
l.lOx 10"
5.50 x 10'
3.60 x 10^
1.90x 10*
l.SOx 10*
1.20x 10'3
8.80 x 10 2
2.20 x 10'
4.40 x 10°
3.30 x 10°
5.50 x 10-'
2.02 x lO'3
6.08 x lO'3
9.23 x 102
5.92 x 10"
3.56 x 10"
3.01 x lO'2
2.51 x 10-'
2.53 x 10-'
9.16 x 102
3.61 x 102
4.16x 10'
1.54x 102
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
2.40 x 10"
4.20 x 10^
3.70 x 10-5
l.SOx 10"
3.30 x 10^
1.60x 10'5
7.10x ID'7
9.40 x 10-5
4.30 x 10'5
1.40x 10-'
5.00 x 10-6
4.70 x 10"
l.SOx 10'5
3.40 x 10'5
6.71 x 10'2
5.30 x 10-5
2.05 x 10-3
2.52 x 10-3
5.43 x 10^
3.00 x 105
1.43 x 10"
9.24 x 10" .,
8.98 x 10'3
4.02 x 10-3
2.08 x 10"
3.86 x 10-2
1.89x 10"
9.50 x lO'3
Volume VI
V-48
-------
TABLE V-10
Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
Maximum Modeled Soil
Concentration (mg/kg)*
Zinc
1.20x
1.35 x lO'3
Assumes a soil depth of 0.01 meters (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-49
-------
TABLE V-ll
Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx ID'3
5.23 x ID'5
3.88 x lO'5
l.lOx 10-6
1.26x ID'9
l.lOx lO'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 ID'7
Maximum Modeled Soil
Concentration (mg/kg)"
5.64 x lO'5
1.18x 10^
3.88 x 10'5
5.33 x 10-6
4.04 x ID'5
3.01 x 10'7
1.57 x IQ-4
2.15 x 10-*
7.03 x 10-6
7.94 x 10"1
3.55 x W4
1.97 x lO'5
3.24 x ID'5
" Assumes a soil depth of 0.01 meters (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-50
-------
TABLE V-12
Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations - Fugitive Inorganic Emissions
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Total Cyanide
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
3.31 x 10-6
9.11 x lO'7
6.63 x ID'5
2.17x 10"s
4.22 x 10-7
1.48x ID'7
2.34 x lO'7
2.61 x 10-7
Maximum Modeled SoU
Concentration (mg/kg)'
7.30 x 10-«
6.10x lO'5
4.96 x lO-'
1.81 x 102
7.02 x lO'5
4.87 x lO'5
1.18x 10-5
5.58 x 10-8
Assumes a soil depth of 0.01 meters (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-51
-------
TABLE V-13
Background Soil Concentrations for Metals
Chemical
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Eastern United States*
Mean"
57,000
0.76
7.4
420
0.85
0.06"
52
22
17
0.03e
18
0.45
0.05'
NA
52
Range"
7,000 - > 100,000
< 1.0 -8.8
< 1.0 -73
10 - 1,500
< 1.0 -7.0
0.01 - 0.7"
1.0- 1,000
< 1.0 -700
< 10 - 300
0.01 - 0.3e
<5.0-700
<0.1 -3.9
0.01 - 5.0=
0.1 -0.8f
< 50 -2,900
Ohio'
Mean"
NA°
NA
11.7
469
0.65
NA
55
28
23
0.14
25
0.56
NA
NA
69
Rangeb
NA
NA
5.2 - 22
300-700
ND* - 2.0
NA
15 - 100
7 -70
15 -30
0.03 - 0.59
15-50
<0.1 - 1.2
NA
NA
25 - 110
All data from Dragun and Chiasson (1991) except where noted.
All values are in parts per million (ppm) dry weight.
Not Available.
Not Detected.
From U.S. EPA (1983b).
From Alloway (1990).
Volume VI
V-52
-------
TABLE V-14
Modeled Surface Water Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
Modeled Surface Water Concentration (jtg/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
1.60x 10-*
l.lOx 1CT1
5.50 x 10'
3.60 x 10-6
1.90x KT1
1.50x 10"1
1.20 x lO'3
8.80 x ID'2
2.20 x 10'
4.40 x 10°
3.30x 10°
5.50 x 10"'
l.SOx Ws
2.59 x lO'5
6.50 x 10°
1.11 x 10-6
4.27 x 10-6
4.76 x lO'5
3.83 x 10-4
1.72x lO'3
4.59 x 10°
1.17x 10°
3.10x 10-'
1.82 x 10-'
4.36 x lO*
7.03 x 10-6
1.86 x 10°
2.81 x 10-7
1.51 x 10-*
1.17x lO'5
9.35 x lO"5
6.05 x 10'3
1.26 x 10°
3.13x 10-'
9.00 x lO'2
4.11 x lO'2
3.33 x 10-6
5.90 x 10-*
1.46 x 10°
2.50 x lO'7
7.58 x lO'7
1.07 x ID'5
8.56 x ID'5
2.81 x 10-3
1.05 x 10°
2.68 x lO'1
6.86 x lO'2
3.98 x lO'2
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 10-3
l.SOx 10-*
3.30 x 10^
1.60x ID'5
7.10x 10-7
9.40 x ID'5
4.30 x 10s
1.40x ID'3
5.00 x 10-6
4.70 x 10^
l.SOx ID'5
7.94 x lO'5
3.95 x 10-7
8.70 x 10*
1.77 x 10-5
1.02x 10"*
3.60 x 10-7
2.25 x ID'7
7.16x 10-6
1.37 x 10-5
2.73 x ID'5
1.04x 10-6
1.25 x HT4
1.41 x 10-6
1.79 x 10'3
1.15x lO'7
2.37 x 10-6
5.06 x 10-*
2.57 x 10"»
1.27x 10-7
5.54 x 10"8
2.11 x 10-*
3.35 x 10^
9.62 x ID'5
2.87 x lO'7
3.35 x lO'5
4.09 x lO'7
1.74 x ID'5
8.74 x lO"8
1.99x 10*
3.97 x lO"6
2.29 x ID'9
6.38 x ID"8
5.05 x JO"8
1.56 x 10"*
3.07 x ID"6
4.47 x lO'5
2.38 x lO'7
2.86 x 10'5
3.12x lO'7
Volume VI
V-53
-------
TABLE V-14
Modeled Surface Water Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
3.40 x lO'5
1.20x ICT1
Modeled Surface Water Concentration 0*g/L)*
Ohio River
1.13 x lO'5
1.02x 10'5
Tomlinson Run
Lake
2.54 x 10-*
2.99 x 10"*
Little Beaver
Creek
2.46 x 10-6
2.25 x 10^
* Estimated surface water concentrations are for the dissolved fraction only.
Volume VI
V-54
-------
TABLE V-15
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
Dioxin/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
HexachJorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
2.90 x lO'3
2.02 x 10*
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx lO'5
5.23 x 10'5
4.07 x 10"
1.39x 10"
3.88 x lO'5
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx lO'5
4.94 x 10"
1.26x ID'9
6.07 x 10"
l.lOx KT6
l.lOx 10 5
1.01 x 10"
l.lOx 10 5
3.20 x 10 5
4.76 x 105
l.lOx 10 5
3.38 x ID'7
4.90 x 10"
Modeled Surface Water Concentration Gtg/L)*
Ohio River
2.24 x lO"7
2.57 x 10-*
4.20 x 10-8
1.24x lO'7
2.32 x lO'7
2.66 x 10'7
1.18x ID"8
1.47x 10*
4.44 x 10*
2.90 x 10'9
2.42 x lO'7
9.72 x 10-"
6.61 x ID"8
5.56 x 10-"
3.04 x lO'7
1.78x lO'7
5.03 x 10"'
9.90 x 107
3.06 x 10'7
1.73 x 10-8
2.24 x 10-8
1.56x 10'7
Tomlinson Run
Lake
7.88 x 10-7
9.05 x ID"*
1.23 x lO'7
3.53 x 10-9
2.46 x lO*
9.38 x lO'7
4.18x 10"8
5.20 x 10-*
1.13x 10-7
8.93 x 10-9
8.52 x 10-7
1.95 x 10-12
2.33 x lO'7
1.59x 10-'°
9.95 x ID'7
6.04 x 10-7
1.72x 10-*
1.91 x lO'7
9.63 x 107
5.94 x lO*
1.27 x 10*
5.50 x lO'7
* Estimated surface water concentrations are for the dissolved fraction only.
Little Beaver
Creek
3.66 x ID'7
4.20 x 10*
6.53 x 10-*
5.59 x 10-'
2.33 x 10-'
4.35 x lO'7
1.94x 10-8
2.41 x 10-*
6.62 x 10-8
4.54 x ID'9
3.95 x lO'7
4.24 x 101'2
1.08 x lO'7
8.57 x 10-"
4.88 x ID'7
2.88 x lO'7
8.15x 10-9
1.44x 10'7
4.86 x 10-7
2.81 x 10-8
1.58x 10-8
2.55 x'lO'7-
Volume VI
V-55
-------
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
1.60x 10"
l.lOx 10"
5.50 x 10'
3.60 x 10-6
1.90x 10"
l.SOx 10"
1.20 x 10°
8.80 x 10'2
2.20 x 10'
4.40 x 10°
3.30 x 10°
5.50 x 10-'
4.06 x ID'7
3.10x 10^
2.34 x 10-'
4.32 x lO'7
1.67x 10-8
2.43 x 10'3
2.07 x 10"
1.03 x 10'3
4.13x 10-'
2.11x ID'1
8.37 x 10'3
1.64x 10-'
1.18x ID'7
8.44 x lO'7
6.69 x lO'2
1.09x ID'7
5.89 x 10-*
5.97 x 10"6
5.05 x ID'5
3.63 x ID'5
1.14x 10-'
5.64 x 10'2
2.43 x lO'3
3.70 x lO'2
8.98 x 10^
7.08 x lO'7
5.25 x lO'2
9.76 x 10-8
2.95 x 10^
5.44 x 10"*
4.62 x 10'5
1.68 x lO'5
9.43 x 10'2
4.82 x ID'2
1.85 x lO'3
3.59 x 1C'2
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Stiver
2.40 x 10"
4.20 x 10-6
3.70 x ID'5
l.SOx 10"
3.30 x 10^
1.60x 10'5
7.10x 10-7
9.40 x 10'5
4.30 x ID'5
1.40x ID'3
5.00 x 10*
4.70 x 10"
l.SOx 10 5
7.15 x 10'5
1.07 x 10-8
1.04x 10-6
6.38 x lO'7
3.96 x 1Q-9
1.40x ID'9
l.lSx lO'7
l.SOx lO'7
7.41 x 10-6
1.64x 10'7
9.40 x 10-8
2.26 x 10-5
3.80 x 10^
1.61 x 10'5
3.09 x 10-»
2.84 x lO'7
1.82x ID'7
l.OOx 10-»
4.96 x 10-'°
2.83 x ID"8
4.44 x 10*
1.81 x 10"6
5.77 x 10'7
2.58 x 10-"
6.03X.10-6
l.lOx 10-*
1.56 x ID'5
2.36 x ID'9
2.38 x 10'7
1.43 x ID'7
8.95 x 10-'°
2.49 x 10-'°
2.58 x 10-8
3.28 x 10^
1.66x 10^
2.68 x ID'7
2.14x 10-8
5.15x 10-6
8.42 x 10-'
Volume VI
V-56
-------
TABLE V-16
Modeled Sediment Concentrations - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
3.40 x lO'5
1.20 x 10"
Modeled Sediment Concentration (mg/kg)*
Ohio River
1.01 x ID'5
2.45 x lO'7
Tomlinson Run
Lake
2.29 x 10^
7.17x 10*
Little Beaver
Creek
2.22 x 10-*
5.40 x 10-*
* Estimated sediment concentrations assume a total organic carbon content of three percent.
Volume VI
V-57
-------
TABLE V-17
Modeled Sediment 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-octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Dioxin/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophenc
PentachJoro benzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
2.90 x ID'3
2.02 x 10"
l.lOx 10 -s
l.lOx lO'5
5.23 x 10-5
4.07 x 10"
1.39x 10"
3.88 x lO'5
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx ID'3
4.94 x 10"
1.26 x 10-9
6.07 x 10"
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx ID'5
1.01 x 10"
l.lOx lO'5
3.20 x 10'5
4.76 x 10-'
l.lOx 10-5
3.38 x 10-7
4.90 x 10"
Modeled Sediment Concentration (mg/kg)"
Ohio River
1.47 x 10-"
6.54 x 10-'3
3.24 x 10-"
1.48 x lO'5
8.56 x 10'5
2.70 x ID'10
1.78 x 10-"
2.85 x 10-"
6.68 x 10-"
1.65x ID'9
1.23 x 10-'°
3.48 x ID"8
7.14x ID"'2
5.04 x 10-"
9.12x 10-"
2.77 x 10-"
6.43 x 10-'°
2.70 x 10*6
1.42x lO'7
l.SOx 10"9
4.86 x lO'7
1.15x 10-"
Tomlinson Run
Lake
5.18x 10-"
2.31 x 10-'2
9.51 x ID"8
4.18x 10-7
9.09 x ID'7
9.53 x 10-'°
6.28 x 10-"
1.01 x 10-'°
1.69x lO'7
5.09 x ID'9
4.34 x 10-'°
3.96 x 10 !0
2.52 x 10-"
1.44x 10-'°
2.98 x ID'7
9.38 x 10-*
2.20 x ID'9
5.22 x ID'7
4.48 x 10'7
6.18x 10*
2.76 x lO'7
4.05 x 10-"
Little Beaver
Creek
2.40 x 10-"
1.07 x 10-'2
5.04 x 10-8
6.63 x 10-7
8.59 x lO'7
4.42 x 10-'°
2.91 x 10-"
4.67 x 10-"
9.95 x 10-*
2.59 x ID'9
2.01 x 10-'°
9.68 x 10-'°
1.17x 10-"
7.76 x 10-"
1.46 x lO'7
4.48 x 10-"
1.04 x 10-9
3.94 x lO'7
2.26 x lO'7
2.92 x 10-9
3.43 x.lO'7
1.88 x 10-"
' Estimated sediment concentrations assume a total organic carbon content of three percent.
Volume VI
V-58
-------
TABLE V-18
Modeled Surface Water Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
Modeled Surface Water Concentration 0«g/L)"
Onio River
Tomlinson Run
Lake
Little Beaver
Creek
Fugitive Inorganic Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
3.31 x 10-*
9.11 x lO'7
6.63 x ID'5
2.17x ID'5
4.22 x 10'7
1.48 x 10'7
2.34 x 1C'7
3.11 x 10-6
4.30 x lO'7
5.96 x 10-6
2.77 x 10-5
3.52 x lO'7
1.58 x lO'7
8.78 x ID"8
2.64 x ID"6
3.83 x ID'7
6.57 x 10-*
2.11 x 10"s
3.02 x ID'7
1.32x lO'7
7.95 x 10-"
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions'*
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
3.10x 10"
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 lO'5
2.05 x 10*
3.43 x ID'5
8.81 x 10-*
2.02 x lO"6
4.98 x lO'5
2.58 x 10-6
4.32 x lO'5
1.11 x ID'7
3.50 x lO"6
4.75 x lO'7
5.21 x 10-6
3.05 x ID'5
3.% x lO'7
1.78x lO'7
9.58 x ID"8
1.03 x 10'5
2.54 x 10"
1.31 x lO'5
2.20 x 10"
5.65 x 10'7
a Estimated surface water concentrations are for the dissolved fraction only.
b Emissions and resulting concentrations from all four fugitive organic vapor sources are summed for
this analysis.
Volume VI
V-59
-------
TABLE V-19
Modeled Sediment Concentrations - Fugitive Emissions
Chemical
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
Modeled Sediment Concentration (mg/kg)*
Ohio River
Tomlinson Run
Lake
Fugitive Inorganic Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
3.31 x KT*
9.11 x ID'7
6.63 x lO'5
2.17x 10'5
4.22 x ID'7
1.48 x 10'7
2.34 x lO'7
3.73 x lO'7
1.55x 10^
2.32 x 10-"
1.49x ID'5
3.17x 10-*
2.85 x 10-*
2.37 x ID'9
3.16x ID'7
1.38 x 10-"
2.56 x 10-"
1.14x ID'5
2.72 x 10-8
2.37 x 10"8
2.15x 10-'
Little Beaver
Creek
4.20 x ID'7
1.71 x 10"*
2.03 x 10*
1.65 x lO'3
3.56 x 10-"
3.20 x 10"8
2.59 x 10-'
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions'1
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
3.10x 10"
3.42 x 10'3
2.60 x 10"
7.70 x 10°
1.96 x 10'5
4.10 x 10-"
5.20 x 1C'7
7.56 x 10-'2
3.70 x 10-'
2.64 x ICr13
5.16x 10-"
6.52 x 10'7
9.52 x 10-12
4.66 x 10''
3.32 x lO'13
2.63 x 10-'°
3.33 x ID"6
4.85 x 10-"
2.38 x 10-*
1.69x ID"12
* Estimated sediment concentrations assume a total organic carbon content of three percent.
b Emissions and resulting concentrations from all four fugitive organic vapor sources are summed for
this analysis.
Volume VI
V-60
-------
TABLE V-20
Background Data for Surface Water
Chemical"
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Location11
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River at US
Route 30 Bridge,
East Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
40.2
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
Middle Fork of
Little Beaver Creek
near Rogers, OH
Tomlinson Run
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Number of
Samples
2
21
4
74
30
1
2
4
4
4
8
2
4
1
2
4
2
Dates
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/9/92 -
11/30/95
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/23/90 -
2/13/96
1/30/90 -
6/9/92
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
9/4/90 -
10/30/91
7/10/90 -
10/30/91
1/23/90 -
9/18/90
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
Concentration
Range (/tg/L)
109 - 258
100- 1,500
90-203
< 135 - 6,800
190 - 2,400
100
81 -290
59 - 1,438
20 - 270
90- 1,100
80-840
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<1
Volume VI
V-61
-------
TABLE V-20
Background Data for Surface Water
Chemical*
Arsenic (cont.)
Barium
Location1*
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile 38
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
Tomlinson Run
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
Tomlinson Run
Number of
Samples
10
4
30
1
2
4
4
3
2
10
4
7
2
4
1
2
3
Dates
7/9/92 -
11/30/95
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/30/90 -
6/9/92
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
4/9/90 -
10/6/94
7/17/90 -
9/18/90
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
9/14/92 -
9/27/95
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/30/90 -
3/9/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91
7/16/91
11/8/94 -
12/6/94
7/17/90 -
9/18/90
Concentration
Range (pg/L)
<4
<1 - 1
<2-7
1
<1 -2
<1 -2
<2
<2
55-59
20-210
56 -60
< 50 -650
48 -58
48-60
58
48-65
<50 - 50
Volume VI
V-62
-------
Chemical*
Beryllium
Cadmium
1
TABLE V-20 1
Background Data for Surface Water |
Location11
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek at
Pancake-Clarkson
Road
North Fork of Little
leaver Creek near
Negley
Number of
Samples
2
4
1
2
4
2
12
4
30
1
2
4
28
2
2
Dates
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/9/92 -
11/30/95
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/30/90 -
6/9/92
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/2/90 -
4/24/95
8/2/94 -
9/7/94
8/2/94 -
9/7/94
Concentration
Range (ng/L)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.2 - < 1
<0.5
«,-<,
' 1
<0.5-3
<1
0.2 - < 1
0.2 - < 1
< 0.2 -0.8
<0.2
<0.2-0.2
Volume VI
V-63
-------
TABLE V-20
Background Data for Surface Water
Chemical"
Cadmium (cont.)
Chromium
Copper
Location1*
Little Beaver Creek
just upstream of the
confluence with
Stateline Creek
Tomlinson Run
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek at
Pancake-Clarkson
Road
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek near
Negley
Little Beaver Creek
just upstream of the
confluence with
Stateline Creek
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Number of
Samples
2
3
2
10
4
10
1
2
4
8
2
2
2
2
Dates
8/3/94 -
9/8/94
7/17/90 -
9/18/90
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/9/92 -
11/30/95
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/30/90 -
5/13/92
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
4/9/90
8/2/94 -
9/7/94
8/2/94 -
9/7/94
8/3/94 -
9/8/94
7/16/90 -
7/14/92
Concentration
Range (/tg/L)
<0.2
<3-5
<1
<10
<1
<5 - <25
<1
<1
<1
<30
<30
<30 ,
<30
<5- 14
Volume VI
V-64
-------
TABLE V-20
Background Data for Surface Water
Chemical*
Copper (cont.)
Lead
Location1*
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River at US
Route 30 Bridge,
East Liverpool, OH
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek at
Pancake-Clarkson
Road
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek near
Negley
Little Beaver Creek
just upstream of the
confluence with
Stateline Creek
Tomlinson Run
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Number of
Samples
12
4
74
29
1
2
4
28
2
2
2
3
2
21
Dates
7/9/92 -
11/30/95
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/23/90 -
2/13/96
1/30/90 -
6/9/92
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/2/90 -
4/24/95
8/2/94 -
9/7/94
8/2/94 -
9/7/94
8/3/94 -
9/8/94
7/17/90 -
9/18/90
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/9/92 -
11/30/95
Concentration
Range (/ig/L)
<5-8
<5-22
<10-39
3-750
<5
<5-8
<5- 16
< 10 - 79
<10
<10
<10
<10
<2-4
<2-6
Volume VI
V-65
-------
TABLE V-20
Background Data for Surface Water
Chemical*
Lead (cont.)
Mercury
Nickel
Location1*
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River at US
Route 30 Bridge,
East Liverpool, OH
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek at
Pancake-Clarkson
Road
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek near
Negley
Little Beaver Creek
just upstream of the
confluence with
Stateline Creek
Tomlinson Run
Ohio River at
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Tomlinson Run
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Number of
Samples
4
67
30
1
2
4
28
2
2
2
3
10
30
2
2
Dates
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/23/90 -
2/13/96
1/30/90 -
6/9/92
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/2/90 -
4/24/95
8/2/94 -
9/7/94
8/2/94 -
9/7/94
8/3/94 -
9/8/94
7/17/90 -
9/18/90
9/14/92 -
9/27/95
1/30/90 -
6/9/92
8/28/90 -
9/18/90
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
Concentration
Range Gtg/L)
<2-3
3-21
<5-60
<2
<2-3
<2 - 11
<2-16
<2
<2-4
<2
<50
<0.2 •'
< 0.2 -0.4
<0.2
<5
Volume VI
V-66
-------
TABLE V-20
Background Data for Surface Water
Chemical*
Nickel (cont.)
Selenium
Location1*
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River at US
Route 30 Bridge,
East Liverpool, OH
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek at
Pancake-Clarkson
Road
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek near
Negley
Little Beaver Creek
just upstream of the
confluence with
Stateline Creek
Tomlinson Run
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Number of
Samples
10
4
74
10
1
2
4
23
2
1
2
2
2
10
4
Dates
9/14/92 -
9/27/95
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/23/90 -
2/13/96
1/30/90 -
5/13/92
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/2/90 -
2/16/95
8/2/94 -
9/7/94
9/7/94
8/3/94 -
9/8/94
7/17/90 -
9/18/90
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/9/92 -
9/27/95
7/16/9r-
7/14/92
Concentration
Range (/ig/L)
<20
<5
17-77
<20 - <30
5
<5
<5-5
<40
<40
<40
<40
<20
<1
<4
<1 - 1
Volume VI
V-67
-------
TABLE V-20
Background Data for Surface Water
Chemical"
Selenium (cont.)
Silver
Zinc
Location1*
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
Tomlinson Run
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River at US
Route 30 Bridge
East Liverpool, OH
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
Number of
Samples
10
1
2
4
2
3
10
10
2
21
4
65
30
1
6
27
Dates
1/30/90 -
8/14/91
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
11/8/94 -
12/6/94
7/17/90 -
9/18/90
7/9/92 -
9/27/95
1/30/90 -
5/13/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/9/92 -
1 1/30/95
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/23/90 -
2/13/96
1/30/90 -
6/9/92
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/2/90 -
12/6/9*4
Concentration
Range Gig/L)
<2-<5 1
1
<1
<1 -2
<2
<2
<4
<2 - <20
<50
< 10 - 70
<50
<10-84
10 - 120
<50
<50-67
< 10 -225
Volume VI
V-68
-------
TABLE V-20
Background Data for Surface Water
Chemical*
Zinc (cont.)
Chloroform
Hardness, Total
Location1*
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek at
Pancake-Clarkson
Road
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek near
Negley
Little Beaver Creek
just upstream of the
confluence with
Stateline Creek
Tomlinson Run
Ohio River at
Shippingport, PA
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River at US
Route 30 Bridge
East Liverpool, OH
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
Number of
Samples
2
2
2
3
1,156
603
2
18
4
74
30
2
2
4
24
Dates
8/2/94 -
9/7/94
8/2/94 -
9/7/94
8/3/94 -
9/8/94
7/17/90 -
9/18/90
3/1/90 -
6/26/93
1/1/90 -
11/27/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/9/92 -
5/25/95
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/23/90 -
2/13/96
1/30/90 -
6/9/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/2/90 -
4/24/95
Concentration
Range Otg/L)
< 10 - 17
24-33
<10
<3-ll
<0.1
<0.1
164,000 - 197,000
72,000 - 160,000
124,000 - 200,000
34,000 - 191,000
78,000 - 166,000
127,000 - 191;000
136,000 - 179,000
152,000 - 192,000
176,000 - 411,000
Volume VI
V-69
-------
TABLE V-20
Background Data for Surface Water
Chemical*
Hardness, Total (cont.)
PH
Location11
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek near
Pancake-Clarkson
Road
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek near
Negley
North Fork of Little
Beaver Creek just
upstream of its
confluence with
Stateline Creek
Tomlinson Run
Ohio River Mile
55.2
Ohio River Mile
54.6
Ohio River at New
Cumberland Lock,
OH
Ohio River Mile
54.0
Ohio River Mile
49.2
Ohio River at US
Route 30 Bridge
East Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
44.4
Ohio River Mile
40.3
Ohio River at East
Liverpool, OH
Ohio River Mile
33.1
Ohio River Mile
38.0
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
8
11
14
20
52
20
151
16
16
28
3
17
Dates
9/7/94
9/7/94
9/8/94
1/23/90 -
9/18/90
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/91
7/9/92 -
11/30/95
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
2/13/96
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
1/30/90 -
3/9/92
7/16/91
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
Concentration
Range Oig/L)
371,000
462,000
450,000
88,000 - 122,000
7.21 -7.81
7.21 - 7.86
6.8 - 8.0
7.1 -7.81
7.12- 7.82
6.35 - 8.38
7.20 - 7.79
7.25 - 7.72
6.9 - 8.2
7.62 - 7.63
7.23 - 7.75
Volume VI
V-70
-------
TABLE V-20
Background Data for Surface Water
Chemical"
pH (cont.)
Location1"
Ohio River Mile
32.0
Ohio River Mile
31.3
Little Beaver Creek
near East
Liverpool, OH
Middle Fork of
Little Beaver Creek
near Rogers, OH
Tomlinson Run
Number of
Samples
17
20
80
4
14
Dates
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
7/16/91 -
7/14/92
9/4/90 -
10/30/91
7/10/90 -
10/30/91
1/23/90 -
9/18/90
Concentration
Range Otg/L)
7.32 - 7.65
7.13-7.62
6.9 - 9.10
8.07 - 8.44
7.1 - 8.42
* For metals, based on the total recoverable fraction as data on the dissolved fraction were not
available.
b The WTI facility is located along the Ohio River at River Mile 41.5.
Source: U.S. EPA STORET data base.
Volume VI
V-71
-------
TABLE V-21
Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For Plants and Earthworms
Chemical
Plant BCP
Source
Earthworm BCF/BAF*
Source
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
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
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
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
Organics
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
0.091
0.011
0.002
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
3.9
1.5
45
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Volume VI
V-72
-------
TABLE V-21
Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For Plants and Earthworms
Chemical
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Plant BCP
1.065
0.005
0.002
0.015
0.064
0.030
0.002
0.035
0.044
0.008
Source
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Earthworm BCF/BAF*
12.0
16.0
4.0
4.0
38
211
846
41
8.0
6.0
Source
Calculated
Beyer and Gish 1980
Reinecke and Nash 1984
Coulston and Kolbye 1994a
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
van Gestel and Ma 1988
Diercxsens et al. 1985
1 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.
Volume VI
V-73
-------
TABLE V-22
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight)
For Plants and Earthworms - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Plant Tissue (nig/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 10-5
9.91 x 10*
9.38 x 10°
1.79x ID'7
2.00 x 10"5
6.86 x 1CT6
1.31 x KT1
2.06 x 10-2
2.48 x 10°
3.14x 10-'
1.12x 10°
1.86 x 102
5.05 x W4
1.38 x 10-3
8.31 x 10'
1.48 x lO^1
1.87 x lO'3
3.69 x lO'3
5.95 x ID'2
6.07 x ID'2
1.65x 102
2.80 x 102
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 1CT6
7.82 x 10-7
3.33 x lOr6
2.56 x lO'5
1.64x 10-'
1.68 x 10-6
3.25 x 10-8
2.70 x 1O5
4.68 x 10*
3.27 x 104
5.64 x 10-7
3.35 x lO3
5.09 x 10-*
1.15x 10^
5.70 x 10J
1.33 x 10-'
4.65 x lO-4
2.27 x \Q^
1.36 x lO"6
1.57 x 10^
1.75 x lO'5
1.85x10^
2.13 x 10°
9.65 x 10^
3.75 x 10'5
2.99 x lO'2
4.73 x 10-5
2.38 x lO'3
Volume VT
V-74
-------
TABLE V-22
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet- Weight)
For Plants and Earthworms - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Zinc
Plant Tissue (mg/kg)'
1.31 x lOr4
Earthworm Tissue (mg/kg)b
1.92 x 10'3
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-75
-------
TABLE V-23
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
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Plant Tissue (mg/kg)*
1.07x ID"7
1.38 x 10*
3.62 x 104
2.11 x Ifr5
5.40 x 10-6
2.22 x 10-'°
1.43 x ID"7
6.93 x 10*
2.42 x ID'9
1.91 x 1O*
2.54 x 10-7
7.75 x IF6
6.45 x 10*
Earthworm Tissue (mg/kg)b
5.50 x 1C'5
4.43 x 10'5
4.37 x 10"
1.60 x ID'5
1.62x 10-*
3.01 x 10'7
1.57 x 10"
2.04 x 10'3
3.71 x 10"
1.68 x 10-'
3.64 x 10-3
3.93 x ID'5
4.86 x lO'5
" 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-76
-------
TABLE V-24
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight)
For Plants and Earthworms - Fugitive Inorganic Emissions
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Plant Tissue (mg/kg)*
1.55 x 10*
7.20 x 10-7
3.52 x lO"5
1.18x 10"5
2.37 x ID"7
5.86 x 10*
3.42 x 10-7
Earthworm Tissue (mg/kg)b
1.66 x 10-1
5.49 x 10*
2.61 x 10-'
4.30 x ID'3
1.26 x lO'5
3.77 x lO'5
2.95 x 10*
1 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-77
-------
TABLE V-25
Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For Fish
Chemical
Fish BCF (L/kg)
Source
Food Chain
Multiplier*
Fish BAF (L/kg)
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury (methyl)b
Mercury (inorganic)1"
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
36
1
44
4
20
2,213
16
290
160
—
4,994
61
78
0.5
120
432
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 1980c
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
Organics
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
7,260
3,208
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
1.858
11.410
13,489
36,603
Volume VI
V-78
-------
TABLE V-25
Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors For Fish
Chemical
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Fish BCF (L/kg)
886
7
181,000
86,000
39,000
17,000
448
278
20,000
1,066
274,000
Source
U.S. EPA 1980g
Howard 1991
U.S. EPA 1980d
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Howard 1989
HSDB 1995
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
AQUIRE 1995
U.S. EPA 1980a
Food Chain
Multiplier*
13.474
1.017
14.302
12,987
9.629
2.485
5.432
12.193
4.557
3.597
13.174
Fish BAF (L/kg)
11,938
7.1
2,588,662
1,116,882
375,531
42,245
2,434
3,390
91,140
3,834
3,609,676
From U.S. EPA (1995b) for trophic level 3.
b The BAF for total mercury is a weighted average of the inorganic mercury BAF (75%) and the methyl mercury BAF (25%) (Volume V,
Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-79
-------
TABLE V-26
Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Fish - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Fish Tissue (mg/kg)"
Ohio River
Tomlinson Run Lake
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercuryb
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
l.SOx 10*
1.14x 10*
2.60 x 1O2
2.22 x 10*
9.46 x 10*
7.62 x 107
6. 13 x 10-5
4.32 x 10-2
2.80 x 1O1
9.15x 102
1.55 x 104
2.18x 1O2
4.36 x 10*
3.09 x 1O7
7.43 x lO"3
5.61 x 1O*
3.34 x 1O*
1.87 x 1O7
l.SOx 10's
1.52x 1O1
7.71 x 1O2
2.44 x 1O2
4.50 x 1O3
4.93 x 1O3
Little Bearer Creek
3.33 x 10*
2.60 x 107
5.83 x lO3
5.00 x 10"
1.68 x 10*
1.71 x 1O7
1.37 x 1O5
7.07 x 1O2
6.39 x 1O2
2.09 x 1O2
3.43 x 10s
4.78 x 1O3
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury11
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
2.86 x 1O*
3.95 x 1O'°
3.83 x 10-7
7.09 x 10*
2.03 x 10'°
7.96 x 10-7
3.60 x 1O»
2.08 x 10^
2.20 x 1O*
6.88 x 104
6.37 x 10*
9.78 x 1O6
7.05 x 10'°
1.35 x 10*
6.45 x 107
1.15x 10'10
1.04x 1O7
2.03 x 10*
5.14 x 10-"
2.82 x 1O7
8.87 x ID'10
6.13x 10-7
5.36 x lO7
2.42 x 1O3
1.75 x 10*
2.61 x 10*
2.04 x lO'10 ,
3.05 x 10-7
6.26 x 1O7
8.74 x 10-"
8.74 x 10*
1.59 x 10*
4.59 x 10-"
1.41 x 107
8.08 x ID'10
4.53 x 10-7 -'
4.91 x 1O7
1.12x 103
1.45 x 10*
2.23 x 1O6
1.56 x 10-'°
2.96 x 10-7
Volume VI
V-80
-------
TABLE V-26
Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet- Weight) For Fish - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Zinc
Ohio River
4.42 x 10*
Fish Tissue (mg/kg)'
Tomlinson Run Lake
1.29 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
9.72 x 10-7
* Whole-body, wet-weight (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
b Assumes 75% inorganic and 25% methyl mercury (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-81
-------
TABLE V-27
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
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyciopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Fish Tissue (mg/kg)*
Ohio River
5.66 x ID'7
4.56 x lO"6
2.77 x 10-6
1.05 x 10-'°
1.15x 10-*
1.09 x 10-7
1.14x 10-1
7.52 x 10-6
1.22 x 10-*
3.36 x 10-*
2.79 x lO'5
6.63 x 10-8
8.08 x 10'3
Tomlinson Run Lake
1.66 x 10-*
1.29 x 10-7
2.94 x 10-*
3.70 x 10-'°
2.92 x 10^
2.17x 10-'
3.74 x 10-»
2.55 x ID'5
4.18x 10*
6.48 x ID'7
8.78 x ID'5
2.28 x 1C'7
4.58 x 105
Little Beaver Creek
8.81 x 10-7
2.05 x ID'7
2.78 x 104
1.72 x 10-'°
1.71 x HT1
4.74 x ID'9
1.83 x 10-1
1.22 x 10's
1.98 x 10-8
4.89 x 10-7
4.43 x ID'5
l.OSx ID'7
5.70 x 10-5
' Whole-body, wet-weight (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-82
-------
TABLE V-28
Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Fish - Fugitive Inorganic Emissions
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Fish Tissue Concentration (mg/kg)*
Ohio River
1.37 x 10-7
1.72x 1CT9
1.32x 10-5
4.43 x 10"6
2.15x 10*
1.23 x 10-"
4.39 x 10-"
Tomlinson Run Lake
1.16x 10-7
1.53 x 10-9
1.45x 10-5
3.38 x 10-*
1.84x 10*
1.03 x 10*
3.97 x 10-"
Little Beaver Creek
1.54 x 10-7
1.90 x ID"9
1.15x 10"5
4.88 x 10*
2.42 x 10*
1.39x 10*
4.79 x 10-"
" Whole-body, wet-weight (see Volume V, Appendix V-7).
Volume VI
V-83
-------
TABLE V-29
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
2.8b
10.4°
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).
k Red fox value used.
0 American woodcock value used.
Volume VI
V-84
-------
TABLE V-30
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Small Mammals
Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Vole Tissue (mg/kg)'
Shrew Tissue (mg/kg)*
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
8.70 x lO"5
1.83 x 10"
3.28 x 10'
1.73 x 105
6.50 x 10-5
8.04 x 10"
7.33 x ID"3
1.16x 10-'
2.76 x 10'
1.46x 10'
2.28 x 10°
4.47 x 10°
6.21 x 104
1.76 x lO'3
1.71 x 102
1.81 x 10-*
1.47 x lO'3
6.28 x 10-3
7.43 x lO'2
3.35 x ID'1
2.31 x 102
2.55 x 102
1.29 x 10'
4.70 x 10'
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.73 x 10-3
2.28 x 10*
6.16x 1OS
8.94 x 105
1.59x 10-7
5.48 x 10*
3.80 x 10*
5.17x 1O5
2.63 x 10-"
1.84x 1O3
6.28 x 1O*
1.56 x 1O3
1.04x 1O5
2.77 x 10"
1.21 x lO'2
1.63 x 10-5
5.91 x 10-*
4.66 x 10"
1.66 x 10-6
1.24 x lO-4
2.97 x ID'5
2.51 x 10"
2.66 x lO'3
5.33 x lO'3
5.26 x 10-5
2.73 x 10-2
5.85 x ID'5
2.90 x 10°
Volume VI
V-85
-------
TABLE V-30
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Small Mammals
Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Vole Tissue (mg/kg)1
Shrew Tissue (mg/kg)"
Zinc
1.96 x 10-*
1.64x lO'3
See text for method of calculation.
Volume VI
V-86
-------
TABLE V-31
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
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vole Tissue (mg/kg)a
2.56 x 10^
5.04 x 10*
3.56 x 10"
2.06 x 10-5
9.36 x 1O*
1.89 x ID"8
7.05 x 10^
4.60 x 10-5
7.58 x 10*
3.38 x 10"3
8.16x 10-5
8.67 x 10"*
1.81 x 10*
Shrew Tissue (mg/kg)*
4.85 x 10-5
4.75 x ID'5
3.82 x 10"
1.54 x 1C'5
1.29 x 10"
3.71 x lO'7
1.38 x 10"
1.58x 10'3
2.84 x 10"
1.28 x 10-'
2.82 x 10'3
3.32 x 10-5
4.08 x 10-5
* See text for method of calculation.
Volume VI
V-87
-------
TABLE V-32
Maximum Calculated Tissue Concentrations (Wet-Weight) For Small Mammals
Fugitive Inorganic Emissions
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vole Tissue (rag/kg)11
2.23 x 10-5
2.26 x 10*
9.76 x 10-5
5.32 x ICT1
2.16 x 10*
1.98 x 1O*
6.69 x 10-7
Shrew Tissue (mg/kg)a
2.11 x 10"
1.13 x 10-5
2.05 x lO'3
5.37 x lO'3
1.77 x 10 5
3.44 x 10-3
3.65 x 10*
* See text for method of calculation.
Volume VI
V-88
-------
TABLE V-33
Key Assumptions for Chapter V - Characterization of Exposure
Assumption
Basis
Magnitude of
Effect
Direction of
Effect
Importance
to Risk
Conclusions
Magnitude of
Conservatism
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.
K^/js 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.
\
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 (I, 10, and 20 cm).
U.S. EPA (1990b) guidance assuming
tilling in agricultural lands.
high
high
high
moderate
likely
overestimate
likely
overestimate
likely
overestimate
likely
overestimate
high
high
high
low
high
moderate to
high
moderate to
high
high
Volume VI
V-89
-------
TABLE V-33
Key Assumptions for Chapter V - Characterization of Exposure
Assumption
TOC values in soil and sediment are
appropriate.
The facility operates continuously
over a 30-year period.
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
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).
The projected Year 30 soil and
sediment concentrations are used to
estimate exposures from Year 1 .
U.S. EPA (1994d) guidance.
Magnitude of
Effect
moderate
low
moderate
low
Direction of
Effect
unknown
likely
overestimate
overestimate
unknown
Importance
to Risk
Conclusions
moderate
high
high
low
Magnitude of
Conservatism
moderate
high
high
low to
moderate
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
even though they are rapidly
metabolized by most higher
organisms.
Chromium is assumed to exist
completely in the hexavalent state.
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 to account for presence of Cr+6
which is more toxic than Cr+3.
low
moderate
low
underestimate
overestimate
overestimate
low
low
moderate
low
high
high
Volume VI
V-90
-------
TABLE V-33
Key Assumptions for Chapter V - Characterization of Exposure
Assumption
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 assume that
the maximum exposure points for all
sources are colocated.
The indicator species selected for
evaluation are appropriate and
representative.
Chemicals are assumed to be
bioavailable to ecological receptors.
\
Basis
Professional judgement based on the
site-specific features of the WTI
assessment area.
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).
A screening process was used to select
indicator species which are
representative and appropriate for the
principal exposure pathways identified
for the assessment.
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,
where relevant, based on total organic
carbon.
Magnitude of
Effect
low
low
moderate
high
moderate
Direction of
Effect
unknown
unknown
overestimate
unknown
likely
overestimate
Importance
to Risk
Conclusions
high
high
moderate
moderate
high
Magnitude of
Conservatism
high
moderate to
high
high
moderate to
high
high
Volume VI
V-91
-------
TABLE V-33
Key Assumptions for Chapter V - Characterization of Exposure
Assumption
The various inputs into the food chain
models are appropriate.
For mercury bioaccumulation from
surface water by fish, mercury is
assumed to be present in both
inorganic (75%) and organic (25%)
forms.
Parameters used to estimate tissue
concentrations of ECOCs in plants,
earthworms, and fish as part of food
chain modeling accurately reflect
reality.
For plant uptake from direct
deposition, the entire year is assumed
as the exposure period.
The soil-to-plant BCFs (Bv values)
from Baes et al. (1984) are
appropriate for metals.
Basis
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.
U.S. EPA-recommended (1994J)
proportion of mercury in aquatic
environments that is in the inorganic
and organic forms.
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.
The most conservative assumption
possible since it assumes continuous
exposure; this is a realistic assumption
for terrestrial plant communities.
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.
Magnitude of
Effect
moderate
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
Direction of
Effect
likely
overestimate
unknown
unknown
slight
overestimate
unknown
Importance
to Risk
Conclusions
moderate
moderate
high
low
moderate
Magnitude of
Conservatism
moderate to
high
moderate
moderate to
high
high
moderate
Volume VI
V-92
-------
TABLE V-33
Key Assumptions for Chapter V - Characterization of Exposure
Assumption
For organic chemicals without
measured soil-to-plant BCFs, the K^,-
based equation of Travis and Arms
(1988) is appropriate to estimate BCF
values.
The earthworm BAFs for metals are
appropriate; use of a BAF of 1 is
appropriate if data are unavailable.
Basis
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.
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 had BAFs
of less than one.
Magnitude of
Effect
moderate
moderate
Direction of
Effect
likely
overestimate
likely
overestimate
Importance
to Risk
Conclusions
moderate
moderate to
high
Magnitude of
Conservatism
moderate to
high
moderate to
high
Volume VI
V-93
-------
TABLE V-34
Stack Deposition Comparison by Distance and Direction from the WTI Facility
Distance Category
(km)
0.1
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
50
Direction (Degrees) of
Maximum Point in Distance
Category"
80
80
120
120
80
80
80
80
Proportion of Overall Maximum
Mass Average*1
Surface Average1"
Overall Maximum Deposition Point
0.189
0.102
0.043
0.017
0.007
0.003
0.001
0.184
0.098
0.040
0.015
0.006
0.002
0.001
a See Appendix VI-24.
b Mass averaging was used to determine total deposition rates for all inorganics except mercury.
Surface averaging was used to determine total deposition rates for mercury and for all of the
organic stack ECOCs (see Volume IV).
Volume VI
V-94
-------
Approximate
• rC vf...
Facility
EXPLANATION
Source:
Stack
Fugitive
1 Open wastewater tank
2 Truck wash
3 Organic waste tank farm
4 Carbon adsorption bed
5 Ash handling facility
Location: Coordinates in meters
relative to source
Total deposition A 98E. 1 7N
Vapor B 985E.174S
Vapor C 193E.230N
Vapor E 129E.153N
Vapor F 64E, 77N
Vapor D 274W,752S
Particulate G 76E, 64-N
Total deposition G 76E, 64N
0
1200
Scale in Feet
2400
0 365
730
Scale in Meters
LOCATION OF EMISSION SOURCES,
MAXIMUM DEPOSITION POINTS, AND
MAXIMUM AIR CONCENTRATION POINTS
V-PP;
Figure
V-1
-------
TABLE V-35
Stack Dispersion Comparison by Distance and Direction from the WTI Facility
Distance Category (km)
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
50
Direction (Degrees) of
Maximum Point in Distance
Category"
160
100
120
80
80
80
120
Proportion of Overall Maximum
Vapor Dispersion Factor
0.193
Overall Maximum Vapor Point
0.374
0.133
0.051
0.020
0.005
See Appendix VI-24.
Volume VI
V-95
-------
01 -4000a schamat c-stack
Stack -
Stack-
Stack -
Stack-
Stack -
Stack -
Stack-
Stack -
Stack-
Stack-
Stack-
Air -
Air-
Air -
Air -
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
• Air-
• Air-
Air-
Stack -
Air-
Dispersion -
Dispersion -
Dispersion -
Dispersion -
Dispersion -
Dispersion •
Dispersion •
Dispersion •
Dispersion
Dispersion
Dispersion
• Ground-level Air1 —^»
• Ground-level Air1 —^>
• Deposition —^- Soil2 •
• Deposition —^- Soil2 •
• Deposition —
Foliar Exposure—^
Inhalation Exposure
—^- Root Exposure
—^ Direct Contact/Feeding
-^ Incidental
Ingestion
Terrestrial Plants
^ Terrestrial Birds
w and Mammals
-^ Terrestrial Plants
Soil Fauna
•Ground-level Air1
• Deposition to
Plant Foliage1
• Deposition _
- Deposition —
- Deposition -
Deposition
^Foliar
Uptake
Terrestrial Plants
I
'Meadow Vole3
Direct Contact/_
Feeding
Runoft
^Surface*-3
Water ~
^Direct Contact/
Ingestion
Dispersion
Deposition
Sedlment*-3-
„ Surf ace2
Water
• Earthworm
Aquatic
Plants
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Zooplankton
Aquatic
Direct Contact/ - Plants
Ingestion x>^. Benthic
Invertebrates
Short-tailed3
Shrew
-Red Tailed3
' Hawk
American3 •
Robln *
Fish
Kingfisher
Ingestion
t
1 = At point ot maximum concentratbn
2 = At point of maximum deposition
3= Evaluated at Tomlinson 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
Figure
V-2
-------
01 -4000a schematic-Fugitive
^Stack-
r Stack -
Stack-
Stack-
Stack-
Stack-
Stack-
Stack -
Stack-
Stack -
Stark-
Air -
Air -
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
Air-
• Air-
Air-
Dispersion •
Dispersion •
Dispersion •
Dispersion •
Dispersion •
Dispersion •
Dispersion •
Dispersion •
Dispersion
Dispersion
Dispersion
• Ground-level Air1 —^ Foliar Exposure—^
• Ground-level Air1 —^» Inhalation Exposure
• Deposition —^-Soil2—^ Root Exposure
- Deposition —^-Soil2 ^ Direct Contact/Feeding
• Deposition —^Soil2—Incidental
Terrestrial Plants
Terrestrial Birds
^ and Mammals
-&- Terrestrial Plants
Soil Fauna
•Ground-level Air
• Deposition to
Plant Foliage1
• Deposition _
- Deposition —
- Deposition —
Deposition
Foliar
Uptake"
Ingestion
Terrestrial Plants
Direct Contact/_
Feeding
Runoff
..Surface2-3
Water ~
f Direct Contact/
Ingestion ~"
Stack-
Air-
Dispersion
Deposition
Sediment23-
.Surface2
Water
• Earthworm
Aquatic
Plants
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Zooplankton
Aquatic
.Direct Contact/- Plants
Ingestion "S>T^. Benthic
Invertebrates
Ingestion
1 = At point of maximum concentratbn
2 = At point of maximum deposition
Evaluated at Tomlinson Run Lake and Little Beaver Creek also
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)
SPECIFIC EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR FUGITIVE EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
Figure
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 an ecological risk assessment that
evaluates the ability of a stressor 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
predator population as a result of reduced numbers of available prey caused by exposure to a
chemical stressor. 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 VH).
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 in species
composition). The assessment endpoints chosen for the SERA (Chapter n) 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 concentrations of
the ECOCs in ground-level ambient air, surface soil, surface water, sediment, and biological
tissues, chronic toxicological benchmark values are obtained, or calculated, from data in the
literature for each applicable indicator species and exposure pathway. Computerized data
bases of published values (e.g., RTECS, HSDB, OHM/TADS, PHYTOTOX, and AQUIRE)
Volume VI VI-1
-------
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 most 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 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
NO ART, 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 and mammalian 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
(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
Volume VI Vl-2
-------
(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
evaluated in the SERA 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 in 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 lexicological
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 in 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.
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
Volume VI VI-3
-------
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 in
Table VI-1.
Intraspecies (between individuals of the same species) uncertainty factors are
commonly used in human health risk assessments to protect sensitive individuals in 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 lexicological 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 VQ).
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 in the
SERA (this is equivalent to the use of an uncertainty factor of one).
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).
Volume VI Vl-4
-------
Relatively few studies have evaluated the lexicological effects of chemicals released to
the air on wildlife species, two exceptions being lead and cadmium (Newman and 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 to
evaluate exposure to ground-level ambient air. The animal inhalation dala used to conslrucl
Table VI-2 (species, concentration, study duration, effect, and study reference) are contained
in Appendix VI-2524. The planl data are referenced directly in Table VI-2 since relatively
few data are available.
For the terrestrial plant indicator species group, Ihe lowesl available NOAEL value
found in Ihe literature, or the lowest non-NOAEL value adjusted to a NOAEL using Ihe
uncertainty factors discussed in Section VI. A, is used as the lexicological benchmark. A
similar approach is used for deriving inhalation benchmarks for animal species. Since the
toxicity data on inhalation exposures to animals correlate effects directly to air concenlration
(without converting to dose), individual indicator species are nol used and allomelric scaling
(based on body weighl) is nol conducled. Rather, Ihe lowesl available NOAEL value (or
non-NOAEL value adjusted to a NOAEL using Ihe uncertainly factors in Table VI-1) is used
as Ihe lexicological benchmark for all animal species. If dala are available for relatively few
species, inlerspecies uncertainly factors are applied as discussed in Section VI.A. The use of
the lowesl available or derived NOAEL value and applicable uncertainly factors in deriving
Ihe animal inhalation benchmark is considered an appropriately conservative approach for a
screening-level assessmenl, especially given lhal exposures are evaluated al Ihe poinls of
maximum predicted air concenlrations (see Chapter V).
C. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Surface Soil
Toxicological benchmark values for soil fauna and for lerreslrial plants exposed to
chemicals in surface soils are based on data obtained from dala bases and Ihe literature. A
lolal of 29 ECOCs are considered for evaluation, including all 15 metals, tolal cyanide, and
13 organics. Planl benchmark values are available for all of Ihe melals, for lolal cyanide,
and for six of Ihe 13 organics. Toxicological benchmarks for soil fauna are available for all
bul five (ihree melals and iwo organics) of the ECOCs. Although mosl of Ihe available dala
for soil fauna are for earthworms, benchmark values based on data for other macroorganisms
(e.g., insecls) or for soil microorganisms are used when Ihey are available and are lower
24 Highlighted values in Appendices VI-25 through VI-30 represenl toxicily values selected
for use in Ihe SERA.
Volume VI VI-5
-------
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 lexicological benchmark values used for plants and soil fauna. The data used
to construct Table VI-3 are contained in Appendices VI-26 (plants) and VI-27 (soil fauna).
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, 1995), 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 in 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 (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)25. 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-
28) 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 (described in Section VI.A), from Lowest Observed Effect
Concentration (LOEC, comparable to LOAEL values) or acute LC50 values.
U.S. EPA (1993e) and PADER (1995) recommend that chronic AWQC values for
certain metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, and zinc) be
adjusted to reflect the dissolved, rather than the total, fraction. This adjustment is based on
25 Surface water and sediment benchmarks are not developed for total cyanide since
concentrations in these two media could not be estimated (see Section V.G.3).
Volume VI VI-6
-------
the realization that the dissolved fraction constitutes a very large proportion of the
bioavailable metal and also correlates most closely with effects observed in the aquatic
toxicity tests from which the AWQC values are derived. Therefore, the chronic AWQC
values used for these metals in the SERA are based on the estimated dissolved chemical
fractions.
U.S. EPA also recommends that 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-23. 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 body under
evaluation in order to achieve protection of the aquatic community.
A water hardness value of 100 mg/L (as CaCO3) is used in the SERA. This value,
which is the standard default (U.S. EPA 1996c), is consistent with, or more conservative
(lower) than, available site-specific data. Hardness data from U.S. EPA's STORET data
base (U.S. EPA 1994i, 1996b) were available for the Ohio River in the vicinity of the WTI
facility, for Little Beaver Creek, and for Tomlinson Run (a tributary of Tomlinson Run
Lake) (see Chapter V, Table V-20). Measured water hardness in the Ohio River ranged
from 78 to 166 mg/L (median of 122 mg/L), in Little Beaver Creek ranged from 176 to 411
mg/L (median of 244 mg/L), and in Tomlinson Run ranged from 88 to 122 mg/L (median of
105 mg/L).
A pH of 7.5 is used in the SERA. This value is the lowest median pH value reported
in the STORET data base (U.S. EPA 1994i, 1996b) for the three water bodies evaluated in
the SERA. For the Ohio River, pH ranged from 6.9 to 8.2 (median of 7.5), for Little
Beaver Creek ranged from 6.9 to 9.1 (median of 8.0), and for Tomlinson Run ranged from
7.1 to 8.4 (median of 7.8) (see Chapter V, Table V-20).
Toxicological benchmark values for surface water are listed in Table VI-4. The data
used to construct Table VI-4 are contained in Appendix VI-28.
E. Toxicological Benchmark Values for Sediment
Toxicological benchmark values for aquatic biota exposed to ECOCs which are
partitioned 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
Volume VI VI-7
-------
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 is consulted in an attempt 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 in the same field-collected samples. This is known as the Screening
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 NOAA26) 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, 1993g). These guideline values control for bioavailability
by normalizing based on the total organic carbon (TOC) content of the sediment.
26 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.
Volume VI VI-8
-------
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 (mgfkg) = (KJ () (TOO) (VI-1)
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) (/*g/L)
UCF = unit conversion factor 0*g/L to mg/L) of 1,000
TOC = total organic carbon content (percent, as a fraction)
A TOC value of three percent, a default value used in the HHRA models (U.S. EPA
1994d), is used (see Volume V, Appendix V-7). Appendix VI-29 contains the input values
used in 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 in 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-29). 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 are derived, where available
data permit, from lexicological data bases and the literature for each of the seven bird and
mammal indicator species (see Chapter V) and the 28 ECOCs (15 metals and 13 organies)
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 lexicological value is used when determining
the ingestion benchmarks for each bird and mammal indicator speciejs. Determination of the
most applicable value for a particular indicator species considers the degree of taxonomic
Volume VI VI-9
-------
relatedness and the degree of similarity in dietary preferences between the experimental
species for which data are available and each indicator species. Therefore, if lexicological
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
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 also
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
NOAEL values, adjusted for each bird and mammal indicator species using Ihe 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 rale.
Smaller animals have higher metabolic rales and are usually more resistant to adverse effecls
from toxic chemicals because of more rapid metabolic processing (Opresko et al. 1995; U.S.
EPA 1995c). The scaling factor thai besl accounls for differences in body size is Ihe body
weighl divided by the body surface area, where the body surface area is approximately
equivalent to body weighl raised to Ihe 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:
*w.)
where: Da = intake or dose in an untested species a (mg/kg/day)
Db = experimentally determined intake or dose in species b
(mg/kg/day)
BWa = body weighl of untested species a (kg)
BWb = body weighl of species b (kg)
The allometric scaling approach can be applied to pairs of species within the same
taxonomic class. For example, mammalian loxicily dala are used to-predict toxic effects in
mammals and avian toxicity data are used to predict avian toxic effecls.
Volume VI VI- 10
-------
The toxicological benchmark values for ingestion are listed in Table VI-6, based on
the data contained in Appendix VI-30. 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-31 contains the data used to derive the benchmark values using
allometric scaling.
G. Summary of Toxicological 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 medium 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 when these data are
unavailable.
H. Uncertainties in the Characterization of Ecological Effects
The key assumptions and uncertainties associated with 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 fauna. 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 in 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 the effects characterization used 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 in 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 to
the indicator species used.
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.
Volume VI VI-11
-------
With the exception of the air pathway for plants, this occurs relatively infrequently (Table
VI-9) 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 in order to offset the general lack of phytotoxicity data for
other ECOCs. The six ECOCs lacking inhalation benchmarks (Table VI-9) are chemicals for
which inhalation exposures are expected to be minor relative to ingestion or aquatic
exposures. Only two ECOCs (hexachlorophene and hexachlorocyclopentadiene) lack soil
benchmarks for both plants and soil fauna, and only three ECOCs lack sediment benchmarks
(Table VI-9). While seven ECOCs lacked ingestion benchmarks for avian indicator species
(Table VI-9), such benchmarks were available for mammalian indicator species.
Volume VI VI-12
-------
TABLE VI-1
Summary of Uncertainty Factors Used in the SERA
Extrapolation
Acute to Chronic NOAEL
< 3 LCy, or LDs, values
_>. 3 LCj,, or LDjo values
Subacute to Chronic Duration
short term ( < 28 days)
intermediate (28 - 90 days)
long-term (> 90 days)
LOAEL to NOAEL
Interspecies2
_>. 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-13
-------
TABLE VI-2
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Ground-Level Ambient Air Concentrations
Chemical
Plant
Benchmark
0*g/mJ)
Source
Animal
Benchmark
(Mg/m3)
Source
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Total cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nick-el
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
NO1
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. 4*
2.6ef
15.2te
2.8
2.0*
10
121*
988"
2.2e
i.o°f
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 199 la
ATSDR 1993i
Eisler 198Sb
—
—
ATSDR 1992d
Volume VI
Vl-14
-------
TABLE VI-2
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Ground-Level Ambient Air Concentrations
Chemical
Plant
Benchmark
Oig/m3)
Source
Animal
Benchmark
(jig/m3)
Source
Organics
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorotutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine '
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
88b
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
IPCS I989b
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
630M
672,000
2001"
ND
20,000°'
40>*f
80*-*
ND
ND
25,400b
0.481"
16,000^
1,070°'
55.8-
33.4°'
2.0"°f
ND
500
RTECS 1995
U.S. EPA 1987b
HSDB 1995
—
ATSDR 1993e
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
—
—
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995; IPCS 1989b
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992b
U.S. EPA 1984b; HSDB 1995
U.S. EPA 1986b
RTECS 1995
—
Eisler 1989
Volume VI
VI-15
-------
TABLE VI-2
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Ground-Level Ambient Air Concentrations
Chemical
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Plant
Benchmark
0*g/mJ)
ND
ND
Source
—
—
Animal
Benchmark
Oig/mJ)
1,500
127,812C
Source
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1991a
ND = No data.
Lowest chronic LOAEL divided by 5.
Highest NOAEL which was less than all reported LOAELs.
Lowest acute value divided by 100.
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.
VI
VI-16
-------
TABLE VI-3
Chronic lexicological Benchmark Values for Plants
and Soil Fauna in Surface Soils
Chemical
Plant
Benchmark
(rag/kg)
Source
Soil Fauna
Benchmark
(mg/kg)'
Source
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Total cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
50
5
3
500
10
3
1
20
0.6C
30
0.3
30
1
2
1
50
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 1994a; Alloway 1990
Will and Suter 1994a
60W
NDb
25
3,000*
ND
10
0.4
32
0.018d
500
0.1
40°
50
50-
ND
97
Will and Suter 1994b
—
Fischer and Koszorus 1992
Will and Suter 1994b
—
cited in 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
Fischer and Koszorus 1992
Will and Suter 1994b
—
Eisler 1993
Volume VI
Vl-17
-------
TABLE VI-3
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants
and Soil Fauna in Surface Soils
Chemical
Plant
Benchmark
(nig/kg)
Source
Soil Fauna
Benchmark
(mg/kg)f
Source
Organics
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
ND
3,500°
100
0.034
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4°
40
—
Environment Canada 1 994
1PCS 1992b
PHYTOTOX 1995
PHYTOTOX 1995
—
—
—
—
—
—
Environment Canada 1994
Will and Suter 1994a
0.0374*
> 26d
> 25d
0.047d
2,000
5
> 0.763d
0.0076d
ND
ND
0.115"
4
0.023d
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
Environment Canada 1994
Neuhauser et al. 19£5b
Roberts and Dorough 1985
IPCS 1989c
Reinecke and Nash 1984
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
—
—
van Gestel et al. 1991
Will and Suter 1994b
Fitzpatrick et al. 1992
Benchmark 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-18
-------
TABLE VI-4
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Surface Water
Chemical
Benchmark
Gig/L)
Source
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic (1H)
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
87"
30
190
4,100
1.06b
1.0C
10
11°
2.5°
0.012
160°
4.6
0.12
13
90"
U.S. EPA 1991a; WVDNR 1995
U.S. EPA 1991a
U.S. EPA 1991a; OEPA 1993; PADER 1993, 1995;
WVDNR 1995
PADER 1993
U.S. EPA 1991a
PADER 1995
PADER 1995; WVDNR 1995
PADER 1995; WVDNR 1995
PADER 1995
U.S. EPA 1991a; PADER 1993; WVDNR 1995
U.S. EPA 1991a; PADER 1993, 1995; WVDNR 1995
PADER 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
Dimethylhydrazine
78,000
0.77
0.44"
0.016"
8.4
15.7
3.5°
10"
0.000024
150
400
OEPA 1993
WVDNR 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
OEPA 1993 •'
WVDNR 1995
AQUIRE 1995; OHM/TADS 1995
AQUIRE 1995
WVDNR 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
VI-19
-------
TABLE VI-4
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Surface Water
Chemical
Di-n-octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Dioxin/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachloro benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Benchmark
0*g/L)
3.0
1 15,000"
0.0000076"
436
0.001
0.00074
2
1
0.021e
5.1
55
8.6a
0.000079
525
Source
U.S. EPA 1991a; WVDNR 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
PADER 1993
OEPA 1993
WVDNR 1995
PADER 1993
PADER 1993
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
OEPA 1993
WVDNR 1995
WVDNR 1995
• Assumes a pH value of 7.5 (see text).
" Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (LOEC) divided by 5.
c Hardness-dependent criterion. A hardness value of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 is used (see text).
d Lowest NOEC value; a lower LOEC value is available but is considered inconsistent with the other
data in Appendix VI-28 and is not used.
Acute LCjo divided by 1,000.
Volume VI
VI-20
-------
TABLE VI-5
Chronic lexicological Benchmark Values for Sediment
Chemical
SLC-Based
Benchmark (mg/kg)a
Source
Partitioning-Based
Benchmark (mg/kg)*
Source
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
NA"
2
6
500
NA
0.6
26
16
31
0.10
16
1
1
NA
100
—
Long and Morgan 1990;
NYSDEC 1993
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
Hull and Suter 1994; Beyer 1990
—
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
Hull and Suter 1994; Beyer 1990
MOE 1993; NYSDEC 1993
Hull and Suter 1994; Beyer 1990
Long and Morgan 1990;
NYSDEC 1993
—
Hull and Suter 1994; Beyer 1990
—
--
—
—
—
—
-
--
~
~
—
~
-
-
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Organics '
Acetone
NA
—
5.12
Calculated
Volume VI
Vl-21
-------
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
Dioxin/ftiran
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
0.000001
NA
0.0003
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source
—
Long and Morgan 1990
MOE 1993
—
—
—
—
Long and Morgan 1990
—
—
—
—
Hull and Suter 1994; Beyer 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
0.000006
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
NYSDEC 1993
Calculated
Calculated; NYSDEC 1993
Calculated
NYSDEC 1993
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Volume VI
VI-22
-------
TABLE VI-5
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Sediment
Chemical
SLC-Based
Benchmark (mg/kg)*
Source
Partitioning-Based
Benchmark (mg/kg)"
Source
Pentachlorobenzene
NA
25.56
Calculated
Pentachlorophenol
NA
0.89
Calculated
Total PCBs
0.01
MOE 1993
0.002
Calculated
Vinyl chloride
NA
0.039
Calculated
See text. Equilibrium partitioning is based on three percent TOC.
NA = Not Available.
Volume VI
Vl-23
-------
TABLE VI-6
Chronic Toxicologies! 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
Belted
kingfisher
Inorganics
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
13.1
119
0.59
NDb
ND
0.87
0.19
5.6
1.38
0.023
0.768
0.78
ND
ND
25
6.6
60
0.29
ND
ND
0.44
0.10
2.8
8.3
0.012
0.385
0.39
ND
ND
13
11.1
101
0.50
ND
ND
0.74
0.17
4.8
1.17
0.020
0.654
0.66
ND
ND
21
Organics
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
101
0.019
122
0.023
30
0.006
44
0.008
0.101
ND
0.051
ND
0.086
ND
Volume VI
VI-24
-------
TABLE VI-6
Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion
Chemical
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Ingestion Benchmark Value (mg/kg-BW/day)'
Meadow vole
0.15
10
6.27
0.00000152
2.44
0.30
1.52
2.3
1.68
1.8
0.49
Short-tailed
shrew
0.19
10
7.61
0.00000185
2.96
0.37
1.85
2.8
2.04
2.2
0.59
Red fox
0.05
10
1.22
0.00000046
0.022
0.09
0.46
0.24
0.51
0.6
0.0011
Mink
0.07
10
1.78
0.00000067
0.032
0.13
0.67
0.36
0.74
0.8
0.0016
American
robin
0.248
10
0.201
0.0000055
0.10
0.030
ND
0.721
ND
3.6
0.63
Red-tailed
hawk
0.124
10
0.101
0.0000028
0.05
0.015
ND
0.361
ND
1.8
0.31
Belted
kingfisher
0.211
10
0.062
0.0000047
0.08
0.026
ND
0.613
ND
3.1
0.53
* The data on which these benchmarks are based is presented in Appendices VI-30 and VI-3 1 .
k . No Data.
Volume VI
Vl-25
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Species/Taxa
Effect"
Inhalation
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Total cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
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
—
NOAEL - respiratory effects
LOAEL - respiratory effects
NOAEL - fetal effects
Lowest toxic dose - spermatogenesis
NOAEL - lung inflamation
NOAEL - estrous 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
LCM
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - systemic effects
NOAEL - sperm count
Fetotoxicity; fetal death
Wildlife threshold
Volume VI
VI-26
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Species/Taxa
Rat
Rat
Effect"
NOAEL
NOAEL - male fertility
Soil - Plants
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Total cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
White clover
Not reported
Not reported
Barley
Not reported
Soybean
Lettuce
Not reported
Lettuce
Not reported
Not reported
Multiple species
Sorgrass
Not reported
Not reported
Multiple species
Lettuce
Spinach, pea
Xanthosoma
sagittifolium
Onion
Radish
Multiple species
Seedling establishment
Phytotoxicity
Toxicity threshold
Plant weight
Phytotoxicity
Shoot weight
Shoot weight
Toxicity threshold
ECjo - 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
ECg, - seedling emergence
Derived toxicity threshold
Soil - Soil Fauna
Aluminum
Arsenic
Soil microorganism
Earthworm
Threshold value
No effect - mortality
Volume VI
VI-27
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Total cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
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
Effect1
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,,,
LC-fl
LC*
No effect
No effect - mortality
LCW
LC,,,
LCM
Threshold value
LC*
Surface Water
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
—
—
...
—
—
—
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)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (PA)
Volume VI
VI-28
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For lexicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
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/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Species/Taxa
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
_
—
—
—
Daphnia magna
Rainbow trout
—
—
Bluegill
Duckweed
—
Green algae
Green algae
—
Algae
Rainbow trout
—
—
—
._
—
Fathead minnow
Effect1
Chronic freshwater AWQC (PA, WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (PA, WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (PA)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA, PA, WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (U.S. EPA, PA, WV)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (PA)
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)
LCX
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)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (PA)
LCs, (96-hr)
Volume VI
VI-29
-------
TABLE VT-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Hydrazine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Species/Taxa
Green algae
Fathead minnow
—
—
—
Effect"
NOEC - growth
NOEC
Chronic freshwater AWQC (OH)
Chronic freshwater AWQC (WV)
Chronic freshwater AWCQ (WV)
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
Dimethyiamine
Dimethylhydrazine
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
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
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)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Calculated (partitioning-based)
Volume VI
VI-30
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Di-n-octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Dioxin/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Species/Taxa
—
—
Benthic organisms
—
Benthic organisms
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Ingestion*
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Rat
Dog
Ringed dove
Mouse
Northern bobwhite
Rat
California quail
Rat
Rat
Rat
Dog
Am. black duck
Rat
Am. black duck
Effect*
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 LDX
Increased mortality in offspring; embryotoxicity . -
NOAEL - systemic effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Offspring behavior
NOAEL
NOAEL
Volume VI
VI-31
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For Toxicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
Species/Taxa
Rat
Mink
Mallard
Rat
Dog
Japanese quail
American kestrel
Rat
Dog
Mink
Mallard
Rat
Chicken
Mouse
Mallard
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Mink
Dog
Chicken
Rat
Blackoird
Mouse
Rat
Ring dove
Mammals
Birds
Effect1
Pre- and post-implantation mortality ||
NOAEL - reproductive effects ||
NOAEL - mortality; weight gain
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Chronic lexicological 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 LDM
Spermatogenesis effects
NOAEL - developmental effects ||
NOAEL - developmental and reproductive effects
No effect
No effect on reproduction or progeny
Carcinogenicity
Single dose LDj,,
Reduction in fertility and reproductive capacity
Maternal effects (ovaries and fallopian tubes)
NOAEL - reproduction
NOAEL
NOAEL
Volume VI
VI-32
-------
TABLE VI-7
Summary of Effects For lexicological Benchmark Values
Chemical
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Species/Taxa
Mouse
Dog
Brown pelican
American kestrel
Rat
Pheasant
Rat
Mink
Japanese quail
Rat
Japanese quail
Rat
Rat
Dog
Northern bobwhite
Rat
Rat
Chicken
Rat
Mink
E. screech owl
Chicken
Effecf
NOAEL - pre-weaning mortality rate
NOAEL
NOAEL - reproduction
Decrease in eggshell thickness
No reproductive effects (3 generations)
NOAEL - reproduction
NOAEL - reproduction (4 generations)
Fetal and post-natal toxicity
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproduction (weanling weight)
NOAEL - chick survival
NOAEL - maternal toxicity
NOAEL - reproduction (3 generations)
Effects on spermatogenesis
Single dose LDy,
NOAEL - offspring survival
No effect
No effect - body weight
NOAEL - developmental effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive impairment
NOAEL - reproductive impairment
a Non-NOAEL values are adjusted using uncertainty factors (see text).
b Multiple species are reported for some chsmicals because benchmark values for some indicator
species are based on different test species (see text).
Volume VI
VI-33
-------
TABLE VI-8
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 congeners are assigned
toxicity based on the Toxicity
Equivalency Factor (TEF) scheme;
PCBs are evaluated as total PCBs.
The lexicological 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. '
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
dioxin/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 vary considerably with regard to
the number of species tested.
Professional judgement. The approach
used follows that recommended by
U.S. EPA (1995c).
This occurred infrequently.
Magnitude
of Effect
moderate
low
moderate
moderate
moderate
Direction of
Effect
unknown
unknown to
overestimate
unknown
unknown
underestimate
Importance
to Risk
Conclusions
moderate
low
high
low to
moderate
moderate
Magnitude of
Conservatism
unknown
unknown
high
moderate
low
Volume VI
VI-34
-------
TABLE VI-8
Key Assumptions for Chapter VI - Characterization of Ecological Effects
Assumption
The uncertainty factors used in the
assessment are appropriate for a
screening-level assessment.
Basis
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
high
Direction of
Effect
unknown
Importance
to Risk
Conclusions
high
Magnitude of
Conservatism
moderate to
high
Volume VI
VI-35
-------
TABLE VI-9
Summary of ECOCs Lacking Benchmarks
Medium/Exposure
Air (Inhalation - Animal)
Air (Plant)
Soil (Plant)
Soil (Soil Fauna)
Surface Water
Sediment
Dietary Ingestion (Avian Indicator Species)
Dietary Ingestion (Mammalian Indicator Species)
ECOCs Without Benchmarks
silver, thallium, benzo(a)pyrene, 2,4-D, 4,4'-DDE,
pentachlorobenzene
31 of 36
anthracene, hexachlorobutadiene,
hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene ,
hexachlorophene, peotachlorobenzene, dioxin/furan
antimony, beryllium, thallium, hexachlorophene,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
none
aluminum, beryllium, thallium
barium, beryllium, silver, thallium, benzo(a)pyrene,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, pentachlorobenzene
none
Volume VI
VI-36
-------
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 vm)27.
For each applicable exposure pathway and indicator species included within each of
the five exposure scenarios, the potential risks from stack or 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 lexicological
benchmark value for the selected indicator species, such as terreslrial planls (example
calculations are shown in Appendix VT-32). Hazard quotients exceed one when Ihe exposure
level is greater lhan Ihe lexicological benchmark. This indicates potentially moderate to high
risks, with the magnilude of Ihe hazard quotient indicating the relative magnitude of Ihe risk.
Alternatively, hazard quolienls that are less than one indicate low to negligible risks. Since
the lexicological benchmark values are based on no-effecl levels (NOAELs), exposure al Ihe
benchmark value (a hazard quotient of one) equates to low lo negligible risk. Consislenl
wilh a screening-level approach, Ihe assumptions used in Ihe SERA to derive bolh Ihe
exposure levels and Ihe lexicological benchmark values are selected in order to reduce the
likelihood of underestimating risks. Hazard quotienis lhal exceed one do nol necessarily
indicate lhal adverse effecls would occur lo Ihe ecological receptor. However, hazard
quotienis lhal exceed one do identify ECOCs, exposure palhways, and indicator species
(exposure scenarios) lhal may need lo be evaluated further in a subsequenl tier of Ihe risk
assessmenl process (PERA or DERA; see Section LA).
If none of Ihe exposure scenarios for a particular ECOC resull in hazard quotienis lhal
exceed one, Ihen lhal ECOC can be eliminated from further evaluation wilh reasonable,
assurance lhal il does nol pose a significant risk lo ecological receptors in general. This is
because Ihe indicator species or species groups included as componenls of Ihe exposure
27 Key assumptions and uncertainties associated wilh ECOC selection, characterization of
exposure, and characterization of effecls are also summarized and discussed al Ihe end
of Chapters IV, V, and VI, respectively.
Volume VI VH-1
-------
scenarios are selected to serve as representative species to evaluate potential risks to other
ecological receptors and to the overall biological community24.
Hazard quotients (HQ) are calculated for the ECOC and indicator 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 WTI facility29. Estimated maximum media concentrations (calculated at the points
of maximum air concentrations and/or total deposition) from Chapter V are compared with
chronic lexicological 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 fugitive inorganic emissions from the ash handling
facility. Only the air and surface water/sediment pathways are evaluated for fugitive organic
vapor emissions since they are comprised of volatile chemicals which would not be expected
to persist in 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 Vn-1 compares the maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations
from stack emissions, for each of the two metal stack exposure scenarios, with
available chronic lexicological benchmark values for terrestrial plants and animals.
Plant lexicological benchmarks for the air pathway are available for four of the 15
metals. Animal inhalation benchmark values are available for all bul iwo melals
(silver and thallium).
For ihe slack projected permil limil metal scenario, only nickel exceeds ils
plant benchmark value (HQ = 10). Barium exceeds ils animal inhalation benchmark
value (HQ = 3.3) and selenium is at its animal inhalation benchmark value (HQ =
1.0). All of the olher calculated hazard quotients are two or more orders of
28 In the SERA, rare, threatened, and endangered species are an exception since the
indicator species approach is nol applied to these receptors. See Section Vn.G.5 for a
discussion of potential risks to rare, threatened, and endangered species from facility
emissions.
29 Potential risks can not be evaluated where benchmark values are unavailable; these
ECOCs are noted in each of the tables in this chapter.
Volume VI VH-2
-------
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 VH-1).
For organics, plant lexicological 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 to these four ECOCs, exposure via inhalation is expected to be
relatively small in comparison to other exposure routes (particularly ingestion, for
which lexicological 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 VH-2). Although plant lexicological
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
concenlralions of Ihe other organic stack ECOCs are, at most, five limes lhal of
formaldehyde. These other organic slack ECOCs would, Iherefore, need to be many
orders of magnitude more toxic lo planls lhan formaldehyde via Ihis exposure palhway
for lliere to be an indication of significanl risk.
2. Fugitive Inorganic Emissions
Table VII-3 compares Ihe maximum predicted ground-level air concenlralions
from the ash handling facility (fly ash emissions) wilh available chronic lexicological
benchmark values for planls and animals. All of Ihe hazard quolienls are ihree or
more orders of magnilude less lhan one, suggesting lhat the risk to ecological
receptors from exposure lo emissions from Ihis source is low lo negligible.
3. Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
Tables VII-4 through VII-7 compare Ihe maximum predicted ground-level air
concentrations from each of Ihe four fugitive organic vapor emissions sources wilh
available chronic lexicological benchmark values for planls and animals. Wilh Ihe
exception of formaldehyde, all of Ihe hazard quolienls are Ihree or more orders of
magnilude less lhan one for each source. Hazard quotients for formaldehyde
inhalation exposures to animal receptors exceed one for Ihe lank farm (HQ = 1.9;
Table Vn-5), and approach one (HQ = 0.4; Table VII-6) for Ihe open waste water
tank. The highesl hazard quolienl for planl exposure lo formaldehyde was 0.01 al Ihe
Volume VI VH-3
-------
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 air 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 organic vapor sources.
4. Combined Emissions
In order to assess potential cumulative or additive effects from the multiple
sources of air emissions, exposures to fugitive inorganic emissions from the ash
handling facility are summed with the exposures to stack emissions for each metal
ECOC common to the two sources. Summing the exposures and dividing the total by
the lexicological 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 maximum 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. Both of the metal stack exposure scenarios
are evaluated in this manner.
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, the cumulative inhalation
hazard quotients are below one, with the exception of selenium (HQ = 1.0) and
barium (HQ = 3.3). 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-8).
Arsenic, cadmium, and nickel are the only metal ECOCs evaluated for both
stack and fugitive emissions for which a plant lexicological benchmark is available.
The cumulative hazard quotients for the stack projected permil limil metal scenario
are five orders of magnilude less than one for arsenic and cadmium. For nickel, ihe
hazard quolienl is 10; Ihe ash handling facility's contribution to Ihis nickel hazard '
quolienl is small compared lo Ihe slack's conlribulion. For all three metals under the
slack expected metal scenario, cumulative hazard quotienls are five or more orders of
magnilude less lhan one, indicating low lo negligible risk.
Exposures from ihe four organic vapor fugitive emission sources and from
slack emissions are summed, in ihe same manner as described above, for each ECOC
common lo Ihe sources. The potential upper-bound overestimation of risk from
Volume VI VII-4
-------
summing the hazard quotients for 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 in Table Vn-9. 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 that was evaluated for both stack and
fugitive emissions and for which a plant lexicological benchmark 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 air concentrations significantly higher than formaldehyde. If their toxicity is
not significantly greater than formaldehyde, then they too would not pose a significant
risk to plants.
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
inorganic emissions are compared with available chronic lexicological benchmark values for
plants and soil fauna. In addition, cumulative exposures are evaluated for each metal ECOC
common to both the stack and fugitive sources.
1. Stack Emissions
For the stack projected permil limil melal scenario, predicted maximum soil
concentrations for barium, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium exceed plant
lexicological benchmark values; hazard quotients are 1.9, 31, 361, 21, and 154,
respectively (Table Vn-10). The hazard quotients for the other metals are al leasl
Iwo orders of magnitude less lhan one excepl for mercury (HQ = 0.8). Hazard
quolienls for soil fauna under ihe stack projected permil limil metal scenario exceed
one for mercury (2.5), nickel (23), and selenium (7.2) (Table Vn-10). The soil fauna
hazard quotienls for the olher melals are al leasl Iwo orders of magnitude less lhan
one excepl for silver (HQ = 0.8) and barium (HQ = 0.3).
For Ihe slack expected melal scenario, planl and soil fauna hazard quolienls for
all of Ihe melals are at least two orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to
negligible risk (Table Vn-10).
Volume VI VD-5
-------
For the organic ECOCs, hazard quotients for plants and soil fauna are at least
two orders of magnitude below one, indicating low to negligible risk (Table VIE-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. However, the modeled soil
concentration for hexachlorocyclopentadiene is among the lowest for the organic
ECOCs evaluated. Thus, this chemical would need to be many orders of magnitude
more toxic than the other organic ECOCs to present a significant risk to plants or soil
fauna. Hexachlorophene, however, had one of the highest modeled soil
concentrations but would still need to be one to two orders of magnitude more toxic
than the other ECOCs to present a significant risk to plants or soil fauna.
2. Fugitive Inorganic 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 risk (Table VII-12).
3. Combined Emissions
Table Vn-13 shows the cumulative hazard quotients for plants and soil fauna
from exposure to the metal ECOCs in soils 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 Vn-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 YE-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
Volume VI VII-6
-------
stack exposure scenario, are compared with available Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(AWQC) values or derived chronic toxicological benchmark values to calculate hazard
quotients.
A similar risk analysis is conducted for fugitive inorganic emissions from the ash
handling facility and for emissions (considered together) from the four fugitive organic vapor
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
inorganic sources and for each organic ECOC common to both the stack and the fugitive
organic vapor 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 VH-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 risk 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 risk for these
chemicals from 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 risk for
this scenario (Table Vn-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 risk for these chemicals from surface water exposures (Table
Vn-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 VH-18). For the stack expected
metal scenario, all hazard quotients are at least three (and usually more than
Volume VI VH-7
-------
six) orders of magnitude less than one, indicating low to negligible risk for
this scenario from surface water exposures (Table Vn-18). For organic
ECOCs in Little Beaver Creek, all hazard quotients are at least three orders of
magnitude less than one, indicating low to negligible risk for these chemicals
from surface water exposures (Table VII-19).
2. Fugitive Inorganic Emissions
For the inorganic ECOCs in fugitive fly ash, 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 risk (Table Vn-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
risk (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 from 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 Vn-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 risk (Table VH-22).
Table VTI-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 fugitive organic vapor 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 risk (Table VII-23).
D. Sediment
*'
As was done for surface water exposures (Section Vn.C), risk characterization for
sediment exposures is conducted for the Ohio River, Little Beaver Creek, and Tomlinson
Volume VI VH-8
-------
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
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 lexicological
benchmark values to derive hazard quotients. Toxicological 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 inorganic emissions from the ash
handling facility and for emissions (considered together) from the four fugitive organic vapor
sources. In addition to the separate analyses for stack and fugitive inorganic emissions,
cumulative exposures are evaluated for each metal ECOC common to both the stack and
fugitive inorganic sources, and for each organic ECOC common to both the stack and the
four fugitive organic vapor 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 VQ-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 risk 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 risk 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 low to 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 low to negligible risk from sediment exposures for this
exposure scenario (Table VQ-26). For organic ECOCs in Tomlinson Run
Lake sediments, all hazard quotients are at least three orders of magnitude less
than one, indicating low to negligible risk for these chemicals from sediment
exposures (Table VII-27).
Volume VI VH-9
-------
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 risk from sediment exposures for this exposure
scenario (Table Vn-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 risk for these chemicals from sediment
exposures (Table VII-29).
2. Fugitive Inorganic 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 risk (Table VII-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 negb'gible
risk (Table VH-31).
4. Combined Emissions
Table VII-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 vn-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 VTI-32).
Table Vn-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 fugitive organic vapor sources. All cumulative hazard quotients are at least
Volume VI Vfl-10
-------
five orders of magnitude less than one at each of the three water bodies, indicating
low to negligible risk (Table VII-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 Vn.C and vn.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 (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, such
as water volume and flow rate, 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 to some
degree. 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 with chronic oral lexicological benchmark values for each
of the seven bird/mammal indicator species.
A similar risk analysis is conducted for fugitive inorganic emissions from the ash '
handling facility. In addition to the separate analyses for stack and fugitive inorganic
emissions, cumulative exposures are evaluated for the metal ECOCs common to both the
stack and fugitive inorganic sources.
Volume VI VH-11
-------
1. Stack Metal Scenarios
Avian ingestion toxicological 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 vn-34 through VTI-40).
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario at Tomlinson Run
Lake, four of the 15 metal ECOCs have hazard quotients exceeding one,
including selenium for four indicator species, thallium 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 1.03 for barium (short-tailed shrew) (Tables VII-34 through
VII-40). 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 greater distance from the WTI
facility, resulting in 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
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
Volume VI VII-12
-------
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 VII-34 through VTJ-40). 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 vn-34 through VII-40). 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 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 (Tables VII-41 through VII-
47). The American robin has a hazard quotient of 0.2 for hexachlorophene (Table
VH-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 '
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.
Volume VI VH-13
-------
3. Fugitive Inorganic 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 VII-48). Thus, low to negligible risks are predicted for
food chain exposures to fugitive inorganic ECOCs.
4. Combined Emissions
Tables vn-49 through Vn-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 combined emissions 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
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 Little Beaver Creek (Table VII-
51).
Volume VI VH-14
-------
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 Vn-52 and VII-53 list those instances where hazard
quotients exceed one. Table Vn-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 WTT
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
lexicological 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. It should be noted that these six metals
are the only metals for which existing permit limits are based on a removal efficiency
of zero, that is, they are based on the assumption that the entire mass of these metals
in the waste stream would be emitted from the stack (see Volume HI). While the
magnitude of the exceedences for this exposure scenario 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, this scenario contains many
unrealistically conservative assumptions. Emissions at the levels predicted, while
theoretically possible, are extremely unlikely.
A summary of the hazard quotients that exceed one for the stack projected
permit limit metal scenario for air, surface soil, surface water, and sediment is
contained in Table VII-52. Table VII-53 contains a summary of the hazard quotients
that exceed one for ingestion exposures of the seven bird and mammal indicator
species.
Volume VI VH-15
-------
2. Stack Expected Metal Scenario
The stack expected metal scenario includes, as a component, emissions rates
based on estimated annual average emissions at full waste capacity. These emission
rates are derived from trial bums, 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 at 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 Vn-52 and VII-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 VTI-54). The implications of these two
hazard quotients within an order of magnitude of one are discussed in Section Vn.H.
Tables VTI-55 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 seven orders of magnitude lower than for the stack projected permit
limit metal scenario. Except for mercury, the metal with the lowest relative
difference between the two scenarios, these differences are mainly attributable to the
removal efficiencies used in estimating emission rates for these two scenarios. As
noted previously, the permit limits for six of the metals (barium, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, and thallium) are based on an assumed removal efficiency of zero,
and these permit limits were used as emission rates in the stack projected permit limit
metal scenario. The emission rates used in the stack expected metal scenario were
based on measured or modeled removal efficiencies. Only mercury had a measured
or modeled removal efficiency near zero (which accounts for the relatively small
difference between the two scenarios). Removal efficiencies for the other metals were
near 100 percent, which accounts for the relatively large differences between the two
scenarios for barium, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium (see Volume HI). Thus,
most of the risks attributed to these six metals for the stack permit limit metal
Volume VI VH-16
-------
scenario are the result of unrealistically low (except for mercury) removal
efficiencies.
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.
There are no exceedences of lexicological benchmark values for organic stack
ECOCs, indicating low to negligible risks for ecological receptors (Tables vn-52 and
vn-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 for
hexachlorophene (HQ of 0.2) (Table VH-54).
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 WIT 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 fugitive
inorganic ECOCs, and all hazard quotients are at least two orders of magnitude less
than one, indicating low to negligible risk for ecological receptors (Tables Vn-52 and
Vn-53).
5. Fugitive Organic Scenario
Hazard quotients for formaldehyde inhalation exposure to animals exceed one
for fugitive organic 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 Vn.H.
For all other fugitive organic 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
risk to animals and plants from these exposures.
Volume VI VH-17
-------
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
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 (in 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 (in 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 in the assessment
methodology (see Chapter Vm) is a factor in determining the level of confidence that can be
placed in the endpoint evaluation.
Each of five assessment endpoints is evaluated in the SERA using measurement
endpoints appropriate to a screening-level assessment (see Section n.A.3 and Table n-1).
The measurement endpoints are chronic toxicity benchmarks 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 in Section VH.H.
While the screening-level risk characterization in the SERA focuses on direct toxic
effects (primarily for growth and reproductive lexicological endpoints) to selected indicator
species under various exposure scenarios, some aspects of potential indirect effects (such as
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. Reproductive Integrity of Bird and Mammal Populations
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
Volume VI VII-18
-------
risks to bird and mammal populations in general. Conservative chronic lexicological-
benchmarks (NOAELs), based primarily on reproductive effects, 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.
There is a prediction of moderate to high risks 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. Low to negligible risks to the reproductive integrity of bird and
mammal populations (hazard quotients less than one) are predicted for the metal stack
ECOCs under the stack expected metal scenario and for organic stack ECOCs
(Section vn.F). 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. Biological Integrity of Terrestrial Plant Communities
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 not selected; ralher, data
for all planl species (including agricultural crops30) are considered.
Measurement endpoints are chronic lexicological benchmarks for terreslrial
planl species based on foliar (air) and rool (soil) exposures. The mosl relevanl
chronic lexicological benchmark for growlh or reproductive effecls to Ihe mosl
sensitive species for which data are available is used to assess risks to terreslrial
vegetation from long-term exposure to each ECOC.
Hazard quotienls exceed one for five metal ECOCs under Ihe slack projected
permil limil melal scenario; one from air exposure and all five from soil exposure al
30 While domesticated species, including agricullural crops, are nol included in Ihe formal
definition of "ecological receptors" and are oulside Ihe scope of Ihe SERA, Ihe
ecoloxicological dala for Ihe ECOCs are applicable to crop species. In facl, much of Ihe
available data for plants are for crop species. Therefore, the-risk analysis oulcome for
Ihe SERA would also be generally applicable to agricullural crops presenl wilhin Ihe
assessmenl area surrounding Ihe WTI facility.
Volume VI VH-19
-------
the maximum impact point. Low to negligible risks to terrestrial plant communities
are predicted for metal stack ECOCs under the stack expected metal scenario and for
organic stack ECOCs (Sections VILA [air] and Vn.B [soil]). While there are a
number of ECOCs for which plant toxicological benchmarks 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. Low to negligible
risks to terrestrial plant communities are predicted for fugitive emissions.
3. Ecological Integrity of Aquatic Communities
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 third assessment
endpoint focuses on potential risks to the aquatic communities (aquatic plants,
invertebrates, and fish) within these water bodies from exposure to WTI emissions.
This evaluation is accomplished through the use of applicable state or federal chronic
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for the Protection of Aquatic Life (the
measurement endpoints), which are available for most of the ECOCs and are intended
to be protective of aquatic communities. Chronic toxicological benchmarks based on
the most sensitive freshwater species and life stage reported in the AQUIRE data base
are derived for those ECOCs without existing AWQCs. Published sediment guideline
values or derived chronic toxicological benchmarks based on equilibrium partitioning
are also used.
Hazard quotients exceed one for a single metal (silver) in Ohio River surface
water under the stack projected permit limit metal scenario. There are no
exceedences of sediment benchmark values for any stack exposure scenario. The
evaluation of metal stack ECOCs under the stack expected metal scenario and of
organic stack ECOCs indicate that the integrity of the aquatic community withuxeach
of the three water bodies evaluated is not likely to be adversely impacted (see
Sections Vn.C and Vn.D). Risks to aquatic communities from fugitive emissions are
predicted to be low to negligible for the ash handling facility and for the fugitive
organic vapor sources.
4. Integrity of 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. In the
Volume VI VH-20
-------
context of the SERA, food chains are represented by key organisms at lower trophic
levels, such as terrestrial plants (which are consumed by herbivores, which are in turn
consumed by carnivores). Because a number of the ECOCs have the potential to
enter the food chain via bioaccumulation from soil, surface water, or sediment, this
fourth assessment endpoint focuses on whether the food chains are likely to be
disrupted due to adverse impacts to lower or mid trophic level organisms, including
terrestrial plants, soil fauna (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, their place in the various exposure pathways to higher
trophic level species (predators), and because they represent groups for which toxicity
data exist for some or all of the ECOCs. This evaluation is accomplished through the
use of conservative chronic lexicological benchmarks for each of the indicator species
or species groups that are selected to represent prey groups in aquatic and/or
terrestrial food chains (the measurement endpoints).
For a total of six metals under the stack projected permit limit metal scenario,
moderate to high risks are predicted for terrestrial plants and soil fauna (due to soil
exposures), 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). 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. Low to
negligible risks are predicted for terrestrial plants, soil fauna, aquatic biota, and small
mammals from exposure to metal stack ECOCs under the stack expected metal
scenario and to organic stack ECOCs (see Section VQ.F). Moderate potential risks
are predicted for inhalation exposures to formaldehyde for the two small mammal
species from fugitive organic vapor emissions.
5. Exposure Potential of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
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 by
evaluating 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
Volume VI VH-21
-------
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
site characterization (see Section IQ.D.6). At the predicted maximum concentration
points for ECOCs (all are 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 WIT facility,
it is possible that these species could be present at or near the points of projected
maximum deposition, at least periodically. However, predicted risks to aquatic
communities are low to negligible (see Section Vn.G.3) 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 HI). At this distance from the facility (five
to 10-km), the predicted air and soil concentrations are below the plant lexicological
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
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 in 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. However, as discussed
Volume VI VTI-22
-------
in Chapter I, the stack projected permit limit metal scenario (which accounted for all
but one of these exceedences) is not representative of the expected metal emissions
(and the resulting risks) from the facility stack.
6. Summary of Assessment Endpoint Evaluation
In summary, five assessment endpoints were identified for evaluation during
the Problem Formulation component of the SERA (Chapter n); specific measurement
endpoints are established and applied to the evaluation of each assessment endpoint.
For the stack projected permit limit metal scenario, 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 WT1 incinerator. These
predicted risks are not representative of expected emissions from the facility stack,
however. Risks to the ecological values represented by these assessment endpoints
are determined to be low to negligible for metal ECOCs under the stack expected
metal scenario and for organic stack ECOCs. Risks from fugitive inorganic emissions
are also predicted to be low to negligible. However, moderate risks to animal species
are predicted from inhalation exposures to formaldehyde present in fugitive organic
vapor emissions. The implications of this potential risk are discussed in the following
section.
H. Risk Analysis
Consistent with a screening-level assessment, the SERA uses exposure assumptions
and lexicological benchmark values that are not likely to underestimate potential risks. The
degree of conservatism of the key parameters used in the assessment is summarized in Table
vn-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. High-end or best
estimate emission rates, and maximum deposition rates, are used in all five exposure
scenarios (Table Vn-57). Exposures from the stack and fugitive sources are summed for
ECOCs common to two or more sources. In regard to the spatial and temporal 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.
Volume VI VH-23
-------
In addition, soil and sediment 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 in a higher degree of confidence in 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 uncertahlty factor used for limited data
sets and smaller uncertahlty factors used with more extensive data sets.
The choice of the exposure and effect parameters used hi the SERA results hi
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.
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 ah- 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 for
mercury).31
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 and assumed metal removal efficiencies of zero for each of the six metals
with hazard quotients exceeding one. 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
31The use of mercury fish BAFs from the Mercury Study Report to Congress (see Section
V.G.4.C) would increase the hazard quotients for mercury from ingestion exposures of the mink
and belted kingfisher by a factor of 2.2 and 2.6, respectively, from the values presented hi this
chapter. This increase would not, however, alter the conclusions of the SERA regarding the
extent and magnitude of risks for these two indicator species for the two stack metal exposure
scenarios.
Volume VI VII-24
-------
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. Quantifying 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 PERA or DERA level. The
implications of such high metal exposures for rare, threatened, and endangered species that
may inhabit the assessment area would have to be determined from a biological assessment
(not a PERA or DERA). However, because this scenario is not considered to be realistic,
but rather represents an absolute upper-bound condition, additional assessments do not appear
to be warranted. This is discussed in Chapter IX.
Low to negligible risks to ecological receptors are predicted for the stack expected
metal scenario, the stack high-end organic scenario, and the fugitive inorganic scenario.
Given the generally conservative methodology used in the SERA, there is a relatively high
degree of confidence in these predictions of low to negligible risk. While no hazard
quotients exceeded one for any of these three scenarios, there were a few hazard quotients
within an order of magnitude of one. For the stack expected metal scenario, one mammalian
indicator species (short-tailed shrew) had hazard quotients for thallium and selenium dietary
exposures between 0.1 and 1.0 at the point of maximum deposition. However, the point of
maximum stack deposition is located in a developed area within the fenced portion 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 at any level of exposure.
One organic stack ECOC (hexachlorophene) also had hazard quotients between 0.1
and 1.0 at the maximum exposure point. As discussed in Chapter IV, not all of the organic
mass emitted from the stack during facility testing could be attributed to specific chemicals.
In the HHRA, chemical concentrations were prorated by a factor of 2.5 for organic
chemicals other than dioxin/furan, and by a factor of 1.5 for dioxin/furan, to account for
potential underestimation of risks due to this uncharacterized mass (see Volumes III and V).
Applying these adjustment factors to the hazard quotients listed hi Table VTI-54 for
hexachlorophene, hazard quotients still remain below one. In addition, the developed nature
of the habitat present at the point of maximum deposition is unlikely to support significant
numbers of ecological receptors, as discussed in the previous paragraph.
Finally, low to negligible risks to ecological receptors are predicted for the fugitive
organic scenario, with one exception. For animal inhalation exposures to formaldehyde, 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
emissions from this fugitive source occur at ground level, potential risks to ecological
receptors should be limited to the area in the immediate vicinity of this source. To confirm
this, concentrations of formaldehyde in air were calculated for each of the nodal points used
Volume VI VII-25
-------
in the dispersion model (see Volume IV) which surround the predicted location of maximum
air concentrations associated with the tank farm source. The formaldehyde concentration at
each of these nodal points was then compared to the inhalation benchmark for formaldehyde.
Based on this comparison, only five nodal points (including the maximum point) exceeded
the benchmark (HQs ranged from 1.1 to 1.9). The area covered by these nodes is less than
one acre and is contained entirely within the fenced-in portion of the facility property. Given
that the habitats within the facility boundary are developed (as discussed above), it is unlikely
that species other than those common to urban areas would be exposed to these predicted
concentrations. Even then, exposures would be limited to relatively few individuals within
the populations of these species. Risks in surrounding areas more distant from this source,
where habitat quality is higher and receptor communities are more diverse, would likely be
low to negligible as air concentrations decrease significantly with distance. Thus, risks to
ecological populations and/or communities from exposure to formaldehyde in air are not
likely to be ecologically significant and do not warrant further study or corrective actions.
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. These assumptions/uncertainties
include those that are inherent given the screening-level nature of the SERA, 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.
Chapter VIII provides further discussion of two key uncertainties associated with the
risk characterization, the chemical-by-chemical evaluation approach used and the receptor
groups which were not addressed in the SERA. Both of these aspects are limitations
generally applicable to all prospective ecological risk assessments. Tjjese are the two
assumptions/uncertainties listed in Table VII-58 for which the conservatism applied in the
SERA was low relative to the potential impact on the risk conclusions.
Volume VI VII-26
-------
TABLE VIM
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Air Concentration
(/ig/m3)
Plant Benchmark
(/»g/ms)
Plant Hazard
Quotient
Animal Benchmark
0»g/m3)
Animal Hazard
Quotient
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.46x NT"
l.OOx KT1
5.01 x 10'
3.28 x 10*
1.73x KT*
1.37x KT1
1.09x Ifr3
8.01 x Ifr2
2.00 x 101
4.00 x 10°
3.00 x 10°
5.00 x 10°
—
3.90 x 10°
—
—
2.80 x 102
—
—
5.60 x 10'
2.00 x 10°
...
—
—
—
2.56 x 105
—
—
6.18x 107
—
—
1.43x Ifr3
1.00 x 10'
—
—
—
1.84x 10'
2.60 x 10°
1.52 x 10'
2.80 x 10°
2.00 x 10°
l.OOx 10'
2.20 x 10°
l.OOx 10°
4.00 x 102
4.00 x 10°
—
—
7.93 x 10*
3.85 x 10s
3.29 x 10°
1.17x 10*
8.65 x 10s
1.37x 10s
4.95 x lO^4
8.01 x Itf2
5.00 x 102
1.00 x 10°
—
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
2.18x NT4
3.82 x 10*
3.37 x Ifr5
1.37x 10^
3.00 x 10*
—
—
3.90 x 10°
—
—
—
—
8.64 x 10-6
—
—
4.20 x 10'
1.84x 10'
2.60 x 10°
1.52x 10'
2.80 x 10°
5.19x 10*
2.08 x 107
1.29x 10s
9.01 x 10*
1.07x 10*
Volume VI
VII-27
-------
TABLE VIM
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicologies! Benchmark Values for Plants and Anunals - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Air Concentration
(j»g/mj)
1.46x \&s
6.46 x 107
8.55 x la5
3.91 x la5
1.27 x 103
4.55 x 10*
4.28 x KT1
1.37x Iff5
3.09 x 10s
1.09x 10*
Plant Benchmark
0»g/mJ)
2.80 x 102
—
—
—
5.60 x 10'
2.00 x 10°
—
—
—
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
5.21 x 10*
—
—
—
2.27 x ltfs
2.28 x 10*
—
—
—
—
Animal Benchmark
0«g/mJ)
2.00 x 10°
l.OOx 10'
1.20x 10'
2.20 x 10°
l.OOx 10°
4.00 x 102
4.00 x 10°
—
—
2.20 x 10'
Animal Hazard
Quotient
7.30 x 10*
6.46 x 10*
7.13 x 10*
1.78x 10 -s
1.27 x la3
1.14x 10*
1.07x 10^
—
—
4.95 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-28
-------
TABLE VII-2 I!
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/m')
2.64 x lO'3
l.OOx 10 5
l.OOx 10 5
4.76 x 10 5
3.70 x \0^
1.26x \0*
3.53 x 105
l.OOx 10*
5.52 x 10*
l.OOx 10 5
9.19x 10 5
l.OOx 10s
2.91 x 10s
4.33 x 103
l.OOx 10 5
3.08 x 10 7
4.46 x 10^
Plant Benchmark
0*g/m3)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8.80 x 10'
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
...
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6.27 x 10*
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Animal Benchmark
G*g/ms)
6.30 x 102
2.00 x 102
—
2.00 x 104
4.00 x 10'
8.00 x 10'
—
—
4.80 x 10-'
1.60x 104
1.07x 103
5.58 x 10'
3.34 x 10'
—
5.00 x 102
l.SOx 103
1.28x 10s
Animal Hazard
Quotient ||
4.19x10-* |
5.00 x 10*
—
2.38 x 10 9
9.25 x 10* I
1. 58x10*
...
—
1.15x 10 3
6.25 x 10 10
8.59 x 10*
1.79x 10 7
8.71 x 10 7
—
2.00 x 10*
2.05 x ia'°
3.48 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-29
-------
TABLE VII-3
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Fugitive Inorganic Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
'iotal Cyanide
Air Concentration
0*g/m»)
2.12 x 10-*
5.83 x 10-5
4.24 x 10'
1.39x 10°
2.70 x 10s
9.47 x 10-6
l.SOx 10 5
1.67x 10 3
Plant Benchmark
0»g/m3)
3.90x 10°
—
2.80 x 102
—
2.00 x 10°
—
—
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
5.44 x 105
—
1.51 x ID'3
—
1.35 x 10s
—
...
—
Animal Benchmark
Otg/m')
2.60 x 10°
1.52x 10'
2.00 x 10°
2.20 x 10°
4.00 x 102
4.00 x 10°
—
9.88 x 102
Animal Hazard
Quotient
8.15x 10s
3.83 x 10-6
2.12x 103
6.32 x 10-4
6.75 x 10*
2.37 x 1O*
—
1.69x 10*
Volume VI
VII-30
-------
TABLE VII-4
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions - Carbon Absorption Bed
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Air Concentration
0*g/m3)
4.47 x 103
1.21 x 10^
3.02 x KT1
1.14x ID'3
2.56 x 103
6.53 x 10*
Plant Benchmark
0«g/m3)
—
—
—
—
8.80 x 10'
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
—
—
...
—
2.91 x 10s
—
Animal Benchmark
0*g/mJ)
6.30 x 102
6.72 x 105
4.00 x 10'
2.54 x 104
4.80 x 10'
2.00 x 10°
Animal Hazard
Quotient
7.10x 10*
l.SOx 10 10
7.55 x 10*
4.49 x 10*
5.33 x 103
3.27 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-31
-------
TABLE Vn-5
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions - Tank Farm
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Air Concentration
C*g/m')
1.60x Iff
4.34 x 10-2
l.OSx 10-'
4.08 x 10 '
9.17 x 10'
2.34 x 10'3
Plant Benchmark
G*g/mJ)
—
—
—
—
8.80 x 10'
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
—
—
—
—
1.04x 10 2
—
Animal Benchmark
(jig/m3)
6.30 x 102
6.72 x 10s
4.00 x 10'
2.54 x 104
4.80 x 10 '
2.00 x 10°
Animal Hazard
Quotient
2.54 x 103
6.46 x 10*
2.70 x 103
1.61 x 10 5
1.91 x 10°
1.17x 10 3
Volume VI
VII-32
-------
TABLE VII-6
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions - Open Waste Water Tank
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Air Concentration
Otg/m3)
3.17x 10-'
8.59 x 103
2.13x 10 2
8.06 x 102
1.81 x JO'1
4.62 x 10^
Plant Benchmark
0«g/m3)
—
—
—
—
8.80 x 10'
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
—
—
—
—
2.05 x 103
—
Animal Benchmark
C*g/m3)
6.30 x 102
6.72 x 105
4.00 x 10'
2.54 x 104
4.80 x 10 '
2.00 x 10°
Animal Hazard
Quotient
5.03 x \0*
1.28x 10*
5.33 x 10^
3.17x 10^
3.77 x 10 '
2.31 x \0*
Volume VI
VII-33
-------
TABLE VII-7
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Ground-Level Air Concentrations
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Animals
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions - Truck Wash
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Air Concentration
G«g/m3)
l.SOx 10 2
4.07 x 10*
1.01 x 10'
3.82 x 10 3
8.59 x 101
2.19x 10 5
Plant Benchmark
G*g/m3)
—
—
—
—
8.80 x 10'
—
Plant Hazard
Quotient
—
—
—
...
9.76 x 10 5
—
Animal Benchmark
0«g/mJ)
6.30 x 102
6.72 x 105
4.00 x 10'
2.54 x 104
4.80 x 10'
2.00 x 10°
Animal Hazard
Quotient
2.38 x 103
6.06 x 10 10
2.53 x 105
l.SOx 10 7
1.78x 10 2
l.lOx 10 5
Volume VI
VII-34
-------
TABLE Vn-8
Summed Animal Inhalation Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ash Handling
Facility
8.15x 10 5
3.83 x 10-6
2.12x 10 '
6.32 x 10*
6.75 x 10*
2.37 x 10-6
—
Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal
Scenario
3.85 x 10s
3.29 x 10'
8.65 x 10s
4.95 x 10*
5.00 x 10 2
1.00 x 10*
—
Summed Hazard
Quotient
1.20x 10*
3.29 x 10°
2.21 x 103
1.13x 10 3
5.00 x 102
1.00 x 10°
—
Stack
Expected Metal
Scenario
1.29x 10 5
9.01 x 10^
7.30 x 10*
1.78x 10 5
1.14x 10*
1.07x 10^
—
Summed Hazard
Quotient
9.44 x 10s
1.28x 10s
2.13x 10 3
6.50 x 10^
7.89 x 10*
1.09x 10^
—
Volume VI
VH-35
-------
TABLE VII-9
Summed Animal Inhalation Hazard Quotients - All Organic ECOC Sources
Chemical
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Dimethylamine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Hazard Quotients for Individual Sources
Stack
4.19 x 10*
...
9.25 x 10*
—
l.lSx 10 3
—
Carbon
Absorption Bed
7.10x 10*
1.80x 10 10
7.55 x 10*
4.49 x 10*
5.33 x 10 3
3.27 x 10*
Tank Farm
2.54 x 103
6.46 x 10*
2.70 x 10°
1.61 x 10 5
1.91 x 10°
1.17x 103
Open Waste
Water Tank
5.03 x 10-*
1.28x 10*
5.33 x 10*
3.17x 10*
3.77 x 10'
2.31 x W
Truck Wash
2.38 x 10-5
6.06 x 10 10
2.53 x 105
l.SOx 10 7
1.78x ia2
l.lOx ias
Summed Hazard
Quotient
3.08 x 10J
7.82 x 10*
3.28 x 10°
1.95x 10s
2.31 x 10°
1.42x 10 3
Volume VI
VII-36
-------
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)
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
2.02 x 103
6.08 x 10 3
9.23 x 102
5.92 x 10*
3.56 x 10*
3.01 x 102
2.51 x 10'
2.53 x 10 '
9.16x 102
3.61 x 102
4.16x 10'
1.54x 102
5.00 x 10°
3.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
1.00 x 10'
3.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
3.00 x 10'
3.00 x 10 '
3.00 x 10'
1.00 x 10°
2.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
Plant Hazard
Quotient
Soil Fauna
Benchmark (mg/kg)
Soil Fauna Hazard
Quotient
4.04 x 10*
2.03 x 103
1.85 x 10°
5.92 x I0r5
1.19 x. 10*
3.01 x 102
8.35 x 103
8.43 x 10 -'
3.05 x 10l
3.61 x 10Z
2.08 x 10'
1.54 x 10*
—
2.50 x 10'
3.00 x 103
—
l.OOx 10'
4.00 x 10 '
5.00 x 102
1 .00 x 10 '
4.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10'
—
—
2.43 x 10^
3.08 x 10-'
—
3.56 x 10s
7.53 x 102
5.01 x 10^
2.53 x 10°
2.29 x 10'
7.23 x 10°
8.33 x la1
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
6.71 x 102
5.30 x 10 5
2.05 x 103
2.52 x 103
5.43 x 10-6
5.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10°
3.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
1.00 x 10'
1.34x 10°
1.06x 10s
6.82 x 10^
5.04 x 10-6
5.43 x 107
6.00 x 102
—
2.50 x 10'
3.00 x 103
—
1.12 x 10U
—
8.18x 10s
8.40 x 107
—
Volume VI
VH-37
-------
TABLE VIMO
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Soil Fauna - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
3.00 x 105
1.43x lO"'
9.24 x 10*
8.98 x 103
4.02 x 10 3
2.08 x \0*
3.86 x 102
1.89x 10^
9.50 x 10 3
1.35x 10 3
Plant Benchmark
(mg/kg)
3.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
2.00 x 10'
3.00 x 10'
3.00 x la1
3.00 x 10'
1.00 x 10°
2.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
5.00 x 10'
Plant Hazard
Quotient
l.OOx 10s
1.43x 10*
4.62 x 10s
2.99 x 10*
1.34x 10 2
6.94 x 10*
3.86 x 10 2
9.46 x la5
9.50 x 10 3
2.69 x 10s
Soil Fauna
Benchmark (mg/kg)
l.OOx 10'
4.00 x 10 '
3.20 x 10'
5.00 x 102
l.OOx 10'
4.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10'
—
9.70 x 10'
Soil Fauna Hazard
Quotient
3.00 x 10*
3.57 x ID"4
2.89 x 10s
l.SOx 10s
4.02 x I0r2
5.20 x 10^
7.72 x 10^
3.79 x 10*
—
1.39x 10 5
Volume VI
VII-38
-------
TABLE VII-11
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Soil Fauna - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
5.64 x 10 3
1.18x 10^
3.88 x 105
5.33 x 10-6
4.04 x 10 5
3.01 x 107
1.57x 10*
2.15x \0*
7.03 x 10-6
7.94 x 10^
3.55 x 10*
1.97x ID'5
3.24 x ID'5
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 107
1.57x 10*
8.09 x 10-6
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.92 x 1O*
8.10x 10 7
Soil Fauna
Benchmark (mg/kg)
3.74 x 102
2.60 x 10'
2.50 x 10'
4.70 x 102
2.00 x 103
5.00 x 10°
7.63 x 10 '
7.60 x Itf3
—
—
1.15x 10'
4.00 x 10°
2.30 x 102
Soil Fauna Hazard
Quotient
1.51 x 10 3
4.54 x 10-6
1.55x 10"6
1.13x 10^
2.02 x 10*
6.03 x 10*
2.06 x 10*
2 83 x 102
—
—
3.09 x 10 3
4.92 x 10-6
1.41 x 10 3
Volume VI
VII-39
-------
TABLE ¥0-12
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Soil Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Plants and Soil Fauna - Fugitive Inorganic 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 5
4.96 x 10*
1.81 x 10 2
7.02 x 10 5
4.87 x 103
1.18x 10 5
5.58 x 10*
Plant Benchmark
(mg/kg)
3.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
3.00 x 10°
3.00 x 10'
3.00 x 10'
1.00 x 10°
2.00 x 10°
6.00 x W
Plant Hazard
Quotient
2.43 x 10*
1.22 x 10 7
1.65x 10*
6.04 x 10*
2.34 x 10^
4.87 x 105
5.90 x 10-6
9.29 x 10*
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 10 2
Soil Fauna Hazard
Quotient
2.92 x ia5
2.03 x 10*
4.96 x 10s
3.62 x 105
1.76 x 10^
9.74 x 107
2.36 x 107
3.10x 10-*
VI
VII-40
-------
TABLE VII-13
Summed Plant and Soil Fauna Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources
Chemical
Ash Handling
Facility
Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal
Scenario
Summed Hazard
Quotient
Stack
Expected Metal
Scenario
Plants
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
2.43 x 10"
1.22x 10 7
1.65x 10"
6.04 x 10"
2.34 x 10*
4.87 x 10s
5.90 x 10*
2.03 x 103
1.85 x 10*
1.19x 10"
8.35 x 103
3.05 x 101
3.61 x 102
2.08 x 10'
2.27 x 103
1.85 x 10°
2.84 x 10"
8.95 x 103
3.05 x 10'
3.61 x 102
2.08 x 10'
6.82 x 10"
5.04 x 10*
l.OOx 10 5
2.99 x 10"
6.94 x 10*
3.86 x lO"2
9.46 x 10 5
Summed Hazard
Quotient
9.25 x 10"
5.16x 10*
1.75x 10"
9.03 x 10"
9.28 x 10*
3.86 x 102
1.01 x 10"
Soil Fauna
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Le*d
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
2.92 x 105
2.03 x 10*
4.96 x 105
3.62 x 105
1.76x 10*
9.74 x 107
2.36 x 107
2.43 x 10"
3.08 x 10 '
3.56 x 105
5.01 x 10"
2.29 x 10'
7.23 x 10*
8.33 x 10 '
2.72 x 10"
3.08 x 10'
8.52 x 105
5.37 x 10"
2.29 x 101
7.23 x 10'
8.33 x 10 '
8.18x 10 3
8.40 x 10 7
3.00 x 10*
l.SOx 10s
5.20 x 10*
7.72 x 10"
3.79 x 10*
1.11 x 10"
8.60 x 107
5.26 x 10s
5.42 x 103
6.96 x 10*
7.73 x 10"
4.03 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-41
-------
TABLE Vn-14
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Surface Water
Concentration (fig/L)
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.50 x lO'5
2.59 x ID'5
6.50 x 10°
1.11 x 10-*
4.27 x 10*
4.76 x lO'5
3.83 x KT1
1.72 x 10-3
4.59 x 10°
1.17x 10°
3.10x 10-'
1.82x 10-'
Chronic Benchmark
(t&D
Hazard Quotient
3.00 x 10'
1.90 x 102
4.10x 103
1.06 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10'
2.50 x 10°
1.20 x lO'2
1.60 x 102
4.60 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
1.30 x 10'
5.01 x lO'7
1.36 x lO'7
1.59 x lO'3
1.05 x 10-*
4.27 x 10-*
4.76 x 10-6
1.53 x 10-4
1.43 x ID'1
2.87 x 1C'2
2.55 x ID'1
2.58 x 10°
1.40 x lO'2
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
7.94 x ID'5
3.95 x lO'7
8.70 x 10-6
1.77 x lO'5
1.02 x lO*
3.60 x 107
2.25 x 10-7
7.16x 10*
1.37 x 10's
2.73 x lO'5
1.04x lO"6
1.25 x 10-1
1.41 x 10-6
1.13x 10-'
8.70 x 10'
3.00 x 10'
1.90x 102
4.10x 103
1.06 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10'
l.lOx 101
2.50 x 10°
1.20x lO'2
1.60 x 102
4.60 x 10°
1.20 x ID'1
1.30 x 10'
9.13 x lO'7
1.32 x 10-8
4.58 x 10-8
4.33 x ID'9
9.59 x 10*
3.60 x 10'7
2.25 x 10-8
6.51 x Vf .
5.49 x 10-6
2.28 x ID'3
6.52 x 10-9 1
2.72 x 10-s 1
1.17x10-'
8.65 x lO'7 1
Volume VI
Vn-42
-------
TABLE VH-14
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Zinc
Surface Water
Concentration (/tg/L)
1.02 x It)'3
Chronic Benchmark
Qg/L)
9.00 x 10'
Hazard Quotient
1.14x ID'7
Volume VI
VH-43
-------
TABLE VH-15
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic 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
Dioxin/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Surface Water
Concentration (/tg/L)
2.24 x 1C'7
2.57 x 10-"
4.20 x 10-8
1.24 x ID'7
2.32 x ID'7
2.66 x ID'7
1.18x 10^
1.47 x 10-8
4.44 x ID"8
2.90 x lO'9
2.42 x 10'7
9.72 x 10-"
6.61 x 10-"
5.56 x 10-"
3.04 x lO'7
1.78 x 1C'7
5.03 x 10-'
9.90 x lO'7
3.06 x lO'7
1.73 x 10-*
2.24 x 10-"
1.56x ID'7
Chronic Benchmark
Gig/L)
7.80 x 104
7.70 x 10-'
4.40 x 10"'
1.60x lO'2
8.40 x 10°
1.57 x 10'
3.50 x 10°
l.OOx 10'
2.40 x 10"s
3.00 x 10°
1.15x 105
7.60 x 10-6
4.36 x Iff
l.OOx lO'3
7.40 x lO"4
2.00 x 10"
l.OOx 10°
2.10x 10 2
5.50 x 10'
8.60 x 10°
7.90 x ID'5
5.25 x 102
Hazard Quotient
2.87 x 10-'2
3.33 x 10-"
9.54 x lO*
7.78 x 10-6
2.76 x 10-*
1.69x 10-*
3.38 x 10"9
1.47 x 10-'
1.85 x 10'3
9.65 x 10-'°
2.10x 10-'2
1.28 x lO'5
1.52x 10-'°
5.56 x 10*
4.11 x 10-1
8.90 x 10-"
5.03 x 10'
4.71 x lO'5
5.57 x 10"9
2.01 x 10-9
2.83 x 10-*
2.97 x lO'1-0'
Volume VI
VH-44
-------
TABLE Vn-16
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Surface Water
Concentration (/tg/L)
Chronic Benchmark
-------
TABLE Vn-16
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Surface Water
Concentration Otg/L)
Chronic Benchmark
(l&L)
Hazard Quotient
Zinc
2.99 x
9.00 x 10'
3.32 x 10-*
Volume VI
VD-46
-------
TABLE Vn-17
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic lexicological 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
Dioxin/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Surface Water
Concentration Otg/L)
7.88 x lO'7
9.05 x 10-8
1.23 x 10-7
3.53 x 10^
2.46 x 10-»
9.38 x 10'7
4.18x 10*
5.20 x 10-"
1.13 x lO'7
8.93 x 10-'
8.52 x ID'7
1.95 x Iff12
2.33 x lO'7
1.59 x 10-'°
9.95 x lO'7
6.04 x 10-7
1.72 x 10-8
1.91 x ID"7
9.63 x lO'7
5.94 x Iff8
1.27 x 10*
5.50 x ID'7
Chronic Benchmark
G*g/L)
7.80 x 10*
7.70 x 10-'
4.40 x 10"'
1.60 x 10-2
8.40 x 10°
1.57 x 10'
3.50 x 10°
1.00 x 10'
2.40 x Iff3
3.00 x 10°
1.15x 105
7.60 x 10-6
4.36 x 102
1.00 x 10'3
7.40 x 10-*
2.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
2.10x ID'2
5.50 x 10'
8.60 x 10°
7.90 x lO'3
5.25 x 102
Hazard Quotient
1.01 x 10-"
1.18x ID'7
2.80 x 1C'7
2.21 x lO'7
2.93 x 10-'°
5.97 x ID"8
1.19x 10"8
5.20 x 10-9
4.69 x lO'3
2.98 x ID'9
7.41 x 10'12
2.56 x 10-7
5.35 x 10-'°
1.59 x ID'7
1.34 x 10'3
3.02 x ID'7
1.72 x 10-8
9.10x lO"6
1.75 x 10-"
6.91 x Iff*
1.61 x lO"
1.05 x Iff*.,
Volume VI
vn-47
-------
TABLE Vn-18
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions • Metals
Chemical
Surface Water
Concentration (/tg/L)
Chronic Benchmark
G«g/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 ID"6
1.46 x 10°
2.50 x ID'7
7.58 x lO'7
1.07 x 10 -5
8.56 x 10'5
2.81 x ID'3
1.05 x 10°
2.68 x 10-'
6.86 x ID'2
3.98 x ID'2
3.00 x 10'
1.90 x 102
4.10x 103
1.06 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10'
2.50 x 10°
1.20xlO'2
1.60 x 102
4.60 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
1.30 x 10'
1.11 x lO'7
3.11 x 10"*
3.55 x I0r*
2.36 x lO'7
7.58 x ID'7
1.07 x 10^
3.43 x lO'5
2.34 x 10-'
6.55 x 10'3
5.82 x 10'2
5.72 x 10-'
3.06 x ID'3
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.74x 10'5
8.74 x 10*
1.99x 10-6
3.97 x 10*
2.29 x 10-'
6.38 x 10-"
5.05 x ID"8
1.56 x 10-6
3.07 x 10-6
4.47 x ID'5
2.38 x lO'7
2.86 x ID'5
3.12x lO'7
2.46 x 10-6
8.70 x 10'
3.00 x 10'
1.90 x 102
4.10x 103
1.06 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
l.OOx 10'
l.lOx 10'
2.50 x 10°
1.20x 10'2
1.60 x 102
4.60 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
1.30 x 10'
2.00 x 107
2.91 x 10-*
l.OSx lO"8
9.69 x 10-'°
2.16x 10-*
6.38 x 10-8
5.05 x 10*
1.42 x lO'7' .
1.23 x 10-*
3.72 x 10'3
1.49 x 10-9
6.21 x 10-6
2.60 x 10-6
1.89x lO'7
Volume VI
Vfl-48
-------
TABLE Vn-18
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Surface Water
Concentration 0
-------
TABLE VD-19
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic 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
Dioxin/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Surface Water
Concentration (pg/L)
3.66 x ID'7
4.20 x 10-*
6.53 x 10^
5.59 x ID'9
2.33 x 10-9
4.35 x IfJ-7
1.94x KT8
2.41 x 10-*
6.62 x 10"*
4.54 x 10"'
3.95 x 10'7
4.24 x lO42
1.08 x 10-7
8.57 x 10'"
4.88 x ID'7
2.88 x 10-7
8.15 x 10-'
1.44 x 10'7
4.86 x 10'7
2.81 x 10-8
1.58x 10-8
2.55 x 10'7
Chronic Benchmark
0
-------
TABLE VII-20
Comparison of Modeled Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Fugitive Inorganic Emissions
Chemical
Surface Water
Concentration (jtg/L)
Chronic Benchmark
0«g/L)
• Ash Handling Facility
Hazard Quotient
Ohio River
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
3.11 x ID"6
4.30 x 10-7
5.96 x ID"6
2.77 x lO"5
3.52 x lO'7
1.58 x 10-7
8.78 x 10-"
1.90 x 102
4.10x 103
1.00 x 10°
2.50 x 10°
1.60 x 102
4.60 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
1.63 x 10-*
1.05 x 10-'°
5.% x 10-*
1.11 x lO'5
2.20 x 10*
3.44 x 10-"
7.31 x 10-7
Tomlinson Run Lake
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
2.64 x 10-6
3.83 x 10'7
6.57 x lO"6
2.11 x 10"s
3.02 x lO'7
1.32 x ID'7
7.95 x 10-8
1.90 x 102
4.10x 103
1.00 x 10°
2.50 x 10°
1.60 x 102
4.60 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
1.39 x 10*
9.34 x 10-"
6.57 x 10-*
8.44 x 10*
1.89 x 10*
2.87 x 10*
6.62 x 10-7
Little Beaver Creek
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
3.50 x 10-6
4.75 x lO'7
5.21 x 10-6
3.05 x 10-J
3.96 x ID'7
1.78x lO'7
9.58 x 10*
1.90 x 102
4.10x 103
1.00 x 10°
2.50 x 10°
1.60 x 102
4.60 x 10°
1.20 x 10-'
1.84x 10*
1.16x 10-'°
5.21 x 10*
1.22x lO'5
2.48 x lO* -
3.87 x lO*
7.98 x ID'7
Volume VI
VH-51
-------
TABLE VH-21
Comparison of Modeled Surface Water Concentrations
With Chronic lexicological Benchmark Values - Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
Chemical
Ohio River
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Surface Water
Concentration Oig/L)
Chronic Benchmark
G«g/L)
1.61 x HT6
3.97 x 10'5
2.05 x 10*
3.43 x 10'5
8.81 x 10*
7.70 x 10-'
1.50 x 102
4.00 x 10*
4.36 x 102
5.10x 10°
Hazard Quotient
2.09 x lO"6
2.65 x lO'7
5.12x 10-*
7.87 x 10*
1.73 x ID"8
Tomlinson Run Lake
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
2.02 x 10-6
4.98 x ID'3
2.58 x 10^
4.32 x ID'5
1.11 x 10-7
7.70 x 10-'
1.50 x 102
4.00 x 102
4.36 x 102
5.10x 10°
2.63 x 10-6
3.32 x lO'7
6.45 x 10'9
9.90 x 10^
2.17x 10-8
Little Beaver Creek
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
1.03 x lO'5
2.54 x 10"
1.31 x 10 5
2.20 x 10-*
5.65 x ID'7
7.70 x 10"'
1.50 x 102
4.00 x 102
4.36 x 102
5.10x 10°
1.34 x 10'3
1.70 x 10^
3.29 x 10-"
5.04 x 10-7
1.11 x 10'7
Volume VI
vn-52
-------
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'°
5.96 x 10*
1.11 x 10s
2.20 x 10"
3.44 x 10*
7.31 x 10 7
1.36 x 10 7
1.59x 10 3
4.27 x 10-6
1.53x lO^1
2.87 x 102
2.55 x 10 '
2.58 x 10f
1.52x 10 7
1.59x 10 3
1.02 x 10 5
1.64x 10-*
2.87 x 10 2
2.55 x 10 '
2.58 x 10*
4.58 x 10*
4.33 x 10'
3.60 x 10 7
5.49 x 10*
6.52 x 109
2.72 x 10s
1.17x 10s
6.21 x 10*
4.44 x 10»
6.32 x 10*
1.66x 10 5
8.72 x 109
2.72 x 10 5
1.24x 10 5
Tomlinson Run Lake
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
L&d
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
1.39x 10*
9.34 x ia"
6.57 x 10*
8.44 x 10*
1.89x 10 »
2.87 x 10*
6.62 x ID'7
3.70 x 10*
4.53 x lO^1
1.51 x 10-*
3.74 x 105
7.90 x 10 3
6.81 x 102
7.50 x ID'1
5.09 x 10*
4.53 x 10-4
8.08 x 10*
4.58 x 105
7.90 x 103
6.81 x 102
7.50 x 10 '
1.25 x 10*
1.24x 10'
1.27 x 10 7
1.34x 10*
1.79x 10'
7.28 x 10*
3.41 x 10*
2.64 x 10*
1.33 x 10 9
6.70 x 10*
9.78 x 10*
3.67 x 10 9
7.31 x 10*
4.07 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Arsenic
Barium
1.84x10*
1.16x ia'°
3.11 x 10*
3.55 x 10^
4.95 x 10*
3.55 x lO^1
1.05 x 10*
9.69 x 10 10
2.89 x 10*
1.09x 10 9
Volume VI
VII-53
-------
TABLE VII-22
Summed Surface Water Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources
Chemical
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ash Handling
Facility
5.21 x 10-*
1.22x 10-5
2.48 x 109
3.87 x 10*
7.98 x 10-7
Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal
Scenario
7.58 x ID'7
3.43 x 10 5
6.55 x 103
5.82 x 102
5.72 x 10 '
Summed Hazard
Quotient
5.97 x 10*
4.65 x 10 5
6.55 x 103
5.82 x 102
5.72 x 10-'
Stack
Expected Metal
Scenario
6.38 x 10*
1.23x 10*
1.49x 10'
6.22 x 10*
2.60 x 10-6
Summed Hazard
Quotient
5.27 x 10-*
1.34x 10s
3.97 x 109
6.26 x 10*
3.40 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-54
-------
TABLE Vn-23
Summed Surface Water Hazard Quotients - All Organic ECOC Sources
Chemical
Fugitive Emission
Sources
Stack High-End
Organic
Summed Hazard
Quotient
Ohio River
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
2.09 x 10-6
2.65 x lO'7
5.12x 10-9
7.87 x lO"8
1.73 x 10-"
3.33 x 10-"
—
—
1.52 x 10-'°
—
2.12x 10-*
—
—
7.89 x 1O*
—
Tomlinson Run Lake
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
2.63 x 10-6
3.32 x ID'7
6.45 x lO*
9.90 x 10-8
2.17x 10-8
1.18x ID'7
—
—
5.35 x 10-'°
—
Little Beaver Creek
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
1.34 x ID'3
1.70x 10*
3.29 x 10-*
5.04 x lO'7
1.11 x 10'7
5.45 x 10-*
—
—
2.48 x 10-'°
—
2.75 x 10-6
_.
—
9.95 x 10-"
—
1.35 x lO'5
—
—
5.04 x ID'7
—
Volume VI
VD-55
-------
TABLE Vn-24
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Benchmark (mg/kg)
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
4.06 x ID'7
3.10x 10-6
2.34 x 10-'
4.32 x 10"7
1.67 x 10*
2.43 x 10-5
2.07 x 10-1
1.03 x 10"5
4.13 x ID"1
2.11 x 10-'
8.37 x 10-3
1.64x 10-'
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'
l.OOx 10°
l.OOx 10°
—
2.03 x ID'7
5.17x 10-7
4.68 x 1O4
—
2.78 x 10*
9.34 x ID"7
6.67 x 10*
1.03 x 1O4
2.58 x lO'2
2.11 x 10-'
8.37 x 10-3
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
7.15x 10"5
1.07x 10*
1.04 x 10*
6.38 x ID'7
3.96 x ID'9
1.40 x 10-'
1.15x 10-7
1.50 x 1C'7
7.41 x 10-6
1.64x 10-7
9.40 x 10*
2.26 x 10-5
3.80 x 10-"
1.01 x lO"3
—
2.00 x 10°
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
—
6.00 x 10-'
2.60 x 10'
1.60 x 10'
3.10x 10'
1.00 x 10-'
1.60x 10'
l.OOx 10°
1.00x10°
—
—
1.74 x 10-7
1.28 x 10-*
—
2.34 x 10-*
4.42 x lO*
9.40 x ID"9'' - 1
2.39 x lO"7
1.64x 10-*
5.87 x 10*
2.26 x 10-5
3.80 x 10*
—
Volume VI
Vn-56
-------
TABLE VH-24
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Zinc
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
2.45 x 10-7
Benchmark (mg/kg)
1.00 x 102
Hazard Quotient
2.45 x
Volume VI
VH-57
-------
TABLE Vn-25
Comparison of Modeled Ohio River Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Organics
Chemical
Acetone
Aciylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chlorofonn
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Di-n-octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Dioxin/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
HexachJorophene
PentachJorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
1.47x 10-"
6.54 x ID'13
3.24 x 10-8
1.48 x lO'5
8.56 x ID'5
2.70 x 10-'°
1.78 x 10-"
2.85 x 10-"
6.68 x 10-8
1.65 x 10-9
1.23 x 10-'°
3.48 x 10*
7.14x ID"12
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'
4.86 x 10-7
1.15x 10-"
Benchmark (mg/kg)
5.12x 10°
2.00 x 10-5
8.50 x 10-2
3.70 x 10"'
2.41 x 10°
1.60x 10'2
5.00 x lO'3
1.90x ID'2
4.00 x lO'5
1.71 x 10°
5.87 x 10'
1.00 x 10-6
4.70 x lO'2
3.00 x 10-1
2.00 x 10*
1.20 x 10-'
1.30 x 10-'
5.70 x lO'2
2.56 x 10'
8.90 x 10-'
2.00 x 10-3
3.90 x ID'2
Hazard Quotient
2.87 x 10-'2
3.27 x 10-"
3.81 x ID'7
3.99 x lO'5
3.55 x ID'5
1.69 x 10*
3.56 x 10-*
l.SOx 10-'
1.67 x lO'3
9.65 x 10-'°
2.10x 10-'2
3.48 x 10'2
1.52 x 10-'°
1.68 x 10'7
4.56 x 10-*
2.31 x lO'7
4.95 x 10-'
4.74 x 10-s
5.56 x 10*
2.02 x 10-9
2.43 x W
2.94 x ialfr
Volume VI
VH-58
-------
TABLE VH-26
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Sediment Concentrations
With lexicological 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
1.18x 10'7
8.44 x lO'7
6.69 x lO'2
1.09 x ID'7
5.89 x 10-*
5.97 x 10-6
5.05 x ID'5
3.63 x 10'5
1.14x 10'1
5.64 x ID'2
2.43 x 10'3
3.70 x lO'2
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
5.89 x 10-"
1.41 x 10'7
1.34 x 104
—
9.82 x lO*
2.30 x lO'7
1.63 x 10-6
3.63 x 10-1
7.11 x 10'3
5.64 x lO'2
2.43 x lO'3
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.61 x lO'5
3.09 x 10-»
2.84 x ID'7
1.82 x lO'7
l.OOx 10-"
4.96 x 10-'°
2.83 x 10-"
4.44 x 10-"
1.81 x 10-6
5.77 x 1C'7
2.58 x 10*
6.03 x 10"6
l.lOx 10-8
2.29 x 10-6
—
2.00 x 10°
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
—
6.00 x 10 '
2.60 x 10'
1.60 x 10'
3.10x 10'
l.OOx 10-'
1.60 x 10'
l.OOx 10°
1.00x10°
—
—
1.55 x ID'9
4.73 x 10-"
3.65 x 10-'°
—
8.27 x 10-'°
1.09 x 10*
2.77 x ID"*'
5.84 x 10-*
5.77 x ID"6
1.62 x 10-9
6.03 x 10-*
l.lOx lO*
—
Volume VI
Vn-59
-------
TABLE Vn-26
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Zinc
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
7.17x 1(T*
Benchmark (mg/kg)
1.00 xlO2
Hazard Quotient
7.17x 10-'°
Volume VI
VH-60
-------
TABLE Vn-27
Comparison of Modeled Tomlinson Run Lake Sediment Concentrations
With 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
Dioxin/furan
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
5.18x 10-"
2.31 x ID'12
9.51 x lO"8
4.18x lO'7
9.09 x ID'7
9.53 x 10-'°
6.28 x 10-"
1.01 x 10-'°
1.69x lO'7
5.09 x ID'9
4.34 x 10-'°
3.96 x 10-'°
2.52 x 10-"
1.44x ID"10
2.98 x lO'7
9.38 x 10-8
2.20 x ID'9
5.22 x lO'7
4.48 x 10-7
6.18x 10-'
2.76 x lO'7
4.05 x 10-"
Benchmark (mg/kg)
5.12x 10°
2.00 x ID'5
8.50 x ID'2
3.70 x 10-'
2.41 x 10°
1.60 x 10'2
5.00 x 10s
1.90x ID'2
4.00 x lO'5
1.71 x 10°
5.87 x 10'
1.00 x 10-6
4.70 x ID'2
3.00 x 10-1
2.00 x 10-1
1.20x 10'
1.30 x 10-'
5.70 x 10'2
2.56 x 10'
8.90 x 10-'
2.00 x lO'3
3.90 x lO'2
Hazard Quotient
1.01 x 10-"
1.15x ID'7
1.12x 10-6
1.13x 10-6
3.77 x ID'7
5.96 x lO*
1.26 x 10-*
5.30 x 10-9
4.23 x 10-3
2.98 x 10-9
7.40 x 10-'2
3.96 x lO"4
5.36 x 10-'°
4.80 x lO'7
1.49 x 10'3
7.82 x ID'7
1.69x ID"8
9.16x 10"6
1.75 x lO"8
6.94 x 10-9
1.38 x 10-1
1.04x 10'9,
Volume VI
VH-61
-------
TABLE VH-28 1
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Sediment Concentrations
With lexicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Benchmark (mg/kg)
Hazard Quotient
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 10'7
5.25 x lO'2
9.76 x 10*
2.95 x ID'9
5.44 x 10-6
4.62 x 10-5
1.68 x lO'5
9.43 x lO'2
4.82 x 10'2
1.85 x lO'3
3.59 x 10'2
2.00 x 10°
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
—
6.00 x 10-'
2.60 x 10'
3.10x 10'
1.00 x 10-'
1.60 x 10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
—
4.49 x lO"8
1.18x ID'7
1.05x 10*
—
4.92 x 10-»
2.09 x lO'7
1.49x 10-6
1.68 x HT1
5.89 x ID'3
4.82 x 10 2
1.85 x ID'3
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.56 x 10-5
2.36 x 10-"
2.38 x 10-7
1.43 x 10-7
8.95 x 10-'°
2.49 x 10-'°
2.58 x 10-"
3.28 x 10-8
1.66x 10-6
2.68 x ID'7
2.14x 10-8
5.15x 10-6
8.42 x 10-'
2.22 x 10-6
—
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'
l.OOx 1C'1
1.60x 10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00x10°
...
—
1.18x 10*
3.97 x 10-"
2.86 x 10-'°
—
4.15x 10-'°
9.90 x 10-'°
2.05 x 10-9' -
5.35 x 10-"
2.68 x 10«
1.34 x 10-9
5.15x 10-6
8.42 x 10"9
Z
Volume VI
VD-62
-------
TABLE VH-28
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Sediment Concentrations
With Toxicological Benchmark Values - Stack Emissions - Metals
Chemical
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Benchmark (mg/kg)
Hazard Quotient
Zinc
5.40 x ID"8
1.00 x 102
5.40 x 10-'°
Volume VI
VH-63
-------
TABLE VD-29
Comparison of Modeled Little Beaver Creek Sediment Concentrations
With 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
Dioxin/fiiran
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
PentachJoro benzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
2.40 x 10-"
1.07 x ID"12
5.04 x 10-8
6.63 x lO'7
8.59 x lO'7
4.42 x 10-'°
2.91 x 10-"
4.67 x 10-"
9.95 x 10"*
2.59 x 10-'
2.01 x 10-'°
9.68 x 10-'°
1.17x 10-"
7.76 x 10-"
1.46 x lO'7
4.48 x 10-8
1.04 x 10-'
3.94 x 10-7
2.26 x ID'7
2.92 x 10-*
3.43 x ID'7
1.88 x 10-"
Benchmark (mg/kg)
5.12x 10°
2.00 x 10'5
8.50 x lO"2
3.70 x 10-'
2.41 x 10°
1.60x 10'2
5.00 x 10 3
1.90x lO'2
4.00 x lO'5
1.71 x 10°
5.87 x 10'
l.OOx 10-6
4.70 x lO'2
3.00 x 10"
2.00 x 10"
1.20x 10'
1.30x 10-'
5.70 x 10 2
2.56 x 10'
8.90 x 10-'
2.00 x 10'3
3.90 x lO'2
Hazard Quotient
4.69 x 10-'2
5.35 x 10*
5.93 x ID'7
1.79x 10-6
3.56 x lO'7
2.76 x 10"*
5.82 x 10*
2.46 x 10-9
2.49 x 10-3
1.51 x 10-9
3.43 x 10-12
9.68 x 10"
2.48 x 10-'°
2.59 x ID'7
7.31 x 10"
3.73 x lO'7
8.03 x lO-9
6.92 x 10-6
8.83 x 10-*
3.28 x 10-*
1.72 x 10"
4.81 x 10-'-a
Volume VI
Vn-64
-------
TABLE VII-30
Comparison of Modeled Sediment Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Fugitive Inorganic Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
Chemical
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Benchmark
(mg/kg)
Hazard Quotient
Ohio River
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
3.73 x lO'7
1.55 x 10*
2.32 x 10-"
1.49x lO'5
3.17x ID"8
2.85 x 10*
2.37 x 10-"
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
6.00 x 10-'
3.10x 10'
1.60 x 10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
Tomlinson Run Lake
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
3.16x lO'7
1.38 x 10-8
2.56 x 10*
1.14x 10'5
2.72 x 10*
2.37 x 10*
2.15x 10-»
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
6.00 x ID'1
3.10x 10'
1.60 x 10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
6.21 x 10*
3.10x 10-"
3.87 x 10*
4.82 x lO'7
1.98 x 10'9
2.85 x 10*
2.37 x ID'9
5.27 x 10*
2.76 x 10-"
4.27 x 10*
3.68 x lO'7
1.70x 10-9
2.37 x 10*
2.15x 10-*
Little Beaver Creek
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
4.20 x 10-7
1.71 x 10*
2.03 x 10*
1.65x 10-5
3.56 x 10*
3.20 x 10*
2.59 x 10-"
6.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
6.00 x 10"'
3.10x 10'
1.60x 10'
1.00 x 10°
1.00 x 10°
6.99 x 10*
3.42 x 10-"
3.38 x 10*
5.32 x 10-7
2.23 x 10* -
3.20 x 10*
2.59 x 10-9
Volume VI
Vn-65
-------
TABLE Vn-31
Comparison of Modeled Sediment Concentrations
With Chronic Toxicological Benchmark Values - Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
Chemical
Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Ohio River
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
4.10x 10-"
5.20 x 10'7
7.56 x ID"12
3.70 x 10-»
2.64 x 10-13
Benchmark
(mg/kg)
Hazard Quotient
2.00 x IQ-5
1.97 x 10°
1.40 x lO'3
4.70 x 10-2
2.00 x ID'5
2.05 x 10"*
2.64 x ID'7
5.40 x 10-»
7.88 x 10-"
1.32 x 10-*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
5.16x 10-"
6.52 x lO'7
9.52 x 10'12
4.66 x ID'9
3.32 x 10-'3
2.00 x lO'5
1.97 x 10°
1.40 x 10-3
4.70 x 10'2
2.00 x lO'5
2.58 x 10-6
3.31 x lO'7
6.80 x ID"9
9.92 x 10-8
1.66 x 10-*
Little Beaver Creek
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
2.63 x 10-'°
3.33 x 10"6
4.85 x 10-"
2.38 x 10-*
1.69x 10-12
2.00 x ID'5
1.97 x 10°
1.40 x 10'3
4.70 x ID'2
2.00 x 10-j
1.32 x 10'5
1.69 x 10-6
3.46 x 10*
5.05 x 10-7
8.47 x 10*
Volume VI
vn-66
-------
TABLE VII-32
Summed Sediment 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
6.21 x 10*
3.10x 10"
3.87 x 10*
4.82 x 10-7
1.98x 10'
2.85 x 10*
2.37 x 10'
5.17x 107
4.68 x 10*
2.78 x 10*
6.67 x 10*
2.58 x 102
2.11 x 10'
8.37 x 103
5.79 x 107
4.68 x \0*
6.65 x 10*
7.15x 10*
2.58 x 102
2.11 x 10'
8.37 x 103
Tomlinson Run Lake
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
5.27 x 10-"
2.76 x 10-"
4.27 x 10*
3.68 x 107
1.70x 10-»
2.37 x 10*
2.15x 10 -»
1.41 x 10 7
1.34x 10^
9.82 x 10 »
1.63x 10-6
7.11 x 10 3
5.64 x 102
2.43 x 103
1.94x 10 7
1.34 x 10*
5.25 x 10*
2.00 x 10*
7.11 x lO'3
5.64 x 102
2.43 x 103
1.74x 10 7
1.28x 10 9
2.34 x 109
2.39 x 107
5.87 x 109
2.26 x 10s
3.80 x 10*
4.73 x 10*
3.65 x 10 10
8.27 x ia'°
5.84 x 10*
1.62x 10 9
6.03 x 10*
l.lOx 10*
2.36 x 107
1.31 x 10 9
4.10x 10*
7.21 x 107
7.85 x 109
2.26 x 105
4.04 x 10*
l.OOx 10 7
3.93 x 10 10
4.35 x 10*
4.26 x 107
3.32 x 109
6.05 x 10*
1.32x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Arsenic
Barium
, 6.99 x 10-"
3.42 x 10"
1.18x lO'7
1.05x 10*
1.88x 10 7
1.05 x 10*
3.97 x 10*
2.86 x 10 10
l.lOx 10 7
3.20 x 10 10
Volume VI
VII-67
-------
TABLE Vn-32
Summed Sediment Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources
Chemical
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ash Handling
Facility
3.38 x 10*
5.32 x 10'7
2.23 x 109
3.20 x 10*
2.59 x 10*
Stack Projected
Permit Limit Metal
Scenario
4.92 x 109
1.49x 10*
5.89 x 103
4.82 x lO'2
1.85x ID'3
Summed Hazard
Quotient
3.87 x 10-"
2.02 x 10-6
5.89 x 103
4.82 x 10 2
1.85x 10 3
Stack
Expected Metal
Scenario
4.15x 10-'°
5.35 x 10*
1.34x 10 9
5.15x 10*
8.42 x 10'
Summed Hazard
Quotient
3.42 x 10*
5.86 x 101
3.57 x lO'9
5.18x ID"6
l.lOx 10*
Volume VI
VII-68
-------
TABLE Vn-33
Summed Sediment Hazard Quotients - All Organic ECOC Sources
Chemical
Fugitive Emission
Sources
Stack High-End
Organic
Summed Hazard
Quotient
Ohio River
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Tomlinson Run Lake
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
2.05 x 10"*
2.64 x 10'7
5.40 x 10-"
7.88 x 10*
1.32x 10*
3.27 x 10*
—
—
1.52 x 10-'°
—
2.08 x lO"6
—
—
7.89 x 10*
—
2.58 x 10"
3.31 x 10-7
6.80 x 10-'
9.92 x 10*
1.66x 10*
1.15x lO'7
—
—
5.36 x 10-'°
—
2.70 x 10"
—
—
9.97 x 10*
—
Little Bearer Creek
Acrylonitrile
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
1.32 x 10 5
1.69x 10"
3.46 x 10*
5.05 x ID'7
8.47 x 10*
5.35 x 10*
—
—
2.48 x 10-'°
—
1.33 x HT5
—
—
5.05 x lO'7
—
Volume VI
VD-69
-------
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)
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
3.40 x 10 '
1.80x 10'
1.59x 10'
l.lOx 10'
2.29 x 10°
3.66 x 10°
1.07x 10°
4.90 x 102
1.52x 10°
3.30 x 10 2
9.60 x 10 '
4.30 x 103
2.61 x 105
5.49 x 10s
9.84 x 10°
5.20 x 10-6
1.95 x 10 5
2.41 x 10-4
2.20 x 10'3
8.09 x 10-3
8.30 x 10°
4.37 x 10°
6.83 x 10 '
1.34 x 10°
7.68 x 10s
3.05 x 10^
6.19 x 10'
4.73 x 10 5
8.52 x 10^
6.59 x 10 5
2.06 x 10 3
1.65x 10'
5.46 x 10°
1.32 x 10*
7.12x 10'
3.12x 103
6.57 x 10*
1.37 x ID'7
2.48 x 102
1.28x 10*
4.90 x 10*
5.93 x 10 7
5.41 x 10-6
2.59 x 10^
2.07 x 10*
1 .08 x ID'2
1.71 x 10-3
3.29 x 103
1.93x 10 7
7.60 x 10 7
1.56 x 10'
1.17 x 107
2.14x 10*
1 .62 x 1C'7
5.06 x 10-*
5.28 x 103
1.36x 10 2
3.28 x 10 l
1 .78 x 10 3
7.66 x 10 '
2.29 x ID'7
4.80 x 107
8.63 x 102
4.52 x 10*
1.72 x lO'7
2.09 x 10-6
1.91 x 10 5
4.89 x 10"1
7.25 x 10-2
3.81 x 10*
5.99 x 10 3
1.16x 102
6.74 x 107
2.66 x lO'6
5.43 x 10 '
4. 1 1 x 10 7
7.49 x 10*
5.71 x 107
1.78x 10 5
9.98 x 103
4.77 x 102
1.15 x 10°
6.24 x 103
2.70 x 10°
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
4.30 x 10 '
'< 3.40 x 10 '
1.80x 10'
5.20 x 10^
6.85 x 10-7
1.85 x 10-5
1.21 x 10 3
2.02 x 10-*
1.03x 10"1
1.28 x 10-6
1.72x 10 9
4.60 x 10*
2.97 x 10*
5.07 x 10-»
2.56 x ID'7
4.50 x 10"6
6.02 x 10 -»
1.61 x 107
1.05x 10 5
1.77x 10*
8.96 x 107
Volnme VI
VII-70
-------
TABLE VII-34
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicologies! 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-'
l.lOx 10'
2.29 x 10°
3.66 x 10°
3.70 x 10 '
1.07x 10°
4.90 x 10 2
1.52x 10°
3.30 x 102
9.60 x 10 '
4.30 x 103
3.80 x 10°
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.68 x 10s
4.77 x 10-"
1.64x 10*
1.14x 10-6
1.55 x 10 5
7.88 x 105
1.29x MT4
1.89x 10*
4.67 x 10^
3.11 x 10-*
8.30 x 10 5
5.87 x 105
Hazard
Quotient
1.69x 10^
4.34 x 107
7.18x 10 7
3.12x 10 7
4.19x 10 5
7.36 x 105
2.63 x 103
1.24x 10*
1.42x lO'2
3.24 x 10*
1.93x 10 2
1.54x 10 3
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 10 7
4.12x 10*
4.71 x 10 9
1.16x 10*
7.78 x lO'9
2.04 x 107
1.46x 10 7
Hazard
Quotient
4.25 x 107
1.07x 10'
l.SOx 10'
7.67 x 10 10
l.OSx 10 7
1.81 x 107
8.40 x 105
3.10x 10 »
3.50 x 105
8.10x 10'
4.74 x 105
3.83 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.35 x ID'7
4.14x 10-'°
1.44x 10*
9.90 x 10'
1.36 x 10 7
6.83 x 107
7.78 x 10*
1.65x 10*
4.07 x 10*
2.72 x 10*
7.19x 10 7
5.13x 10 7
Hazard
Quotient
1.48 x 10*
3.76 x 10'
6.31 x 10 »
2.70 x 10'
3.68 x 107
6.39 x lO'7
1.59x 10^
l.OSx 10*
1.23x 10^
2.84 x 10*
1.67x 10^
1.35x 10 7
Volume VI
VII-71
-------
TABLE VII-35
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological 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)
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
4.10x ID'1
2.20 x 10 l
1.93x 10'
1.30x 10'
2.78 x 10°
4.44 x 10°
1.30x 10°
5.90 x 10*
1.85x 10°
4.00 x 10 2
1.17x 10°
5.20 x 10-'
2.92 x 10^
8.26 x \0*
8.03 x 10'
8.52 x 10s
6.91 x 10^
2.96 x 10"'
3.49 x 10 2
3.66 x lO'2
1.09x 102
1.20x 102
6.05 x 10°
2.21 x 10'
Hazard
Quotient
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
7.13x 10-«
3.75 x 103
4.16x 101
6.55 x 10^
2.49 x \0*
6.66 x 10*
2.69 x 10 2
6.21 x 10-'
5.88 x 101
3.00 x 103
5.17x 10°
4.25 x 103
7.21 x lO7
2.03 x 10-6
1.98x 10 '
2.09 x 107
1.71 x 10-6
7.25 x 10*
8.56 x 10s
1.17x 10 3
2.68 x 10 '
2.95 x 10 '
1.49x 10 2
5.41 x 102
1.76 x lO"6
9.25 x 10-6
1.03 x 10°
1.61 x 10*
6.14x 10'7
1.63 x 10^
6.59 x 105
1.98x lO'2
1.45 x 10-'
7.38 x 10*
1.28x 10s
1.04 x 10'
2.55 x 10^
7.19x HT6
7.00 x 10 •'
7.39 x 10'7
6.03 x 10*
2.56 x 10s
3.03 x 10-1
2.21 x 10'
9.48 x lO'1
1.04x 10°
5.28 x 102
1.91 x lO'1
6.21 x 10-6
3.27 x 10 5
3.63 x 10'
5.68 x 10*
2.17x 10*
5.77 x 10*
2.33 x 10^
3.75 x 102
5.12x 10'1
2.61 x 10'
4.51 x 10'2
3.68 x 10'
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
5.20 x 10 '
v 4.10x10'
2.20 x 10 '
5.67 x 10-'
7.67 x 10*
2.78 x 10-*
1.09x 10 2
1.87x 10s
1.26x 10 3
1.39x 10 5
1.89x 10*
6.84 x 107
2.67 x lO'5
4.62 x 10-"
3.11 x 10-6
4.91 x 105
6.69 x 10*
2.42 x 10*
9.44 x 10 5
1.63x 10 7
l.lOx 10s
Volume VI
VII-72
-------
TABLE Vn-35
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological 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 10 '
1.30 x 10°
5.90 x 102
1.85x 10°
4.00 x 102
1.17 x 10°
5.20 x 103
4.60 x 10°
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.19x 10*
7.81 x 107
5.82 x 10s
1.40x 10s
1.18x \0*
1.25 x 10 3
5.83 x 10*
2.47 x lO'5
1.28x 10 2
2.75 x 10s
1.37x 10 3
7.70 x 10^
Hazard
Quotient
1.14x 10 3
6.01 x 10*
2.09 x 10 5
3.15x 10*
2.68 x \0*
9.63 x 10*
9.88 x 10 3
1.34x 10 5
3.21 x 10'
2.35 x 10-3
2.63 x 10 '
1.67 x 10^
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
5.41 x 107
1.92x 10 9
1.44x 10 7
3.43 x 10-"
2.91 x 107
3.07 x 10-*
1.86x 10 5
6.10x 10*
3.15x 10 5
6.80 x 10-"
3.35 x 10*
1.90 x 10-*
Hazard
Quotient
2.80 x 10-*
1.47x 10*
5.17x 10*
7.72 x 109
6.62 x 107
2.36 x 10*
3.15x 10^
3.30 x 10*
7.89 x 10^
5.81 x 10-*
6.43 x 10-*
4.13x 10 7
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.91 x 10-6
6.77 x 10'
5.08 x 107
1.21 x 10 7
1.03 x 10*
l.OSx 10 5
3.52 x 10s
2.15x 10 7
1.12x 10-*
2.40 x 107
1.18x 10 5
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 10-4
1.16x 10 7
2.79 x 103
2.05 x 107
2.27 x 10'3
1.46x 10*
Volume VI
VII-73
-------
TABLE VII-36
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red Fox
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
l.OOx 10'
6.00 x 10?
4.80 x 102
3.00 x 102
9.20 x 10 '
l.lOx 10°
3.90 x 10 '
2.40 x Iff2
4.60 x lO'1
l.OOx 10 2
2.90 x 10 '
1.30x Iff3
2.66 x 10'3
7.37 x Iff5
8.33 x 10°
7.48 x 10*
4.97 x 105
2.85 x W4
3.09 x 10 3
1.49x ID'2
1.01 x 10'
9.30 x 10°
5.69 x lO'1
1.94x 10°
2.66 x 10^
1.23x Iff3
1.74 x 101
2.49 x 10"1
5.40 x 10s
2.59 x 10^
7.92 x 10 3
6.23 x 10 '
2.19 x 101
9.30 x 102
1.96 x 10e
1.49 x 103
6.54 x 10*
l.SOx 10 7
2.06 x 102
1.82 x 10*
1.20x 10 7
6.97 x 107
7.52 x 10-6
4.71 x 10^
2.47 x Iff*
2.25 x Iff2
1.40x 10 3
4.72 x Iff3
6.54 x 10'7
3.01 x 10*
4.30 x 10 '
6.07 x ID'7
1.30x 10'7
6.34 x 10-7
1.93 x 10s
1.96x 10 2
5.37 x 10'2
2.25 x 10*
4.82 x 103
3.63 x 10*
2.33 x tO7
6.42 x 10'7
7.28 x 102
6.49 x 10*
4.33 x lO'7
2.47 x lO*
2.68 x 10 5
9.03 x 10^
8.76 x Iff2
8.09 x Iff*
4.97 x Iff3
1.68x 10 2
2.33 x 10*
1.07x Iff5
1.52 x 10*
2.16x 10*
4.71 x Iff7
2.24 x 10*
6.87 x 105
3.76 x 10'2
1.91 x Iff1
8.09 x 10'
1.71 x 10 2
1.29 x 101
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
7.30 x 10'
1.00x10'
6.00 x Iff2
5.71 x 10-4
6.99 x 107
2.48 x 10s
7.82 x 10*
6.99 x 10*
4.13 x lO^1
1.40x 10-6
1.72x 10 9
6.07 x 108
1.92x 10*
1.72x 10*
1.01 x 10*
4.94 x 10*
6.11 x 10 »
2.16x Iff7
6.77 x 10*
6.11 x 10*
3.60 x 10*
Volume VI
V1I-74
-------
TABLE VII-36
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological 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 102
3.00 x 10 2
9.20 x 10 '
l.lOx 10°
8.90 x 10°
3.90 x 10'
2.40 x 102
4.60 x 10 '
l.OOx 10 2
2.90 x 10 '
1.30x 10 J
3.10x 10'
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.27 x lO'5
6.86 x 10*
4.18x 10*
1.35 x 10*
1.16x 10s
1.11 x 10*
2.38 x 10"
2.29 x 10-*
9.94 x 10"
2.59 x 10*
1.20x 10*
6.15x 10s
Hazard
Quotient
4.74 x 10*
2.29 x 10*
4.55 x 10*
1.23 x 10*
1.30x 10*
2.84 x 10*
9.91 x 10 3
4.97 x 10*
9.94 x 10 2
8.92 x 10*
9.23 x 10 2
1.99x 10*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
5.63 x 10*
1.67x 10 10
1.01 x 10*
3.30 x 10 »
2.85 x 10*
2.69 x 107
7.50 x 10*
5.61 x 10'
2.40 x 10*
6.35 x 10'
2.92 x 107
1.49x 10 7
Hazard
Quotient
1.17x 10*
5.56 x 109
l.lOx 10*
3.00 x 10 »
3.20 x 109
6.91 x 10 7
3.13x 10*
1.22x 10*
2.40 x 10"
2.19x 10*
2.24 x 10"
4.81 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.99 x 10 7
5.95 x 10'°
3.65 x 10*
1.17x 10*
1.01 x 10 7
9.59 x 10 7
1.44x 10s
1.99x 10*
8.64 x 10*
2.26 x 10*
1.04x 10*
5.37 x 107
Hazard
Quotient
4.14x 10*
1.98x 10*
3.97 x 10*
1.06x 10*
1.13x 10*
2.46 x 10*
5.99 x 10"
4.33 x 10*
8.64 x 10"
7.79 x 10*
7.99 x 10"
1.73x 10*
Volume VI
VII-75
-------
TABLE VII-37
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Mink
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
l.SOx 10'
8.00 x 102
7.00 x 102
5.00 x 10 2
1.33x 10°
1.60x 10°
5.70 x 10 '
l.SOx 10'
6.70 x 10 '
1.40x lO'2
4.20 x 10 '
1.90 x 10 3
1.72 x 10s
5.05 x 10s
7.06 x 10°
4.96 x 10*
1.42 x 10s
2.33 x 10*
2.09 x 10 3
1.32x 10 2
7.41 x 10°
4.03 x 10°
3 59 x 10 '
1.29 x 10°
1.15 x 10*
6.31 x 10*
1.01 x 10*
9.92 x 10s
1.07x 10 5
1.45x 10*
3.68 x 10 J
8.77 x 102
1.11 x 101
2.88 x 102
8.55 x 10 '
6.79 x 102
4.35 x 10*
1.86x 10 7
1.90x 10 2
1.33x 10*
6.94 x 107
6.08 x 107
8.07 x 10-6
3.03 x 10 2
3.35 x 102
1.47 x lO'2
9.01 x 10*
4.12x 10-3
2.90 x 10 7
2.32 x 10*
2.72 x 10 '
2.65 x 107
5.22 x 10-7
3.80 x 107
1.42x 10'5
2.02 x 10-'
5.00 x 102
1.05 x 10'
2.14x 10'3
2.17 x 10°
1.51 x 10 7
4.90 x 107
6.28 x 102
4.40 x 10^
4.41 x 107
2.05 x 10*
2.08 x 10s
1.43x 10 2
7.68 x 102
3.90 x 102
3.14x 10 3
1.21 x 10 2
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
1.07x 102
'< 1.50x10'
8.00 x 102
5.05 x 10*
4.51 x 107
1.70x 10s
4.72 x 10-6
3.01 x 10*
2.12x 10^
1.36x 10-6
1.14x 10 9
6.24 x 10*
1.28x 10-*
7.62 x 10-*
7.80 x lO'7
4.49 x 10*
3.96 x 10»
1.65x 107
l.OOx 10-6
6.12x 10*
8.97 x 10 '
8.80 x 107
3.31 x 10 7
1.28x 10*
3.64 x 10s
9.53 x 10 2
1.15x 10'
2.79 x 10*
7.48 x 103
6.36 x 10'
4.19x 10^
2.64 x 10^
2.06 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-76
-------
TABLE VII-37
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With lexicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Mink
Chemical
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
•v
Ziric
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
7.00 x 102
5.00 x 102
1.33 x 10°
1.60x 10°
1.29 x 10'
5.70 x 10'
1.50x 10'
6.70 x 10 '
1.40x 10 2
4.20 x 10'
1.90x 10 3
2.08 x 10'
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.93x 10s
4.55 x 10*
1.20x 10*
l.lOx 10*
8.16 x 10*
7.51 x 10 5
2.09 x \0*
1.68x 10*
4.30 x 10*
1.63x 10*
7.98 x 10s
2.16x 10 5
Hazard
Quotient
2.75 x 10*
9.10x 10 7
9.02 x 107
6.88 x 10 7
6.33 x 107
1.32x 10*
1 .40 x 10 3
2.51 x 10*
3.07 x 10 2
3.89 x 10*
4.20 x Iff2
1 .04 x 10*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
5.19x 10*
1.22x Iff10
5.84 x 10*
2.88 x 10'
1.41 x 10 7
2.89 x 107
4.83 x \0*
7.61 x 109
1.57x 10*
4.09 x Iff9
2.55 x 107
3.07 x 107
Hazard
Quotient
7.42 x lO'7
2.43 x 10»
4.39 x 10*
l.SOx 10 9
1.09x 10*
5.07 x 107
3.22 x 103
1.14x 10*
1.12x 10*
9.75 x 10*
1.34x 10*
1.48 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.71 x 10 7
4.03 x Iff10
3.71 x 10*
9.69 x 109
1.58x 10 7
7.44 x 107
2.27 x 10^
1.75x 10*
4.17 x 10*
1.43x 10*
7.47 x 107
3.73 x 107
Hazard
Quotient
2.45 x 10*
8.07 x 10 9
2.79 x 10*
6.06 x 109
1.22x 10*
1.31 x 10*
1.52x Iff3
2.61 x 10*
2.98 x 10"4
3.40 x 10*
3.93 x 10^
1.79x 10*
Volume VI
V1I-77
-------
TABLE Vn-38
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological 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
1.38 x 10°
2.30 x 102
7.68 x 10-'
7.80 x ID'1
...
—
7.66 x 10-4
2.16x 10 3
2.00 x 102
2.24 x 10^
1.94x 10 3
7.51 x 10 3
9.16x 10 2
9.44 x 10 2
2.82 x 102
3.29 x 102
1.58x 10'
5.81 x 101
6.43 x 10*
3.66 x 10 3
...
—
2.23 x 103
3.95 x 102
6.64 x 102
4.11 x 10°
3.67 x 102
4.21 x 102
—
—
1.89x 10*
5.32 x 10-6
4.94 x 10 '
5.49 x 107
4.78 x 10*
1.84x 10s
2.25 x 10^
3.01 x 10 3
6.94 X 10 '
8.08 x 10 '
3.90 x 10'2
1.42x 10'
1.59x 10-8
9.02 x 10*
—
—
5.49 x 10*
9.69 x 10s
1.63x 10U
1.31 x 10'
9.03 x 10 l
1.04 x 10*
—
...
6.67 x 10*
1.88x 10 5
1.75x 10°
1.94x 10*
1.69x 10 5
6.51 x 10s
7.94 x 10-1
5.71 x 103
2.45 x 10°
2.86 x 10°
1.38 x 10'
5.03 x 10 '
5.61 x 10*
3.19x 10s
—
—
1.94x 10 5
3.42 x 10^
5.75 x 10-*
2.48 x 10 '
3.19x10°
3.66 x 10*
—
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
1.31 x 10'
1 1.19X102
5.90 x 10-'
1.42x ID'2
2.01 x 10 3
7.27 x 10*
l.OSx 10 3
1.69x 10 7
1.23 x 10 3
3.47 x 10s
4.96 x 10*
1.79x 10*
2.65 x 10*
4.17x 10-'°
3.03 x 10*
1.23x \Q*
1.75x 10 7
6.33 x 10*
9.36 x 10*
1.47x 10 »
1.07 x 10 3
Volume VI
VII-78
-------
TABLE VII-38
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological 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°
1.38x 10°
2.30 x 102
7.68 x 10 '
7.80 x 10 '
—
—
2.50 x 10'
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
5.47 x 10*
2.05 x 10*
1.63 x 10^
3.55 x 105
3.05 x \0*
3.28 x 103
l.SOx 10 3
6.40 x 105
3.51 x lO'7
7.19x 10 5
3.59 x 103
2.12x 10 3
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
1.87x 10*
1.87x 10*
5.44 x 105
2.38 x 103
6.53 x 102
8.33 x 10s
4.50 x 102
—
—
8.48 x 105
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.35x 10*
5.04 x 10 -»
4.02 x ID'7
8.71 x 10-8
7.52 x 107
8.05 x 10*
4.79 x 105
1.58 x 10 7
8.63 x 10s
1.77x ID'7
8.79 x 10*
5.23 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
4.62 x lO'7
4.58 x 107
1 .34 x 10 7
5.83 x 10*
2.08 x 103
2.05 x 107
1.11 x \Q*
—
—
2.09 x 107
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
4.76 x 10*
1.78x 10*
1.42 x 10*
3.08 x 10 7
2.66 x 10*
2.84 x 105
9.08 x 10s
5.57 x 107
3.05 x 10*
6.27 x ID'7
3.11 x 10 5
1.85 x 10s
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
1.63 x 10*
1.62x 10*
4.74 x 107
2.06 x 10 5
3.95 x 10 3
7.26 x 107
3.91 x lO-*
—
—
7.39 x 107
Volume VI
VII-79
-------
TABLE VII-39
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
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
1.01 x 102
5.00 x 10 '
—
—
7.40 x 10 '
1.70x 10'
1.17x 10°
2.00 x 102
6.54 x 10 '
6.60 x 10 '
—
—
9.17x 10'
5.72 x 10 7
1.37 x 10 2
1.12x 10*
4.73 x 10-6
3.86 x 107
3.07 x 10s
2.16x 10 2
1.41 x lO'1
4.59 x 102
1.12x 10^
1.09x 10 2
9.08 x 10"
1.14x 10^
—
—
6.39 x 10*
2.27 x 10"6
2.62 x 105
1.08 x 10"
2.15 x 10 '
6.95 x 102
....
...
2.66 x 10"
1.56x 10 7
3.92 x 103
2.84 x 10'
1.67 x 10-6
9.50 x 10*
7.49 x 10-6
7.61 x 102
3.87 x lO'7
1.23 x 10 2
3.24 x 10 5
2.47 x 103
2.64 x 10-"
3.11 x lO'7
—
—
2.26 x 10-6
5.59 x 10'7
6.40 x 10-"
3.80 x 10*
5.91 x 102
1.86x 10 2
—
—
2.03 x 10»
1.31 x 10'7
3.08 x 103
2.53 x 10»
8.38 x 107
8.65 x 10*
6.86 x 10-6
3.53 x 102
3.21 x 102
l.OSx 10 2
2.47 x 105
2.39 x 10 3
2.01 x 1(T"
2.61 x lO'7
—
—
1.13 x 10*
5.09 x 107
5.86 x 10-6
1.77 x 10*
4.90 x 104
1.59x 10 2
—
—
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 10
1.92x lO'7
1.30x 10 7
2.38 x 10 l2
3.85 x 107
3.25 x 10 7
6.99 x ia"
5.23 x 10*
2.92 x 10*
6.92 x 10 13
l.OSx 10 7
3.15x 107
5.33 x 10"
4.39 x 10*
2.84 x 10*
5.28 x Ifr13
8.78 x 10*
-\e VI
VH-80
-------
TABLE Vn-39
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 10'
4.80 x 10°
1.17x 10°
2.00 x 102
6.54 x 10 '
6.60 x 10 '
—
—
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 109
1.04 x 10^
l.lOx 10^
3.44 x 10^
3.20 x 10*
4.90 x 10-*
5.08 x ID"10
6.76 x 107
2.21 x 10-6
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
5.38 x 107
1.07x 10*
2.16x 10 7
9.39 x 107
1.72x 10 2
4.89 x 10*
7.43 x 10-6
—
—
1.05 x 10 7
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 109
1.31 x 10^
1.47 x 10-'°
1.53x 10 7
6.46 x 107
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
1.90x 10 7
2.64 x 109
6.39 x 10*
2.29 x 10-7
6.05 x 102
1.34x 10*
1.98x 10-6
—
—
3.08 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
8.39 x 10-9
2.32 x 10"
7.06 x 10*
4.09 x 10'°
2.27 x ID'7
2.46 x 10'7
5.62 x 10^
7.29 x 109
1.12x 10^
1.12x 10 10
1.48x 10 7
4.86 x 107
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
9.54 x 10*
2.41 x 109
4.72 x 10*
2.10x 10 7
2.81 x 10 2
1.11 x 10*
1.69x 10^
—
—
2.31 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-81
-------
TABLE VII-40
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red-tailed Hawk
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
6.00 x 10'
2.90 x 10 '
—
—
4.40 x 10 '
l.OOx 10'
8.30x 10°
1.20x 10 2
3.85 x 10 '
3.90 x 10 '
—
—
3.89 x 10s
1.07 x 10*
1.12x 10'
1.09x 10 5
8.44 x 105
3.90 x \0*
4.49 x 10°
2.48 x 102
1.42x 10'
1.48 x 10'
8.33 x 10 '
2.83 x 10°
6.49 x 107
3.68 x 10*
—
—
1.92x 10*
3.90 x 103
5.41 x 10*
2.07 x 10*
3.70 x 10'
3.81 x 10'
—
—
9.51 x 10*
2.60 x 10'7
2.76 x 10 2
2.65 x 10*
2.03 x 107
9.53 x 107
1.09x 10s
7.81 x \0*
3.49 x 102
3.58 x 102
2.04 x 103
6.87 x 103
1.59x 10 »
8.97 x 107
—
—
4.62 x 107
9.53 x 10-*
1.31 x 10-6
6.51 x 10'2
9.05 x 102
9.18x 10 2
—
—
3.40 x 107
9.28 x 107
9.77 x 10 2
9.46 x 10*
7.36 x 107
3.38 x 10^
3.89 x 10s
l.SOx 10 3
1.24x 10'
1.29x 10'
7.27 x 103
2.45 x 102
5.66 x 10-'
3.20 x 10^
—
—
1.67 x 10-6
3.38 x 10s
4.68 x 10*
1.25 x 10'
3.22 x 10 '
3.31 x 10'
—
—
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
6.60 x 10°
6.00 x 10'
2.90 x 10-'
7.59 x 10*
1.02x 10-6
3.59 x ID'5
1.15x 10*
1.70x 10*
1.24x 10*
1.86x 10-6
2.50 x 109
8.75 x 10*
2.82 x lO'7
4.16x 10-"
3.02 x 10 7
6.57 x 10-6
8.92 x 10-»
3.12x 10 7
9.95 x 107
1.49x 10'°
l.OSx 10"6
Volume VI
VII-82
-------
TABLE V1I-40
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With lexicological 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 10 '
3.90 x 10'
—
—
1.30x 10'
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
3.05 x 10s
l.OOx 10 7
7.11 x 10-6
1.84x 10*
1.66 x 10 5
1.61 x 10*
3.94 x 10^
3.24 x 10*
1.59x 10 3
3.79 x 10-*
1.75x 10*
1.01 x \0*
Hazard
Quotient
—
...
1.62x 10 5
1.84x 10 5
5.94 x 10*
1.94x 10 5
3.29 x 102
8.41 x 10*
4.07 x 10 3
—
—
7.75 x 10*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
7.53 x 10*
2.43 x 10 10
1.71 x 10*
4.51 x 10 9
4.07 x 10*
3.90 x 107
1.24x 10 5
7.92 x 109
3.83 x 10*
9.25 x 109
4.25 x 107
2.43 x 107
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
3.89 x 10*
4.51 x 10*
1.46x 10*
4.70 x 10*
1.04x 10 3
2.06 x 10*
9.81 x 10*
—
—
1.87 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.66 x 107
8.67 x 10 10
6.20 x 10*
1.60x 10*
1.45x 10 7
1.39x 10*
2.38 x 10 5
2.82 x 10*
1.38x 10 5
3.30 x 10*
1.51 x 10*
8.78 x 107
Hazard
Quotient
—
—
1.41 x 10 7
1.60x 10 7
5.19x 10*
1.68x 10 7
1.99x 10 3
7.33 x 10*
3.53 x 10s
—
—
6.76 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-83
-------
TABLE VII-41
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)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
v
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
1.01 x 102
1.90 x 10 2
1.50x 10'
l.OOx 10'
6.27 x 10°
1.52x 10-*
2.44 x 10*
3.00 x 10 '
1.52 x 10°
2.30 x 10°
1.68 x 10°
l.SOx 10°
4.90 x 10-'
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
7.67 x lO'7
1.51 x 10*
1.07x 10*
6.18x 10-6
2.81 x 10*
4.04 x 10*
2.12x 10"6
1.38 x 10s
2.28 x lO*
1.01 x 10 3
2.45 x 10'5
2.60 x 10*
5.43 x 10-7
Hazard
Quotient
7.59 x 10"
7.96 x 10s
7.12x 10*
6.18x 107
4.48 x 107
2.66 x 103
8.67 x 107
4.60 x 105
1.50 x 10*
4.41 x 10*
1.46 x 10 5
1.45x 10*
1.11 x 10*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.44 x 10*
5. 1 1 x 10 7
1.93 x 10*
1.97 x 10 7
8.94 x 10-"
l.OOx 10 10
6.75 x 10*
4.40 x 107
7.25 x 10-"
2.32 x 10*
7.80 x 10-7
8.29 x 10*
1.72x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
2.42 x 10-'°
2.69 x 105
1.29x 10 3
1.97x 10*
1.43x 10*
6.59 x lO'5
2.77 x 10*
1.47x 10*
4.77 x 10*
1.01 x 10*
4.64 x 10-7
4.61 x 10*
3.51 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
4.63 x 10*
9.73 x 107
3.66 x 10*
3.74 x lO'7
1.70x 10 7
2.06 x 10-'°
1.28x 10 7
8.34 x 107
1.38 x 10 7
8.53 x 10*
1.48x 10*
1.57 x 10 7
3.27 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
4.59 x 10-'°
5.12x 10s
2.44 x 10 J
3.74 x 10*
2.71 x 10*
1.36x 10^
5.24 x 10*
2.78 x 10*
9.05 x 10*
3.71 x 10*
8.80 x 10 7
8.74 x 10*
6.66 x 10*
VI
VII-84
-------
TABLE VII-42
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Short-tailed Shrew
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
1.22x 102
2.30 x 102
1.90x 10'
1.00 x 10'
7.61 x 10°
1.85x 10*
2.96 x 10°
3.70 x 10 '
1.85 x 10°
2.80 x 10°
2.04 x 10°
2.20 x 10°
5.90 x 10 '
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.28 x 10s
2.24 x 10s
l.SOx 10*
7.24 x 10-6
6.06 x 10s
1.24x 10 7
6.49 x 10s
7.44 x 10*
1.33 x 10"
6.03 x lO'2
1.33 x 10 3
1.56x 10s
1.92 x 10 5
Hazard
Quotient
1.87x 10 7
9.72 x 10*
9.46 x 10*
7.24 x 107
7.96 x 10*
6.73 x 102
2.19x 10 3
2.01 x 103
7.21 x 105
2.15x 10 2
6.50 x 10"
7.11 x 10*
3.25 x 105
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
7.26 x 10-7
2.78 x 10-7
3.95 x 10s
2.31 x 10 7
1.92x 10*
5.39 x 10 10
2.07 x 10*
2.37 x 10s
4.25 x 10*
1.38 x 10*
4.22 x 10s
4.98 x 107
6.08 x 107
Hazard
Quotient
5.95 x 10-»
1.21 x 10s
2.08 x 10"
2.31 x 10*
2.53 x 10 7
2.91 x 10"
6.98 x 107
6.41 x 10s
2.30 x 10*
4.94 x 10'5
2.07 x 10s
2.26 x lO'7
1.03x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.38x 10*
6.18x 10 7
7.55 x 1C'5
4.37 x 107
3.66 x 10*
1.52x 10 9
3.92 x 10*
4.50 x lO'5
8.06 x 10*
5.07 x 10*
8.01 x 105
9.45 x 10 7
1.15x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
1.13x 10*
2.69 x 105
3.97 x 10*
4.37 x 10*
4.80 x 107
8.24 x 10*
1.32x 10*
1.21 x 10^
4.36 x 10*
1.81 x 10"
3.93 x 10'5
4.29 x 107
1.95x 10*
Volume VI
VII-85
-------
TABLE VII-43
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Red Fox
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
»,
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BVV/day)
3.00 x 10'
6.00 x 103
5.00 x 102
l.OOx 10'
1.22x 10°
4.60 x 10'
2.20 -, i
9.00 x 10 2
4.60 x 10 '
2.40 x 10'1
S.lOx JO'1
6.00 x 10 '
l.lOx 10 3
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BVV/day)
1.74x 10-6
1.91 x 10*
2.52 x 105
1.25 x 10*
4.50 x 10*
1.30x 10*
4.93 x 10*
5.23 x 10 5
9.29 x 10*
4.19x 10 3
9.31 x 10 5
1.41 x 10*
1.42 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
5.79 x 10*
3.19x IQ-1
5.03 x 10^
1.25x 10 7
3.69 x 10*
2.82 x 102
2.24 x lO^1
5.81 x 10^
2.02 x 10 5
1.75 x 10 2
1.82 x UK4
2.34 x 10*
1.29x 10 3
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BVV/day)
5.42 x 10*
8.25 x 10*
2.61 x 10s
3.95 x 10*
1.40x 10 7
6.89 x 10"
1.54 x 10 7
1.62x 10*
2.88 x 10'1
9.36 x 10*
2.89 x 10*
4.40 x 10*
4.42x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
1.81 x 10"»
1.38x 10 5
5.21 x 10-»
3.95 x 10'
1.15x 107
l.SOx ID"4
7.00 x 10*
l.SOx 10 5
6.27 x lO'7
3.90 x 10'5
5.67 x 10*
7.34 x 10*
4.02 x 10s
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BVV/day)
l.OSx 10 7
1.64x 10 7
4.95 x 10s
7.55 x 10*
2.72 x 10-7
1.85x 10-'°
2.98 x 107
3.16x 10*
5.61 x 101
3.53 x 105
5.62 x 10*
8.50 x 10*
8.54 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
3.50 x 10*
2.73 x 103
9.90 x 10^
7.55 x 10*
2.23 x 107
4.01 x 10*
1.35x 10 5
3.51 x 105
1.22x 10*
1.47 x 10^
l.lOx 10 5
1.42x 10'7
7.76 x 10s
VI
VII-86
-------
TABLE VII-44 1
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Organic ECOCs I
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion - Stack Emissions - Mink
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
>;
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
4.40 x 10'
8.00 x 10 '
7.00 x 102
l.OOx 10'
l.78x 10°
6.70 x 107
3.20 x 102
1.30 x 10"'
6.70 x 10 '
3.60 x 10'1
7.40 x 10 '
8.00 x 10 '
1.60x 10 J
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
7.97 x 107
l.98x 10*
6.46 x 10*
3.l7x 107
2.40 x 10 5
2.60 x 10*
2.46 x 10s
1.36x 10 3
1.97 x 10*
8.74 x 10^
2.69 x 105
4.28 x 107
1.65x 10s
Hazard
Quotient
1.81 x 10*
2.48 x 10^
9.22 x 105
3.17x 10*
1.35x 10s
3.88 x 10 2
7.68 x 10-*
1.04x lO^1
2.94 x 10*
2.43 x 103
3.63 x 10s
5.35 x 107
1.03 x 10 2
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
3.52 x 107
5.04 x 10*
6.29 x 10*
1.01 x 10*
5.79 x 10 5
4.53 x 10'°
7.42 x 10s
5.44 x 10-6
6.94 x 10*
2.08 x 10*
1.81 x 10 5
5.83 x 10*
9.11 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
8.00 x 10*
6.30 x 10*
8.98 x 10 5
1.01 x 10 »
3.25 x 10s
6.76 x 10-1
2.32 x 10 3
4.18x 10 5
1.04x 10 7
5.77 x 10*
2.44 x lO'5
7.28 x 10*
5.69 x 10 3
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2. 16 x 10 7
9.19x 10*
1.19x 10 5
1.92x 10*
3.41 x 10s
l.OOx 10 »
3.65 x 10 5
3.15x 10*
1.23x 10 7
7.44 x 10*
1 .01 x 10 3
4.64 x 10*
1.13x 10 5
Hazard
Quotient |
4.91 x 10*
1.15 x 10s
1.70x 10-4
1.92x 10 »
1.91 x 10 5
1.49x 10 3
1.14x 10"'
2.42 x 10 J
1.83 x 10 7
2.07 x 105
1.36xlOJ
5.81 x 10*
7.09 x 10 J
Volume VI
VII-87
-------
TABLE VIMS
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
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pentachlorobenzene
•*,
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
1.01 x 10'
—
2.48 x 10 '
1.00 x 10'
2.01 x 10'
5.50 x 10*
l.OOx 10'
3.00 x Iff2
—
7.21 x 10"'
—
3.60 x 10°
6.30 x 10 '
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
6.27 x 10s
5.97 x 10s
4.71 x 10-1
1.83 x 10s
1.69x 10^
3.43 x 107
1.79x 10-4
2.09 x 10 3
3.76 x 10-*
1.70x 10'
3.73 x 10°
4.28 x 10 5
5.32 x 105
Hazard
Quotient
6.21 x 10-»
—
1.90x 10 3
1.83 x 10*
8.41 x 10-1
6.23 x 102
1.79x 10 3
6.97 x 102
—
2.36 x 10 '
—
1.19x 10 3
8.45 x 10s
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.00 x 10*
5.93 x 107
4.78 x 105
5.82 x 10 7
5.37 x 10*
1.46x 10 9
5.69 x 10*
6.66 x 10s
1.20x 10s
3.89 x 10-"
1.19x 10^
1.36x 10*
1.69x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
1.98 x 10^
—
1.93 x 10-*
5.82 x 10*
2.67 x 10's
2.65 x 10^
5.69 x 10'5
2.22 x 10°
—
5.40 x lO^4
—
3.79 x 10-7
2.68 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
3.79 x 10*
1.37x 10*
9.25 x 10 3
l.lOx 10*
1.02x 10s
4.15x 10'
1.08 x 10s
1.26x 10^
2.27 x 10 5
1.43 x 10 3
2.25 x 10^
2.59 x 10*
3.20 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
3.75 x lfrj
—
3.73 x 10-1
l.lOx 10 7
5.08 x 105
7.54 x 10^
1.08 x 10-1
4.21 x 103
—
1.98 x 10 3
—
7.18x lO'7
5.08 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-88
-------
TABLE VII-46
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
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Pcntachlorobenzene
Pentaehlorophenol
Total PCBs
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
8.60 x 102
—
2.11 x 10'
l.OOx 10'
6.20 x 10 2
4.70 x 10-6
8.00 x 102
2.60 x 101
—
6.13x 10'
—
3.10x 10°
5.30 x 10 '
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.83 x 10 7
2.28 x 10*
1.39x 10-6
5.41 x ia"
5.75 x 105
5.43 x 10*
5.71 x 10 5
3.76 x 10*
6.12x 10*
1.68x 10*
1.39x 10s
3.32 x 10*
4.04 x 10s
Hazard
Quotient
3.29 x 10-6
...
6.56 x 10*
5.41 x ia'2
9.27 x 10*
1.15% 10 2
7.14x \0*
1.45 x 10^
—
2.74 x 10*
—
1.07 x 10*
7.62 x 10s
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
8.32 x 107
6.46 x 10*
1.47 x 10*
1.91 x 10 10
1.46 x 10*
1.09x 10 •»
1.87 x 10^
1.27x 10s
2.09 x 10*
3.24 x 107
4.39 x 103
1.14x 10 7
2.29 x 10 5
Hazard
Quotient
9.67 x 10*
—
6.97 x 10*
1.91 x 10"
2.35 x 103
2.31 x 10-"
2.33 x 103
4.90 x 10^
—
5.29 x 107
—
3.67 x 10*
4.32 x 105
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
4.41 x 107
1.02x 10 7
1.39x 10*
8.84 x 10 "
8.57 x 10s
2.37 x 10»
9.16x 10 J
6.09 x 10*
9.92 x 10»
2.45 x lO'7
2.21 x 10s
5.39 x 10*
2.85 x 10s
Hazard
Quotient
5.12x10*
—
6.58 x 10*
8.84 x ia12
1.38x 10 *
5.04 x 10*
1.14x 10'
2.34 x 10"*
—
3.99 x 107
—
1.74 x 10*
5.38 x 10*
Volume VI
VII-89
-------
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
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophcne
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
5.10x 10 2
—
1.24x 10 '
I.OOx I01
1.01 x 10'
2.80 x 10*
5.00 x 10 2
l.SOx 10 2
—
3.61 x 10'
—
1.80 x 10°
3.10x 10'
Maximum Point/Ohio River
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
2.81 x 10*
2.89 x 10*
4.06 x 105
1.98x 10-6
7.60 x 10-6
2.14x 10*
7.98 x 10-6
8.95 x 10s
1.60x lO'5
7.24 x 10 3
1.60x 10*
2.30 x 10*
2.34 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
5.50 x 10s
—
3.27 x 10*
1.98x 10 7
7.52 x 105
7.65 x 10'
1.60x 10*
5.97 x 10 J
—
2.00 x 102
—
1.28 x 10*
7.56 x 10*
Tomlinson Run Lake
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
8.76 x 10*
1.26x 10 7
4.00 x 10 5
6.25 x 10*
2.36 x 107
1.13x 10 10
2.49 x 107
2.78 x 10*
4.97 x lO'7
1.62x 10 J
4.95 x 10*
7.21 x 10*
7.29 x 10*
Hazard
Quotient
1.72x 10*
—
3.22 x 10-1
6.25 x 10-»
2.33 x 10*
4.02 x 10 5
4.98 x 10*
1.85x 10*
—
4.48 x 10'
—
4.00 x 10*
2.35 x 10'7
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-
BW/day)
1.70x 10 7
2.51 x 10 7
7.59 x 10s
1.20x 10 7
4.58 x 10 7
3.02 x 10 10
4.82 x 107
5.41 x 10*
9.68 x JO'7
6.09 x 105
9.64 x 10*
1.39x 10 7
1.41 x 10 7
Hazard
Quotient
3.32 x 10*
—
6.12x 10*
1.20x 10*
4.54 x 10*
1.08 x 10*
9.63 x 10*
3.61 x 10*
—
1.69x 10*
...
7.74 x 10*
4.54 x 107
Volur-- VI
VII-90
-------
TABLE VII-48 |
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals |
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion
Fugitive Inorganic Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
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
Meadow Vole
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
l.SOx 10'
1.59x 10'
2.29 x 10°
1.07x 10°
1.52 x 10°
3.30 x 10 2
9.60 x 10 '
Short-Tailed Shrew
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
2.20 x 10 '
1.93 x 10 l
2.78 x 10°
1.30x 10°
1.85x 10°
4.00 x 102
1.17*10°
6.70 x 10*
6.79 x 107
2.93 x 105
1.60x 10^
6.49 x 107
5.94 x 107
2.01 x 107
3.72 x 10s
4.27 x 10*
1.28x 10s
1.49 x 10-*
4.27 x 10 7
1.80x 10*
2.09 x 10 7
5.15x 10*
5.16x 10 9
2.17x 10 7
1.23 x 10*
4.99 x 10'
4.57 x ID'9
1.53 x 10'
2.86 x lO'7
3.25 x 10*
9.48 x 10*
1.15 x 10*
3.28 x 10-'
1.38x 10 7
1.59 x 10*
2.86 x 107
2.88 x 10*
1.23 x 10*
6.81 x 10*
2.77 x 10*
2.54 x 10*
8.53 x 10*
1.59x 10*
1.81 x I07 1
5.36 x 107
6.37 x 10*
1.82 x 10*
7.70 x 107
8.89 x 10»
9.92 x 10s
5.32 x 10-*
9.64 x 10^
2.52 x 10 3
8.35 x 10*
1.62 x 10 5
1.72 x 10*
4.51 x 10"4
2.75 x 10 s
3.47 x lO^1
1.94x 10 J
4.51 x 10-6
4.05 x 10-1
1.47x 10*
7.64 x 101
4.10x 10*
7.42 x 10*
1.94x 10 3
6.43 x 10*
1.25 x 10 7
1.32x 10*
3.47 x 10*
2.12x 10'7
2.67 x 10*
1.49x 10 J
3.47 x 10*
3.11 x 10*
1.13 x 10*
4.26 x 10*
2.28 x 107
4.14x 10s
1.08 x lO^4
3.58 x 107
6.94 x 107
7.37 x 10*
1.93x 10s
1.18x 10*
1.49 x 10 J
8.29 x 10'5
1.94x 10 7
1.73 x 10 J
6.30 x 10*
Volume VI
VI1-91
-------
Chemical
TABLE ¥11-48
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion
Fugitive Inorganic Emissions - Ash Handling Facility
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)
Red Fox
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Mink
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
6.00 x IO2
4.80 x IO2
9.20 x 10 '
3.90 x 10 '
4.60 x 10 '
l.OOx 10 2
2.90 x 10 '
8.87 x 10*
5.55 x IO7
6.95 x 10 $
2.23 x lO^1
7.73 x IO7
1.25 x 10*
1.62 x 10 7
1.48x 10-*
1.16x 10 5
7.56 x 10 5
5.J3 x 10-1
1.68x 10*
1.25 x lO^1
5.59 x IO7
6.84 x 10*
4.28 x 10*
5.34 x IO7
1.72x 10*
5.96 x 10»
9.66 x 10 »
1.25 x 10 »
Hazard
Quotient
1.14x 10*
8.92 x 10*
5.81 x IO7
4.41 x 10*
1.30x 10*
9.66 x IO7
4.31 x 10*
Little Beaver Creek
Intake
(mg/kg-BW/day)
Hazard
Quotient
3.80 x 10 7
2.38 x 10*
2.98 x 10*
9.54 x 10*
3.32 x 10*
5.38 x 10*
6.96 x 10*
8.00 x lO'2
7.00 x 10*
1.33 x 10°
5.70 x 10 '
6.70 x 10 '
1.40 x 10 2
4.20 x io '
6.07 x 10*
4.68 x IO7
1.99x 10s
1.51 x 10-1
5.69 x IO7
5.43 x IO7
1.02x IO7
7.58 x 10s
6.68 x 10*
l.SOx 10 5
2.66 x 10^
8.49 x IO7
3.88 x 10s
2.43 x l(r7
6.98 x 10*
3.93 x IO9
3.02 x 10*
1.83 x 10*
8.03 x 10»
6.21 x 10'
7.99 x 10'°
8.72 x 1C"7
5.62 x 10*
2.27 x 10*
3.21 x 10*
1.20x 10*
4.44 x IO7
1.90x 10 »
2.90 x IO7
2.05 x 10*
3.03 x 10*
7.40 x 10*
2.91 x 10*
2.59 x 10*
4.39 x 10'
6.34 x 10*
4.96 x IO7
3.24 x 10*
2.45 x 105
7.21 x 10*
5.38 x 10*
2.40 x 10*
====^=
3.62 x 10*
2.93 x IO7
2.28 x 10*
1.30x 10 J
4.34 x 10*
1.85x 10*
1.05x 10*
Volu
-------
II
TABLE VII-48
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion
Fugitive Inorganic 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 '
7.80 x 10 '
—
2.60 x 10^
1.33 x 10s
2.70 x 103
6.62 x 10'J
2.16x 10s
4.43 x 10s
4.48 x 10*
4.40 x 10-*
—
3.10x 10 J
4,80 x 10 3
2.81 x 10s
5.68 x 10s
—
2.00 x 10*
1.02 x 10 7
2.08 x 10s
5.09 x 105
1.66x 10 7
3.41 x 10 7
3.45 x 10*
3.39 x 10*
—
2.39 x 10 5
3.69 x 10s
2.16x 107
4.37 x 107
—
Belted Kingfisher
Arsenic
Barium
^
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
5.00 x 10"'
—
7.40 x 10 '
1.17 x 10°
6.54 x 10 '
6.60 x 10 '
-lO1
6.87 x 10*
9.07 x 10'°
6.59 x 10*
2.22 x 10*
l.OSx 10*
6.18x 10'
3.16x Ifr"
1.37 x 10 7
—
8.91 x 10*
1.89x 10*
1.65 x 10*
9.37 x 10'
—
5.83 x 10*
8.08 x 10'°
7.27 x 10*
1.69x 10*
9.25 x 10*
5.16x 10"
2.86 x 10"
1.17x 10 7
—
9.83 x 10*
1.44x 10*
1.42x 10*
7.81 x 10*
—
1.11 x 10s
5.69 x 10 7
1.16x 10^
2.83 x 10^
9.27 x 107
1.90x 10*
1.93x 10 7
1.89x 10s
—
1.33 x lO^1
2.05 x 10^
1.21 x 10*
2.43 x 10*
—
7.73 x 10*
l.OOx 10*
5.76 x 10*
2.44 x 10*
1.21 x 10*
6.95 x 10*
3.45 x 10"
1.55x 10 7
—
7.79 x 10*
2.09 x 10*
1.85 x 10*
l.OSx 10*
—
Volume VI
VII-93
-------
Chemical
Ingestion
Benchmark
(mg/kg-BW/day)
TABLE VII-48
Comparison of Calculated Chemical Intakes of Metals
With Toxicological Benchmark Values for Ingestion
Fugitive Inorganic 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
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 '
3.90 x 10 '
—
1.28 x 10s
7.46 x 107
1.18x 10^
3.24 x 10-4
l.lOx 10-*
2.00 x 10-*
2.37 x 107
4.42 x 10s
—
2.68 x 10U
3.91 x 10s
2.84 x 10-*
5.13x KT6
—
9.87 x 10*
5.74 x 10'
9.07 x 107
2.50 x 10^
8.43 x 10'
1.54x 10*
1.82x 10 •»
3.41 x 107
—
2.06 x 10-6
3.01 x 107
2.19x 10*
3.95 x 10*
—
5.50 x lO'7
3.20 x 10*
5.07 x 10*
1.39x 10 '
4.70 x 10*
8.57 x 10*
1.02x 10*
1.90x lO*
—
1.15x 10*
1.67 x 10-*
1.22 x 10'7
2.20 x 107
—
VI
VII-94
-------
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
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
3.42 x 10"
4.20 x 103
1.38x 10 3
7.07 x 10"
4.10x 10 '
1.28x 10*
4.12 x 10"
6.19x 10'
4.16x 101
1.74 x 102
1.01 x 102
...
—
—
2. 10 x 10 5
5.96 x 10"
1.30x 10"
2.57 x 10s
5.33 x 103
1.53 x 10s
4.60 x 10"
2.21 x 103
2.88 x 102
8.49 x I03
3.95 x 103
7.12x 102
2.81 x 10 5
5.80 x 10"
5.46 x 10*
5.88 x 10'
2.19 x 10'
1.11 x 10'
3.67 x 10*
2.15x 10'
3.70 x 10'
1.32 x 10*
3.00 x 103
9.30 x 10*
2.88 x 102
4.21 x 102
6.95 x 102
3.81 x 10'
7.12x10-'
5.17 x 10*
1.96 x 10*
8.55 x 10 '
—
—
Stack Expected 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 x 103
5.61 x 10*
2.88 x 10"
1.67 x 10'
5.22 x 107
1.68 x 10"
1.73x 10"
1.17x 10 3
4.86 x 10"
2.82 x 10"
—
„.
—
1.35 x 10 5
3.68 x 10"
8.02 x 10s
1.59x 10 5
3.29 x 103
9.45 x 10*
2.84 x 10"
2.23 x 10"
2.90 x 103
8.57 x 10"
3.98 x 10"
7.18x 10 3
2.83 x 10*
5.85 x 10s
1.67 x 10*
1.79x 10 J
6.65 x 10*
3.36 x 10*
1.11 x 10"
6.54 x 10-*
1.13 x 10s
1.42x 10 2
3.21 x 10 '
9.95 x 102
3.07 x 102
4.51 x 102
7.43 x 10*
4.08 x 10 3
3.45 x 10*
2.50 x 10s
9.48 x 10*
4.13x 10*
._.
—
—
Volume VI
VII-95
-------
TABLE VII-50
Summed Ingestion Hazard Quotients - All Metal ECOC Sources - Tomlinson Run Lake
Species
Slimmed 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
l.OSx 10*
1.27x 10s
4.15x 10*
3.19x 10*
1.24x 10 3
4.28 x 107
1.24x 10*
1.56x 10-'
1.03x 10*
4.30 x 10'
2.72 x 10'
—
—
—
1.16x 107
3.28 x 10*
7.11 x 107
2.79 x 10*
2.94 x 10 J
1.21 x 10 3
2.52 x 10*
6.21 x 10*
8.08 x 10s
2.37 x 10s
1.74x 10 5
2.00 x 10-1
7.84 x 10*
1.61 x 10*
Stack Expected Metal Scenario + Ash Handling Facility
Meadow vole
Short-tailed shrew
Red fox
Mink,
American robin
Belted kingfisher
Red-tailed hawk
5.42 x 107
6.58 x 10-4
2.15x10*
1.65x 10*
6.42 x 10*
2.22 x lO'7
6.43 x lO'7
4.58 x 107
3.01 x 10*
1.26x 10*
7.98 x lO'7
—
—
—
9.66 x 10*
2.72 x 10*
5.92 x 10 7
2.31 x 10*
2.43 x 10s
l.OOx 10 5
2.10x 10*
1.33 x 10*
1.73 x 10 5
5.10x 10*
3.72 x 10*
4.27 x 105
1.67 x 10*
3.48 x 10 7
1.36x 10-2
1.45 x 10-'
5.37 x ID"2
5.00 x lO'2
9.03 x 10"'
5.91 x lO'2
9.05 x ID'2
3.28 x 10 '
7.38 x 10*
2.25 x 10*
1.05 x 10*
1.04x 10*
1.86x 10 2
9.18x ID'2
1.78x 10°
1.28x 10 2
4.82 x 10'J
2.14x 10 3
—
—
.
6.38 x 10*
6.77 x 10*
2.52 x 10*
2.34 x 10*
4.21 x lO'7
2.76 x lO*
4.25 x 10*
3.51 x 10"J
7.92 x 10-4
2.40 x 1O4
1.12x 10*
1.11 x 10*
1.98x 10*
9.85 x 10*
9.69 x 10-»
6.94 x 10*
2.62 x 104
1.17x 10*
—
—
—
Volu- VI
VII-96
-------
TABLE VII-51
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 105
1.70x 10s
9.74 x 10*
5.08 x 10s
4.16x 107
5.10x 10*
5.43 x 10'
3.63 x 10°
1.52x 10°
8.97 x 10 '
—
—
—
6.11 x 10 7
1.71 x 10 5
3.71 x 10*
2.61 x 10*
l.52x 10^
8.92 x 10*
1.32x 10 5
2.42 x 10 5
3.16x 10^
9.32 x 10s
4.94 x 10s
7.80 x \0*
7.95 x 10*
6.35 x 10*
4.77 x 102
5.12x 10'
1.91 x 10'
1.15x 10 '
3.19 x 10*
4.90 x 102
3.22 x 10-'
1.15 x !<)•
2.61 x 10'
8.09 x 10*
2.79 x 10'
3.66 x 10*
1.59x 10 2
3.31 x 10'
6.24 x 10 J
4.51 x 10 2
1.71 x 10 2
7.48 x 10 J
-
~
—
Stack Expected 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 105
9.94 x 10*
5.68 x 10*
1.89x 10 3
2.43 x 107
2.98 x 10*
1.66x 10*
1.11 x 10s
4.64 x 10*
2.74 x 10*
—
—
—
5.42 x 107
1.51 x 10 5
3.28 x 10*
2.31 x 10*
1.35x \0*
7.89 x 10*
1.16x ID'5
7.01 x 10*
9.12x 10s
2.70 x 10s
1.43x 10s
2.26 x 10*
2.30 x 10*
1.84x 10*
2.90 x 10*
3. 10 x 107
1.15x 107
6.95 x 10*
1.94x 10*
2.96 x 10*
1.95x 10 7
1.23 x 10*
2.81 x lO'3
8.69 x 10*
3.00 x lO-'
3.93 x 10*
1.70x 10*
3.55 x 10 3
3.73 x 10*
2.68 x 107
1.02x 10 7
4.45 x 10*
—
—
-
Volume VI
VH-97
-------
TABLE Vn-52
Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One for all Exposure Scenarios - Abiotic Media
Receptor
Air
Soil
Surface Water
Sediment
Stack Projected Permit Limit Metal Scenario
Animals
Terrestrial Plants
Soil Fauna
Aquatic Biota
Ba-3.3
Ni- 10
—
—
—
Se -361
Tl- 154
Ni-31
Ag-21
Ba- 1.9
Ni-23
Se-7.2
Hg - 2.5
—
—
—
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
—
—
—
No exceedences
Stack High-End Organic Scenario
Animals
Terrestrial Plants
Soil Fauna
Aquatic Biota
No exceedences
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
—
—
—
—
No exceedences
—
— •'
—
No exceedences
Fugitive Organic Scenario (Fugitive Organic Vapor Sources)
Animals
Terrestrial Plants
Soil Fauna
Formaldehyde:
1.9 (tank farm)
No exceedences
—
—
—
—
»"
—
—
—
—
—
Volume VI
VH-98
-------
TABLE Vn-52
Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One for all Exposure Scenarios - Abiotic Media
Receptor
Aquatic Biota
Air
—
Soil
—
Surface Water
No exceedences
Sediment
No exceedences
Volume VI
VD-9Q
-------
TABLE Vn-53
Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One for All Exposure 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 - 1,490
Se-930
Ba- 174
Ni-22
Ag - 2.0
Tl-679
Se-288
Ba- 101
Ni-11
Se -421
Ni - 367
Hg-4.1
Hg- 1.1
Se-38
Ni-37
Hg-2.1
No exceedences
Tl - 10.4
Se-7.4
Ba- 1.03
Tl-3.6
Se - 2.3
Tl-2.2
Se- 1.1
Se- 1.04
Hg - 3.8
No exceedences
Tl-2.7
Se- 1.2
Tl-37
Se-26
Ba - 3.6
Tl - 12.9
Se-8.1
Ba- 1.5
Tl-6.4
Se -2.8
Se-3.7
Ni - 3.2
Hg- 1.8
No exceedences
Stack Expected Metal Scenario
All Species
No exceedences
No exceedences
Stack High-End Organic Scenario
All Species
No exceedences
No exceedences
No exceedences -
No exceedences
Fugitive Inorganic Scenario (Ash Handling Facility)
All Species
No exceedences
No exceedences
No exceedences
Volume VI
vn-ioo
-------
TABLE VU-53
Summary of Hazard Quotients That Exceed One for All Exposure Scenarios
Bird and Mammal Indicator Species
Indicator Species
Water Body
Maximum Point/
Ohio River
Tomlinson Run Lake
Little Beaver Creek
Fugitive Organic Scenario (Fugitive Organic Vapor Sources)
...
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Volume VI
vn-ioi
-------
TABLE Vn-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
Food chain
Selenium
3.21 x 10-'
Short-tailed shrew/Ohio River
Food chain
Thallium
2.63 x lO'1
Stack High-End Organic Scenario
American robin/Ohio River
Food chain
Hexachlorophene
2.36 x 10-'
Fugitive Inorganic Scenario (Ash Handling Facility)
NONE
Fugitive Organic Scenario (Fugitive Organic Vapor Sources)
Animal/Open Wastewater Tank
Air - Inhalation
Formaldehyde
3.77 x 10-'
Volume VI
Vn-102
-------
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)
Air - Plants ||
Nickel
1.00 x 10'
2.28 x 10*
7 1
Air - Animals
Barium
Soil - Plants
Barium
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
3.29 x 10°
9.01 x 10*
6 1
»
1.85x 10°
3.05 x 10'
3.61 x 102
2.08 x 10'
1.54x 102
5.04 x 10*
6.94 x 10-*
3.86 x 10-2
9.46 x 10-'
9.50 x 10-3
6 |
7 1
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 lO4
2
7
4
Surface Water (Ohio River)
Silver
2.58 x 10°
1.17x ID"5
Ingestion - Meadow Vole (Maximum Impact Point)
Barium
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
6.19x 10'
5.46 x 10°
1.32x 102
3.12x 102
1.69 x 10*
1.24 x 10*
1.42 x 10"2
1.93 x 10-2
5
5
6 "' '-
4
4
Ingestion - Meadow Vole (Little Beaver Creek)
Selenium
Thallium
1.15x 10°
2.70 x 10°
1.23 x 10"
1.67 x 10-4
4
4
Volume VI
VH-103
-------
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
Ingestion - Short-tailed Shrew (Maximum Impact Point)
Barium
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
4.16x 102
5.88 x 10'
3.00 x 103
5.17 x 10°
4.25 x 103
1.14x NT3
1.34 x 10-*
3.21 x 10-'
2.35 x 10-5
2.63 x 10-'
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 104
6.43 x KT1
Relative Difference
(Orders of Magnitude)
5
6
4
5
4
6
4
5
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 10"3
2.27 x 10-3
6
4
4
Ingestion - Red Fox (Maximum Impact Point)
Barium
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1.74 x 102
2.19x 10'
9.30 x 102
1.96 x 10°
1.49x 103
4.74 x 10-1
4.97 x 10-*
9.94 x ia2
8.92 x ID"*
9.23 x 10"2
6
7
4
6 '•'- -
5
Ingestion - Red Fox (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Selenium
Thallium
2.25 x 10°
3.63 x 10°
2.40 x 10-*
2.24 x 10-1
4
4
Ingestion - Red Fox (Little Beaver Creek)
Barium
1.52x 10°
4.14x 10*
6
Volume VI
VH-104
-------
TABLE VII-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
Selenium
Thallium
Hazard Quotient
Stack Projected Permit
Limit Metal
Scenario
8.09 x 10°
1.29 x 10'
Ingestion - Mink (Maximum Impact Point)
Barium
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
1.01 x 102
1.11 x 101
2.88 x 102
6.79 x 102
Stack Expected Metal
Scenario
8.64 x Iff4
7.99 x 10"
Relative Difference
(Orders of Magnitude)
4
5
2.75 x Iff4
2.51 x 10*
3.07 x 10-2
4.20 x 10"2
6
7
4
4
Ingestion - Mink (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Selenium
Thallium
1.05 x 10°
2.17x 10°
1.12x Iff4
1.34x Iff4
4
4
Ingestion - Mink (Little Beaver Creek)
Selenium
Thallium
2.79 x 10°
6.36 x 10°
2.98 x Iff4
3.93 x Iff4
4
4
Ingestion - American Robin (Maximum Impact Point)
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
4.11 x 10°
3.67 x 102
4.21 x 102
6.53 x 10-2
8.33 x Iff3
4.50 x 10-2
2
7
4
Ingestion - American Robin (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Selenium
1.04 x 10°
1.11 x 10"
Ingestion - American Robin (Little Beaver Creek)
Nickel
Selenium
3.19x 10°
3.66 x 10°
7.26 x 10"7
3.91 x Iff4
4 •' '.
7
4
Ingestion - Belted Kingfisher (Maximum Impact Point)
Mercury
1.08 x 10°
1.72x Iff2
2
Volume VI
Vn-105
-------
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 (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Mercury
3.80 x 10°
6.05 x lO"2
2
Ingestion - Belted Kingfisher (Little Beaver Creek)
Mercury
1.77 x 10°
2.81 x 10-2
2
Ingestion - Red-tailed Hawk (Maximum Impact Point)
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
2.07 x 10°
3.70 x 10'
3.81 x 10'
3.29 x 10"2
8.41 x 1O*
4.07 x lO"3
2
7
4
Volume VI
VH-106
-------
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
Air - Animal Inhalation
Selenium
1.00 x 10°
1.07 x 10"
Relative Difference
(Orders of Magnitude)
4
Soil - Plants
Mercury
8.43 x ID"1
1.34x 10-2
1
Soil - Soil Fauna
Barium
Silver
3.08 x 10-'
8.33 x 10-'
8.40 x ID"7
3.79 x Iff*
6 |
5 |
Surface Water (Ohio River) ||
Mercury
Selenium
1.43 x 10-'
2.55 x ID'1
2.28 x 10-3
2.72 x 1(T3
2 1
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 10*
Sediment (Ohio River)
Selenium
2.11 x 10-'
2.26 x 10-5
2
5
4
Ingestion - Meadow Vole (Maximum Impact Point) -
Mercury
Silver
1.65 x 10-'
7.12x 10"'
2.63 x 10-3
3.24 x 10*
2
5 1
Ingestion - Meadow Vole (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Barium
Selenium
1.56 x 10-'
3.28 x 10-'
4.25 x 10-7
3.50 x 10-'
6
4
Volume VI
VH-107
-------
TABLE VD-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 10-'
Stack Expected Metal
Scenario
4.74 x 10-5
Relative Difference
(Orders of Magnitude)
4
Ingestion - Meadow Vole (Little Beaver Creek)
Barium
5.43 x 10'
1.48 x 10*
«
Ingestion - Short-tailed Shrew (Maximum Impact Point)
Mercury
6.21 x 10-'
9.88 x 1O3
2
Ingestion - Short-tailed Shrew (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Nickel
1.45 x ID"1
3.30 x 10*
Ingestion - Short-tailed Shrew (Little Beaver Creek)
Nickel
5.12x 10-'
1.16x lO"7
7 1
6
Ingestion - Red Fox (Maximum Impact Point)
Mercury
6.23 x 10-' :
9.91 x 10°
2
Ingestion - Red Fox (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Barium
4.30 x 10-'
1.17x 1O*
5
Ingestion - Red Fox (Little Beaver Creek)
Nickel
1.91 x 10-'
4.33 x 10*
7
Silver
8.55 x 10-'
3.89 x 10*
Ingestion - Mink (Tomlinson Run Lake) '" ;
Barium
Mercury
2.72 x 10-'
2.02 x 10-'
7.42 x 10-7
3.22 x 10-3
6
2
Ingestion - Mink (Little Beaver Creek)
Barium
Nickel
8.97 x 10-'
1.15 x 10-'
2.45 x 10*
2.61 x 10*
5
7
Volume VI
VH-108
-------
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)
Ingestion - American Robin (Tomlinson Run Lake)
Mercury
Nickel
1.31 x ia'
9.03 x 10-'
2.08 x 10-3
2.05 x 10"7
2
6
Ingestion - American Robin (Little Beaver Creek)
Mercury
2.48 x 10-'
3.95 x 10-3
2
Ingestion - Belted Kingfisher (Maximum Impact Point)
Nickel
2.15x ID"1
4.89 x 1O*
Ingestion - Red-tailed Hawk (Little Beaver Creek)
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
1.25 x 10-'
3.22 x 10-'
3.31 x 10-'
1.99 x 10-3
7.33 x 10*
3.53 x Ifr3
7
2
7
4
Volume VI
VII-109
-------
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
Permit Limit Stack Expected
Metal Scenario Metal Scenario
Exposure Scenario
Stack High-End
Organic
Scenario
Fugitive
Inorganic
Scenario
Fugitive
Organic
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
-FishBAFs
- Small mammal BAFs
- Ingestion Rates
- Body Weights
Upper-Bound Best Estimate
High-End High-End
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
Volume VI
VIM 10
-------
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
-------
TABLE VII-58
Key Assumptions for Chapter VII - Risk Characterization
Assumption
The maximum projected impact points
(from dispersion and deposition
modeling) accurately represent an
upper-bound exposure estimate.
The assessment and measurement
endpoints used in the SERA are
appropriate.
rltie toxicological endpoints (growth
and reproduction) are appropriate.
Receptor groups not specifically
addressed in the SERA are not at risk.
°i\
Basis
The use of media concentrations
derived at (he projected points of
maximum air concentrations or
deposition represents the highest
possible modeled exposures.
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 toxicological 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.
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.
Magnitude of
Effect
moderate
low
low
Direction of
Effect
overestimate
unknown
underestimate
Importance
to Risk
Conclusions
moderate to
high
high
moderate
moderate
Magnitude of
Conservatism
high
high
low
Volume VI
VII-112
-------
TABLE VII-58
Key Assumptions for Chapter VII - Risk Characterization
Assumption
Hazard quotients less than one
represent negligible risk.
Use of a chemical-by-chemical
evaluation is appropriate.
Basis
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.
Professional judgement based on
accepted ecological risk assessment
methodology.
Magnitude of
Effect
high
Direction of
Effect
unknown
Importance
to Risk
Conclusions
high
high
Magnitude of
Conservatism
moderate to
high
low to
moderate
Volume VI
VIM 13
-------
. UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
As noted in several preceding chapters (Sections IV. G, V.H, VI.H, and VH.H), there
are numerous sources of uncertainty throughout the SERA. There are two main types of
uncertainties: (1) those that are inherent to screening-level ecological risk assessments, and
(2) those that result from the methodologies used in this SERA to estimate exposure
concentrations or doses and to establish lexicological 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 ecological assessments, which is
designed to ensure that risks are not underestimated. As such, screening-level assessments
employ a conservative (protective) evaluation process within 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 uncertainties of the SERA.
The second type of uncertainty in the SERA is attributable to the assumptions used in
establishing exposure estimates and lexicological 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 in 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) lexicological uncertainty factors, and (6) chronic toxicity no-effect levels. These
assumptions are intended to result in 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 in 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 in uncertainty. They are:
• The stressors (the ECOC selection process)
f
• The receptors (the indicator species selection process)
Volume VI VTH-l
-------
• The exposures (the estimates of emissions, media concentrations, exposure
pathways, and contact rates of the receptors)
• The lexicological benchmarks (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 VH. These sections also
provide an indication of the relative magnitude of each assumption's effect on the outcome of
the risk estimates (low, moderate, high), the direction of the effect if it is known
(underestimate, overestimate, unknown [may over or underestimate and may vary with
circumstances]), the relative importance of the assumption to the risk conclusions (low,
moderate, high), and the relative degree of conservatism associated with the assumption
(low, moderate, high).
Most of the uncertainties associated with ECOC selection (Chapter IV) and risk
characterization (Chapter VTI) are of the type that are inherent to 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 (processes
that are site-specific), and the decision is made to conduct the risk characterization using the
hazard quotient method and a chemical-by-chemical approach (methodologies that are typical
of screening-level assessments), the remaining key uncertainties are as follows:
• Toxicological benchmarks - There are relatively few assumptions in
establishing lexicological 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
dioxin/furan 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
Volume VI VTH-2
-------
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 K^ 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) total organic carbon values
in soil and sediment, (2) lipid and water contents to estimate tissue
concentrations of plants, earthworms, and fish, and (3) the relative
contribution of organic versus inorganic mercury to exposures.
There are several additional uncertainties, regarding both lexicological 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:
1. 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.
2. Not all of the organic mass from the stack facility tests could be characterized and
therefore represents either additional chemicals and/or additional mass of those
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
chemicals or chemical groups with known ecotoxicological effects). If the latter, a
proportional proration of the uncharacterized mass across the identified chemicals
would increase the exposures by about 2.5 times for organic chemicals other than
dioxin/furans and by about 1.5 times for dioxin/furans. Application of these
adjustment factors did not cause the highest organic stack hazard quotient values to
exceed one, that is, risks are still predicted to be low to negligible.
£>
3. Not all possible exposure routes are evaluated for a given receptor. In particular,
dermal routes for bird and mammal indicator species were not evaluated in the SERA.
Volume VI VTJI-3
-------
However, they are considered insignificant relative to ingestion and inhalation
exposure routes.
4. The three water bodies evaluated in the SERA (Ohio River, Little Beaver Creek, and
Tomlinson Run Lake), and the terrestrial habitats surrounding these water bodies, are
assumed to represent the highest potential exposures within the larger assessment
area. A qualitative evaluation of dispersion and deposition relative to distance and
direction from the WTI facility (Chapter V) suggests that the three areas evaluated are
sufficiently representative to account for any potentially significant risks associated
with routine emissions from the WTI facility.
5. Not all ecological receptor groups potentially present in the assessment area are
evaluated in the SERA, generally due to the lack of lexicological data. Amphibians
and reptiles are the two major vertebrate classes which were not evaluated. It is
assumed that these two receptor groups are not exposed to significantly higher
concentrations of the ECOCs than are indicator species that are evaluated, that is,
their exposure routes/pathways would be comparable to those of receptor groups that
were evaluated. It is also assumed that these two receptor groups are not more
sensitive than the indicator species evaluated.
Most species of amphibians, especially larval forms, would be exposed to
chemicals in the environment in a manner similar to that of fish. Thus, amphibians
are not likely to be exposed at higher levels than indicator species groups which were
addressed in the SERA, such as fish. In regard to lexicological sensitivity, the
literature is devoid of compelling evidence that adult and larval amphibians are more
sensitive to chemicals than other land and aquatic vertebrates (Hall and Henry 1992).
Available data which compare the relative sensitivity of larval amphibian forms to that
of fish include:
• Silberhorn et al. (1989) evaluated the teratogenicity and developmental
toxicity of six metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, selenium,
and zinc) to the embryo-larval stages of three frog/toad species and
four freshwater fish species. Fish were generally more sensitive than
amphibians to all of these metals except arsenic, although there was
considerable overlap in the range of effect levels between these two
taxonomic groups.
**
• In an evaluation of the teratogenic effects of inorganic mercury to fish
and amphibian embryos, Birge et al. (1979, 1983) found that the LCJO
Volume VI Vffl-4
-------
(survival at hatching) ranged from 1.3 to 107.5 /*g/L for 14 species of
frogs and toads, and from 4.7 to 140 /xg/L for six species of fish.
Although the most sensitive amphibian species was about four times
more sensitive than the most sensitive fish species tested, the range of
toxicity between the two taxonomic groups was broadly similar.
• Black et al. (1982) conducted embryo-larval tests using four amphibian
species, two fish species, and 11 organic chemicals. Toxicity based on
survival and hatchability was similar for 9 of the 11 chemicals tested,
with amphibians more sensitive to phenol and fish more sensitive to
toluene.
• Hall and Henry (1992), based on a literature review, concluded that
amphibians were less sensitive than fish to certain cholinesterase
inhibiting pesticides but more sensitive to two chemicals (3-
trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol and formalin) used in fisheries
management.
In summary, a comparison of available lexicological data for a number of
inorganic and organic chemicals suggests that the toxicological sensitivities of the
larval forms of most amphibian species are broadly similar to those of fish. Thus,
not including amphibians as an indicator species group in the SERA is not likely to
result in an underestimate of risk to the overall ecological community.
Data concerning the effects of environmental contaminants on reptiles is
severely limited (Hall 1980). The sensitivity of reptilian species to chemical
exposures relative to birds, fish, or other groups is not generally known. Limited
data for four pesticides and one species of lizard suggests similar sensitivities relative
to other vertebrate groups (Hall and Henry 1992).
6. There are gaps in the toxicological data bases used in the ECOC selection process and
in the characterization of ecological effects. As discussed in Chapter IV, none of the
data gaps associated with the ECOC selection process are likely to significantly affect
the outcome of this process. During the characterization of exposure and risk
characterization portions of the SERA, not all of the ECOCs could be evaluated for
all indicator species because of gaps in the toxicological data base. The primary data
gap involved the evaluation of terrestrial plant exposures to ECOCs in ambient air.
Gaps in the toxicological data base were generally infrequent for the other indicator
species and exposure combinations. As discussed in Chapters VI and VII, these data
Volume VI Vm-5
-------
gaps were not considered to have had a significant impact upon the conclusions of the
SERA.
7. The SERA does not address the incremental risk associated with the WTI facility by
quantitatively including existing background levels of the ECOCs in the various media
evaluated in the fate and transport modeling. Evaluating the potential influence of
other sources of contamination is rarely considered in screening-level assessments. In
addition, site-specific background data were generally only available for metals in
surface water bodies (regional data were available for metals in soils). However,
except for the stack permit limit metal scenario, projected concentrations of the metal
ECOCs were generally within the range of natural background concentrations for soils
(see Chapter V).
Except for the stack permit limit metal scenario, calculated hazard quotients
were almost always less than 0.1, suggesting that the WTI facility would contribute
only a small fraction (10 percent or less) of the amount of a chemical required to
produce an adverse ecological effect at the point of maximum impact. Further from
these points of maximum impact, the facility's contribution would be even less.
Thus, under routine operating conditions, the estimated emissions from the WTI
facility are likely to contribute only a very small increment to the total ecological risk
when all emission sources of a given ECOC in the assessment area are considered.
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 lexicological benchmark values provides the basis
for concluding that the SERA did not underestimate risks. This may have resulted in 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 exposure scenarios where the hazard quotients are less than one when in fact there is
a significant risk (i.e., the risks are underestimated).
Volume VI VTH-6
-------
EL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Potential risks to ecological receptors as a result of exposure to estimated stack and
fugitive emissions from the WT1 facility are characterized using screening-level ecological
risk assessment (SERA) methodologies, including 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 (HQ) of one or less 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 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 infonnation, 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 in the SERA. Two stack emission scenarios
and two fugitive emission scenarios are evaluated as part of the primary objective of the
SERA. These include: (1) the stack expected metal scenario, which includes, as a key
component, annual average emission rate estimates based on data from facility tests, (2) the
stack high-end organic scenario, which includes, as a key component, high-end (95-percent
UCL) emission rate estimates based on facility performance tests, (3) the fugitive inorganic
scenario, which includes, as a key component, high-end (95-percent UCL) emission rate
estimates of fugitive fly ash emissions from the ash handling facility, and (4) the fugitive
organic scenario, which includes, as a key component, 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. An additional stack emission scenario, the stack
projected permit limit metal scenario, which includes, as a key component, emission rate
estimates based on the facility's currently permitted maximum hourly emissions extrapolated
to an annual average rate, is evaluated to address the secondary objective of the SERA.
Volume VI IX-1
-------
Each of these five exposure scenarios also includes components addressing deposition,
contact, and uptake rates and generally conservative assumptions to estimate potential
exposures to ecological receptors.
Five assessment endpoints, chosen during conceptual site model development, are the
basis for evaluating potential ecological risks under each of the exposure scenarios. As
described in Chapter n, an assessment endpoint 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 chronic lexicological benchmarks for
ecologically relevant lexicological endpoints (those affecting reproduction and/or growth) and
selected indicator species or species groups. The following conclusions are made regarding
the five assessment endpoints:
1. Reproductive Integrity of Bird and Mammal Populations
• Moderate to high magnitude risks (HQs of up to 4,250) are indicated for six
metal ECOCs (barium, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium) under
the stack projected permit limit metal scenario at the estimated maximum
impact point (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, selenium, thallium
and mercury. However, as discussed in Chapter I, Ihe slack projected permil
limit metal scenario is not representative of the expected metal emissions (and
the resulting risks) from the facility stack.
• Low to negligible risks are indicated from estimated exposures to stack metals
under the stack expected metal scenario, estimated high-end exposures to stack
organic ECOCs, and estimated high-end exposures to fugitive inorganic
ECOCs from the ash-handling facility.
• Risks of lower magnitude are indicated (hazard quotient of 1.9 for Ihe lank
farm) for animal inhalation exposure lo formaldehyde under Ihe fugitive
organic scenario. However, the area exceeding benchmark values is less than
one acre in size and is contained entirely within the fenced-in portion of the
facility property. Given that the habitats within the facility boundary are
developed, il is unlikely lhal species other than those common to urban areas
would be exposed to these predicted concentrations. -Even then, exposures
would be limited lo relatively few individuals within the populations of these
species. Risks in surrounding areas more distant from this source, where
Volume VI DC-2
-------
habitat quality is higher and receptor communities are more diverse, would
likely be low to negligible as air concentrations decrease significantly with
distance. Thus, risks to ecological populations and/or communities from
exposure to formaldehyde in air are not likely to be ecologically significant
and do not warrant further study or corrective actions.
2. Biological Integrity of Terrestrial Plant Communities
• Risks of moderate to high magnitude are indicated for five metal ECOCs
(barium, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium), one (nickel) via air exposure
(HQ of 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.
However, as discussed in Chapter I, the stack projected permit limit metal
scenario is not representative of the expected metal emissions (and the
resulting risks) from the facility stack.
• Low to negligible risks are indicated for the other four exposure scenarios.
3. Ecological Integrity of Aquatic Communities
• 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 (the Ohio River within 1-km of the facility). However, as discussed in
Chapter I, the stack projected permit limit metal scenario is not representative
of the expected metal emissions (and the resulting risks) from the facility
stack. There are low to negligible risks indicated for exposure to stack metal
ECOCs in sediments for this scenario.
• Low to negligible risks are indicated for the other four exposure scenarios.
4. Integrity of Aquatic and Terrestrial Food Chains
• Moderate to high magnitude risks are indicated for six metal ECOCs (barium,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium) 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
Volume VI K-3
-------
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 1.03 for the shrew),
selenium (HQ of 7.4 for the shrew), and thallium (HQ 10.4 for the shrew).
However, as discussed in Chapter I, the stack projected permit limit metal
scenario is not representative of the expected metal emissions (and the
resulting risks) from the facility stack.
• Low to negligible risks are indicated from estimated exposures to stack metals
under the stack expected metal scenario, estimated high-end exposures to stack
organic ECOCs, and estimated high-end exposures to fugitive inorganic
ECOCs from the ash-handling facility.
• 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. As discussed above for the first
assessment endpoint, these exceedences are limited in areal extent and are not
likely to be ecologically significant.
5. Exposure Potential of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
• There are no recorded sightings within the area designated as the estimated
maximum impact point (within 1-km of the facility). There are 13 recorded
sightings (including 8 plants, 2 birds, 2 fish, and 1 freshwater mussel) 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. Based on the relative
scarcity of rare, threatened, and endangered species at or near the points of
maximum impact and the lack of significant risk for those exposure scenarios
which address expected levels of routine emissions, adverse impacts to rare,
threatened, and endangered species are not expected. Thus, additional studies,
such as Biological Assessments, do not appear to be warranted.
In summary, with regard to the primary objective of the SERA, low to negligible
risks to ecological receptors are predicted for the stack expected metal scenario, the stack
high-end organic scenario, and the fugitive inorganic scenario. Given the generally
Volume VI DC-4
-------
conservative methodology used in the SERA, there is a relatively high degree of confidence
in these predictions of low to negligible risk.
There was a prediction of risk for animal inhalation exposures to formaldehyde from
fugitive organic vapor emissions (HQ of 2.3 for all sources). Estimated formaldehyde
concentrations in air exceed benchmarks over a very limited area within developed habitats.
Thus, risks to ecological receptors from exposure to formaldehyde in air are not likely to be
ecologically significant and do not warrant further study or corrective actions.
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.
With regard to the secondary objective of the SERA, the magnitude of predicted risks
for the stack projected permit limit metal scenario 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 in 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 metal scenario is the degree
of realism in the stack emission rate estimates that are based on the maximum permitted
hourly emission level and assumed metal removal efficiencies of zero for each of the six
metals with hazard quotients exceeding one. 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 the maximum hourly permitted
levels. Although this level of emission is considered very unlikely, it is theoretically and
legally possible. At present, the RCRA permit imposes hourly limits on the emissions of ten
metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, silver,
and thallium), and it is anticipated that two additional metals (nickel and selenium; see
Chapter IV) will be regulated when the final operating conditions are added to the permit.
If metal emissions of this magnitude were to be reached, 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 likely. Given the areal extent over
Volume VI K-5
-------
which some of these predicted risks extend, adverse effects are possible to some wildlife
populations and possibly to the terrestrial plant community. Quantifying the degree of
likelihood and the extent of these potential effects for the indicator species, metals, and
exposure pathways for which risk is predicted would require additional evaluation at the
PERA or DERA level. The implications of such high metal exposures for rare, threatened,
and endangered species that may inhabit the assessment area would have to be determined
from a biological assessment (not a PERA or DERA). However, this scenario does not
reflect emissions expected during routine operations. The results of the SERA indicate that
routine operations at the WIT facility would not present a significant risk to ecological
receptors.
Volume VI DC-6
-------
X. REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1989a. lexicological 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 polycyclic 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.
Volume VI X-l
-------
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
for4,4'-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). 1993L 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.
Volume VI X-2
-------
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. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Baes, C.F. IE, R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. A review and analysis of
parameters for assessing transport of environmentally released radionuclides through
agriculture. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL-5786. 148 pp.
Ban-on, M.G., I.R. Schultz, and W.L. Hayton. 1989. Presystemic bronchial metabolism
limits di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate accumulation in fish. Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology. 99:49-57.
Bellrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America, third edition. Stackpole
Books, Hanisburg, 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 in 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 in earthworms
and in soil derived from dredged material at confined disposal facilities in the Great
Lakes region. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 24:151 -165.
Beyer, W.N., R.L. Chaney, and B.M. Mulhern. 1982. Heavy metal concentrations in
earthworms from soil amended with sewage sludge. Journal of Environmental
Quality. 11:381-385.
Birge, W.J., J.A. Black, A.G. Westerman, and J.E. Hudson. 1979. The effects of mercury
on reproduction of fish and amphibians. Chapter 23 IN The biogeochemistry of
mercury in the environment. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press.
Birge, W.J., J.A. Black, A.G. Westerman, and B.A. Ramey. 1983. Fish and amphibian
embryos - a model system for evaluating teratogenicity. Fundamental and Applied-
Toxicology. 3:237-242.
Black, J.A., W.J. Birge, W.E. McDonnell, A.G. Westerman, B.A. Ramey, and D.M.
Bruser. 1982. The aquatic toxicity of organic compounds to embryo-larval stages of
fish and amphibians. Research Report No. 123. University of Kentucky Lexington
KY. 61pp. '
f
Brauning, D.W. (ed). 1992. Atlas of breeding birds in Pennsylvania. University of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA. 484 pp.
Volume VI X-3
-------
Buckelew, 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, EJ. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing ecological risk assessments. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. 257 pp.
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 A.J. 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 poly chlorinated dibenzofurans. Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology. 20:S960-S1029.
Cowardin, L.M., V.Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. J-aRoe. 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.
Volume VI X-4
-------
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.
Crazan, J. 1991. Ninety-first Christmas Bird Count, Beaver, Pennsylvania. American
Birds. 45(4):666-667.
Cruzan, J. 1990. Ninetieth Christmas Bird Count, Beaver, Pennsylvania. American Birds.
44(4):659.
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.
Dragun, J. and A. Chiasson. 1991. Elements in North American soils. Hazardous
Materials Control Resources Institute, Greenbelt, MD. 230 pp.
Dunning, J.B. (ed). 1993. CRC handbook of avion body masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL. 371 pp.
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. Polychlorinated 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.
Volume VI X-5
-------
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. Pofycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon hazards to fish, wildlife, and
invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
85(1.11). 81pp.
Eisler, R. 1988a. Arsenic hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.12). 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). 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). 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. Poster presented at 15th annual meeting of the
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Denver, CO.
Fischer, E. and L. Koszorus. 1992. Sublethal effects, accumulation capacities and
elimination rates of As, Hg and Se in the manure worm, Eiseniafetida (Oligochaeta,
Lumbricidae). Pedobiologia. 36:172-178.
Fisher, J.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 AJ. 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.
Volume VI X-6
-------
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.
Hall, R.J. 1980. Effects of environmental contaminants on reptiles: a review. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report - Wildlife No. 228. 12 pp.
Hall, R.J. and P.F.P. Henry. 1992. Assessing effects of pesticides on amphibians and
reptiles: status and trends. HerpetologicalJournal. 2:65-71.
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 Cotumix. 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 IV. 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 oftoxidty of pesticides
to wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 153. 90 pp.
**
Hull, R.N. and G.W. Suter H. 1994. Toxicological benchmarks for screening contaminants
of potential concern for effects on sediment-associated biota: 1994 revision.
Volume VI -
-------
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. Environmemal health criteria
86 - mercury - environmental aspects. World Health Organization, Geneva.
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). 19905. Environmental health criteria
106 - beryllium. World Health Organization, Geneva.
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 199la. 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 - diethyUiexyl phthalate. World Health Organization, Gejoeva.
Volume VI X-8
-------
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.
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.
Volume VI X-9
-------
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,
wxicology, 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.
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. ISA.
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.
Volume VT X-10
-------
Montgomery, J.H. and L.M. Welkom. 1990. Groundwater chemicals desk reference.
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Myers, J.P., R.I.G. Morrison, P.Z. Antas, B.A. Harrington, T.E. Lovejoy, M. Sallabeny,
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 (NFS). Undated. North Country Trail - National Scenic Trail.
Information brochure.
National Park Service (NPS). 1994a. Letter from R.F. Gift, NFS 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. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
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. 36pp.
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.
Volume VI X-ll
-------
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (OHDNR). Undated. Ohio's Scenic Rivers - Little
Beaver Creek. Information brochure.
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 WIT
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, OEPA,
regarding water quality, fish, and macroinvertebrate data for the Ohio portion of the
WIT 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. A field guide to freshwater fishes. Houghton Mifflin
Co., Boston, MA. 432 pp.
Pearson, W.D. and BJ. Pearson. 1989. Fishes of the Ohio River. Ohio Journal of
Science. 89(5): 181-187.
Volume VI X-12
-------
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). 1992. Resource
management plan for Raccoon Creek State Park. October 1992.
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.
Schmm, 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 Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). 1995. Water quality
criteria for toxic substances, Appendix A, Table 1. Pennsylvania Bulletin. 25(46).
18 November.
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 Biology and Biochemistry.
16:45-49.
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.
Volume VI X-13
-------
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.
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. Part 1. 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.
Silberhorn, E.M., W.J. Birge, J.A. Black, and A.G. Westerman. 1989. Comparative,
developmental toxicity of metals to embryo-larval stages of aquatic organisms. 'Poster
presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology. February 27 -
March 3, 1989, Atlanta, GA.
Simmons, G.J. and M.J. McKee. 1992. Alkoxyresorufin metabolism hi 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.
Volume VI X-14
-------
Smith, W.B. 1993. Ninety-third Christinas 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.
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:
afield and laboratory reference. EPA/600/3-89/013.
Suter, G.W. II. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessment. Environmental
Management. 14:9-23.
Suter, G.W. II. 1993. Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 538
pp.
Suter, G.W. II 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.
50pp.
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 hi beef, milk, and
vegetation. Environmental Science and Technology. 22:271-274.
Volume VI X-15
-------
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.
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
for PCBs. EPA/440/5-80/068.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 19805. 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). 1983a. Environmental transport and
transformation of poly chlorinated biphenyls. EPA/560/5-83/025.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1983b. Hazardous waste land
treatment. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. SW-674. April.
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.
Volume VI X-16
-------
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.
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 (U.S. EPA). 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-fiirans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 update. EPA/625/3-89/016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region I. 1989b. Supplemental risk
assessment guidance for the Superfund program. Part 2. Guidance for ecological
risk assessments. EPA/901 /5-89/001.
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). 1990a. Basics of pump-and-tredf-. .
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
Juransfrom disposal and use of sludge from bleached kraft and sulfite pulp and paper
mills. EPA/560/5-90/013.
Volume VI X-17
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1991a. Wetter 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-92/00!.
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 (U.S. EPA). 1993e. 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). 1993g. Technical basis for deriving
sediment quality criteria for nonionic organic contaminants for the protection of
benthic organisms by using eqqilibrium partitioning. EPA /822/R-93/011.
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.
Volume VI X-18
-------
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.
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.
Volume VI X-19
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1996a. Report on the U.S. EPA
technical workshop on WTJ Incinerator risk assessment issues. Prepared for the U.S.
EPA Risk Assessment Forum by Eastern Research Group. 2 May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1996b. STORE! 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). 1996c. Ecotox thresholds. Eco
Update, Volume 3, Number 2. EPA/540/F-95/038. 12 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1996d. Mercury study report to
Congress. Volume V: An ecological assessment of anthropogenic mercury emissions
in the United States. SAB Review Draft. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards and Office of Research and Development. June.
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.Ai-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.
Volume VI X-20
-------
Van Gestel, C.A.M. and W. Ma. 1988. Toxicity and bioaccumulation of chlorophenols in
earthworms, in relation to bioavailability 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.
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). 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.
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR). 1995. Specific water quality
criteria. Title 46, Series 1, Part 8, Appendix E.
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 Precambrjan Shield lake. Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution. 19:277-291.
Volume VI X-21
-------
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.
Volume VI X-22
-------
APPENDIX VI-21
Chemical Scores - Aquatic - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening
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
V
Trichloroethene
Pyridine
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Cyclohexanone
Total 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'
1.45x 10'
5.24 x 10-'
1.24x 102
2.84 x 10'
2.27 x 102
1.62x 102
4.89 x 10-'
5.90 x 10'
1.14x 102
2.97 x 102
5.00 x 10'1
6.90 x 10'
2.00 x 10'
1.85 x 10'
1.19x 10'
4.80 x 10°
8.70 x 10°
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
1.77x 10'
3.52 x 10°
2.54 x 10 '
1.13x 10'
6.91 x 103
3.25 x 10'3
4.75 x 10 J
1.96 x 10°
4.57 x 10 '
1.68 x 10'
3.43 x 10°
2.64 x lO'2
6.51 x 10°
3.63 x 10 3
1.09x 10°
4.06 x 103
2.39 x 10*
7.36 x 10-'
9.23 x 10-1
Aquatic
Toxicity
Value
1.20x 104
3.50 x 104
2.60 x 104
1.00 x 102
2.00 x 103
1.65x 103
1.20x 104
2.16x 10*
4.00 x 102
1.04x 107
1.80 x 103
3.50 x 104
7.50 x 103
1.70 x 103
1.30 x 10*
5.40 x 102
5.90 x 102
5.27 x 10s
1.06x 103
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
Appendix VI-21
-------
APPENDIX VI-21
Chemical Scores - Aquatic - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening
Waste Stream Constituent
Isopropanol
Methyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzcne
Cresol
2-Ethoxyethanol
Butanol
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
isobutanol
Nitrobenzene
Dibromoethane
2-Picoline
Benzidine
2,4-Dftnethylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Trichlorobenzene
1-Naphthylamine
Chrysene •v-.
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
(mm Hg)
4.30 x 10'
3.84 x 101
9.53 x 10°
3.10x 10'
5.30 x 10°
7.00 x 10°
1.20x 10'
2.30 x 10°
1.04x 10'
1.50x lO'1
1.40x 10'
l.OOx 10'
8.30 x 10-'
9.80 x 102
l.OOx 10 3
5.80 x 10-'
l.OOx 10°
6.30 x 10 »
1.00x10-™
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
6.16x 10°
l.SOx 10'
1.09x 10 3
2.72 x 10-2
9.36 x 10°
6.58 x 10 '
4.54 x 10-'
4.85 x 10-*
8.70 x 10 '
4.13x 10 a
1.84x 10-2
3.18x 10'
6.84 x 102
9.66 x 103
2.36 x 102
9.59 x 103
1.35 x 10 2
8.52 x 107
5.35 x 10*
Aquatic
Toxicity
Value
1.11 x 107
l.SOx 10s
l.40x 103
4.00 x 103
l.OOx 107
1.51x10*
l.OOx 103
1.60x 102
4.68 x 10*
4.04 x 103
l.SOxlO4
9.00 x 105
2.00 x 10<
6.60 x 102
2.30 x 10*
l.SOx 102
7.00 x 10*
l.OOx HP
l.OOx 10*
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-21
-------
APPENDIX VI-21 I!
Chemical Scores - Aquatic - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening |
Waste Stream Constituent
Cumene
Acetophenone
Fluoranthene
Heptane
Dimethylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Dinitrotoluene
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
Trichlorofluoromcthane
Paraffin
para-Benzoquinone
3-Methylcholanthrene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro- 1 ,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)
l.OOx 10'
3.97 x 10-'
5.00 x 10*
4.58 x 10'
1.65 x 10 3
1.65x 10 3
3.50 x 10-1
8.20 x 10*
5.50 x 10'
3.00 x 10 2
ND
8.03 x 102
l.OOx 10-*
1.00 x 10 '
ND
3.63 x 102
ND
2.00 x lO^1
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
3.19x 10^
7.23 x 102
4.31 x 10^
1.56 x 10 3
8.79 x 10 2
6.53 x 10 3
3.80 x 102
5.90 x UT1
2.71 x 10 7
8.40 x 103
3.95 x 10'
6.01 x 103
ND
4.05 x 10°
l.Ux lO'7
1.03 x 10 3
1.21 x 10'2
ND
Aquatic
Toxicity
Value
l.lOx 10s
1.55x 105
2.00 x 102
4.92 x 10*
9.40 x 102
9.40 x 102
9.90 x 102
1.35x 102
5.00 x 10°
l.OOx 10*
ND"
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.60 x 10*
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
Appendix VI-21
-------
APPENDIX VI-21
Chemical Scores - Aquatic - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening
Waste Stream Constituent
Toluenediamine
Toluene diisocyanate
1 ,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid
Tetrachlorobenzene
1 -Methy (butadiene
Resorcinol
2-Acetylaminefluorene
N-Nitrosopyrolidine
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dichlorodifluoroethane
Dichlorodifluorome thane
Diethyl stilbestrol
Creosote (coal tar)
Isosafrble
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
Aliphatic hydrocarbons (octane)
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
Maleic anhydride
Carbon
Estimated
Waste Volume
Ob/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 10'5
l.OOx 10 2
ND
4.50 x 10 2
4.93 x 102
l.OOx 10°
ND
l.OOx 10'2
l.OOx 10 10
ND
5.01 x 103
ND
l.OOx 10*
9.30 x 10°
8.60 x 10 '
1.41 x 101
5.00 x 10-1
4. 10 x 10-'
1.00 x 10*
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
2.31 x 10°
ND
ND
1.79x 10 5
ND
ND
8.73 x 10-1
1.20x 10'
5.98 x 10*
ND
1.69x 10 2
4.95 x 10*
ND
3.25 x lO'3
1.85x 10°
3.64 x 10*
5.86 x 102
ND
ND
Aquatic
Toxicity
Value
ND
ND
7.56 x 10s
ND
ND
5.64 x 104
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.20 x 102
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.38x 105
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-21
-------
APPENDIX VI-21
Chemical Scores - Aquatic - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening
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'
l.OOx 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
Appendix VI-21
-------
APPENDIX VI-21
CHEMICAL SCORES - AQUATIC
FUGITIVE ORGANIC VAPOR CHEMICAL SCREENING
Volume VI
Appendix VI-21
-------
APPENDIX VI-21
Chemical Scores - Aquatic - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening
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
Furfiiral
Estimated
Waste Volume
(Ib/yr)
100,h77
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 103
1.08 x 102
2.09 x 10'
1.52 x 103
1.44 x 10'
3.80 x 10'
2.31 x 102
9.06 x 10'
3.50 x 10'
3.00 x 10l
9.76 x 10'
2.00 x 10'
9.20 x 10'
9.52 x 10l
5.91 x 102
1.90 x 10'
2.46 x 102
8.88 x 10'
2.50 x 10°
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
8.14x 10°
3.52 x 10°
1.66 x 10°
2.05 x 10'
1.02 x 101
2.11 x 10'
1.38x 10'
3.24 x 10°
3.20 x 10'
1.68x 10'
1.75 x 10°
6.22 x 10"'
5.15x 10'
1.84x lO'2
1.84x 10'2
1.22x 10°
3.30 x 102
1.83 x 10'
2.25 x 10°
Aquatic
Toxicity
Value
2.18X103
4.60 x 102
3.40 x 10'
8.50 x 104
6.00 x 10*
1.00 x 104
4.46 x 10s
1.60x 105
1.20x 10s
2.50 x 10s
3.00 x 104
4.71 x 103
1.37 x 107
6.40 x 10*
l.SOx 103
3.50 x 103
l.SOx 103
1.00 x 10*
1.2Q x 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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-21
-------
APPENDIX VI-20
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening
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 10 2
3.50 x 10^
Inhalation
Toxicity
Value
ND
ND
Score
—
—
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.00000
1.00000
ND = No Data.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
-------
APPENDIX VI-20
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening
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* -Dimethy Ibenzidine
Isosafrdle
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 10 »
ND
4.10x 10'
ND
1.00 x 10°
l.OOx 10*
5.00 x 10-1
8.60 x 10 '
l.OOx 10*
l.OOx 10 2
3.00 x 10* "
ND
ND
9.30 x 10°
5.20 x 10 $
ND
l.OOx 10 10
5.00 x 10*
l.OOx 10 1°
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
-------
APPENDIX VI-20
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening
Waste Stream Constituent
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Acetophenone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Toluene diisocyanate
Phthalic anhydride
4-Nitrophenol
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Chrysene
2-Acetylaminefluorene
Carbon
Calciuin 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 10-'
1.24x 102
9.80 x 102
l.OOx 10 2
2.00 x 10-*
l.OOx 10 3
1.65 x 10 3
1.65x 10 3
6.30 x 10*
ND
l.OOx HT6
l.OOx 10*
5.80 x 10 '
8.30 x 10 l
l.OOx 10'
ND
Inhalation
Toxicity
Value
2.00 x 102
6.10x 10°
2.40 x 10'
l.SOx 104
6.00 x 10°
l.OOx 10°
1.70x 10-'
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
Appendix Vl-20
-------
APPENDIX VI-20
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening ||
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- 1 ,2,2-trifluoroethane
^
Ethylbenzene
Isopropanol
Butanol
Total xylenes
Ethanol \'-
Chlorobenzene
Estimated Waste
Volume (lb/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)
1.14x 102
1.85 x 10'
5.24 x 10 '
2.27 x 102
1.45x 10'
1.20x 10'
5.00 x 10-'
1.41 x 10'
1.00 x 10°
4.89 x 10-'
3.00 x 10l
1. 00x10'
3.63 x 102
9.53 x 10°
4.30 x 101
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 101
1.90 x 10°
3.80 x 102
3.00 x 102
2.10x 10'
9.00 x 10 '
2.50 x 103
3.60 x 10°
1.80x 10°
2.00 x 10s
4.00 x 10'
2.00 x 103
4.00 x 102
7.00 x 10*
6.00 x 10*
5.00 x 102
2.00 x 103
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 II
Percent 1
Score II
1.00000 1
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
i.ooooo I
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
-------
APPENDIX VI-20
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening
Waste Stream Constituent
Nitrobenzene
Formic acid
Tetrahydrofuran
Dibromoethane
Trichloroethene
Pyridine
Cyclohexanone
2-Butanone
Cyclohexane
Cresol
Toluene
Furfural
1,4-Dioxane
IsobuUtnol
Cumene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Heptane
Butyl acetate
Methanol
Climated 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'
1.62 x 102
1.40 x 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 10l
1.04x10'
l.OOx 10'
8.03 x 102
4.58 x 101
1.25 x 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 10*
8.00 x 10'
2.00 x 10'
l.OOx 103
2.51 x 102
1.30x 10'
6.40 x 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
Appendix VI-20
-------
APPENDIX VI-7
Mammals Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Pine (woodland) vole
Porcupine
Prairie volef
Pygmy shreW"
Raccoon
Red bat
Red fox
Red squirrel
Silver-haired bat*
Smoky shrew
Southern bog lemming
Southern flying squirrel
Southern red-backed vole*1
Star-nosed mole11
Striped skunk
Virginia opossum
White-footed mouse
White-tailed deer
Woodchuck
Woodland jumping mouse*
Scientific Name
Microtus pinetontm
Erethizon dorsatum
Microtus ochrogaster
Sorex hoyi
Procyon lotor
Lasiurus borealis
Vulpes wipes
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Sorex fumeus
Synaptomys cooperi
GLaucomys volans
Clethrionomys gapperi
Condylura cris+ata
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).
k Federal Endangered. •' ;
c Federal Candidate.
" West Virginia "Critically Imperiled".
e West Virginia "Imperiled".
f West Virginia "Rare/Uncommon".
* Ohio Endangered.
h Ohio Special Interest.
1 Pennsylvania Endangered.
j Pennsylvania Threatened. ,,
k Pennsylvania Rare.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-7
-------
APPENDIX VI-7
MAMMALS KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT
THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-7
-------
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 woodraf*
Fox squirrel
Gray fox
Gray squirrel
Hairy-tailed mole
Hoary bat
House mouse
Indiana bat"*"
Keen's myotis (bat)
Least shrew'
Least weasel
Little brown bat
Long-tailed shrew*
Long-tailed weasel
Masked shrew
Meadow jumping mousef
Meadow vole
Mink
Muskrat
Northern short-tailed shrew
Norway rat
Scientific Name
Castor canadensis
Eptesicus fitscus
Canis latrarm
Peromyscus maniculatus
Tamias striatus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Scalopus aquaticus
Pipistellus subflavus
Neotoma floridana
Sciurus nlger
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Sciurus carolinensis
Parascalops breweri
Lasiurus cinereus
Mus musadus
Myotis sodalis
Myotis keenii
Cryptotis parva
Mustela nivalis
Myotis lucifugus
Sorex dispar
Mustela frenata
Sorex cinereus
Zapus hudsonius
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Mustela vison
Ondatra zjbethicus
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
-------
I! APPENDIX VI-6 1
Summary of Avian Abundance in the Assessment Area Based on Christinas 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.
Iowl spp.
Pine grosbeak
Gadwall
Osprey ^
Northern saw-whet owl
Canvasback
|| Yellow warbler
|| Rusty blackbird
Turkey vulture
RedpoU 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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-6 5
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
(All Plots)
1
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.30
0.30
0.27 1
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
-------
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
5,111
50
Raccoon
Creek, PA
0.0
0.0
1,323
45
Bearer Creek,
OH
0.0
0.0
5,629
59
Average
(All Plots)
0.07
0.07
4,021
51
Volume VI
Appendix VT-6
-------
APPENDIX VI-8
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-8
-------
APPENDIX VI-8
Amphibians and Reptiles Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Source*
Salamanders
Eastern hellbender*"'
Four-toed salamander*
Jefferson salamander*
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
Hemidaaylium scutatum
Ambystoma jeffersonuwum
Eurycea 1. longicauda
Ambystoma opacum
Desmognathus ochrophaeus
Necturus maculosus
Desmognathus f. juscus
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 fawleri
Hyla versicolor
Rana clamitans melanota
Pseudacris brachyphona
Ranapipiens
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
-------
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 turtle"
Common map turtle
Common snapping turtle
Eastern box turtle
Eastern spiny softshell
Midland painted turtle
Midland smooth softshell
Spotted turtle01
Wood turtle1"
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Graptemys geographica
Chelydra s. serpentina
Terrapene c. Carolina
Apalone s. spinifera
Chrysemys piaa marginata
Apalone m, mutica
Clemmys guttata
Clemmys insculpta
1 1
1,2 1
1,2,3,5 I
1,2,3,4,5,6
1,2,3,5 I
1,2,3,5 1
2 |
1,2,3
1
Lizards
Five-lined skink
Northern fence lizard
Eumeces fasciatus
Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus
1,2,3
1,2,3,5,6
Snakes
Black rat snake
Eastern garter snake
Eastern hognose snake
Eastern massasaugab*b
Eastern milk snake
Eastern worm snake
Rutland's snake"*
Midwest worm snake
Northern black racer
Northern brown snake
Northern copperhead
Elaphe o. obsoleta
Thamnophis s. sirtalis
Heterodon platirhinos
Sisirurus c. catenates
Lampropeltis t. triangulum
Carphophis a. amoenus
Clonophis Idrtlandii
Carphophis amoenus helenae
Coluber c. constrictor
Storeria d. dekayi ^
Agldstrodon 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
-------
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
' 2,3,5
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 Candidate.
West Virginia "Critically Imperiled".
d West Virginia "Rare/Uncommon".
' Ohio Endangered.
f Ohio Inreatened.
* Ohio Special Interest.
h Pennsylvania Endangered.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-8
-------
APPENDIX VI-9
FISH KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-9
-------
Fish Known or Like
Common Name
Alewife
American eela
Banded darter
Banded killifish'1
Bigeye chub
Bigeye shine/
Bigmouth buffalo0
Black buffalo11
Black bullhead"
Black crappie
Black redhorse
Blacknose dace
Blacknose shine/
Blackside darter
Blackstripe topminnow
Blue catfishf
Blue sucker1"*
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Bowfink
Brindled madtomk
Brook silverside
Brook stickleback
Brook trout"
Brown bullhead
Brown trout
Bullhead minnow4
Central mudminnow
Central stoneroller
APPENDIX VI-9
ly to be Present Within the Assessment A
Scientific Name
Alosa pseudoharengus
Anguilla rostrata
Etheostoma zonale
Fundulus diaphanus
Hybopsis amblops
Notropis boops
Ictiobus cyprinellus
Ictiobus niger
Ameiurus melas
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Moxostoma duquesnei
Rhinichthys atratulus
Notropis heterolepis
Percina maculata
Fundulus notatus
Ictalurus furcatus
Cycleptus elcngatus
Lepomis macrochirus
Pimephales notatus
Amia calva
Noturus miurus
Labidesthes sicculus
Culaea inconstans
Salvelinus fontinalis
Ameiurus nebulosus
Salmo trutta
Pimephales vigilax
Umbra limi
Campostoma anomalum
irea
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
-------
[APPENDIX VI-9 1
fish Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area |
Common Name
Channel catfish
Channel darter^
Cheat minnow*1
Chestnut lamprey
Common carp
Common shiner'
Creek chub
Dusky darter*
Eastern sand darterbdbl
Emerald shiner
Fantail darter
Fathead minnow
Flathead catfish
Freshwater drum
Ghost shiner11
Gizzard shad
Golden redhorse
1 Golden shiner
Goldeyeehk
Goldfish
Grass pickerel
Gravel chub'
Green sunfish
Greenside darter
Highfin carpsucker''
Hornyhead chub*
Johnny darter
Largemouth bass
Least brook lamprey*1
Scientific Name
Ictalurus punaatus
Percina copelandi
Rhinichthys bowersi
Ichthyomyzon castaneus
Cyprinus carpio
IjfdJuf comutus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Percina sciera
Etheostoma peUucidum
Notropis atherinoides
Etheostoma flabellare
Pimephales promelas
Pylodictis olivaris
Aplodinotus 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
Source* |
1,3,4,5,6,7 1
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 1
3,4,7 I
3,4,5,6,7 |
1,3,4,5,6,7 1
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 3
-------
APPENDIX VI-9
Fish Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Logperch
Longear sunfishk
Longnose dace
Longnose gar*
Mimic shiner
Mississippi silvery minnow'
Mooneye*11
Mottled sculpin
Muskellungeh
Northern hog sucker
Northern pike
Ohio lamprey*5
Orangespotted sunfish'1
Orangethroat darter
Paddlefish"0*
Pumpkinseed
Quillback
Rainbow darter
Rainbow trout
Redear sunfish
Redfin shiner6*
Redside dacee
River carpsucker4
River chub
River darter01
River redhorsehk
River shiner"
Rock bass
Rosyface shiner
Scientific Name
Percina caprodes
Lepomis megcdotis
Khinichthys cataraaae
Lepisosteus osseus
Notropis volucdlus
Hybognathus nuchalis
Hiodon tergisus
Cottus bairdi
Esox masquinongy
Hypentelium nigricans
Esox lucius
Ichthyomyzon bdellium
Lepomis humilis
Etheostoma spectab'de
Polyodon spathida
Lepomis gibbosus
Carpiodes cyprinus
Etheostoma caendeum
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Lepomis microlophus
Lythrurus umbratilis
Clinostomus elongatus
Carpiodes carpio
Nocomis micropogon
Percina shumardi
Moxostoma carinatum
Notropis blennius
Ambloplites rupestris
Notropis rubellus
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-9 1
Fish ICnown or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area jj
Common Name
Sand shiner
Sauger
Shiner
Shipjack herring*
Shorthead redhorse
Shortnose gar11
Shovelnose sturgeon'
Silver chub*
Silver lamprey'*'
Silver redhorse
Silver shiner
Silverjaw minnow
Smallmouth bass
Smallmouth buffalok
Southern redbelly daced
Speckled chub1*
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 mirabilis
Salmo gairdneri
Percopsis omiscomaycus
Etheostoma variation
Volume VI
Appendix VI-9 5
•Source* ||
1,3,7 I
1,3,4,5,6,7 1
4,5
3,4,5
3,4,5,6,7
4
3
3,4,6
4
1
3,4,6,7 1
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-9
Fish Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Walleye
Wannouth'"'
White bass
White catfish
White crappie
White sucker
Yellow bullhead
Yellow perch
Scientific Name
Stizostedion vitreum
Lepomis gulosus
Morone chrysops
Ameiurus catus
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.
Federal Candidate.
West Virginia "Critically Imperiled".
West Virginia "Imperiled".
West Virginia "Rare/Uncommon".
Ohio Endangered.
Ohio Threatened.
Ohio Special Interest.
Pennsylvania Endangered.
Pennsylvania Threatened.
Pennsylvania Rare.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-9
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
PLANTS KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT
WnmN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
-------
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 servicebeny
Low sbadbush
Pawpaw
Japanese barberry
Yellow birch
Black birch
American hornbeam
Bitternut hickory
Pignut hickory
Sweet pignut hickory
Shagbark hickory
American chestnut1
Catalpa
Common catalpa
New Jersey tea
American bittersweet
Buttonbush
Acer negundo
Acer nigrum
Acer rubrum
Acer saccharinum
Acer sacchamm
Acer spicatum
Aesculus flava
Aesculus glabra
Aesculus hippocastanum
Ailartihus altissima
Alnus rugosa
Amelanchier arborea
Amelanchier stclonifera
Asimina triloba
Berberis thumbergii
Betula alleghaniensis
Betula lenta
Carpinus caroliniana
Carya cordifortrds
Carya glabra
Carya ovalis
Carya ovata
Castanea dentata
Catalpa bignoniodes
Catalpa speciosa
Ceanothus americanus
Celastrus scandetts
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known 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
_
1 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
Butternut**
Black walnut
Scientific Name
Cersis canadensis
Chaenomeles spedosa
Cornus altemifolia
Camus 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 obavatus
Fagus grandifolia
Fraxinus americana
Fraxinus nigra
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Gleditsia triacanthos
Gaylussacia baccata
Gymnocladus dioica
Hamamelis virginiana
Hydrangea arborescens
Hex verticillata
Juglans cinerea
Juglans nigra
Volume VI
Appendix VI- 10 3
Source'
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
1,2 1
1 •' :
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Red-cedar
Mountain laurel
American larch*
Bicolor lespedeza
Spicebush
Tulip (yellow) poplar
Mountain honeysuckle
Japanese honeysuckle
Tatarian honeysuckle
Cucumber tree
Wildsweet crabapple
Common apple
Red mulberry
Northern bayberryf
Black gum
Hornbeam
Virginia-creeper
Ninebark
Norway spruce
White spruce
Blue spruce
Jack pine
Red pinec
Pitch pine
Eastern white pine
Scot's pine
Virginia pine
American sycamore
Bigtooth aspen
Scientific Name
Juniperus virginiana
Kalmia latifolia
Larix lancina
Lespedeza bicolor
Lindera benzoin
Liriodendron tulipifera
Lonicera dioica
Lonicera japonica
Lonicera tatarica
Magnolia acuminata
Malus coronaria
Malus pumila
Moms 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 I
1,2 I
2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2 I
1,2 1
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
u
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
-------
^=aa^^~-
Plants Known or Lik
_, — — ; *—^—— =
Common Name
=^=^===^===s==^=
Quaking aspen
Wild plum
Sweet cheny
Pin cherry
Peach
Black cheny
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 rhododendron*
Pinxter-flower
Smooth sumac
Poison-ivy
Staghom sumac
Prickly gooseberry
Wild gooseberry
Bristly locust
Black locust
Wild rose
Swamp rose
APPENDIX VI-10
dy to be Present Within the Assessment
Scientific Name
Populus tremuloides
Prunus americana
Primus 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 rundnata
Quercus velutina
Rhododendron maximum
Rhododendron peridymenoides
Rhus glabra
Rhus radicans
Rhus typhina
Ribes cynosbati
Ribes rotundifolium
Robinia hispida
Robinia pseudoacacia
*'
Rosa Carolina
Rosa palustris
Area
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
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2 " :
1,2
1
1
1.2
1,2
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
-------
APPENDIX VI-10 1
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 willow*
Heart-leaved willow
Sandbar willow
Shining willow
Black willow
American elderberry
Red elderberry
Sassafras
Common greenbrier
Bristly greenbrier
False spiraea
Meadowsweet
Bladdemut
Indiancurrant coralberry
American basswood
Scientific Name
Rubus allegheniensis
Rubus allegheniensis albinus
Rubus enslenu
Rubus flagettaris
Rubus hispidus
Rubus idaeus
Rubus occideraalis
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 rotundtfolui
Smilax tamnoides
Sorbaria sorbifolia
Spiraea alba
Staphylea nifolia
Symphoricarpos orbiadatus
Tilia americana
Source"
1,2
2 II
1
1,2 |
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2 I
1,2 1
1
1,2
• 2 "' •'
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
-------
Plants Known or Lik
Common Name
1 ' — "
Eastern hemlock
American elm
Slippery elm
Low sweet blueberry
Highbush blueberry
Deerbeny
Lowbush blueberry
Maple-leaved viburnum
Arrowwood
Nannybeny
Smooth blackhaw
Summer grape
Riverbank grape
Frost grape
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
APPENDIX VI-10
ely to be Present Within the Assessment
Scientific Name
Tsuga canadensis
Ulmus americana
Ulmus rubra
Vaccinium angustifolium
Vaccinium corymbosum
Vaccinium stamineum
Vaccinium pattidum
Viburnum acerifolium
Viburnum recognition
Viburnum lentago
Viburnum prunifolium
Vitis aestivalis
Vitis riparia
Vitis vinifera
Abiution theophrastii
Acalypha rhombolidea
Acalypha virginica
Achillea millefolium
Acorus calamus
Actaea pachypoda
Actaea rubra
Actinomeris altemifolia
Adlumia fungosa
Agastache foeniculum
Agastache nepetoides
Agastache scroptudariifolia
Agrimonia gryposepala
Agrimonia parviflora
Area
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
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
-------
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 anemone0
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 officinalis
Allium canadense
Allium cemuum
Allium vineale
Amaranthus albus
Amaranthus hybridus
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Ambrosia trifida
Amphicarpaea bracteata
Anaphalis margaritacea
Andropogon gerardii
Andropogon virginicus
Anemone canadensis
Anemone quinquefolia
Anemone virginiana
AnemoneUa thalictroides
Angelica atropurpurea
Angelica venenosa
Antennaria neodioica
Antennaria parlinu
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
-------
Plants Known or Lik
^— a^^sa=^= asa^^^=s=^^=
Common Name
^^^^^^^^^^— "^^j^^^^^^^^^SSSSS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^"
Shale barren pussy-toes*
Dog-fennel
Sweet vernal grass
Groundnut
Puttyroot"
Spreading dogbane
Indian hemp
Wild columbine
Columbine
Mouse-ear cress
Sicklepod
Tower cress
Smooth rock cress
Lyre-leaved rock cress51
Wild sarsaparilla
Spikenard
Great burdock
Common burdock
Thyme-leaved sandwort
Woodland jack-in-the-pulpit
Green dragon
Swamp jack-in-the-pulpit11
Dutchman's-pipe
Virginia snakeroot
Horseradish
Sweet wormwood
Mugwort
Goafs-beard
Wild ginger
APPENDIX VI-10
ely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Scientific Name
Antennaria virglnica
Anthemis cotida
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Apios americana
Aplectrum hyemale
Apocynum androsaemifolium
Apocynum cannabinum
Aquilegia canadensis
Aquilegia vulgaris
Arabidopsis thaliana
Arabis canadensis
Arabis glabra
Arabis laevigata
Arabis lyrata
Aralia nudicaulis
Aralia racemosa
Arctium lappa
Arctium minus
Arenaria serpyllifolia
Arisaema atrorubens
Arisaema dracontium
Arisaema stewardsonll
Aristolochia macrophylla
Aristolochia serpentaria
Armoracia rusiicana
Artemisia annua
Artemisia vulgaris
j'
Aruncus dlolcus
Asarum canadense
Source*
3
1
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
-------
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 milkweed"
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
Asdepias exaluua
Asclepias incarnate
Asdepias purpurascens
Asdepias quadrifolia
Asdepias syriaca
Asdepias tuberosa
Asdepias virldiflora
Asparagus officinalis
Aster cordifolius
Aster divaricatus
Aster ericoides
Aster laterifloTus
Aster lowrieanus
Aster macrophyllus
Aster novae-angliae
Aster patens
Aster pilosus
Aster praealtus
Aster prenanthoides
Aster puniceus
Aster sagittifolius
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
-------
I! 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
1 Beggar-ticks
Downy wood-mint
Hairy wood-mint
False nettle
Long-awned wood grass
II 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 tinaoria
Barbarea vulgaris
Bidens aristosa
Bidens bipinnata
Bidens cemua
Bidens comosa
Bidens frondosa
Bidens vulgcua
Blephilia ciliata
Blephilia hirsuta
Boehmeria cylindrica
Brachyelytnun erectum
Brassica juncea
Brassica nigra
Brassica rapa
Bromus comnuuatus
Bromus inermis
Bromus pubescens
Bulbostylis capillaris
Cacalia atriplicifolia
Cacalia muhlenbergu
Cacalia suaveolens
Callitriche heterophylla
Caltha palustris
Calystegia sepiwn
Calystegia spithamaea
Campanula americana
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Source11
1 1
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2 (I
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
! •' -. I
1
1,2 1
1
1
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10 11
-------
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 bidbosa
Cardamine douglassii
Cardanune 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
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Knovm or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Pennsylvania sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Sedge
Reflexed sedge*
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
Hairy spurge
Scientific Name
Carex pensylvanica
Carex plaiyphytta
Carex prasina
Carex radiata
Carex retrqflexa
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 ihalictroides
Cenchrus longispinus
Centaurea jacea
Cerastium nutans
Cerasiium vulgatum
Chaerophyllum procumbens
Chamaelirium luteum
Chamaesyce maculata
f
Chamaesyce nutans
Chamaesyce vermiadata
Source*
1,2
1
1
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
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
13
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Greater celandine
Turtlehead
Lamb ' s-quarters
Goosefoot
Wormseed
Spotted wintergreen
Pipsissewa*
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-lily*1
Blue-eyed Maryk
Horse-balm
Bastard toadflax
Scientific Name
Chelidonium majus
Chelone glabra
Chenopodium album
Chenopodium album var. missouriense
Chenopodium ambrosioides
ChimaphUa maculata
Chimaphila umbellata
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Chrysospenium americanum
Cichorium intybus
Cicuta maculata
Cimicifuga racemosa
Cinna arundinacea
Circaea quadrisulcata
Cirsium altissimum
Cirsium arvense
Cirsium discolor
Cirsium muticum
Cirsium pumilum
Cirsium vulgare
Citrullus colocynthis
Claytonia caroliniana
Claytonia virginica
Clematis vioma
Clematis virginiana
Cliruonia umbeUulata
Cottinsia vema
Collinsonia canadensis
Comandra umbellata
Source*
1
1,2
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
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
14
-------
I APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Asiatic dayflower
Poison hemlock
Squaw-root
Hedge bindweed
Upright bindweed
Spotted coral-root
Tall tickseed
Crown-vetch
(Yellow harlequin
Rock-harlequin11
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
Two-leaved toothwort
Scientific Name
Commelina communis
Conium maadatum
Conopholis americana
Convolvulus septum
Convolvulus spithamaeus
Corallorhiza metadata
Coreopsis cripteris
Coronilla varia
Corydalis flavula
Corydalis sempervirens
Crepis capillaris
Croton capitatus
Cryptotaenia canadensis
Cunila origanoides
Cuphea viscosissima
Cuscuta gronovii
Cuscuta polygonorum
Cynoglossum offidnale
Cynoglossum virginianum
Cyperus lupinus
Cyperus strigosus
Cypripedium acaule
Cypripedium calceolus
Dactylis glomerata
Danthonia spicata
Datura stramonium
Daucus carom
Delphinium tricome
Dentaria diphylla
Source*
1,2 1
1,2 1
1,2
2
2
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
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10 15
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
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
Four-angled spike-rush
Scientific Name
Dentaria laciniata
Desmodium canadense
Desmodium canescens
Desmodium cuspidatum
Desmodium glutinosum
Desmodium nudiflorum
Desmodium paniadamm
Desmodium perplexum
Desmodium rotundifolium
Dianthus armeria
Dianthus barbatus
Dicentra canadensis
Dicentra cucullaria
Digaaria 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 pahtstris
Eleocharis quadrangulata
Source"
1,2 |
1 1
1,2 1
1 1
1 1
1,2 1
1 1
1,2 ||
1 ||
1,2 ||
1 1
1,2 1
1,2 1
1 1
1,2 1
1 1
1 1
1,2
1,2 1
2
1,2
1
1,2 " -
1
1,2
1
1
1
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
16
-------
^ — — — —~— ——
Plants Known or Lik
• .— - ^f^~ ——^^^= • — •^^g^ggss — -. as
Common Name
===—=^===1=*====-======
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-springi
Daisy fleabane
Horseweed
Common fleabane
Daisy fleabane
Whitlow-grass
Treacle mustard
White trout-lily
Trout-lily
Hollow joe-pye-weed
APPENDIX VI-10
ely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Scientific Name
Eleochoris tenuis
Eleusine indica
Elodea canadensis
Elymus canadensis
Elymus hystrix
Elymus riparius
Elymus villosus
Elymus virginicus
Elycrigia repens
Epifagus virginiana
Epigaea repens
EpUobium coloration
Epilobium glandulosum
Eragrostis cap'dlaris
Eragrostis cilianensis
Eragrostis hypnoides
Eragrostis pectinacea
Eragrostis spectabilis
Erechtites hieracifolia
Erigenia bulbosa
Erigeron annuus
Erigeron canadensis
Erigeron philadelphicus
Erigeron strigosus
Erophila verna
Erysimum cheiranthoides
Erythronium albidum
Erythronium americanum
Eupatoriwn fisttdosum
Source*
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
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
17
-------
APPENDIX VI-10 1
Plants Knovm or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
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 gentian11
Wild geranium
Wood geranium
White avens
Scientific Name
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 ciliaM
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
Geum canadense
Source*
1
1,2 1
1
1,2 I!
1
1
1,2 I
1
1
1
1,2 1
1 I
1,2 I
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
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
18
-------
I! APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area |
Common Name
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
1 Jerusalem artichoke
Ox^ye
Day-lily
Sharp-lobed hepatica
Round-lobed hepatica
Cow-parsnip
Dame's-rocket
Alum-root
Scientific Name
Geum laciniatum
Geum verruun
dechoma hederacea
dyceria septentrionalis
dyceria striata
Gnaphalium obtusifolium
Gnaphalium purpureum
Gnaphalium idiginosum
Goodyera pubescens
Gratiola neglecta
Habenaria flava
Hackelia virginiana
Hedeoma pulegiodes
Helenium autumnale
Helenium flexuosum
Helianthus annuus
Helianthus decapetalus
Helianthus divaricatus
Helianthus giganteus
Helianthus microcephalus
Helianthus strumosus
Helianthus tuberosus
Heliopsis helianthoides
Hemerocallis fulva
Hepatica acutiloba
Hepatica americana
Heracleum maximum
Hesperis matronalis
Heuchera americana
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10 10
. Source''
1 1
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
2 j
1,2 |j
1,2 1
1 I
1 II
1
1,2
1,2
!
1 1
! 1
1,2
1,2 •' : 1
1,2 1
1,2 1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
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-pennyworth
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
Elecampane
Scientific Name
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 appendlculatum
Hydrophyllum canadense
Hydrophyllum virginianum
Hypericum ellipticum
Hypericum gentianoides
Hypericum mutilum
Hypericum perforatum
Hypericum punctatum
Hypericum spathulatum
Hypoxis hirsuta
Hystrix panda
Impatiens capensis
t
Impatiens pallida
Inula helenium
Source*
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
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
20
-------
___^ __
Plants Known or Lik
-_===============================
Common Name
«B5=SBSS^^S=5^^=SS^^^=SS
Purple rocket'
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
Purweed
Rice cutgrass
Whitegrass
Lesser duckweed
Common motherwort
Field-cress
Wild pepper-grass
Poor-man's pepper
APPENDIX VI-10
ely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Scientific Name
lodanthus pinnatifidus
Ipomoea pandurata
Isotria, verticillata
Iris versicolor
Juncus acuminatus
Juncus dichotomies
Juncus dudleyi
Juncus effusus
Juncus marginatus
Juncus tenuis
Justicia americana
Krigia biflora
Kummerowia stipulacea
Lactuca biennU
Lactuca canadensis
Lactuca scariola
Lamuun ampladcaule
Lamium purpureum
Laponea canadensis
Lathyrus latifolius
Lathyrus venosus
Lechea racemulosa
Leersia oryzoides
Leersia virginica
Lemna minor
Leonurus cardiaca
Lepidium campestre
*•'
Lepidium densiflorum
Lepidium virginicum
Source*
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
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
21
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Sericea lespedeza
Bush-clover
Wandlike bush-clover
Trailing bush-clover
Blazing-star
Canada lily
Turk's-cap lily1"
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
Moneywort
Scientific Name
Lespedeza cuneata
Lespedezfl hirta
Lespedeza intermedia
Lespedezfl procumbens
Liatris spicata
Lilium canadense
Liliitm superbum
Linaria vulgaris
Lindemia aubia
Linum virginianum
Liparis liliifolia
Lobelia cardinalis
Lobelia inflata
Lobelia kalmii
Lobelia siphUitica
Lobelia spicata
Lotus corniculatus
Ludwigia alternifolia
Ludwigia palustris
Luzula acuminata
Luzula bulbosa
Luzula echinata
Luzula multiflura
Lycopericon esculentum
Lycopus americanus
Lycopus uniflorus
Lycopus virginicus
Lysimachia ciluua
Lysimachia nummularia
Source*
1
1
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
1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
22
-------
1 APPENDIX VI-10 1
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area |
Common Name
Whorled loosestrife"
Yellow loosestrife
Purple loosestrife
Canada mayflower
Cheeses
Pineappl e-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
Horse mint
Bee-balm
Wild bergamot
Purple bergamot
Pine-sap
Indian-pipe
Wirestem muhly
Scientific Name
Lysimachia quadrifolia
Lysimachia terrestris
Lythrum salicaria
Maiaruhemum canadense
Malva neglecta
Matricaria matricarioides
Medeola virginiana
Medicago lupulina
Medicago sativa
Melilotus alba
Melilotus qfficinalis
Menispermum canadense
Mentha arvensis
Mentha piperita
Mentha spicata
Menensia virginica
Mimulus alaius
Mimulus ringens
Mirab'dis nyctaginea
Mitchella repens
Mitella diphylla
Mollugo verticillata
Monarda clinopodia
Monarda didyma
Monarda fisndosa
Monarda media
Monotropa hypopithys
Monotropa uniflora
Muhlenbergia _ "rondosa
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10 23
Source*
1,2 1
1,2 1
1 1
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2 1
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
1
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
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
BicknelPs panic-grass1
Old witch-grass
Panic-grass
Panic-grass
Deer-tongue grass
Scientific Name
Muhlenbergia schreberi
Muhlenbergia sylvatica
Myosotis laxa
Myosotis scorpoides
Myosoton aquaticum
Nepeta cataria
Nicandra physalodes
Nuphar advena
Oenothera biennis
Oenothera parviflora
Oenothera perennis
Onuhogalum umbellatum
Orobanche uniflora
Osmarhiza claytonii
Osmorhiza longistylis
Oxalis acetosella
Oxalis dillenii
Oxalis europaea
Oxalis grandis
Oxalis striaa
Oxalis violacea
Oxypolis rigidior
Panax quinquefolius
Panax trifolius
Panicum bicknelii
Panicum capillare
Panicum acuminatum
Panicum anceps
Panicum clandestinum
Source"
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
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
24
-------
1 APPENDIX VI-10 1
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area |
Common Name
Smooth panic-grass
Witch grass
Woolly panic-grass
Panic-grass
Panic-grass
Broomcorn millet
Fame-grass
Switchgrass
Pellitory
Smooth-forked chickweed
Forked chickweed
Slender beadgrass
Wild parsnip
1 Wood-betony
1 Arrow-arum
I Foxglove beard-tongue
1 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
Ground-cherry
Scientific Name
Panicum dichotomiflorum
Panicum gattingeri
Panicum lanuginosum
Panicum latifolium
Panicum linearifolium
Panicum miliaceum
Panicum philadelphicum
Panicum virgantm
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 metadata
Phlox paniculata
Phlox subulata
Phragmites communis
Phryma leptostachya
Physalis heterophyUa
Physalis subglabrata
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10 25
Source* |
1 1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1
1,2 §
1
1
1
1,2
i
u
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
.,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
False dragonhead
Pokeweed
Clearweed
Pale green orchid
Ragged fringed-orchid
English plantain
Common plantain
Plantain
Large round-leaved orchidh
Canada bluegrass
Bluegrass
Kentucky bluegrass
Woodland bluegrass
Rough bluegrass
May-apple
Spreading Jacob 's-ladder
Field milkwort
Whorled milkwort
Solomon 's-seal
Giant Solomon 's-seal
Soloman's-seal
Water smartweed
Halbert-leaved tearthumb
Knotweed
Long-bristled smartweed
Fringed bindweed
Black bindweed
Japanese knotweed
Common smartweed
Scientific Name
Physostegia virginiana
Phytolacca americana
P'dea pumila
Platanthera flava
Platanthera lacera
Plantago lanceolata
Plantago major
Plantago rugdii
Platanthera orbiculata
Poa compressa
Poa cuspidata
Poa pratensis
Poa sylvestris
Poa trivialis
Podophyllum peltatum
Polemonium reptans
Polygala sanguinea
Polygala verticillata
Polygonatum biflorum
Polygonatum canaliculatum
Polygonatum pubescens
Polygonum amphibium
Polygonum arifolium
Polygonum aviculare
Polygonum caespitosum
Polygonum cilinode
Polygonum convolvulus
Polyponum cuspidatum
Polygonum hydropiper
Source"
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
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
26
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
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 leaf cup
Be tnan's-rooth
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
Kidneyleaf buttercup
Scientific Name
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Polygonum lapathifolium
Polygonum pensylvanicum
Polygonum persicaria
Polygonum punctatum
Polygonum sachalinense
Polygonum sagiaatum
Polygonum scandens
Polymnia canadensis
Polymnia uvedalia
Poneranthus trifoliatus
Pomdaca 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
Ranunculus abortivus
Source*
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
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
27
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Tall buttercup
Mountain crowfoot
Swamp buttercup
Early buttercup1"
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 arrowhead*
Bloodroot
Canadian sanicle
Black snakeroot
Yellow-flowered sanicle
Large-fruited sanicle
Bouncing-bet
Wild basil
Early saxifrage
Scientific Name
Ranunculus acris
Ranunculus allegheniensis
Ranunculus caricetorum
Ranunculus fascicularis
Ranunculus hispidus
Ranunculus recurvatus
Ranunculus repens
Raphanus sativus
Rorippa palustris
Rorippa sylvestris
Rudbedda hirta
Rudbedda laciniata
Rudbedda triloba
Rumex acetosella
Rumex altissimus
Rumex crispus
Rumex obtusifolius
Rumex verticillatus
Sabatia angularis
Sagiaaria graminea
Sagittaria laiifolia
Sanguinaria canadensis
Sanicula canadensis
Sanicula marilandica
Sanicula odorata
Sanicula trifoliata
Saponaria officinalis
Satureja vulgaris
Saxifraga virginiensis
Source"
1,2
1,2
. 2
3
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
1,2 I
1
1,2 II
1,2 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1,2
1 '" '-
1.2
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
28
-------
II APPENDIX VI-10 1
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area Jj
Common Name
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 skullcaph
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
Snowy campion0*
Scientific Name
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 latertflora
Scutellaria nervosa
Scutellaria serrata
Sedum tematum
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
Silene nivea
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10 29
Source1
1 1
1 |
1,2
1
1
1
-1
I
1,2
1 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
1
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Starry campion
Fire pink
Cup-plant
Whorled rosinweed
Wild mustard
Tumble mustard
Hedge mustard
Blue-eyed grass
Narrow-leaved blue-eyed grassf
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
Elm-leaved goldenrod
Scientific Name
Silene stellata
Silene virginica
SUphium perfoliaaim
Silphium trifoliatum
Sinapis arvensis
Sisymbrium altissimum
Sisymbrium officinale
Sisyrinchium angustifolium
Sisyrinchium mucronatum
Slum suave
Smilacina racemosa
Smilax herbacea
Solatium carolinense
Solarium dulcamara
Solatium nigrum
Solidago altissima
Solidago bicolor
Solidago caesia
Solidago canadensis
Solidago flexicaulis
Solidago gigantea
Solidago graminifolia
Solidago juncea
Solidago nemoralis
Solidago odora
Solidago panda
Solidago rugosa
Solidago squarrosa
Solidago ulmifolia
Source"
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
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
30
-------
1 APPENDIX VI-10 1
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area |
Common Name
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 chickweed
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
Virginia knotweed
Scientific Name
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
Tovara virginiana
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10 31
Source* ||
1 1
1 (1
1
1
1,2 1
1
1,2
1 I
1,2
1
2
1,2 I
1 ||
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1
1,2
1
1
1,2 •' :
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1,2 1
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Club-rush
Purple-top
Hop clover
Rabbit-foot clover
Alsike clover
Red clover
White clover
Purple robin
Drooping trillium
Large-flowered trillium
Snow trillium"
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
White vervain
Scientific Name
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
Urricularia macrorhiza
Uvularia grandiflora
Uvularia perfoliata
Uvularia sessilifolia
Valeriana pauciflora
Valerianella umbilicata
Valerianella chenopodiifolia
Vallisneria americana
Verbascum blattaria
Verbascum thapsus
Verbena hastata
Verbena unidfolia
Source-
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
i
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
32
-------
APPENDIX VI-10
Plants Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Tall ironweed
Com 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
Vemonia altissima
Veronica arvensis
Veronica americana
Veronica qfficinalis
Veronica peregrina
Veronica serpyllifolia
Veronicastrum virginicum
Vicia americana
Vicia caroliniana
Vicia cracca
Vmca minor
Viola affinis
Viola canadensis
Viola conspersa
Viola cu.cu.Uata
Viola lanceolata
Viola pollens
Viola palmata
Viola papilionacea
Viola pensylvanica
Viola pubescens
Viola sagittaria
Viola sororia
Viola striata
Waldsteinia fragariodes
Xanthium strumarium
Zizia aurea
Source*
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
-------
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 ladyfem
Narrow-leaved spleenwort
Silvery spleenwort
Cut-leaved grape fern
Matricary grape femd
Leathery grape-fern
Blunt-lobed grape-fern
Rattlesnake fern
Fragile fern
Tennessee bladder fernh
Hay-scented fern
Southern ground-cedar
Glandular wood fern
Goldie's wood fern
Broad beech fern
Fancy fem
Marginal shield fem
Spinulose wood fern
Marsh fem
Common horsetail
Water horsetail
Scouring-rush
Variegated horsetail1"
Oak fern'
Adiantum pedatum
Asplenium platyneuron
Asplenium rhizophyllwn
Asplenium trichomanes
Athyriwn filix-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
-------
Plants Known or Lik
^B=^=SSS:=BB^SB^=B^^=^^^^^=
Common Name
'"
Chining clubmOSS
Common clubmoss
Round-branch ground-pine
Clubmoss
Sensitive fern
Northern Adder' s-tongue
Interrupted fern
Long beech-fern11
Rock-cap fern
Christmas fern
Ostrich fern
Bracken fern
Creeping spikemoss
Broad beech fern
New York fern
Marsh fern
Filmy fern
Blunt-iobed woodsia
APPENDIX VI-10
dy to be Present Within the Assessment
Scientific Name
B^^^S— BSSBBS.SBBBHBSBH— SB— SB ^5^^— :
Huperzia lucidula
Lycopodium davatum
Lycopodium dendroideum
Lycopodium digitazum
Onoclea sensibilis
Ophioglossum pusillum
Osmunda cinnamonmea
Osmunda claytoniana
Phegopteris connecalis
Polypodium virginianum
Polysrichum acrostichoides
Pterais nodulosa
Pieridium aquilinum
StlagineUa 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 stinkhom
Scarlet cup fungus
Amanua muscaria
Amanita virosa
Cantharellus dbarius
Coprinus corneous
Ganoderma applanatum
Lycoperdon spp.
Morchella esculeraa
Mutinus atninus
Peziza cocanea
Area
^^SSSS^SSSSSS^S^^ .!! 13 S
Source*
i
1.2
1
->
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
\ «_j;^ \rt
-------
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 Candidate.
West Virginia "Critically Imperiled".
West Virginia "Imperiled".
West Virginia "Rare/Uncommon".
Ohio Endangered.
Ohio Threatened.
Ohio Potentially Threatened.
Pennsylvania Endangered.
Pennsylvania Threatened.
Pennsylvania Rare.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-10
36
-------
APPENDIX VI-11
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND RARE SPECIES
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-11
-------
APPENDIX VI-U
Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status*
County, State
Distance
from
WTI (km)
Number
of
Records
Last
Sighting11
Source"
BIRDS
Peregrine falcon
Bald eagle
Winter wren
Canada warbler
Sedge wren
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Troglodytes troglodytes
Wilsonia canadensis
Cistothorus platensls
FE/PE
FT/PE
OE
OE
PT
Washington, PA
Beaver, PA
Washington, PA
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Beaver, PA
?
?
?
?
5 - 10
5 - 10
?
?
?
?
?
1
1
?
?
?
?
?
6/92
6/92
Unknown
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
MAMMALS
Least shrew
Indiana bat
Cryptotis parva
Myotis sodalis
PE
FE/OE
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
10-20
?
?
?
Unknown
Unknown
5
1
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
Hellbender
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
OE/F2
Columbiana, OH
10-20
2
7/88
3
FISH'
Mooneye
Channel darter
Highfin carpsucker
Shipjack herring
Black bullhead
Hiodon tergisus
Percina copelandi
Carpiodes velifer
Alosa chrysochloris
Ameiurus melas
WV1
PT
WV2
PC
PC
Hancock, WV
Beaver, PA
Hancock, WV
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
1 -5
10-20
1 -5
10-20
10-20
1
1
1
1
1
9/92
7/83
9/92
9/84
?/83
4
2
4
2
2
Volume VI
Appendix VI-11
-------
APPENDIX VI-11
Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Smallmouth buffalo
Longnose gar
Longear sunfish
Silver chub
River redhorse
Scientific Name
Ictiobus bubalus
Lepisosteus osseus
Lepomis megalotis
Macrhybopsis storeriana
Moxostoina carinatum
Status'
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC/OS
County, State
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Beaver, PA
Jefferson, OH
Distance
from
WTI (km)
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10 -20
Number
of
Records
2
2
1
1
1
1
Last
Sighting11
7/85
8/85
9/84
8/86
9/84
10/90
Source"
2
2
2
2
2
3
AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
Watermeal
Wavy-rayed lampmussel
Wolffia papulifera
Lampsilis fasiola
WV1
OS
Hancock, WV
Columbiana, OH
10 - 20
5 - 10
10 -20
1
1
3
8/83
8/87
4
3
PLANTS
Vase-vine leather-flower
Mountain-fringe
Shale barren pussy-toes
Reflexed sedge
Pipsissewa
Oak fern
Clematis viorna
Adlumia fungosa
Antennaria virginica
Carex retroflexa var. retroflexa
Chimaphila umbellata
Gymnocarpium diyopteris
PE
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, 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
1
5
8
2
15
3
1
1
2
4
7/83
10/85
6/86
7/86
5/83
9/87
6/86
2,6
3
3
3
3
3
3
Volume VI
Appendix VI-11
-------
APPENDIX VI-11
Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Southern woodrush
Bicknell's panic-grass
Great rhododendron
Carolina flycatch
Harbinger-of-spring
Lyre-leaf rock-cress
Swamp jack-in-the-pulpit
Green milkweed
American chestnut
Speckled wood-lily
Rock-harlequin
Tennessee bladder fern
Closed gentian
American water-pennywort
Long beech-fern
Large round-leaved orchid
Scientific Name
Luzula bulbosa
Panicum bicknellii
Rhododendron maximum
Silene carollniana var,
pensylvanica
Erigenia bulbosa
Arabis lyrata
Arisaema stewardsonii
Asclepias viridlflora
Castanea dentata
Clintonia umbellulata
Corydalis sempervirens
Cystopteris tennesseenis
Gentiana clausa
Hydrocotyle americana
Phegopteris connectilis
Platanthera orbiculata
Status'
OT
OT
OT
OT
PT
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
County, State
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Columbiana, OH
Distance
from
WTI (km)
5 - 10
10-20
10 -20
10-20
10-20
10-20
5 - 10
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
5 - 10
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
5 - 10
10-20
10-20
10-20
Number
of
Records
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
5
5
2
2
Last
Sighting"
5/83
8/84
9/86
5/86
6/86
3/92
6/86
5/77
6/84
7/83
11/82
7/84
6/84
8/84
9/84
7/86
6/86
7/84
Source0
3
3
3
3
3
2,6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Volume VI
Appendix VI-11
-------
APPENDIX VI-11
Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Bowman's root
Early buttercup
Hairy arrowhead
Puttyroot
Scientific Name
Porteranthus trifoliatus
Ranunculus fascicularis
Sagittaria latifolia var.
pubescens
Aplectrum hyemale
Status"
OP
OP
OP
PR
County, State
Jefferson, OH
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
Jefferson, OH
Beaver, PA
Distance
from
WTI (km)
10 -20
10 -20
10-20
10-20
10-20
Number
of
Records
1
9
1
1
1
Last
Sighting"
9/93
6/86
5/86
9/86
5/92
Source0
3
3
3
3
2
* 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 (1994b); 2 - WPAC (1994); 3 - OHDNR (1994b); 4 - WVDNR (1994); 5 - Pennsylvania Game Commission (1994);
6 - PADER (1994a).
? = Data Unavailable.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-11
-------
APPENDIX VI-12
STACK HIGH-END EMISSION RATES FOR PCB HOMOLOGS
AND DIOXIN/FURAN CONGENERS
Volume VI
Appendix VI-12
-------
APPENDIX VI-12
Stack High-End Emission Rates for PCB Homologs and Dioxin/Furan Congeners
Homolog/Congener
Estimated High-
End Emission
Rate(g/s)
Toxicity
Equivalent
Factor"
Calculated High-
End Emission
Rate (g/s)
PCBs
Monochlorobiphenyl
Dichlorobiphenyl
Trichlorobiphenyl
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
Pentachlorobiphenyl
Hexachlorobiphenyl
Heptachlorobiphenyl
Octachlorobiphenyl
Nonachlorobiphenyl
Total PCBs
2.99 x 10*
8.22 x 10*
5.80 x 1O8
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10^
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 1O8
-
—
—
—
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
2.99 x 10*
8.22 x 10*
5.80 x 10*
2.80 x 1O*
2.80x 10-8
2.80 x 1O*
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10-8
2.80 x 10*
3.38 x 107
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 1O"
1.25 x 10-'°
2.18 x lO10
1.55 x 10'°
1.69x 10*
9.80 x 10*
1.15x 10-'°
4.35 x 10-'°
6.04 x 10-'°
1.85 x 10*
1.71 x 10-'
1.96 x 10-9
3.85 x 10-'°
1.30x10*
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 10-12
1.15x 10-"
2.18x 10-"..
3.02 x 10-'°
1.85 x 10-'°
1.71 x 10-'°
1.96 x 10-'°
3.85 x 10-"
1.30 x 10-'°
Volume VI
Appendix VI-12
-------
APPENDIX VI-12
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-12
-------
APPENDIX VI-13
DEVELOPMENT OF CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC STACK AND FUGITIVE
. EMISSION RATES
Volume VI
Appendix VI-13
-------
APPENDIX VI-13
Development of Chemical-Specific Stack and Fugitive Emission Rates
I. 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 in the derivation of stack
emission rates. Statistical approaches are used in these derivations whenever possible, as
described in Volume ffl. The more conservative approaches used to derive stack emission
rates in Volume HI 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).
A. 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
A ere collected under five sets of operating conditions, each at least four hours in duration.
Additional performance tests were conducted in February (nine runs), April (five runs), and
August (seven runs) 1994.
The high-end emission rates used in 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:
v
UCL = mean + t , — (1)
where: t = Student-t statistic
s = sample standard deviation
n = number of samples
Volume VI
Appendix VI-13
-------
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 run1.
B. 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 in the SERA2 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 in measurable quantities in 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 in 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 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
1 Average emission rates for the 17 PCDD/PCDF congeners, used in the HHRA, are
calculated as the arithmetic mean of the emission rates measured in 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.
2 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-14 lists both the
average and high-end emission rates for these organic PICs and organic residues.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-13 3
-------
(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 Chapter IV, 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 Chapter IV, Table IV-1.
C. 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 bums and projected waste
feed data for the WTI facility. Thermodynamic 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):
£. = (1-SRE}(F) (2)
where: Ej = annual average stack emission rate for metal i (lb/yr)
F; = annual feed rate for metal i (lb/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 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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-13
-------
not analyzed in the March 1993 trial bum, SRE values are extrapolated from the trial bum
data for the metals that were tested, using thennodynamic 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 Volume m, Chapter n and Appendix DI-1. 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 arc 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 WIT'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
ffl).
In addition to the metal stack emission rates calculated above, the SERA also uses the
current projected metal permit limits for the WIT 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 WT1 facility in the future)3. 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 estimate the levels of ecological risk associated with the
facility's current operating permit limits for the emission of metals from the stack.
The permit limits for barium, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium assume no removal
by the incineration process or by the emission control system. SREs for the remaining
seven metals included in the permit are based on trial bum data.
Volume VI
Aoncndix VT-13
-------
II. DEVELOPMENT OF CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC FUGITIVE EMISSION RATES
For each fugitive organic vapor ECOC, chemical-specific emission rate estimates are
developed for each of the four identified fugitive organic vapor emission sources, as
described below. In addition, chemical-specific emission rates are developed for each
fugitive inorganic ECOC selected for evaluation at the ash handling facility.
A. Fugitive Inorganic 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
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) during 1994. High-end metal and cyanide concentrations
associated with the fly ash are estimated based on these monthly sampling results. For the
eight fugitive inorganic ECOCs, the high-end concentrations used in the SERA4 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 III).
In estimating these high-end concentrations, it is conservatively assumed that metals (and
cyanide) detected on at least one occasion are present in 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
fugitive inorganic ECOC in the ash is multiplied oy the estimated fugitive ash emission rate
of 4.03 x 10"4 g/sec (estimated in Volume III). The resulting chemical-specific emission
rates due to fugitive ash releases are summarized in Chapter IV, Table IV-9.
B. Fugitive Organic Vapor 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 III 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 parameters, in deriving emission rates. The
4 Average (arithmetic mean) chemical concentrations in ash are used in 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 in the SERA.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-13 6
-------
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 operation5.
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 ffl). The TANKS2 program also
provides an estimate of the emissions represented by each of the organic ECOCs (see
Volume 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
organic vapor 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 organic vapor emission rates (all chemicals) for each of the sources of
fugitive organic vapor 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 Chapter IV, Table IV-10. 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 estimated fugitive emissions from the facility (see
Volume V).
5
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 in Volume V.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-13
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
ESTIMATED AVERAGE AND HIGH-END STACK EMISSION RATES
FOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
Volume VI
Appendix VI-14
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
Estimated Average and High-End Stack Emission Rates for Organic Chemicals
Chemical
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetopheaone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzole 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
BromodichJoromethane
Bromoform
Bromome thane
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-"
6.69 x 10-*
3.01 x 10"
2.90 x lO'3
2.93 x 10"
2.02 x 10"
5.50 x 1O*
1.47 x lO'5
1.13 x 10-5
3.20 x 10-5
5.50 x 10^
5.50 x 10^
5.50 x 10-6
5.50 x 10^
5.50 x 10-*
6.69 x 1O*
1.33 x lO'5
6.69 x 10-*
3.72 x 10'5
1.03 x 10"
5.50 x 10^
4.90 x 10"
6.69 x 1O*
5.14x 10-3
5.50 x 10"*
8.91 x 10-5
1.58 x 10"
5.50 x ID'7
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10^
5.50 x 10^
3.68 x 10"3
1.90 x 10"
High-End
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10^
3.01 x 10"
2.90 x 10-3
2.93 x 10"
2.02 x 10"
l.lOxlO"5
2.63 x 10-5
1.13 x 10-5
3.20 x 10-5
l.lOx lO"3
l.lOxlO-5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOxlO-3
l.lOxlO-5
6.69 x 10*
1.33 x 10"3
6.69 x 10*
5.23 x 10-5
1.53 x 10"
l.lOx 10-3
9.80 x 10"
6.69 x 10*
7.40 x 10-3
l.lOxlO-3
9.46 x 10-5
2.75 x 10"
1.10x10*
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10-3
3.68 x lO"5
9.80 x 10"
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-14
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
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-
Dichloroethene (trans), 1,2-
Dichlorophenol, 2-4-
Dichloropropane, 1,2-
Dichloropropene, cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-
Diethylphthalate
Dimethoxybenadine, 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-
Dimethylphthalate
Emission Rate (g/sec)
Average
2.66 x 10*
2.45 x ICT1
6.69 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
1.39 x 10-1
5.50 x 10*
3.88 x 10'5
5.50 x 10-7
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
2.63 x lO'5
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
3.33 x 10-5
2.45 x 10^
1.25 x 10'5
1.25 x lO'5
1.25 x lO'5
1.25 x lO'5
5.50 x 10*
1.25x 10-5
1.25 x 10-5
1.25 x lO'5
1.69 x lO'5
l.lSxlO-4
5.50 y. 10*
5.50 x 10*
High-End
4.07 x 1O4
4.90 x 1O4
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx lO"5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10^
l.lOx 10"5
l.lOx lO"5
1.39 x 10-1
l.lOxlO-5
3.88 x 10-5
1.10x10*
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
2.63 x 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOxlO-5
1.10 x 10-5
3.33 x 10s
4.90 x 10-1
2.50 x 10-5
2.50 x 10-3
2.50 x 10-5
2.50 x 10-*
l.lOx 10-5
2.50 x IVs
2.50 x 10-5
2.50 x 10-5
3.60 x 10-5
1.15 x 10-1
r: 10 x ia5
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-14
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
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-octylphthalate
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde
Furfural
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane, c- (Undane)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexanone, 2-
Indeno( 1 ,2 ,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Maleic hydrazide
Methoxychlor
Methyl t-butyl ether
Methyl-2-Pentanone, 4-
Methylene chloride
Methyhiaphthalene, 2-
Naphthalene
Emission Rate (g/sec)
Average
1.57 x 10-5
5.50 x 10^
5.50 x 10-«
5.50 x 10-6
5.50 x 10-6
4.94 x 1O4
5.50 x 10-6
2.45 x 104
4.98 x 1O4
l.lSxltf4
3.05 x lO'5
1.46 x 10-10
5.50 x ID"6
6.69 x 10^
6.07 x W*
5.50 x 10-6
5.50 x ID'7
5.50 x 10-6
1.01 x 10-*
5.48 x 10-5
5.50 x 10-6
5.50 x 10-6
3.20 x 10-5
6.43 x 10-5
5.50 x 10*
6.69 x 10-6
1.15 x 10-4
5.50 x 10-7
1.25 x lO'5
1.25 x 10-3
3.96 x ICT1
4.18x lO'5
5.50 x 10"6
High-End
2.04 x 10-5
l.lOxlO-5
l.lOxlO-5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOxlO-5
4.94 x 1O4
l.lOx ICC5
4.90 x 1O*
7.53 x 10-*
1.15x 10*
3.05 x lO"5
1.46 x ID'10
l.lOx ID"3
6.69 x 10-6
6.07 x 10-»
l.lOx 10-3
l.lOx 10*
1.10 x lO-3
1.01 x lO4
5.48 x 10-3
l.lOx lO"3
l.lOx 10-3
3.20 x lO"3
6.43 x ID"3
l.lOx 10-3
6.69 x 10*
1.15 x 104
l.lOx 10^
2.50 x 10-3
2.50 x 10-3
6.19x 1CT4
4/18 x ID"3
l.lOx ID"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-14
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
Estimated Average and BBgh-End Stack Emission Rates for Organic Chemicals
Chemical
Nitroaniline, 2-
Nitroaniline, 3-
Nitroaniline, 4-
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenol, 2-
Nitrophenol, 4-
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodi-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-l,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, total
Emission Rate (g/sec)
Average
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x lO"6
6.69 x 10*
5.50 x 10-6
6.69 x 10-*
5.50 x 10-6
1.21 x 10-4
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10-6
4.76 x 10'5
3.37 x lO'5
5.50 x 10-6
6.69 x 10*
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x 10-6
1.15 x 10"
2.25 x 10-5
5.50 x 10*
5.50 x Iff6
5.13x 10"5
6.80 x 10*
6.13x 10"
3.30 x 10"
5.50 x 10*
1.25 x 10-3
1.25 x 10-3
1.86 x 10"s
2.45 x 10"
5.50 x 10-*
5.50 x 10*
6.43 x 10-5
2.45 x 10"
3.86 x 10"
High-End
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 1O*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx Iff5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOxlO-5
1.21 x 10"
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
4.76 x ICC5
3.37 x lO"5
l.lOx ICC5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOxlO-5
1.15x 10"
4.04 x 10"5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx Iff5
8.02 x 10-5
6.80 x 10*
1.03 x 10-3
3.30 x 10"
l.lOx 10"5
2.50 x 10-5
2.50 x 10-'
3.09 x Iff5
4.90 x 10"
l.lOx Iff5
l.lOx 10"5
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-14
-------
APPENDIX VI-14
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 10"*
1.40 x 10-"
1.67 x 10-"
1.40 x ID"8
1.40 x 1O"
1.40x 10-8
1.40 x 10^
3.02 x 1O8
8.22 x 1O8
2.80 x 10-*
2.80 x 1O*
2.99 x 10-*
2.80 x 1O*
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 10*
2.80 x 1O*
5.80 x 1O8
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
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
l.OSx 10-"
6.78 x 10-"
8.95 x 10-"
1.66 x 10-'°
1.09 x 10-'°
1.24x 10-"
6.15x 10"9
2.16x 10-"
9.46 x 10-"
1.25 x 10-'°
2.18x 10'10
1.55 x 10-'°
1.69 x lO*
9.80 x 1O'
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
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
8.77 x 10-"
3.45 x 10-'°
4.67 x 10-'°
1.43 x 10-9
1.33 x 10-9
1.50 x 10-9
2.93 x ICr10
9.30 x 10*
1.22 x 10*
1.89 x 10-8
1.15x 10-'°
4.35 x lO"10
6.04 x 10-10
1.85 x 1O9
1.71 x 109
1.96 x 10*
3.85 x 10-'°
1.30 x 10s
l.SOx 1O9
3.62 x 108
c
c
c
c
c
c.-
c
c
c
c
1 a - Emission rate based on March 1993 and February 1994 trial bum 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.
k CDD - chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CDF - chlorodibenzo-p-furan.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-14
-------
APPENDIX VI-15
CHEMICAL SCORES - INHALATION
STACK EMISSION CHEMICAL SCREENING
Volume VI
Appendix VI-15
-------
APPENDIX VI-15
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 103
l.lOx 10 5
2.90 x 10 3
3.20x 10s
1.39x 10"
4.07 x 10"
4.90 x 10"
l.lOx 10 5
3.20 x 10s
3.37 x 10 3
l.lOx 10 5
1.01 x 10"
2.93 x 10*
l.lOx 10^
2.02 x 10*
9.80 x 10"
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 5
Toxicity
Value
l.OOx 10-2
6.00 x 10 2
5.00 x 10 2
1.33x 10'
2.00 x 10 '
2.00 x 10°
6.90x 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 10'
l.OOx 10'
2.00 x 10'
1.20x 10J
1.50x 10°
1.60x 10°
Score
6.07 x 102
9.13 x 10"
2.20 x 10*
2.18x 10"
1.60x 10"
6.95 x 105
5.89 x 10 3
4.90 x ID'5
4.40 x 103
4.00 x lO'5
2.81 x 10-3
2.24 x 10-5
2.02 x 103
1.22x 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
1.01 x 10 3
8.17 x 10*
7.33 x 10*
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
Appendix VI-15
-------
APPENDIX VI-15
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Dichlorodi fluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Phenol
Furfural
Pentachlorophenol
Pyrene
Chloromethane
1 ,4-Dioxane
Carbon disulfide
Di-n-butylphthalate
Acenaphthene
Toluene
^
Methylene chloride
Ethylene dibromide
Total PCBs
2,4-Dinitrophenol
o-Cresol ',
Tetrachloroethene
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
2.50 x 10 5
4.90 x 104
4.90 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 3
4.90 x 10^
4.94 x 10*
9.46 x 10s
2.04 x 10s
6.69 x 10*
1.03 x 10 3
6.19x 10^
1.15x 10*
3.38 x 107
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10 5
8.02 x 10s
Toxicity
Value
4.00 x 10°
8.10x 101
8.30 x 10'
1.90 x 10°
2.00 x 10°
2.10x 10°
2.10 x 10°
1.00 x 102
1.03x 102
2.00 x 10'
4.40 x 10°
1.90 x 10°
3.00 x 102
2.00 x 102
3.90x 10'
1.20x 10'
4.00 x 10°
4. 10 x 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 10-6
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 1
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-15
-------
APPENDIX VMS
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Ethylbenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Chlordane
Naphthalene
Vinyl acetate
p-Chloroaniline
Benzene
Total xylenes
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Carbon tetrachloride
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Styrerie
2-Hexanone
Trichloroethene
Ethylene oxide
Cumene \
1 , 1 , 1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/»)
7.53 x 10"
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10*
l.lOx 10 5
6.43 x 105
6.69 x 10*
2.63 x 10'3
5.75 x 10^
6.69 x 10*
2.75 x 10-1
5.23 x 10"3
l.lOx 10'3
l.lOx 10 3
4.04 x 10'5
6.43 x 103
3.09 x 10 3
3.05 x 10s
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10'5
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 10l
1.60x 10'
1.60 x 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
1.88x 10*
1.83 x 10*
1.83 x 10-"
l.SOx 10-*
1.61 x 10*
1.39x 10*
1.31 x 10*
1.15x 10-*
l.OSx 10*
9.18 x lO'7
8.30 x 10 7
6.88 x 10 7
6.88 x lO'7
6.73 x 107
6.43 x 107
6.18x 107
6.10x lO'7
5.50 x 107
5.24 x lO'7
Group Rank
18
13
5
3
19
14
20
21
15
22
2
17
16
23
24
25
26
18
27
Ail 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
Appendix VI-15
-------
APPENDIX VI-15
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
Benzole acid
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Butylbenzylphthalate
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro-l ,2,2-trifluoroethane
Isophorone
Acetaldehyde
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
4.90 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
2.50 x 105
3.60 x 10 5
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10-*
l.lOx 10 5
2.50 x 10-5
2.50 x 10s
1.15x 10^
1.13 x 10'5
1.33 x 10 3
l.lOx lO'3
l.lOx 10'3
3.30 x \0*
6.69 x 10*
3.01 x lOr4
Toxicity
Value
1.00 x 103
1.40x 10'
1.40x 10'
1.40x 10'
5.50 x 10'
8.00 x 10'
2.60 x 10'
2.60 x 10°
3.00 x 10'
9.00 x 10'
9.00 x 10'
4.36 x 102
5.20 x 10'
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 lO'7
4.78 x 107
4.78 x 107
4.55 x lO'7
4.49 x lO'7
4.23 x 107
4.23 x 107
3.67 x 107
2.78 x 107
2.78 x lO'7
2.64 x 10'7
2.17x 107
1.93 x 10 7
1.91 x 10-7
1.77 x lO'7
1.65 x 10 7
1.45 x 10 7
1.36 x 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-15
-------
APPENDIX VI-1S
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-Dichloroethene
Bromoform
Ethylene thiourea
2-Methylnaphthalene
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
2.50 x 10-3
2.50 x lO'3
6.69 x 10"«
l.lOx 10-5
2.50 x 10-5
7.40 x ID'5
2.50 x 10-5
9.80 x lO"4
2.50 x 10s
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10^
2.50 x 10-5
2.50 x 10-3
l.lOx lO'5
1.46 x 10 10
4.18x 10-5
Toxicity
Value
2.00 x 102
2.36 x 102
7.00 x 10"
1.17 x 102
3.00 x 102
1.00 x 103
3.80 x 102
1.50 x 10"
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
1.25x 10 7
1.06 x 10 7
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*
4.17x 10'
3.79 x lO'9
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
Appendix VI-15
-------
APPENDIX VMS
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 lO"6
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx lO'5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10'5
1.26x 10 9
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx lO'3
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10-6
l.lOx 10 3
3.33 x 10 3
1.53x 104
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
All 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-15
-------
APPENDIX VI-15
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 phenylether
Di-n-octylphthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4,4^-DDE
Chlorobenzilate
2,6-Dmitrotoluene
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
2,4-D
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
1.21 x 10^
1.15x10^
l.lOx 10"5
4.76 x 1C'5
6.80 x 10*
2.63 x 105
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 J
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10*
3.68 x 10"5
l.lOx 10 5
1.15x 10^
l.lOx 10s
6.69 x 10*
3.88 x 10-5
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
Appendix VI-15
-------
APPENDIX VMS
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Benzo(a)pyrene
High-End
Emission Rate
(g/s)
l.lOx 10s
Toxicity
Value
ND
Score
—
Group Rank
2
All Rank
95
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
No Data.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-15
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
CHEMICAL SCORES - INGESTION
STACK EMISSION CHEMICAL SCREENING
Volume VI
Appendix VI-16
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
Chemical Scores - Ingestion - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Dioxin/furan
Hexachlorophene
Hexachlorobenzene
Total PCBs
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
4,4'-DDE
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chlordane
Pentachlorobenzene
Indeno( 1,2,3 -cd)py rene
Pentachlorophenol
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Heptachlor
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
Pentachloronitrobenzene •,
Chlorobenzilate
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
1.26x 10'9
3.20 x 10 5
l.lOx lO'5
3.38 x 10-7
5.23 x 10'5
l.lOx lO'5
1.01 x 10"
l.lOx 10^
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10-6
4.76 x 103
l.lOx ID'3
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx lO'5
l.lOx 10-*
l.lOx 10 5
3.37 x 105
3.68 x 10 $
Ko*
2.57 x 107
3.47 x 107
7.76 x 105
2.45 x 106
2.00 x 107
1.15x 108
6.46 x 10"
5.75 x 10*
1.29 x 106
4.90 x 106
2.09 x 106
1.82x 105
4.47 x 106
1.23x 10s
1.58x 10*
1.82x10*
1.58x 10*
4.37 x 104
2.40 x 10"
Toxicity
Value
1 .00 x 10 5
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 10'
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°
1.42x 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 10-'
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
1
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
Appendix VI-16
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
Chemical Scores - Ingestion - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
========
2,4-D
Lindane
Chrysene
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pyrsne
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 10 3
5.48 x 105
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10 3
1 . 10 x 10 3
3.33 x 10-5
l.lOx 10 5
6.80 x 10*
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10-*
6.69 x 10*
2.04 x 10 3
4.18x 10 5
1.15x 10^
1.21 x 10^
2.93 x 10*
l.lOx 10 3
6.69 x 10*
K^
5.01 x 102
5.37 x 103
5.01 x 105
7.08 x 102
2.45 x 103
1.29x 105
3.24 x 103
5.01 x 103
1.26x 104
1.32x 105
1.20x 10s
3.55 x 104
4.07 x 10"
1.29x 104
4.57 x 102
2.57 x 102
4.37 x 10'
6.92 x 10"
1.32 x 104
Toxicity
Value
2.00 x 10"'
4.40 x 10°
9.90 x 10'
2.50 x 1C'1
9.80 x 10'
8.00 x 10'
8.00 x 10°
5.00 x 102
1.40x 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 10'2
6.69 x lO'2
5.57 x 10-2
3.11 x 10-2
2.76 x lO'2
1.77x 10-2
1.35x 10 2
l.lOx 10 2
6.11 x 10 3
5.80 x 103
5.29 x 10 3
3.39 x 10'3
3.32 x 103
3.30 x 10-3
2.70 x lO'3
2.59 x 10-3
1.58x lO'3
1.55x 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-16
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
Chemical Scores - Ingestion - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Fluorene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Nitrophenol
4-Chloro-3 -methy Iphenol
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 10 5
6.69 x 10-*
6.69 x 10-6
1 . 10 x 10 3
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x W*
1.15x 10-"
l.lOx 10'3
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx lO'5
l.lOx 10 5
K*.
1.02x 10"
1.62x 104
1.45x 103
l.lOx 102
1.26x 103
1.17x 104
6.46 x 10'
1.02x 102
8.32 x 103
7.94 x 103
l.OOx 104
3.80 x 102
1.82x 10'
3.80 x 103
3.55 x 10'
6.17x 10'
7.41 x 10'
3.55 x 10"
5.01 x 103
Toxicity
Value
l.SOx 102
2.00 x 102
l.SOx 10'
2.50 x 10°
1.83 x 10'
1.76x 102
1.92x 10'
3.90x 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 10"
4.60 x 10*
4.47 x 10-4
3.87 x 10"1
2.89 x \0*
2.78 x 10"
2.18x 10"
2.00 x 10"
1.96 x 10"
1.87x 10"
1.44x 10"
1.30x 10"
1.25x 10"
1.22 x 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
Appendix VI-16
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
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 10 5
l.lOx 10'3
l.lOx 10 3
1.33 x 10 3
3.60 x 10'5
l.lOx lO'3
1.13x 10-3
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx lO'5
6.69 x 10-6
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx 10-5
1.15x 10*
6.69 x 10^
K,,,,
6.92 x 101
9.77 x 10'
2.29 x 102
1.62x 10'
3.16x 10J
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 101
1.20x 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°
1.35x 10'
3.20 x 10'
2.80 x 10°
1.85x 102
l.SOx 10'
1.70x 10'
l.OOx 10'
5.33 x 102
2.40 x 10'
4.80 x 10°
5.00 x 101
4.40 x 102
1.60x 10'
5.40 x 10°
7.50x10°
l.OOx 10'
3.80 x 10'
2.50 x 102
Score
9.76 x 10s
7.96 x 10-5
7.87 x 10s
7.70 x 10 3
6.15x 10 3
5.45 x 103
4.82 x 10 5
4.74 x 10 3
4.73 x 103
4.28 x 105
3.50 x 10s
3.11 x 10s
3.01 x 105
2.96 x 10 3
2.90 x 10-3
2.19xl05
2.83 x 10^
1.45 x 10^
1.34 x lO"6
Group Rank
26
27
28
29
5
30
31
32
9
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
11
41
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-16
Chemical Scores - Ingestion - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Dimethylphthalate
Methyl t-butyl ether
Phenol
1,4-Dioxane
Ethylene thiourea
Benzo(g,h,i)perylerve
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Bromophenyl phenylether
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
l.lOx 10's
2.50 x 10 5
l.lOx lO'5
4.94 x ICT1
1.46x ID'10
l.lOx 10 3
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10-6
K,w
3.72 x 101
1.74x 10'
3.02 x 10'
4.07 x 10"'
2. 19 x 10-'
5.01 x 106
8.91 x 104
1.00 x 105
Toxicity
Value
3.38 x 107
4.00 x 102
5.23 x 102
1.00 x 103
l.OOx 10'
ND"
ND
ND
Score
1.21 x 10"6
1.09x 10^
6.35 x 10'7
2.01 x 10'7
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
Appendix VI-16
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
CHEMICAL SCORES - AQUATIC (Kow-BASED)
STACK EMISSION CHEMICAL SCREENING
Volume VI
Appendix VI-17
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
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
Total PCBs
Lindane
Benzo(a)anthracene
Pentachlorophenol
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Pentachl orobenzene
Anthracene
Methoxychlor
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
3.20 x 10 5
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx ID'3
5.23 x 105
1.26 x 10-'
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10^
1.01 x 10-1
l.lOx 10s
3.38 x 10 7
5.48 x 103
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10'3
4.76 x lO'5
l.lOx lO'5
l.lOx 10-6
K~
3.47 x 107
5.75 x 10*
1.82x 10*
1.29x 106
2.00 x 107
2.57 x 107
7.76 x 105
1.15x 108
2.09 x 10*
6.46 x 10"
2.45 x 105
2.45 x 10*
5.37 x 103
5.01 x 103
1.23x 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 l
5.00 x 10°
4.00 x 102
1.30x 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 10'
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°
1.34x 10°
9.58 x 10-'
6.52 x 10-'
5.40 x 10 '
4.15x10-'
1.47 x 10-'
9.04 x 102
6.77 x 102
5.39 x 10'2
3.46 x 10'2
3.28 x lO'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
Appendix VI-17
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
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 10s
l.lOx 10 5
2.63 x 10-5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10 5
2.50 x 103
l.lOx 10-'
l.lOx 10'5
1.21 x 10*
l.lOx 10's
l.lOx 10 3
2.50 x 10-5
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx 10 3
2.50 x 10s
9.80 x 10^
6.19x 10^
l.lOx 10 5
K.w
l.OOx 102
1.20x 103
1.35x 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
6.17x10'
2.24 x 102
1.12x 102
1.55 x 10'
1.78 x 10'
7.41 x 10'
Toxieity
Value
3.05 x 102
1.69 x 103
6.40 x 102
2.30 x 102
l.OOx 103
6.60 x 102
2.00 x 103
3.30 x 102
l.OOx 102
l.OOx 10"
5.60 x 102
1.00 x 103
l.SOx 103
2.30 x 102
1.50 x 103
2.00 x 103
l.lOx 10<
9.70 x 103
9.90 x 102
Score
8.20 x 10-6
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*
1.64 x 10*
1.40x 10*
1.38 x 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-17
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
2,4-Dinitrophenol
o-Cresol
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dimethylphthalate
Ethylene dibromide
Cumene
Carbon disulfide
m-Cresol
Formaldehyde
p-Cresol
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
p-Chloroaniline
Nitrobenzene
Crotonaldehyde
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Acetophenone
2-Hexanone
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2.02 x 10^
l.lOx lO'5
l.lOx 10s
2.50 x 10 5
l.lOx 10 3
1.15x 10^
l.lOx 10 5
9.46 x 10 3
l.lOx 10 5
6.07 x lO^1
l.lOx 10'5
2.50 x 10'5
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx lO'5
1.39x 10-*
2.50 x 10'5
2.93 x 10^
6.43 x ID'3
2.50 x lO'5
K,w
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
l.OOx 102
9.33 x 10'
8.91 x 10'
8.91 x 10'
9.33 x 10'
7.08 x 10'
6.92 x 10'
4.27 x 10°
6.17 x 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
1.50 x 104
l.lOx 10s
3.50 x 10"
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 10"
1.55 x 105
2.14 x 104
1.20x 104
Score
7.81 x lO'7
5.96 x 107
4.67 x lO'7
4.35 x 10'7
4.35 x 107
4.31 x 10 7
3.80 x 10 7
2.70 x lO'7
2.57 x 10-7
2.48 x 10 7
2.45 x 10-7
2.16x lO'7
1.97 x 10-7
1.88x lO'7
1.69 x 10 7
1.28 x 10'7
8.25 x 10-"
7.21 x 10-*
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
Appendix VI-17
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Phenanthrene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Bromophenyl phenylether
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Total 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 10s
l.lOx 10-3
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10'3
l.lOx 10 3
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx 10 3
3.37 x 10-3
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10 3
5.75 x 10*
7.53 x 10*
6.69 x 10*
6.80 x 10*
3.68 x 10s
4.18x 10 3
1.03 x 10 3
l.lOx lO'5
K~
3.55 x 10"
4.07 x 104
1.32x 105
1.29x 103
5.01 x 103
6.92 x 10"
l.OOx 105
1.00 x 104
4.37 x 10"
7.94 x 103
1.02 x 104
1.58 x 103
1.38 x 103
8.32 x 103
1.26 x 104
2.40 x 10"
1.29x 104
5.62 x 102
5.01 x 103
Toxicity
Value
3.00 x 10'
1.05 x 102
2.00 x 102
2.50 x 102
l.OOx 103
1.40x 102
2.70 x 102
6.00 x 10'
l.OOx 103
l.OOx 102
1.30x 102
1.06 X 103
1.40x 103
8.50 x 10'
1.40X102
1.45 x 103
l.lOx 103
1.65 x 103
l.SOx 102
Score
7.91 x lO'3
7.90 x 103
7.25 x 10-3
5.67 x 10-3
5.51 x 103
5.44 x lO'3
2.48 x 103
1.83 x lO'3
1.47x 10 3
8.74 x 10^
8.66 x {0*
8.64 x 10*
7.43 x 10*
6.55 x 10*
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
All Rank
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Cumulative
Percent
Score
0.999
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-17
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K,,w-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-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Styrene
2,4-D
Chloroform
Chlorobenzene
Diethylphthalate
Trichloroethene \
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx 10'5
l.lOx 10 5
6.69 x 10-6
l.lOx lO'5
l.lOx 10s
3.33 x 103
l.lOx 10 5
2.75 x 10-"
8.02 x 105
6.69 x 10^
6.69 x 10^
4.04 x lO'5
3.88 x 10 5
4.07 x 10^
l.lOx 10's
3.60 x 103
3.09 x lO'5
2.50 x 103
K^
1.26x 103
2.63 x 103
5.25 x 103
1.62x 104
2.29 x 103
2.69 x Iff
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
3.16x 102
5.13x 102
l.OOx 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'
l.SOx 103
5.40 x 102
1.60x 105
2.95 x 102
1.30x 103
l.OOx 103
l.SOx 103
5.90 x 102
9.40 x 102
1.70x 103
3.05 x 102
Score
2.81 x 10-"
2.63 x 10*
2.31 x 10^
2.17 x KT4
1.87x 10-*
1.85x 10^
1.81 x 10^
9.73 x lO'5
8.22 x 105
6.95 x 10 3
5.51 x 10s
3.28 x lO'5
2.71 x 10'5
1.94x 10s
1.88x 10 5
1.35x 10's
1.21 x lO'5
9.32 x 10-6
8.20 x 10-6
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
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-17
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
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 -v
Safrole
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx 10 3
4.94 x 10"4
6.43 x 103
3.01 x 10^
2.50 x 10'3
4.90 x 10"1
1.33 x lO'5
6.69 x 10^
1.13x 10 5
2.90 x lO'3
1.15x 10^
6.69 x 10^
7.40 x 10 3
1.46X10'10
2.63 x 103
1.15x 10^
1.15x Iff*
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°
1.55x 10'
8.13x 10°
1.62x 10'
2.45 x 10'
7.24 x 10'
5.75 X lO'1
4.79 x 10-'
2.34 x 10'
1.91 x 10°
2.19x 10-'
1.74x 102
6.46 x 10'
4.57 x 102
Toxicity
Value
1 .04 x 10"
1.95x 10"
1.20x 103
l.OOx 10"
l.SOx 104
5.30 x 104
2.60 x 10"
5.50 x 105
3.00 x 104
2.40 x 104
1.46x 103
4.46 x 105
2.60 x 104
8.20 x 104
1.60x 105
l.SOx 104
ND"
ND
ND
Score
3.22 x 10^
2.43 x 10^
2.36 x 10^
2.01 x 10*
1.92x 10^
1.53x 10-*
1.49x 10^
7.24 x 10 '»
7.19x 10'
6.84 x 109
5.61 x 10 »
3.74 x 10'9
2.12x 10'
1.91 x 10*
8.81 x 10'°
1.77 x ID45
...
—
—
Group Rank
32
33
34
35
34
35
36
37
36
37
38
38
11
39
39
40
40
41
41
AH 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
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
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
1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-
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 lO"6
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
9.80 x 10 •'
6.69 x 10-6
2.50 x 10 5
3.30 x 10-"
4.90 x 10^
3.05 x 10-5
6.69 x 10-*
4.90 x 10^
4.90 x 10-1
3.20 x 10-5
K.w
5.01 x 106
1.26x 102
8.91 x 10"
4.47 x 10*
1.17 x 104
2.51 x 101
1.58x 106
1.58 X 106
3.47 x 10'
3.80 x 102
1.74x 10'
1.45x 103
3.39 x 10*
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
Appendix VI-17
-------
APPENDIX VI-17
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (K^-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Vinyl chloride
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
4.90 x 10-1
K.w
3.16x 10'
Toxicity
Value
ND
Score
—
Group Rank
40
All Rank
112
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
• No data.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-17
-------
APPENDIX VI-18
CHEMICAL SCORES - AQUATIC (WATER SOLUBILITY-BASED)
STACK EMISSION CHEMICAL SCREENING
Volume VI
Appendix VI-18
-------
APPENDIX VI-18
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-1 ,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°
1.15 x HT*
1.39x 10*
9.80 x 10*
l.lOx 10-3
6.19x 10^
UOxlO-5
3.01 x 10*
4.07 x 10*
5.48 x 10 J
6.43 x 105
2.50 x 10 5
2.50 x ID'5
1.03 x lO'3
l.lOx 10 5
7.40 x 10's
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
8.14 x 10°
3.52 x 10°
2.11 x 10'
1.38x 10'
1.73 x 10'
1.22x 10°
2.54 x 10 '
2.25 x 10°
2.15 x 10-'
1.13x 10-'
2.13 x 10°
3.30 x 10-2
2.10x 10*
9.20 x 10-'
2.64 x lO'2
2.64 x lO'2
3.25 x 10-3
9.30 x 10-2
3.24 x 10°
Toxicity
Value
2.18 x 103
4.60 x 102
l.OOx 10"
4.46 x 105
2.60 x 10"
3.50x 103
l.lOx 10"
1.20x 103
9.70 x 103
1.00 xlO2
5.30 x 10"
1.80 x 103
2.00 x 10°
1.80x 104
3.05 x 102
3.05 x 102
1.65x 103
6.55 x 102
1.60x 105
Score
2.27 x 10*
1.55x 10*
1 .04 x 10*
9.00 x 10*
7.66 x 10*
4.83 x 10*
2.27 x 10*
2.06 x 10*
1.37 x 10*
1.24x 10*
1.21 x 10*
7.47 x Iff9
5.75 x 109
3.29 x 10'9
2.17x 10-9
2.17x 10*
2.03 x 109
1.56 x 10 9
1.50x 10*
Group Rank
1
2
1
3
1
4
5
2
6
3
7
8
2
9
11
10
12
4
13
AH 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
Appendix VI-18
-------
APPENDIX VI-18
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Dimethylphthalate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Total xylenes
Chloromethane
2-Hexanone
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Ethylene dibromide
2-Chlbrophenol
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 x 10^
l.lOx 10s
l.lOx 10-5
l.iOx ID'5
2.63 x 103
8.02 x 10s
7.53 x KV4
2.75 x 10^
5.75 x KV4
4.90 x 10"
6.43 x 10s
l.lOx 10 3
1.15x IQ-*
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10s
2.50 x 10-3
2.50 x 10'3
6.69 x 10^
3.60 x lO'5
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
4.75 x 10-2
2.36 x 102
8.79 x 10 2
2.57 x 10-2
1.84x lO'2
4.06 x 103
1.09x 10 3
3.43 x 10 3
9.23 x 10"1
5.56 x 10 '
1.50x 10-'
3.80 x 10 2
5.31 x 10 2
1.74x 10 2
2.46 x 103
1.84x 10 2
2.30 x lO'2
1.22x 10°
6.53 x lO'3
Toxicity
Value
2.30 x 102
2.30 x 102
9.40 x 102
3.30 x 102
6.40x 102
5.40 x 102
1.40x 103
1.80x 103
1.06x 103
5.50 x 105
2.14x 104
9.90 x 102
1.50 x 104
5.60 x 102
8.00 x 10'
1.50x 103
2.00 x 103
3.00 x 10'
9.40 x 102
Score
1.38x 10 -»
1.13x 10 »
1.03x 10'
8.57 x 10 1°
7.54 x 10 10
6.03 x 10 10
5.87 x 10-'°
5.25 x lO'10
5.03 x 10 1°
4.96 x 10-'°
4.49 x 10'°
4.22 x 10-'°
4.07 x 10-'°
3.41 x 10'°
3.38 x 10 1°
3.06 x 10-'°
2.87 x 10-'°
2.72 x 10-'°
2.50 x 10-'°
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-18
-------
APPENDIX VMS
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
v
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
p-Cresol
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
m-Cresol
Bromoform V
Carbon disulfide
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2.50 x 10 5
2.50 x 105
l.lOx 10 5
3.88 x 10s
2.93 x 10*
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 3
6.69 x 10*
1.33x \Q-5
l.Olx 10-"
1.21 x 10*
2.50 x 105
l.lOx 10s
2.50 x 10 5
l.lOx 10s
2.50 x 10s
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
9.46 x lO'5
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
2.54 x 10 '
1.16x 10-'
9.66 x 103
3.73 x 103
7.23 x 10'2
2.72 x lO'2
4.13 x 10-2
4.02 x 102
2.40 x 10-'
1.02x 10-3
8.40 x 10-3
4.75 x 102
8.88 x 103
6.91 x 10 3
3.04 x lO'2
2.17x 10-2
2.87 x 10-2
9.93 x lO'3
2.64 x 10-2
Toxicity
Value
2.60 x 10"
1.20x 104
6.60 x 102
1.00 x 103
1.55 x 10s
2.30 x 103
4.04 x 103
2.40 x 103
3.00 x 104
1.00 x 10'
1.00 x 104
1.20 x 104
1.00 x 103
2.00 x 103
4.00 x 10s
6.75 x 103
4.00 x 103
1.50 x 103
3.50 x 104
Score
2.45 x 10-'°
2.42 x 10 10
1.61 x 10-'°
1.45 x 10-'°
1.37 x 10-'°
1.30x 10 10
1.13 x 10'°
l.!2x 10-'°
1.07 x 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
Appendix VI-18
-------
APPENDIX VI-18
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-Nitrosodiphenylamine
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 lO'5
l.lOx 10-3
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10s
6.69 x 10^
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx 10s
6.69 x 10-6
3.33 x 10-5
l.lOx 10"s
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOxlO'5
6.69 x 10*
6.69 x 10-6
6.69 x 10^
Water
Solubility
(moI/L)
2.87 x 102
3.63 x 10 3
1.91 x 10 3
4.54 x 103
4.99 x 10^
5.90 x 10*
2.39 x 103
1.45x 10'
6.11 x 10 2
4.85 x 10^
1.03 x 10 3
3.88 x 10-"
2.12x 10 5
9.86 x 10 5
1.30x10^
2.28 X KT1
4.02 x 10'2
1.54x 10'
1.23 x 10^
Toxicity
Value
l.OSx 104
1.70x 103
1.30x 103
l.OOx 103
l.lOx 102
1.35x 102
5.90 x 102
2.40 x 10"
1.04x 10"
1.60x 102
2.95 x 102
5.96 x 102
1.19x 10'
6.00 x 10'
l.OOx 102
l.SOxlO2
1.95 x 10"
8.20 x 104
8.50 x 101
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"
3.34x 10-"
2.34 x 10-"
2.17 x 10-"
1.96x 10"
1.81 x 10"
1.43 x ia"
1.39x10-"
1.38x 1041
1.25x 10-"
9.71 x 10'"
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
l.ODO
1.000
1.000
Volume VI
Appendix VI-18
-------
APPENDIX VI-18
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
Benzoic acid
2-Methylnaphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Butylbenzylphthalate
v
Methoxychlor
Fluorene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Heptachlor
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10-3
6.69 x 10-"
l.lOx 10 3
6.80 x 10*
2.04 x 10 5
1.13x 10-5
4.18x 10 3
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10 3
3.68 x 10'5
l.lOx 10'3
l.lOx 10*
6.69 x 10*
l.lOx lO'3
3.37 x 10-5
4.76 x 103
l.lOx 10*
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
2.16x 10^
1.29x lO'3
9.59 x 10'3
2. 12 x 10'3
2.03 x 10*
7.46 x 10-3
1.79x 10 3
3.91 x 102
7.25 x 10s
4.69 x 10*
5.01 x 107
3.41 x 10s
9.42 x 10*
4.82 x 10*
5.48 x 10 3
2.71 x 10 7
1.65x 10 3
2.91 x 10*
1.78 x lO'7
Toxicity
Value
2.50 x 102
1.69x 103
1.30x 102
3.00 x 10'
5.00 x 10°
1.40x 102
l.OSx 102
1.46 x 10s
l.lOx lO3
2.00 x 10'
6.00 x 10°
1.45X103
1.40x 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 lO'12
8.12x lO'12
4.73 x lO'12
4.46 x 10-'2
3.62 x 10-'2
3.48 x JO'12
3.02 x 10-'2
2.76 x 10-'2
2.58 x 1012
9.18x la13
8.65 x 10"
7.40 x 10 l3
7.36 x 1013
7.34 x 10-13
5.96 x 10 13
5.55 x 10 13
5.55 x ID'13
3.76 x 10 13
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
Appendix VI-18
-------
APPENDIX VI-18
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Ethylene thiourea
2-Chloronaphthalene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bromophenyl phenylether
Chlordane
4,4'-DDE
Cumene
Total PCBs
Chrysene
Hexachlorophene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
V
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)
1.46x 10'10
6.69 x 10^
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10'3
6.69 x 10-«
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx 10-6
l.lOx 10s
3.38 x 107
l.lOx 10 -}
3.20 x 10'3
5.23 x 103
1.26x 10-»
l.lOx 10-5
l.lOx 10 5
l.lOx 10'5
l.lOx 10 3
l.lOx 10 3
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
4.48 x 10'
7.05 x 10 5
4.31 x 10*
4.43 x 10*
8.52 x 10-7
6.03 x 10*
1.50x 10 7
4.40 x 10*
3.19x 10^
1.24x 10-7
8.52 x 10 7
4.97 x 10 9
9.72 x 10 »
7.15x 10 9
5.35 x 10*
1.16x lO'9
5.98 x 10*
2.10 x 10 7
2.10x lO'7
Toxicity
Value
1.80 x 104
1.60 x 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 10-2
1.00 x 103
9.40 x 102
ND"
ND
ND
Score
3.63 x 1013
2.95 x lO'13
2.37 x 10 l3
1.95x 10 13
1.54 x 10'13
1.49x 10 13
6.90 x 10 M
4.40 x 1014
3.19x lO'14
2.09 x 10'14
9.37 x 10 l5
7.57 x 10-'5
1.27x 10 15
6.93 x 10-"
5.88 x 1016
1.36x 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-18
-------
APPENDIX VI-18
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Acenaphthylene
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Benzo(g , h , i)perylene
Bromodichloromethane
Safrole
3 ,3 ' -Dimethoxy benzidine
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 10'5
1.53 x 10-*
1.15x 10*
I.15x 10*
2.63 x 103
9.80 x 10^
6.69 x 10*
2.50 x 10 3
3.30 x 10^
4.90 x 10*
3.05 x 10-s
6.69 x 10*
4.90 x 10^
4.90 x 10*
3.20 x 103
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
8.11 x 10s
1.41 x 10-'
6.93 x 10*
5.20 x 10-"
2.00 x 102
4.18x 10 3
4.49 x 10 2
1.35x ID'2
9.56 x lO'2
5.22 x 103
2.21 x 10-'
1.03 x 10 3
6.01 x 103
1.31 x 101
2.09 x 10 '
8.31 x 10 2
1.69x 10 2
2.02 x 103
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
Appendix VI-18
-------
APPENDIX VI-18
Chemical Scores - Aquatic (Water Solubility-Based) - Stack Emission Chemical Screening
Chemical
Vinyl chloride
High-End
Emission
Rate (g/s)
4.90 x ICT1
Water
Solubility
(mol/L)
1.07x 10-'
Toxicity
Value
ND
Score
—
Group Rank
40
All Rank
112
Cumulative
Percent
Score
1.000
No data.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-18
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
LOG Row AND PERSISTENCE VALUES FOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
EVALUATED AS PART OF ECOC SCREENING
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log K,w and Persistence Values for the Organic Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetaldehyde
Acetoneu
Acetophenone
Acrylonitrile'
Anthracene1
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene'
Benzo(a)pyreneli
Benzo(b)fluoranthene'
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene'
Benzo(k)fluoranthene'
Benzole acid
Benzotrichloride
bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatey -
log K»-
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
1,020-1,440
9s
24-168
91-192'
30-552
1-2
120-384
1-3
<1-1
9-720
14,160-15,600
4-499
5-86f
<1
4,380-17,520f
672-4,320
432-4,320
120-550
Surface Soil
295-2,448
1,020-1,440
9°
24-168
No data
30-552
1,200-11,040
120-384
2,448-16,320
1,368-12,720
8,640-14,640
14,160-15,600
21,840-51,360
<168f
<1
No data
672-4,320
432-4,320
120-550
Air
1-9
<1-1
2-3e
279-2,790
528f
13-189
1-2
50-501
1-3
<1-1
1-14
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log K^, and Persistence Values for the Organic Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Bromodichloromethane1"
Bromoform
Bromomethane"1
Bromophenyl phenylether
2-Butanone
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
4-Chloro-3 -methy Iphenol
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorbe thane
Chloroform1
Chloromethane
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether .
log K™"
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
1.54°
1.92
0.91
4.12°
2.15
4.95
Half-life (hours)b
Surface Water
35°f
672-4,320
480-641°
17-185°
24-168
24-168
3°
4,320-8,640
5,712-33,264
No data
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log K^, and Persistence Values for the Organic Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Chrysene1
m-Cresol
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Crotonaldehyde1
Cumene
2,4-Dk
4,4'-DDEy
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene'
Dibromochloromethane"1
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
Dichlorodifluoromethane"1
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
log K™'
5.70
1.97
1.99
1.95
0.63°
3.58
2.70
6.76
6.69
2.24°
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
48-96
15-146
6-782
672-4,320
672-4,320
672-4,320
672-4,320
<1
672-4,320
768-3,696
2,400-4,320
672-4,320
672-4,320
Surface Soil
8,904-24,000
48-696
24-168
1-16
24-168
48-192
240-1,200
17,520-140,000
8,664-22,560
672-4,320
672-4,320
672-4,320
672-4,320
672-4,320
672-4,320
768-3,696
2,400-4,320
672-4,320
672-4,320
Air
1-8
1-11
2-16
1-15
2-18
10-97
2-18
18-177
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log K^, and Persistence Values for the Organic Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Diethylphthalate
3,3' -Dimethoxybenzidine
Dimethylphthalate
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-Dioxane1
Dioxin/furan'
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide
log Kow»
3.08
1.97
2.00
2.00
2.50
1.81
1.57
2.36
4.61
8.06
2.85°
1.55
2.01
1.87
-0.39
7.41dtl
1.59
3.14
1.75
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
1-3
4,008-30,936
133-271
133-271
72-1,344
31-1,740
24-168
24-168
24-336
168-672
77-504
77-3,840
3-33
2-17
672-4,320
10,032-14,160
6-72°
72-240
672-4,320
Surface Soil
176-1,680
4,008-30,936
133-271
133-271
72-1,344
672-4,320
24-168
24-168
48-552
168-672
168-504
1,622-6,312
672-4,320
672-4,320
672-4,320
10,032-14,160
No data
72-240
672-4,320
Air
21-212
65-646
5-80
5-80
21-212
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log K,,w and Persistence Values for the Organic Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene1
Fluorene
Formaldehyde"
Furfural
Heptachlor1
Hexachlorobenzene"
Hexachlorobutadiene*
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene1
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene*1
2-Hexanone
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene'
Isophorone
Lindane
Maleic hydrazide
Methoxychlor
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
log Kowa
-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
768-1,440
24-168
238f
23-129
23,256-50,136
672-4,320
< 1-173
672-4,320
6,000-7,872
12-135f
3,000-6,000
168-672
330-5,765
<48r
2-5
24-168
Surface Soil
251-285
168-672
3,360-10,560
768-1,440
24-168
No data
23-129
23,256-50,136
672-4,320
168-672
672-4,320
6,000-7,872
No data
14,400-17,520
168-672
330-5,765
days-weeks'
4,320-8,760
24-168
Air
917-9,167
1-5
2-20
7-68
1-6
llf
1-10
3,753-37,530
2,865-28,650
1-9
60,000-600,000
3-336
42'
1-6
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log K«, and Persistence Values Tor the Organic Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions ||
Chemical
Methyl t-butyl ether
Methylene chloride
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaoiline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorobenzene1
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol1
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB*)k -
IO£K_«
1.24"
1.25
4.11°
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"
Hair-life (hours)" 1
Surface Water
672-4,320
No data
6-1,865*
12-480
No data
<1-1
240-816
No data
24"
91e
322-4,728
168-672
18-168
4,656-8,280
5,112-16,776
1 110
3-25
5-57
years'
Surface Soil
672-4,320
No data
No data
398-1,152
No data
504-4,320
240-816
No data
No data
NodaU
322-4,728
168-672
17-29
4,656-8,280
5,112-16,776
552-4,272
384-4,800
24-240
years'
Air 1
21-265 |
1,440=
178-689"
3-30
67"
<1-1
1-7
ir
14"
14'
1-5
7-71
3-145
1,088-10,877
8,791-87,912
139-1,392 1
2-20
3-23
310 11,475'
—
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log K,,w and Persistence Values for the Organic Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
Pyrene1
Safrole
Styrene
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Toluene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro-l ,2,2-trifluoroethanem
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlofofluoromethane"1
2 ,4 ,5 -Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride1 N
Total xylenes
log K,./
5.11
2.66
2.94
2.63
2.39
2.67
4.10C
2.75
3.16
4.01
2.48
2.05
2.71
2.53
3.90
3.70
0.73
1.50
3.20
Half-life (hours)b
Surface Water
1-2
168-672
336-672
16-1,604
10-1,056
4,320-8,640
1-336
96-528
4,320-8,640
672-4,320
3,360-6,552
3,263-8,760
4,320-8,640
4,320-8,640
1-336
2-96
4-175f
672-4,320
168-672
Surface Soil
5,040-45,600
168-672
336-672
16-1,604
10-1,056
4,320-8,640
672-4,320
96-528
4,320-8,640
672-4,320
3,360-6,552
3,263-8,760
4,320-8,640
4,320-8,640
552-16,560
168-1,680
175f
672-4,320
168-672
Air
1-2
1-6
1-7
2,236-22,361
213-2,131
384-3,843
364-3,644
10-104
350,000-8,800,000
128-1,284
5,393-53,929
196-1,956
27-272
130,000-1,300,000
30-301
123-1,234
12r
10-97
3-44
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log K,,w and Persistence Values for the Organic Chemicals Evaluated - Stack Emissions
Chemical
log Kow'
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
Appendix VI-19
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log KO* and Persistence Values for the Organic Chemicals Evaluated -
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
Chemical
Acetone8
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminefluorene
Acrylonitrile*
Alcohols
Analine
Benzene
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid
Benzo(a)pyrene
para-Benzoquinone
Benzidine
Butanol
2-Butanone
Butyl acetate
Calcium chromate
Carbon
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform*
Chrysene
Creosote (coal tar)
Cresol
Crotonaldehyde
Cumene
Cyclohexane
loglC-
-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
0.63C
3.58
0.50°
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
24-168
168-672
91-192f
672-4,320
30-552
7-26
No data
120-384
No data
<1-1
1-120
31-191
24-168
24-168
No data
—
—
3e
4,320-8,640
1,632-3,600
672-4,320
4-13
—
24-168
24-168
48-192 ,.
672-4,320
Air
279-2,790
1,299-12,991
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'
16,000-160,000
73-729
623-6,231,
1-8
—
2-16
2-18
10-97
9-87
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
10
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log K^, and Persistence Values for the Organic Chemicals Evaluated -
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
Chemical
Cyclohexanone
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoroethane11
Dichlorodifluoromethane11
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Diethylphthalate
Diethyl stilbestrol
Dimethylamine*
3,3' -Dimethylbenzidiiie
Dimethylhydrazine*
Dimethylphthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitro toluene
1,4-Dioxane
Epichlorohydrin
Ethanol
2-Ethoxyethanol
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Formaldehyde*
Formic acid
Furfural
logJL.'
0.81°
6.69
2.13C
3.43
No data
2.16
1.79
2.13
2.50
5.07
-0.38C
2.68
-0.93C
1.57
2.36
0.03C
1.87
-0.39
0.25
-0.31C
-0.10
1.32°
3.14
5.12
-0.05
-0.54
0.41C
Half-life (hours)b
Surface Water
No data
6-782
No data
672-4,320
No data
672^,320
768-3,696
672-4,320
72-1,344
66-3,840
2-79
24-168
192-528
24-168
24-168
1-12
2-17
672-4,320
168-672
7-26
168-672
24-168
72-240
21-63
24-168
24-168 ,,
238f
Air
No data
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log Km, and Persistence Values for the Organic Chemicals Evaluated -
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
Chemical
Heptane
Hydrazine*
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Isosafrole
Maleic anhydride
Methanol
1 -Methylbutadiene
3 -Methy Icholanthrene
Methyl methacrylate
2-Methyl-4-Pentanone
Naphthalene
1 -Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrophenol
2-Nitropropane
Octane
Paraffin
Phthalic anhydride
Phenol
2-Picoline
logie-
4.66C
-3.08°
6.65
0.75
0.05°
2.75C
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
2.04C
0.87
5.18°
—
No data
1.48
i.ir
Half-life (hours)"
Surface Water
No data
24-168
3,000-6,000
43-173
24-168
168-672
No data
24-168
No data
14,616-33,600
168-672
24-168
12-480
62-3,480
62-3,480
120-4,320
4-8
No data
672-4,320
322-4,728
18-168
672-*,320
No data
—
<1
5-57
No data
Air
No data
1-6
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
67e
3-33
1-5
3-145 •-
5-49
No data
—
485-4,847
3-23
No data
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
12
-------
APPENDIX VI-19
Log K,, and Persistence Values for the Organic Chemicals Evaluated -
Fugitive Organic Vapor Emissions
Chemical
Pyridine
Resorcinol
Tetrachlorobenzene
1,1,1, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Toluenediamine
Toluene diisocyanate
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro-l ,2,2-trifluoroethane11
Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane11
Total xylenes
logK^
0.67
No data
4.61
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
24-168
No data
672-4,320
16-1,604
4,320-8,640
No data
96-528
No data
12-24
4,320-8,640
672-4,320
3,360-6,552
4,320-8,640
4,320-8,640
168-672
Air
128-1,284
No data
763-7,631
2,236-22,361
384-3,843
No data
10-104
No data
1-3
350,000-8,800,000
128-1,284
5,393-53,929
27-272
130,000-1,300,000
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).
d U.S. EPA (1994d).
HSDB (1995).
1 Howard (1989, 1990, 1991, 1993).
6 Selected as an ECOC based on exposure analysis.
h Freon-type chemical.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-19
13
-------
APPENDIX VI-20
CHEMICAL SCORES - INHALATION
FUGITIVE ORGANIC VAPOR CHEMICAL SCREENING
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
-------
APPENDIX VI-20
Chemical Scores - Inhalation - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening
Waste Stream Constituent
Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Acetone
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dimethylamine
Chloroform
2-Nitropropane
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Dimethylhydrazine
Acetonitrile
Ethyl acrylate
1 -Methylbutadiene
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Crotonaldehyde
Epichlorohydrin
Methyl methacrylate \
2-Ethoxyethanol
Estimated Waste
Volume flb/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 103
1.44 x 10'
2.31 x 102
5.01 x 103
1.52 x 103
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
l.OSx 102
5.91 x 102
1.90x 101
1.64x 10'
3.84 x 10'
5.30 x 10°
Inhalation
Toxicity
Value
1.00 x 10*
1.00 x ID'1
1.33 x 101
8.10x 10'
4.70 x 101
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-20
-------
APPENDIX VI-6
SUMMARY OF AVIAN ABUNDANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
BASED ON CHRISTMAS BIRD COUNT DATA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-6
-------
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
-------
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 homed 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
-------
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
r-Q
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
0.6J
0.57
0.50
0.43
0.40
0.37
0.33
Volume VI
Appendix VI-6
-------
APPENDIX VI-1
WETLAND AREAS GREATER THAN 10 ACRES
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-1
-------
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' x80°41'
40°39' x 80°42'
40°37' x 80°42'
40°33' x 80°42'
40°31' x80°42'
40°31' x 80°44'
40°30' x 80°43'
40°36' x 80°45'
40°29' x 80°41'
40°28' x 80°41'
40°49' x 80°31'
40°47' x80°31'
40°47' x 80°31'
40°46' x 80°36'
Wetland
Class"
POWZ
LlOWHh
PEMY/Z
PF01Y
PSS1 Y
EM
POWZx
PFO1Y
POWH
PFQ 1Y
SS
POWH
POWH
PSS1Y
POWHh
PFOW
POWHx
POWH
POWHx
PFQ 1Y
SS
PSS1 Y
EM
POWH
PUBGx
PF01A
PFO1A
LIUBHh
Approximate
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-1 I
Wetland Areas Greater than 10 Acres Within the Assessment Area
USGS Quadrangle
East Liveipool 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' x80°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'
40021'x80040'
40°21'x80039'
Wetland
Class4
PF01A
LIUBHh
LIUBHh
PF01A
PF01A
PEM1E
PFQ IE
SS
PEM IE
SS
PFO1E
PF01A
PF01A
PFO1A
PF01A
PEM IE
PUBHh
L2USAh
L2USAh
LIUBHh
PF01C
PF01A
PF01A
PEM1C
LIUBHh
PUBHh
PEM1/
PFO1A
Approximate
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-1
Wetland Areas Greater than 10 Acres Within the Assessment Area
USGS Quadrangle
Aliquippa, PA
Coordinates
40°35' x 80°44'
40°36' x80°41'
Wetland
Class"
LIUBHh
PF01A
Approximate
Acreage
>50
10-20
County, State
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-2
NON-INTERMITTENT LOTIC WATER BODIES
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-2
-------
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/
Designation2
OH: WWH
—
—
—
OH: WWH
PA: 3 WWF
PA: 3 TSF
OH: WWH
PA: 4 WWF
OH: WWH
PA 3 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 Designation11
PSS1Y, POWZ,
PEMY
R3UBH
PSS1Y
PEM1C, PUBHh
R3UBH
R3UBH, R2UBHx
R3OWZ
PFO1A, PSS1A,
R2UBH, PSS1C,
PEM1E
PSS1E, PF01E,
PEM1E, PSS1C,
R2UBH
R2OWZ, R2UBH
—
—
—
PFO1A, PEM1A
PEMY, PSS1Y
R3UBH, R3OWZ
—
PFO1A
PFO1W, PSS1W
R5OWZ
—
.
—
R3OWZ
Volume VI
Appendix VI-2
-------
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/
Designation2
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
-------
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,
R50WZ
—
R2UBH
PEM1A, PF01A
—
—
—
R3UBH, PEMY,
R20WZ
—
PSS1E, PEM1E,
PFO1E
POWZ
—
PFO1A, PUBHh,
PSS1A, R3UBH -
—
R2UBH
—
POWZ
R50WZ
—
Volume VI
Appendix VI-2
-------
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
WhiteoakRun
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: 3HQ-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 Designation"
-
R2UBH
PEMW II
...
...
...
PFO1A
...
R3OWZ
PEM1C
...
...
...
R3UBH
R3OWZ
R2UBH, PF01A
PSS1Y, PEMY
_
- ' -
—
—
R3UBH, R3OWZ
PFO1A, PEM1E
PEM1C
Volume VI
Appendix VI-2
-------
APPENDIX VI-2
Non-Intermittent Lotic Water Bodies Within the Assessment Area
Water Body
Location
(County, State)
Classification
Stream Order/
Designation"
NWI Designation"
Yellow Creek
Columbiana, OH
Jefferson, OH
OH: WWH
R20WZ, R30WZ,
R50WZ
Pennsylvania (PA)
CWF - Cold Water Fishery
HQ-CWF - High Quality Waters-Cold Water Fishery
TSF - Trout Stocking
WWF - Warm Water Fishery
Ohio (OH)
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-3
DESCRIPTIONS OF STATE PARKS AND MAJOR WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT AREAS WI'I'HIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-3
-------
APPENDIX VI-3
Descriptions of State Parks and Major Wildlife Management Areas
Within the Assessment Area
Raccoon Creek State Park encompasses 7,323 acres in Beaver County, Pennsylvania,
including 101-acre Raccoon Creek Lake (Figure DI-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, smaUmouth 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 ffl-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 ffl-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 hi Hancock County, West Virginia, contains 1,401 acres
(Figure ffl-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 DI-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
Appendix VI-3
-------
woodchuck, raccoon, bobwhite quail, American woodcock, waterfowl, ruffed grouse, wild
turkey, and deer.
Brush Creek Wildlife Area encompasses 2,546 acres in Jefferson County, Ohio
(Figure ffl-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 IQ-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
Appendix VI-3
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
BIRD SPECIES KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT
WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Acadian flycatcher
Alder flycatcher*
American bittern111
American black ducka
American coot0™
American crow
American goldfinch
American kestrel
American pipit
American redstart
American robin
American tree sparrow
American wigeon
American woodcock
Baird's sandpiper
Bald eagle"**
Bank swallowf
Barn swallow
Barred owl
Bay-breasted warbler
Belted kingfisher
Black scoter
Black tenr**
Black vulture5
Black-and-white warbler
Black-bellied plover
Black-billed cuckoo
Black-capped chickadee
Black-throated blue warbler
Scientific Name
Empidonax virescens
Empidonax alnorum
Botaurus lentiginosus
Anas rubripes
Fulica americana
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Carduelis tristis
Falco sparverius
Anthus rubescens
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 atratus
Mniotilta varia
Pluvialis squatarola
Coccyzus erythropthalmus
Parus atricapillus
Dendroica caerulescens
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
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Black-throated green warbler
Blackburnian warbler
Blackpoll warbler
Blue grosbeak1"
Blue jay
Blue-gray gnatcatcher
Blue-winged tealf
Blue-winged warbler
Bobolink8
Bonaparte's gull
Broad-winged hawk
Brown creeper
Brown thrasher
Brown-headed cowbird
Bufflehead
Canada goose
Canada warbler*1
Canvasback
Cape May warbler
Carolina chickadee
Carolina wren
Cedar waxwing
Cerulean warbler11*
Chestnut-sided warbler
Chimney swift
Chipping sparrow
Clay-colored sparrow
Cliff swallow*
Common bam-owla
Scientific Name
Dendroica virens
Dendroica fusca
Dendroica striata
Guiraca caerulea
Cyanocitta cristata
Polioptila caerulea
Anas discors
Vermivora pinus
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Larus Philadelphia
Buteo platypterus
Cenhia 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
¥ irundo pyrrhonota ''
Tyto alba
Source*
2,4,5
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Common goldeneye
Common grackle
Common loon
Common merganser
Common moorhen0
Common nighthawk
Common raven
Common redpoll
Common snipeej
Common tern'"1
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
Scientific Name
Bucephala clangida
Quiscalus quiscula
Gavia immer
Mergus merganser
Gallinula chloropus
Chordelles minor
Corvus corax
Carduelis flammea
Gallinago gallinago
Sterna hirundo
Geothlypis trichas
Oporornis agilis
Accipiter cooperii
Junco hyemalis
Spiza americana
Picoides pubescens
Calidris alpina
Sialia sialis
Tyrannus tyrannus
Stumella magna
Sayomis phoebe
Otus asio
Contopus virens
Stumus vulgaris
Coccothraustes vespertina
Spizella pusilla
Passerella iliaca
Source*
1,4,5
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
-------
APPENDIX VI-4 1
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Gadwall
Golden eagle
Golden-crowned kinglet
Golden-winged warbler11
Grasshopper sparrow
Gray catbird
Gray-cheeked thrush
Great black-backed gull
Great blue heronf
Great crested flycatcher
Great egret1
Great homed owl
Greater scaup
Greater yellowlegs
Green heron
Green-winged teal™
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
Scientific Name
Anas strepera
Aquila chrysaetos
Regulus satrapa
Vennivora chrysoptera
Ammodramus savannarum
Dumetella carolinensis
Catharus minimus
LOTUS marinus
Ardea herodias
Myiarchus crinitus
Casmerodius albus
Bubo virginianus
Aythya marila
Tringa melanoleuca
Butorides striatus
Anas crecca
Picoides villosus
Ammodramus henslowii
Catharus guttatus
Larus argentatus
Lophodytes cucullatus
Wilsonia citrina
Podiceps auritus
Eremophlla alpestris
Carpodacus mexicanus
Passer domesticus
Troglodytes aedon
Passerina cyanea
Oporomis formosus
Source*
1,2,4,5
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 1
2,4,5 1
2,4,5 1
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Spedes Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Killdeer
Lapland longspur
Least flycatcher
Least sandpiper
Lesser golden-plover
Lesser scaup
Lesser yellowlegs
Lincoln's sparrow
Little blue heron"
Loggerhead shrikedak
Long-eared owl^
Louisiana waterthrush
Magnolia warbler11
Mallard
Marsh wrenejm
Merlin
Mourning dove
Mourning warbler*
Nashville warbler0
Northern bobwhite
Northern cardinal
Northern flicker
Northern goshawk*™
Northern harriereh
Northern mockingbird
Northern oriole
Northern parula
Northern pintail
Northern rough-winged swallow
Scientific Name
Charadrius vociferus
Calcarius lapponicus
Empldonax minimus
Calidris minutilla
Pluvlalis dominica
Aythya qffinis
Tringa flavipes
Melospiza lincolnii
Egretta caendea
Lanius ludovicianus
Asia otus
Seiurus motacilla
Dendroica magnolia
Anas platyrhynchos
Cistothorus palustris
Falco columbarius
Zenaida macroura
Oporomis Philadelphia
Vermivora ruficapilla
Colinus virginianus
Cardinal Ls cardinalis
Colaptes auratus
Accipiter gentUis
Circus cyaneus
Mimus polyglottos
Icterus galbula
Parula americana
Anas acuta
Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Source*
1,2,3,4,5
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
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
2,4,5
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Northern saw-whet owl^
Northern shoveler
Northern shrike
Northern waterthrushh
Oldsquaw
Olive-sided flycatcher0
Orange-crowned warbler
Orchard oriole
Osprey1*
Ovenbird
Pectoral sandpiper
Peregrine falcon*"**
Philadelphia vireo
Pied-billed grebe6"
Pileated woodpecker
Pine grosbeak
Pine siskin*
Pine warbler
Prairie warbler
Prothonotary warbler*
Purple finch
Purple martin'
Red crossbill'
Red-bellied woodpecker
Red-breasted merganser
Red-breasted nuthatch
Red-eyed vireo
Red-headed woodpecker*
Red-necked phalarope
Scientific Name
Aegolius acadicus
Anas clypeata
Lanius excubitor
Seiurus noveboracensis
Clangula hyemalis
Contopus borealis
Vermivora celata
Icterus spurius
Pandion haliaetus
Seiurus aurocapillus
Calidris melanotos
Falco peregrinus
Vireo philadelphicus
Podilymbus podiceps
Dryocopus pileatus
Pinicola enucleator
Carduelis pinus
Dendroica pinus
Dendroica discolor
Protonotaria citrea
Carpodacus purpureus
Progne subis
Loxia curvirostra
Melanerpes carolinus
Mergus serrator
Sitta canadensis
Vireo olivaceus
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Phalaropus lobatus
Source"
1,4
5
4
4,5 J
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
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-4
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Red-shouldered hawkj
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 wren""
Semipalmated plover
Semipalmated sandpiper
Sharp-shinned hawkj
Sharp-tailed sparrow
Short-billed dowitcher
Short-eared owl"*
Snow bunting
Snow goose
Snowy owl
Solitary sandpiper
Scientific Name
Buteo lineatus
Buteo jamaicensis
Agelaius phoeniceus
Aythya americana
Lams 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
Source*
1,2,4,5
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
-------
APPENDIX VI-4 1
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Solitary vireo
Song sparrow
Soracj
Spotted sandpiper
Summer tanager™
Swainson's thrush*™
Swamp sparrow
Tennessee warbler
Tree swallow
Tufted titmouse
Tundra swan
Turkey vulture
Upland sandpiper11
Veery
Vesper sparrow
Virginia rail*-'
Warbling vireo
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 wrenh
Wood duck
Wood thrush
Scientific Name
Vireo solitarius
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
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"
2,4,5
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
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-4
Bird Species Known or Likely to be Present Within the Assessment Area
Common Name
Worm-eating warbler
Yellow warbler
Yellow-bellied flycatcher1
Yellow-bellied sapsucker^
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Yellow-breasted chat
Yellow-rumped warbler0
Yellow-throated vireo
Yellow-throated warbler
Scientific Name
Helmitheros 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).
Federal Endangered.
Federal Threatened.
Federal Candidate.
West Virginia "Critically Imperiled".
West Virginia "Imperiled".
West Virginia "Rare/Uncommon".
Ohio Endangered.
Ohio Threatened.
Ohio Special Interest.
Pennsylvania Endangered.
Pennsylvania Threatened.
Pennsylvania Rare.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-4
10
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
BREEDING BIRD ATLAS DATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT AREA
Volume VI
Appendix VI-5
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
Species
Pied-billed grebe
American bittern
Great blue heron
Green 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
Appendix VI-5
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data Tor the Assessment Area
Species
Red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
Ring-necked pheasant
Ruffed grouse
Wild turkey
Northern bobwhite
Virginia rail
Sv,ra
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
Species
Common barn-owl
Eastern screech-owl
Great horned 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
Appendix VI-5
-------
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-5
Breeding Bird Atlas Data for the Assessment Area
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
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
Appendix VI-5
-------
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
-------
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
Appendix VI-5
-------
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
-------
APPENDIX VI-22
Chemical Score Estimation Based on Quantitative Activity-Structure Relationships
Aquatic - Stack Chemical Screening
Chemical
Ethylene oxide
3,3' -Dimethy Ibenzidine
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chloroethane
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Vinyl chloride
Ethyl methacrylate
Acenaphthylene
Dichlorodifluoro methane
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro-l ,2,2-trifluoroethane
Safrole
Bromodichloromethane
Methyl t-butyl ether
Benzotrichloride
Dibromochloromethane
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine •
Chemical Class"
Epoxides, mono
Benzeneamines
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic, halogenated
Ethers
Hydrocarbons, chlorinated
Meihacrylates
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
Chlorofluorocarbons
Chlorofluorocarbons
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic, halogenated
Neutral organics
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic, halogenated
Ethers
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic, halogenated
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic, halogenated
Neutral organics
Toxicity
Value
27,384
949
>210
>210
23,733
9
24,597
29,678
84
16,309
6,390
1,419
5,189
23,513
53,736
2,959
22,320
60,619
Overall Rank
K™
129
68
15
15
83
17
91
90
32
72
46
42
52
88
119
64
104
125
Water
Solubility
9
15
124
124
16
96
20
25
95
33
37
48
62
53
58
80
84
85
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
-------
APPENDIX VI-22
CHEMICAL SCORE ESTIMATION BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS - AQUATIC EXPOSURES
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
-------
APPENDIX VI-22
Chemical Score Estimation Based on Quantitative Activity-Structure Relationships
Aquatic - Stack Chemical Screening
Chemical
Chemical Class"
Toxicity
Value
Overall Rank
Water
Solubility
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Hydrocarbons, chlorinated
101,976
128
89
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Ethers
6,890
98
97
Chemical class specified in the QSAR analysis using U.S. EPA's ECOSAR program.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
-------
APPENDIX VI-22
Chemical Score Estimation Based on Quantitative Activity-Structure Relationships
Aquatic - Fugitive Organic Vapor Chemical Screening
Chemical
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro-l ,2,2-trifluoroethane
Aliphatic hydrocarbons (octane)
Chemical Class"
Chlorofluorocarbons
Chlorofluorocarbons
Hydrocarbons, alipathic, halogenated
Aliphatic hydrocarbons
Toxicity
Value
16,309
6,390
1,419
31,000
Score
2.964
0.385
0.120
0.000
Rank
19
27
35
56
* Chemical class specified in the QSAR analysis using U.S. EPA's ECOSAR program.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-22
-------
APPENDIX VI-23
CHEMICAL PROFILES FOR THE ECOCS
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23
-------
APPENDIX VI-23
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 Kj (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 is 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 anions such as
chloride, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, phosphate, and negatively-charged functional
groups (ATSDR 1990a). Based on its high K,, (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-occurring 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. Plant uptake factors of 0.004 for leafy vegetables and 0.00065 for
reproductive plant parts have 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
Appendix VI-23
-------
(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 ha? 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 cooled. It is dispersed
by wind and removed by gravitational settling, dry deposition, and wet deposition
(ATSDR 1990b). Based on its K,, (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 water 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
Appendix VI-23
-------
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 and stable. Wildlife may be exposed to antimony through both
anthropogenic (nonferrous metal mining, smelting, and coal combustion) and natural
(volcanoes, sea-salt spray, and 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 K,, of arsenic (value of 200 reported in Baes et al.
[1984]), it would be expected to adsorb to paniculate 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 VI
Appendix VI-23
-------
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 K,, (value of
200 reported in Baes et al. [1984]) of arsenic, it would be expected to adsorb to
particulate 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 in 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 ind
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 Kj (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
Appendix VI-23
-------
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 Kj (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, renal,
hepatic, gastrointestinal, 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 K,, (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
Appendix VI-23
-------
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 Toxiciry
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 Kj (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
Appendix VI-23
-------
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
K,, (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 bioaccumulate 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 lexicological 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
(Esler 1985a).
7. Chromium
a) Summary of Fate
Because chromium is an element, it does not degrade. Based on its high Kj
(850 in Baes et al. [1984]), chromium would be expected to adhere significantly to
paniculate matter. Most chromium in water will be associated with paniculate 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 paniculate matter in the
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23
-------
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(m) 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 Kj (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 toxicological 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
Appendix VI-23
-------
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 K,, (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 in 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 in nature in elemental form as well as in a variety
of compounds. Wildlife are exposed to copper from both natural and anthropogenic
(mining and smelting) 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
Appendix VI-23 10
-------
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
Appendix Vl-23 11
-------
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 Kj (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 atm-m3/mol 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 particulate matter and
will ultimately be deposited to sediments. Based on its Henry's Law Constant (value
of 7.0 x 10'3 atm-m3/mol hi 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 methyl mercury, through biological and other
processes. Organo-mercury compounds, especially methyl mercury, are always more
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 12
-------
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 at low
concentrations in both soil and water. Based on its Kj (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 K,, (value of 150 reported in Baes et al. [1984]), nickel would be
expected to adsorb to soil and sediment. 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 range 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
of fossil fuels) sources. Exposure can occur through inhalation of airborne particles,
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 13
-------
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 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 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 hi the atmosphere. When present in a 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 hi soils
with high pH and high amounts of organic material. In acidic, well oxidized soil
environments, selenates are the major selenium species, and are very mobile due to
their high solubility and inability 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 hi 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
metal smelting) or due to naturally high levels of selenium in a particular area. There
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 14
-------
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. Silver
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
in 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).
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 15
-------
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 tracheal 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 K,,
(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 K,, (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).
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 16
-------
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 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 zinc may be associated with particulate 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
particulate 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 K,, (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).
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 zind is not carcinogenic
by any other route. Toxicity affects the pancreas and bones in birds and mammals,
Volume VI
Appendix VT-23 17
-------
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 adsorption of hydrogen cyanide to suspended solids and
sediment will not be significant, but soluble metal cyanides show stronger adsorption
(ATSDR 1993c).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Volatilization of hydrogen cyanide would be a significant fate mechanism in
soils at a pH of less than 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 in
organisms. However, fish from water with soluble silver and copper cyanide
complexes had metal cyanides in their tissues. There is no evidence of
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 anthropoge:iic (insecticides, synthetic fibers,
Volume VT
Appendix VI-23 18
-------
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. 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 KO,, (-0.24) and log K^ (0.34) values, acetone will not adsorb to sediment,
suspended organic material, or soil. Acetone is miscible in water. Bioconcentration
in aquatic organisms is not significant.
b) Aquatic Fate
Because acetone is characterized by a low log K^ (0.34), it is not expected to
adsorb to sediment or suspended organic material. Acetone is miscible in water and
may therefore partition to the water column. Based on its Henry's Law Constant of
3.67 x 10"5 atm-m3/mol, acetone will volatilize from water with an estimated half-life
of 24 to 168 hours. Acetone is readily biodegradable (HSDB 1995).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Due to its low log K^., acetone is not expected to adsorb to soil, and, because
it is miscible in water, acetone may leach into groundwater. Its high vapor pressure
(231 mm Hg) suggests that acetone will volatilize rapidly from soil. Acetone readily
biodegrades in soil (HSDB 1995).
d) Fate in Biota
The low log K^ 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, and 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).
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-23 19
-------
18. 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-m3/mol) 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 KO,. (1.20), acetonitrile would not be expected to adsorb to soil
and should leach readily to groundwater. Its vapor pressure (88.81 mm Hg) 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^
(-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 facuities) 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, and 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).
19. Acrylonitrile
a) Summary of Fate
The moderately high vapor pressure (107.8 mm Hg) and Henry's Law
Constant (1.10 x 10~* atm-m3/mol) for acrylonitrile indicates that volatilization is an
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 20
-------
important fate process for this chemical. Due to its low log K^. (-0.07), 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), 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 104 atm-m3/mol, acrylonitrile would be expected to
volatilize readily from water. The expected half-life for this process is 1 to 23 days.
Biodegradation is likely to be slow (HSDB 1995).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Due to its low log K*. (-0.07), 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 to groundwater. Biodegradation in soil is expected
to be rapid (Howard 1989).
d) Fate in Biota
Because of its low log K^ (0.25), 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, and carcinogenic effects.
Dermal application of acrylonitrile has also been found to have a general toxic effect
(congestive plethora and hemorrhages) (ATSDR 1989d; HSDB 1995).
20. Anthracene
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^ (4.41), anthracene should adsorb strongly to soil and
sediment. Based on its water solubility (1.29 mg/L), it may be found in 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 wifl be present in the
water column at low concentrations. Based on its high log K^. (4.41), anthracene
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 21
-------
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 in surface
water range from 1 to 2 hours based on photolysis.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its high log K^. (4.41), 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 1(T* mm Hg), volatilization from soil should not be a significant fate
process. The reported half-life of anthracene in soil ranges from 50 days to 1.26
years.
d) Fate hi Biota
Based on its log K^ (4.55), anthracene has the potential to bioaccumulate in
biota, but it is readily metabolized by most organisms (Eisler 1987b). 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,
sediment, and soil, and through the inhalation of particulate 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).
21. 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 or 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 K^. = 6.6).
Based its Henry's Law Constant (1.55 x 10"* atm-mVmol), volatilization is not
expected to occur. BaP has the potential to bioaccumulate in the food chain based on
its high log K^ (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^
(6.60), 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 IQr6 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).
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 22
-------
c) Terrestrial Fate
Because of its high log K^ (6.60), BaP should adsorb strongly to soil. Given
its low water solubility, BaP would not be expected to leach into groundwater at
significant levels. 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 range 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 K^,, (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 Toxictty
BaP 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 BaP occurs through the ingestion of sediment and soil, and
through the inhalation of paniculate matter. BaP has been found to cause
hematological, hepatic, reproductive, and developmental effects, as well as cancer
(ATSDR 1989c; HSDB 1995).
22. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP)
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its vapor pressure (1.50 x 10~7 mm Hg) and Henry's Law Constant
(2.70 x lO'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 K^.
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; Howard et al. 1991).
b) Aquatic Fate
BEHP has a relatively low water solubility. The log K,,,. 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 hi 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.
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 23
-------
by degradation by aerobic microbes. Soil microflora significantly degrade phthalates
under aerobic conditions, but 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^, 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). Barton 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. Barren 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 BEKP through a variety of anthropogenic (released
in the production and disposal of plastic products) and natural (reported as a possible
natural product in both plants and animals) sources. Exposure to BEHP 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).
23. 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), volatilization is expected to be an important fate process for
chloroform. Its low log K^. (1.53) 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^ (1.53), chloroform should not adsorb appreciably to
sediment or suspended organic material. 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 from soil. Because of its low log K^. (1.53), chloroform is not expected to
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 24
-------
adsorb strongly to 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), chloroform is not expected to
bioaccumulate. This is supported by measured bioaccumulation factors of 10 or less
(HSDB 1995).
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).
24. 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 log K^ (1.70), crotonaldehyde would not be expected to adsorb to
sediment. Crotonaldehyde has a water 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~s 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 to 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.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 25
-------
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
found to cause pulmonary effects. Oral exposure has been found to cause hepatic,
neurological, reproductive, and carcinogenic effects (HSDB 1995).
25. 2,4-D
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^ (1.81), 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.
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its log K^ (1.81), 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-mVmol),
volatilization of 2,4-D from surface water should be low.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^ (1.81), 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 10~* atm-mVmol), 2,4-D would be
expected to have very slow volatilization from surface soil. Estimated half-lives in
soil range from 10 to 50 days.
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 26
-------
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).
26. 4,4'-DDE
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its high log K^ (4.70), 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), 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 10"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 IS 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^ 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'-
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 27
-------
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).
27. 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), 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), 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 10'5 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
dimethylamine 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 its low log K^ (-0.38),
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
Appendix VI-23 28
-------
28. Dimethylhydrazine
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^ (-0.91) dimethylhydrazine would not be expected to
adsorb to sediment or soil. Dimethylhydrazine is miscible in water and 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. Being miscible in water, it may partition into the water column.
Based on its Henry's Law Constant (4.58 x 10~5 atm-m3/mol), volatilization from
surface water would be slow. The half-life in sediment 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. Being miscible in water, it may leach to 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 K^ (-0.93), it has little potential to bioaccumulate.
e) Summary of Toxicfty
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 in cornea! opacity (HSDB 1995). Dimethylhydrazine is
moderately toxic to aquatic organisms (HSDB 1995).
29. Di-n-octylphthalate (DNOP)
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its vapor pressure (1.40 x 104 mm Hg) and Henry's Law Constant
(2.20 x 104 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 Wtota. Bioaccumulation
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 29
-------
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^. 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^. (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^ 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 potential in 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 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 (through
interperitoneal exposure of mothers), and Lnmune system effects (HSDB 1995).
30. 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-mVmol) indicates that
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 30
-------
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 log 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).
31. Dioxin/furan (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its high log K^ (6.43), 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), 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 10~5 atm-m3/mol), some slow volatilization of dioxin may occur,
although this will compete with sorption to particulate 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).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^. (6.43), 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 in 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 (Esler 1986b).
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 31
-------
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).
32. 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) for formaldehyde
suggest that this chemical will not adsorb to soil, sediment, or 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 KO,. (0.56) 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 KOC 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)
reported for this chemical.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 32
-------
e) Summary of Toxicity
Formaldehyde is emitted to the environment from both natural (forest fires,
animal wastes, microbial products, and 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).
33. Heptachlor
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its high log K^ (4.48), 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 range from 3,800 in the mosquitofish to 37,000
in snails (HSDB 1995).
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its high log K,,,. (4.48), 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 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).
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 33
-------
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
heptachlor may also be absorbed dermally. Heptachlor has been shown to cause
hepatic effects, developmental effects, and cancer in experimental animals (HSDB
1995).
34. Hexachlorobenzene
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^. (4.00), hexachlorobenzene should adsorb moderately to
soil and sediment. Hexachlorobenzene has a low water solubility (6.20 x 10~3 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 K^ (4.00), hexachlorobenzene should adsorb to sediments.
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 Constant (1.30 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^ (4.00), hexachlorobenzene should adsorb to soil and
leaching will not be an important fate process. Based on its vapor pressure (1.90 x
10"5 mm Hg), hexachlorobenzene would be expected to volatilize slowly 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, and hematological, hepatic, immunological, neurological, reproductive, and
carcinogenic effects (U.S. EPA 1985b; ATSDR 1989e; HSDB 1995).
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 34
-------
35. Hexachlorobutadiene
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^. (3.71), 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), 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), 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.
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 confinned by
hexachlorobutadiene's log BCF value of 3.76 (U.S. EPA 1992c). The BCF for
rainbow trout ranges 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).
36. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
a) Summary of Fate
Its high log KOC (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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 35
-------
the dominant fate pathways in surface water. Photolysis may also play an important
role in surface soil. Reported BCF values ranged from less than 11 in the fathead
minnow to 1,634 in the mosquito (HSDB 1995).
b) Aquatic Fate
Based on its log K^ (3.63), 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 ranges from 1.0 minute to 7.2 days based on photolysis and
hydrolysis.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based to its log K,,,. (3.63), hexachlorocyclopentadiene would be expected to
adsorb strongly to soil. Due to its low water solubility (2.0 mg/L), leaching to
groundwater should be slow. Its low vapor pressure (8.0 x 10~2 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.
d) Fate in Biota
Some moderate bioaccumulation may occur. Reported BCF values range from
less than 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 hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene 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).
37. 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.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 36
-------
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 atm-m3/mol),
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^ (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).
38. Hydrazine
a) Summary of Fate
Due to the low reported log K^. (-1.0) 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 1Q-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 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). Hydrazine 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 lO* atm-m3/mol
indicates that hydrazine volatilization from surface water will riot be a significant fate
process. The reported half-life in surface water is 1 to 7 days (Howard et al. 1991).
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 37
-------
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^ value, hydrazine would not be expected to 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)
sources. 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).
39. Pentachlorobenzene
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its high log K^. (4.19), peutachlorobenzene 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), pentachlorobenzene should partition strongly
to sediment. Based on its low water solubility (0.24 mg/L), most pentachlorobenzene
found hi the water column would be associated with suspended solids. Based on its
Henry's Law Constant (7.10 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 (1.6 x 10"2 mm Hg), pentachlorobenzene would be expected to have
extremely slow volatilization from surface soil. The reported half-lives for
pentachlorobenzene in soil range from 194 hours to 345 days.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 38
-------
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).
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 causes neurological,
hepatic, reproductive, and developmental effects (U.S. EPA 1985b; HSDB 1995).
40. Pentachlorophenol
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its log K^. (3.54), 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), 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-m3/mol), volatilization of pentachlorophenol from surface water
should be a slow process.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^. (3.54), 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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 39
-------
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
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).
41. 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 its high log K,,. (5.86), PCBs should partition strongly to sediments.
Based on its low water solubility (3.10 x 10"2 mg/L), most PCBs found in water
would be associated with suspended solids. Based on its 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.
c) Terrestrial Fate
Based on its log K^. (5.86), PCBs should adsorb strongly to soil and leaching
should not be an important fate process. Based on its vapor pressure (7.70 x 10"5 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.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 40
-------
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).
42. Vinyl Chloride
a) Summary of Fate
Based on its high vapor pressure (2,660 mg Hg) and Henry's Law Constant
(5.6 x 10~2 atm-mVmol), volatilization should be an important fate process for vinyl
chloride. Based on its low log K,,,. (0.39), 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), 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 (5.6 x 10"2 atm-m3/mol) indicates that volatilization from
surface water will be an important fate process for vinyl chloride. Its reported half-
life in surface water is 4 weeks to 6 months (Howard et al. 1991).
c) Terrestrial Fate
Due to its low log K^ (0.39), 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 4 weeks to 6 months (Howard et al. 1991).
d) Fate in Biota
Based on its low log K^, (1.50) vinyl chloride would not be expected to
accumulate in organisms.
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-23 41
-------
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
Appendix VI-23 42
-------
APPENDIX VI-24
STACK DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION SUMMARY BY
DISTANCE AND DIRECTION FROM THE WTT FACILITY
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
-------
APPENDIX VI-24
Stack Dispersion and Deposition Summary by
Distance and Direction from the WTI Facility
Distance
(km)
Direction
(Degrees)
Maximum Deposition (0.1 km; 80°)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
40
80
Maximum Vapor Point (1.0 km; 100°)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
Total Deposition
Mass Average*
0.22134
0.02897
0.04184
0.02985
0.02541
0.00496
0.00818
0.01524
0.01464
0.00299
0.01576
0.02039
—
0.02262
0.01331
0.00331
0.00436
0.01169
0.01747
0.00392
0.00690
0.00904
0.00956
0.00588
0.00156
0.00379
0.00471
Surface Average*
0.30524
0.03925
0.05617
0.04073
0.03436
0.00679
0.01130
0.02089
0.02008
0.00420
0.02108
0.02669
-
0.02986
0.01741
0.00478
0.00604
0.01612
0.02327
0.00564
0.00951
0.01145
0.01235
0.00729
0.00225
0.00539
0.00650
Vapor"
-
0.048
0.020
0.041
0.176
0.004
0.008
0.007
0.010
0.015
0.098
0.037
0.910
0.666
0.172
0.103
0.021
0.153
0.351
0.150
0.219 ..-
0.050
0.340
0.191
0.058
0.223
0.221
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
-------
APPENDIX VI-24
Stack Dispersion and Deposition Summary by
Distance and Direction from the WTI Facility f
Distance
(km)
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Direction
(Degrees)
320
360
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
Little Beaver Creek
5
10
10
10
10
360
40
80
120
160
Tomlinson Run Lake
10
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
200
240
280
320
360
40
80
120
160
200
Total Deposition
Mass Average*
0.00669
0.00188
0.00235
0.00377
0.00315
0.00118
0.00057
0.00122
0.00189
0.00219
0.00193
0.00100
0.00106
0.00147
0.00116
0.00049
0.00055
0.00030
0.00060
0.00086
0.00090
0.00056
0.00048
0.00063
0.00052
0.00021
0.00011
Surface Average*
0.00876
0.00269
0.00307
0.00471
0.00394
0.00147
0.00079
0.00169
0.00245
0.00267
0.00257
0.00130
0.00132
0.00178
0.00142
0.00062
0.00070
0.00037
0.00078
0.00106
0.00103
0.00069
0.00056
0.00074
0.00062
0.00026
0.00014
|
Vapor"
0.211
0.122
0.068
0.121
0.115
0.057
0.052
0.082
0.073
0.064
0.055
0.037
0.025
0.046
0.042
0.022
0.029
0.021
0.031
0.029
0.026 .
0.013
0.010
0.018
0.016
0.009
0.010
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
-------
APPENDIX VI-24
Stack Dispersion and Deposition Summary by
Distance and Direction from the WTI Facility
Distance
(km)
20
20
20
20
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Direction
(Degrees)
240
280
320
360
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
Total Deposition
Mass Average*
0.00029
0.00040
0.00040
0.00023
0.00018
0.00024
0.00018
0.00012
0.00006
0.00011
0.00015
0.00012
0.00010
Surface Average*
0.00035
0.00047
0.00043
0.00026
0.00019
0.00027
0.00021
0.00013
0.00007
0.00013
0.00015
0.00012
0.00011
Vapor"
0.013
0.011
0.010
0.006
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.002
* Mass averaging was used to determine total deposition rates for all stack inorganic ECOCs except
mercury. Surface averaging was used to determine total deposition rates for mercury and for all of
the stack organic ECOCs (see Volume IV).
k Values are the dispersion factors used to determine air concentrations (see Chapter V).
Volume VI
Appendix VI-24
-------
APPENDIX VI-25
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - INHALATION
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
-------
Aluminum: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0«g/mJ)
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
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Hamster
420
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
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
-------
Antimony: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0»g/m3)
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 Vl-25
-------
Arsenic: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(Mg/mJ)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoinls
9 Rat
6* Mouse
2,100,000
3,470,000
2 hours
2 hours
LCjo
LC10
ATSDR 1993a
ATSDR 1993a
Chronic Endpoinls
Mouse
Mouse
260
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
Appendix VI-25
-------
Barium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Otg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
-------
Beryllium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/mJ)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mammals
Rat
Monkey
Rat
Hamster
Monkey
Rat
Rat
Dog
Hamster
Guinea pig
V
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
LCjo
LCM
Increased mortality
Increased mortality
Increased mortality
LCM
lAo
LC«,
LCso
LC«
LCioo
LC,*
LC^
ATSDR 1993g
IFCS 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-25
-------
Beryllium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Rabbit
Mouse
Mouse
Guinea pig
Cat
Concentration
C»g/mJ)
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
LC*,
LCjo
LC*
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
2,8
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-25
-------
Beryllium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Dog
Rat
Concentration
0»g/mJ)
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
Appendix VI-25
-------
Cadmium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
G*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Rat
25,000
33,000
30 minutes
15 minutes
LC*
LCW
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1993b
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Rat
—
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
9 Rat
20
160
90
100
160
160
1,000
600
1,000
2,800
5 h/d; 5 d/w; 20 weeks
22 h/d; 7 d/w; 18 months
—
5 h/d; 5 d/w; 4-5 months
5 h/d; 5 d/w; 4-5 months
24 h/d; 21 days
6 h/d; 5 d/w; 62 days
4 h/d; GD 1-22
NOAEL
LOAEL - increased duration of estrous 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-25
-------
Chromium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Rat
Rat
6 Rat
9 Rat
-------
Copper: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
G«g/mJ) Duration Effect Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
Rabbit
#0G 6 h/d; 5 d/w; 4-6 weeks NOAEL - respiratory and immunological effects ATSDR 1989g
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
11
-------
Total Cyanide: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Oig/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rock dove
Canary
Cat
Rabbit
Mouse
Rat
98,832
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
LC*
LC*
I C
*-Moo
LC-,00
LC*
LC^
LC*
LC*
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; vomitbg; vascular and cellular central
nervous system lesions
ATSDR 1993c
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
12
-------
Lead: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
Rabbit
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
2.5
10 - $1$
1,000
3,000
10,000
Lifetime
1 year
24 h/d; GD 1-21
24 h/d; 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-25
13
-------
Mercury: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0«g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
9 Rat
2,500
Not reported
LCM
U.S. EPA 1984a
Chronic Endpoints
? Rat
Pigeon
6 Rat
9 Rat
Rat
-------
Nickel: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Gig/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
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
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
? Rat
6* Rat
6* Mouse
m
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
23 % lower survival time
30% increase in mortality
NOAEL - death
NOAEL - death
NOAEL - death
NOAEL - death
LCW
LCM
LCW
LCM
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 19931
ATSDR 19931
ATSDR 19931 |
ATSDR 19931
ATSDR 19931
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 199 Ic
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - decrease in fetal birth weight
NOAEL
LOAEL - testicular damage
NOAEL
LOAEL - testicular damage
ATSDR 19931
ATSDR 19931
ATSDR 19931
ATSDR 19931
ATSDR 19931
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
15
-------
Nickel: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
3 Rat
Rat
Mouse
6* Mouse
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Hamster
Concentration
(MS/™')
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 19931
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
16
-------
Selenium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0«g/mJ)
Duration
Effect
Reference
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; 8 days
4 h/d; 8 days
Not reported
LCM (H2Se)
LCa, (H2Se)
LCM (H2Se)
NOAEL - death (Se dust)
NOAEL - death (Se dust)
LC*
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
OHM/TADS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
—
4X>
—
Wildlife threshold
Eisler 1985b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
17
-------
Silver: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0«g/mJ)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
18
-------
Thallium: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0«g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
19
-------
Zinc: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
G*g/m')
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
*£Q0
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
Appendix VI-25
20
-------
Acetone: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/ms)
Duration
Effect
Reference
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; 2 days
4 hours
22-26 hours
8 hours
25 minutes - 23.4 hours
3-4 hours
2 hours
Chronic Endpoints
Mammal
(unspecified)
Rat
Mouse
*
Mouse
Rat
M4P
5,304,200
26,521,000
5,304,200
15,912,600
15,912,600
26,521,000
24 h/d; GD 1-13
6 h/d; 7 d/w; GD 6-19
6 h/d; 7 d/w; GD 6-17
6 h/d; 7 d/w; GD 6-17
6 h/d; 7 d/w; GD 6-19
100% mortality
17% mortality
89% mortality
LC^
20% mortality
100% mortality
100% mortality
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
Post-implantation mortality
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased fetal weight
NOAEL
LOAEL - increased incidence of late resorption; decreased
fetal weight
NOAEL - reproduction
NOAEL - reproduction
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR I992a
ATSDR 1992a
ATSDR 1992a
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
21
-------
Acetonitrile: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/m3)
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
90 days
1 hour
4 hours
4 hours
8 hours
1 hour
4 hours
Not reported
4 hours
LCX
LCs,
LC*.
LQ,,
LC*,
Death
l-C-Lo
LC^
^CLO
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
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
2 Hamster
Rat
i&"> anh
«PJOQ
672,000
3,022,000
8,395,000
3,022,000 •<
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
U.S. EPA 1987b
U.S. EPA 1987b
U.S. EPA 1987b
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
22
-------
Anthracene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
10000
"chronic"
Reduced body weight gain; effects on blood chemistry
HSDB 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
23
-------
Benzo(a)pyrene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
24
-------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Otg/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Rat
300,000
;l>ip$00
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-25
25
-------
Chloroform: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
G*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
<5 Mouse
9 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%)
LCM
LCfo
LCso
ATSDR 1991b
ATSDR 199 Ib
ATSDR 1991b
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 199 Ib
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Rat
9 Rat
20,100
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; GD 6-15
7 h/d; GD 7-16
7 h/d; GD 6-15
7 h/d; GD 6-15
7 h/d; GD 1-7
7 h/d; GD 8-15
7 h/d; GD 6-15
7 h/d; 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 199 Ib
ATSDR 1991b
ATSDR 199 Ib
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
26
-------
Chloroform: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
9 Rat
9 Rat
(? Mouse
Concentration
G«g/m3)
500,000
1,460,000
1,950,000
Duration
7 h/d; CD 6-15
7 h/d; 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 199 Ib
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
27
-------
Crotonaldehyde: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rat
200,000
580,000
4,000,000
2 hours
2 hours
30 minutes
LCX
LCX
LCX
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
29,000
7 h/d; 8 weeks
Changes in liver weight
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
28
-------
2,4-D: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0»g/mJ)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
29
-------
4,4'-DDE: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/mJ)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
30
-------
Dimethylamine: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(jtg/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
LCW
LCW
LCM
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rabbit
Guinea pig
Monkey
Rat
>;
Mouse
Rabbit
mow*
127,000
127,000
127,000
127,000
229,000
229,000
249,000
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 18 weeks
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 18 weeks
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 18 weeks
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 18 weeks
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 18 weeks
1 year
1 year
7 h/d; 5 d/w; 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 gain; 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-25
31
-------
Formaldehyde: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/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
LC*
LCM
lAo
LCs,
LCX
Death
LCM
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1989b
NAS 1980
IPCS 1989b
NAS 1980
IPCS 1989b
Chronic Endpoints
?Rat
? Rat
9 Rat
c? Rat
9 Rat
$
»
n
35
50
24 hour exposure 15
days prior to mating and
on GD 1-22
24 h/d; 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; 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
Appendix VI-25
32
-------
Formaldehyde: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
6* Rat
9 Rat
Hamster
Rat
9 Rat
Mouse
Concentration
fog/m3)
499
4,992
3,600
12,000
12,480
24,800
15,000
Duration
6 months
4 h/d; GD 1-19
22 h/d; 7 d/w; 26 weeks
6 h/d; GD 0-15
6 h/d; 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 - 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-25
33
-------
Hexachlorobenzene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Otg/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
LC*
RTECS 1995
Mouse
4,000,000
Not reported
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
34
-------
Hexachlorobutadiene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0»g/mJ)
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
lAo
LDu)
ATSDR 1992b
RTECS 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
2 Rat
2 Rat
53,000
167,000
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
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1992b
ATSDR 1992b
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
35
-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(jig/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,
LC^
LCu,
LCX
LCjo
LCX
LCLO
LCu,
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
Appendix VI-25
36
-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
9 Rat
9 Rabbit
Guinea pig
Rat
Guinea pig
Concentration
G*g/m')
39,000
58,000
79,200
80,300
150,600
Duration
4 hours
3.5 hours
3.5 hours
1 hour
1 hour
Effect
LCM
LCjo
LC»
LCM
LCjo
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
558
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-25
37
-------
Hexachlorophene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
fog/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mouse
Rat
290,000
340,000
Not reported
Not reported
LC*
LC*
RTECS 1995
RTLCS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
-------
Hydrazine: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Cig/m5)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mouse
Rat
330,000
747,000
4 hours
4 hours
LCM
LCW
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
i,m
4,000
6,560
24h/d;GD 1-11
2 h/d; 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-25
39
-------
Pentachlorobenzene: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
G«g/m3)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
No data
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Appendix VI-25
40
-------
Pentachlorophenol: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
teg/m')
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
14,000
45 minutes
LA,,
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-25
41
-------
Total PCBs: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
-------
Vinyl Chloride: Inhalation Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
G»g/mJ)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mammal
Rat
511,247
460,000,000
18 minutes
15 minutes
*-^uo
LCX
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
cJ Rat
-------
APPENDIX VI-26
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - PLANTS
SOIL EXPOSURES
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
-------
Available Plant Toxicological Benchmark Values - Soil Exposures"
Chemical
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Total cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver •.
Thallium
Zinc
Alloway 1990
Bysshe 1988
Environment
Canada 1994"
Will and Suter
1994a
Kabata-Pendias
& Pendias 1984
Other Sources'
NA11
f
20
NA
NA
3
75
60
NA
100
0.3
100
5
a
1
70
Organics
Anthracene \
Benzo(a)pyrene
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
NA
5
5
20
NA
50
l
50
5
NA
NA
300
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
143
40
90
P
900
15
NA
NA
NA
NA
490
SO
$
10
m
JQ
3
i
100
NA
50
0,3;
$
1
3
1.
m
NA
S- 10
15 -50
NA
w
3-8
75 - 100
60 - 125
NA
100-400
fi'5
100
5 - 10
2
I
70-400
None
None
3.4
None
None
None
None
None
None
46
None
None
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
NA
> tf^OQ
NA
NA
NA
NA
None
None
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
-------
Available Plant Toxicological 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 1994"
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
40
Kabata-Pendias
& Pendias 1984
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Other Sources0
SOP
i«
m
None
None
None
None
None
None
68.8
100
1 All values are in mg/kg soil; literature values based on chemicals in nutrient solution were not used since these values were not comparable to
estimated surface soil concentrations.
b ECM 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-26
-------
Arsenic: Plant Toxicity
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 reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Reference
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
-------
Lead: Plant Toxicity
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 reported
Not reported
Reference
Eisler 1988b
Eisler 1988b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
-------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: Plant Toxicity
Plant Species
Spinach
Pea
Brassica rapa
Oaks
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
100
100
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 reported
Not reported
Reference
IPCS 1992b
IPCS 1992b
IPCS 1992b
IPCS 1992b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
-------
2,4-D: Plant Toxicity
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
Brassica campestris
Astragalus deer
Astragalus cicer
Bean, Suttons Exhibition long pod
Bean, French Dwarf Masterpiece
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.00034"
0;034
0.034
0.076
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.53
0.53
0.58
0.58
0.69
0.69
Effect
Plant harvest yield decrease
Plant - no effect
Leaf harvest decrease; yield plant fresh mass decrease
Root fresh mass decrease; root size decrease
Root harvest yield decrease
Plant deformation; root number decrease; root fresh
mass increase
Plant kill; root fresh mass decrease
Stem injury; stem tumor induction; plant fresh mass
decrease
Plant fresh mass decrease; plant size decrease
Plant stunting; fresh mass decrease
Shoot fresh mass decrease 50%
Plant stunting; plant fresh mass decrease
Plant dry mass decrease 50%
Root injury
Root injury
Plant size - no effect
Plant size decrease 17%
Plant stunting
Plant stunting
Duration
Not reported
Not reported
15 days
15 days
15 days
15 days
15 days
15 days
15 days
15 days
10 days
15 days
10 days
Not reported
Not reported
12 weeks
Not reported
15 days [
15 days
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-26
-------
2,4-D: Plant Toxicity
Plant Species
Cyperus esculentus
Flax
Soybean
Peanut
Rice
Sorghum
Tomato
Barnyard grass
Bushbean
Cucumber
Onion
Echium plantagineum
Panicum coloratum
Amphiachyris psilostachyia
Sonchtis spp.
Onobrychis viciaefolia
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 reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
15 days
Not reported
30 days
Not reported
30 days
30 days
7 weeks
3 months
60 days
Not reported
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-26
-------
2,4-D: Plant Toxicity
Plant Species
Trifolium spp.
Medicago spp.
Barley
Head lettuce
Endive
Cenchrus ciliaris
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 masr. 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 reported
10 days
12 days
Not reported
Not reported
1 month
Not reported
Not reported
18 days
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
1 year
2 weeks
10 years
Not reported
54 days
Not reported
2 years
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
-------
2,4-D: Plant Toxicity
Plant Species
Setaria viriatis
Canada thistle
Bluestemgrass, king range
Boctelova curtipendula
Setaria macrostachya
Cynodon dactylon
Corylus cornuta
Mung beans
Asparagus
Geranium viscosissimum
Comandra umbellata
Eriogonum ovalipolium
Delphinium depauperatum
Erigeron corymbosus
Delphinium glaucenscens
Crepis acuminata
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
Flam 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 reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
10
-------
2,4-D: Plant Toxicity ||
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
(nig/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 reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
10 weeks
Not reported
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
11
-------
2,4-D: Plant Toxicity
Plant Species
Balsamorhiza sagittata
Agrostris palustris
Atenaria microphylla
Astragalus convallarius
Arnica fillgens
Astraglus salinus
Astragalus miser practeritus
Agastache urticifolia
Ceanothus velutinus
Agastache ucticifolia
Castitteja spp.
Juglans nigra
Sambucus canadensis
Rosa multiflora
Rhus iyphina
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 5 1 %
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 reported
1 month
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
3 months
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
12
-------
2,4-D: Plant Toxicity |
Plant Species
Elaeagnus umbellata
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Caragana arborescens
Cotoneaster divaricata
Comus amomum
Fagopyrum tartaricum
Timothy, climax
Triticum vulgare
Ambrosia psilostackya
Bentgrass, creeping
Com
Acacia constricta
Larrea tridentata
PseudQtsuga menziesii
Fescue, Red Illahee
Goldenrod, rock
Buckwheat
Glycine max merr
Artemisia tridentata
Soil Concentration
(mg/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 reported
18 months
5 months
1 year
1 year
24 days
24 days
1 year
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
13
-------
2,4-D: Plant Toxicity
Plant Species
Bean, Red Kidney
Fluorensia cema
Galin soga ciliata
Orchard grass
Sorghum
Cyperus rstudus
Avena fatua
Sorghum
Taraxacum officinale
Sorghum
Festuca
Agropyron desertorwn
Stellaria spp.
Amphfachyris dracunculoides
Erlcameria 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 reported
Not reported
24 days
Not reported
1 year
10 days
7 weeks
10 months
50 days
Not reported
6 months
5 years
48 days
50 days
Not reported
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-26
14
-------
2,4-D: Plant Toxicity
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 reported
2 years
2 years
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
1 year
Not reported
2 years
156 days
15 months
1 year
1 year
Not reported
Not reported
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
15
-------
2,4-D: Plant Toxicity
Plant Species
Adenostoma fasciculation
Abies concolor
Ademostoma sparsifolium
Quercus dumosa
Astragalus stenophyllus
Soil Concentration
(nog/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 reported
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-26
16
-------
4,4'-DDE: Plant Toxicity
Plant Species
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Onion
Wheat
Corn
Cotton
Soybean
Cabbage
Soybean
Cotton
Wheat
Corn
Soybean
Cotton
Wheat
Corn
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
1.3
1.9
2.8
5.0
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 in seed germination
No effect
6 % reduction in 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 in seed germination
18% decrease in seed germination
35 % decrease in seed germination
17% decrease in seed germination
25% decrease in seed germination
29% decrease in seed germination
Duration
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
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 4,4' -DDT.
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-26
17
-------
Pentachlorophenol: Plant Toxicity
Plant Species
Soybean
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
68.8
Effect
No effect
Duration
3 weeks
Reference
PHYTOTOX 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-26
18
-------
Total PCBs: Plant Toxicity
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
Appendix VI-26
19
-------
APPENDIX VI-27
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - SOIL FAUNA
SOIL EXPOSURES
Volume VI
Appendix VI-27
-------
Available Soil Fauna Toxicological Benchmark Values'
Chemical
Will and Suter (1994b)
Earthworms
Soil Microorganisms
Other Sources"
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Total cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
—
—
60
—
-
20
8.4
50
-
500
0:1
200
70
—
-
200
m
—
100
$m
—
20
10
100
—
900
30
90
100
59
-
100
—
—
25
—
—
m
32
32
&JQ18"
1,810
0.2C
40*
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
-
—
—
$mw
w
2?
' *$*?* -
2,«»
5
Km1?
OftO??
—
-
Volume VI
Appendix VI-27
-------
Available Soil Fauna Toxicological Benchmark Values*
Chemical
Will and Suter (1994b)
Earthworms
Soil Microorganisms
Other Sources"
Pentachlorobenzene
20
Pentachlorophenol
400
10
Total PCBs
All values are in mg/kg soil.
See the following table for more details on these values.
LOEC divided by 5.
Acute value divided by 1,000.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-27
-------
lexicological Data for Earthworms and Other Soil Fauna
Chemical
Concentration
(mg/kg soil)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Inorganics
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
25
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 reported
Not reported
12 weeks
6 weeks
3 weeks
Not reported
Not reported
56 days
56 days
16 days
16 days
16 days
14 days
56 days
56 days
42 days
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
No effect - mortality
LC»
Range of NOECs for 7 invertebrate species
NOEC for cocoon production
LC^ (survival)
Significant decrease in cocoon production
Significant effect - reproduction
Significant effect - growth
NOEC - cocoon production
ECX - cocoon production
Significant decrease in sperm count
Significant decrease in sperm count
Significant decrease in sperm count
LC*
LCW
NOEC - mortality
21 % reduction in offspring for Folsomia
Candida (a collembolan)
LC*
LC*
Growth inhibition
LCjo
Fischer 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
Appendix VI-27
-------
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
(mg/kg soil)"
3,500
15
32
155
250
570
> 1,000
ate
53.3
72
100
185
400
210
555
683
380
400
643
1,100
22,000
Duration
Not reported
Not reported
3 weeks
3 weeks
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
56 days
56 days
7 days
Not reported
7 days
56 days
56 days
14 days
Not reported
24 hours
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Effect
Mortality
LCs, (Cr+6)
No effect - growth, fertility, reproduction
ECfo for cocoon production
50% decrease in reproduction
LCjo
lAo
NOEC - cocoon production
EC,, - cocoon production
85 % reduction in numbers (nematodes and
arthropods)
Significant effects - growth and reproduction
No effect
70% reduction in numbers (nematodes)
NOEC - mortality
LC»
LC»
LC»
LCjo - nematode (C. elegans)
LC»
Gtv • th inhibition
Mortality
Reference
Hartenstein et al. 1981
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
van Gestel et al. 1992
cited in 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 Suter 1994b
Neuhauser et al. 1985a
Hartenstein et al. 1981
Hartenstein et al. 1981
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-27
-------
Toxicological 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)"
K
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 reported
56 days
56 days
56 days
56 days
14 days
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
60 days
10 days
60 days
Not reported
12 weeks
12 weeks
12 weeks
12 weeks
12 weeks
30 days
56 days
Not reported
Not reported
Effect
LCjo
NOEC - cocoon production
EC^ - cocoon production
NOEC - mortality
LCj,
LC»
LC»
Significant effects - reproduction
Significant effects - growth
LCjo
LCjo (inorganic)
LCjo (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
Spurgeon 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
Fischer and Koszorus 1992
Environment Canada 1994
Hartenstein et al. 1981
Volume VI
Appendix VI-27
-------
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
w.
199
276
289
745
1,010
470
662
500
2,000
662
700
1,300
26,000
Duration
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
56 days
—
56 days
56 days
56 days
56 days
14 days
2 weeks
2 weeks
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Effect
Mortality
Significant effects - growth and reproduction
LCjo
Growth inhibition; mortality
No effect - mortality
"Safe" soil level - earthworms
NOEC - cocoon production
ECfl - cocoon production
NOEC - mortality
LC«
LC*
Reduced survival
LC»
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
Fischer 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
t&r
>$MP
Not reported
Not reported
LC»
LCjo
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
Environment Canada 1994
Volume VI
Appendix VI-27
-------
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
(mg/kg soil)"
>wmp
w*
2,000
>w&
tM*
1*5 - 238
10
12
33
16 -52
28
32
40
55
50-87
83 - 2,298
94 - 1,094
111
wt "*>»
f&«#
230«
Duration
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
4 weeks
4 weeks
Not reported
5 weeks
Not reported
3 weeks
3 weeks
2 weeks
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
5 days
5 days
Effect
LCX
be*,
No effect
lAo
LC^
Range of LC^s for 2 species and 2 soil types
NOEC - cocoon production
NOEC - mortality
LCX
Range of LC^jS for 1 species and 3 soil types
LC*
NOEC for cocoon production
No effect - cocoon production
ECM for cocoon production
LCW
Range of LC^s for 2 species and 4 soil types
Range of LCws for 2 species and 2 soil types
LC*
LC»
LC*
Reference
Neuhauser et al. 1985b
Roberts and Dorough 1985
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 1983
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
van Gestel et al. 1992
cited in van Gestel et al. 1992
van Gestel and Ma 1990
van Gestel and Ma 1988
Environment Canada 1994
Fitzpatrick et al. 1992
Rodriguez-Grau et al. 1989
Volume VI
Appendix VI-27
-------
lexicological Data for Earthworms and Other Soil Fauna
Chemical
Concentration
(mg/kg soil)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
2,3,7,8-TCDD
*
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 /tg/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-27
-------
APPENDIX VI-28
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - AQUATIC (SURFACE WATER)
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
-------
U.S. EPA, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia
Chronic Freshwater Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Chemical
U.S. EPA'
Off
PA"
wv
Inorganics (/tg/L)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
$7b
30=
m
-
5.3"
1.1"
11
12°
3.2°
0.&12
iw
5.0
0,12
40"
110*
~
190
H?
—
23°
1.4°
11
12"
6.9s
0.20
170*
5.0
1.3
16
110°
—
219
:®&
4,100
0.01 x 96 hr*
$8*
10*
ir»
2;5c*
&J&S2
160"*
'4J$>
—
13
100°*
$7
—
19Q
~
130
1.1°
10
11*
3.2C
6.012
ISO0
5.0
4.0"
—
90°
Organics Gig/L)
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dimethylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Di-n-octylphthalate
-
2,600d
-
-
360°
1,240"
-
-
0.001f
-
-
3.0
78,OGO
430
-
-
M
79
-
-
0.001f
—
-
-
86,000
129
—
—
909
389
—
—
0.001
—
— ''
—
—
0,77
—
—
—
•&$" -
—
—
&G0Q024*
_
—
310
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
-------
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'
—
< 0.0001"
—
0.0038
3.68C
9.3d
5.2"
—
—
—
9.5"
0.014
—
OH"
-
-
—
.
-------
Anthracene: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(Mg^L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mosquito (larvae)
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Fathead minnow
Sun fish
Bluegill
Bluegill
DaphnM 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
>Ll5
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
LC*
LCjo
LCX
LC*
LTM
LC*
Lethal
LT*
LT*
LTa,
LTj,
LC*,
LT*
LCjo
LCX
LCX
LC*
AQU1RE 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
21 days
Reproductive - changes in brood parameters
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
-------
Anthracene: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Daphnia pulex
Green algae
Green algae
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Daphnia pulex
Bluegill (fingerling)
Rainbow trout (fingerling)
Concentration
fog/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
ECj, - behavior
ECj, - photosynthesis
EC^ - growth
No effect - reproduction
Decrease in egg hatchability
ECy, - 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-28
-------
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
Not reported
No effect on mortality rates relative to controls
LTW
Increased mortality relative to controls
LC*
LTM
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
0,08
0.08
0.21
0.30
1.2
1.5
2.4
5.0
25
500
5,000
34 days
34 days
34 days
Not reported
Not reported
34 days
34 days
72 hours
24 hours
24 hours
Not reported
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
ECjo - 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
Appendix VI-28
-------
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 52% 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-28
-------
Crotonaldehyde: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Bluegill
3,500
96 hours
LCW
AQUIRE 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
No data
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
-------
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 (fingerling)
Mosquito (larvae)
Pumkinseed
Daphnia
Rainbow trout (eggs)
2,4-D: Aquatic Toxicity
Concentration
0«g/L)
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
Duration
======
1 1 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
Effect
Lethality
LC«
10% mortality
LC*
LC*
LC*
LC»
LCM
13.3% mortality
Letital
LC»
LC»
LC*
43% mortality
< 10% mortality
No mortality
No mortality
LT*
LC*,
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-28
-------
2,4-D: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Stonefly
Common carp
Daphnia magna
Banded killifish (YOY)
Daphnia magna (neonate)
White perch (YOY)
Salmon
Salmon (fry)
Salmon (smolt)
Salmon (fingerling)
Rainbow trout (ftngerling)
Common carp
Cutthroat trout
Striped bass (YOY)
Largemouth bass (eggs)
Mosquito (larvae)
Pumpkinseed (YOY)
Common carp
Largemouth bass (fingerling) .
Green sunfish
Concentration
G*g/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
LCso
LCjo
LC»
LCW
LC*
LCW
67% mortality
80% mortality
7% mortality
73% mortality
No mortality
Mass mortality
LC*)
LCs)
lAo
LCjo
LCX
LCX
10-20% mortality
No effect on mortality
Reference
AQU1RE 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
Appendix VI-28
10
-------
2,4-D: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Goldfish (eggs)
Oligochaete
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
American eel (YOY)
Brown bullhead
Brown bullhead
Concentration
0*g/L)
119,100
122,200
236,000
263,000
263,000
300,600
1,000,000
2,500,000
Chronic Endpoints
Water milfoil
Water milfoil
Green algae
Duckweed
Parrot's feather (plant)
Water milfoil
Sago pondweed
Sago pondweed
Water milfoil
Green algae
Duckweed
<.190
<, 120
0.00302
P
20
30
30
50
50
100
100
Duration
8 days
7 days
48 hours
96 hours
72 hours
96 hours
7 days
7 days
Effect
LC*,
lAo
LCW
LC*,
LC,,,
LC»
20% mortality
90% mortality
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
10 weeks
20 weeks
> 2 hours
11 days
1 week
11 weeks
11 weeks
11 weeks
70 days
42 days
11 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
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-28
11
-------
2,4-D: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Parrot's feather
Daphnia pulex
Green sunfish (eggs)
Rainbow trout (fmgerling)
Bluegill (fmgerling)
Green algae
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Copepod
Green algae
Common carp
Concentration
0*g/L)
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
ECy, - immobilization
No effect - hatching
No effect - behavior
No effect - behavior
No effect - abundance
Reproductive chronic value
EC,,, - 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
Appendix VI-28
12
-------
Dimethylamine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(H&IL)
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
LCs>
Lethal
LCX
LCX
LC0
LC|M
LCX
TLM
LCW
LCjo
LC*
LC*
LC»
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
150
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
ECX - growth
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
13
-------
Dimethylamine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Green algae
Daphnia magna
Green algae
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Brook trout
Concentration
C*g/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
ECfl, - growth
No effect - survival
ECX - growth
Eds, - immobilization
ECj,, - immobilization
No toxicity
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
14
-------
Dimethylhydrazine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Hyalella azteca
Fathead minnow
Guppy
Channel catfish
Asellus spp.
Guppy
Guppy
Guppy
Guppy
Golden shiner
Daphnia magna
Guppy
Guppy
Guppy
4,700
7,850
10,100
11,350
12,400
17,200
26,500
29,900
32,400
34,000
38,000
45,500
78,400
82,000
48 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
48 hours
72 hours
96 hours
48 hours
72 hours
96 hours
24 hours
48 hours
24 hours
24 hours
LC*
LCjo
LCj,
LC,,,
LC^
LC»
LC*,
LCjo
LCjo
LCjQ
LCft
LCso
LCso
LCso
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Green algae
Green algae '
400
630
6 - 10 days
6 days
NOEC - growth
ECW - growth
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
15
-------
Dimethylhydrazine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Clawed frog (embryo)
Green algae
Clawed frog (embyro)
Concentration
Gtg/L)
1,000
1,600
10,000
Duration
9 days
8 - 10 days
9 days
Effect
NOEC
ECso - growth
Reproductive effects - 86% malformations
Reference
AQU1RE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
16
-------
1,4-Dioxane: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Acute Endpoints
Daphnia magna
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Fathead minnow
Concentration
(Mg/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
4,700,000
9,850,000
10,000,000
10,800,000
24 hours
96 hours
96 hours
96 hours
LC*
LC,,
LC»
LLC*
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
HSDB 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Blue-green algae
Green algae
Green algae
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Green algae
575,000
5,600,000
5,600,000
6,210,000
8,450,000
10,000,000
> 10,000,000
8 days
Not reported
8 days
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
48 hours
Population growth
Toxicity threshold - population growth
Population growth
EC0
EC*
ECioo
Population growth
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
17
-------
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin): Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
Gig/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
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 (eggs)
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
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
1 1 % mortality
Mortality
25% mortality
Mortality
l^
Mortality
lAo
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
nawm
:•:• •:• •;•>*:%• •••:•:• • .--•:
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
Appendix VI-28
18
-------
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin): Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
Rainbow trout (eggs)
Snail
Medaka (eggs)
Medaka (eggs)
Concentration
(Mg/L)
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
ECjo - abnormalities
ECjo - hatching
Reference
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
19
-------
Hexachlorophene: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(Mg/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Bluegill
2*
100
560
96 hours
96 hours
24 hours
LC^
LC0
LC-ioo
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
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-28
20
-------
Hydrazine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*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
LC*
No effect - lethality
LCs,
LC*
LCM
LC*
LC*
LC*
LC*
LC*
LC*
LC*,
LCM
LC*
LC*
LCW
LC*,
LC*
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-28
21
-------
Hydrazine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Guppy
Guppy
Rainbow trout
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
Bluegill
Concentration
Gtg/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 hour
1 hour
Effect
LCjo
LC*
TLM
LC*
LC*
LC*
LC*
LC*
LCIOO
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
?i
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
ECjo - growth
NOEC - growth
ECjo - growth
EC^ - growth
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
22
-------
Hydrazine: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Green algae
Green algae
Green algae
Fathead minnow (eggs)
Fathead minnow (eggs)
Rainbow trout (embryo)
Bluegill
Bluegill
Trout (fmgerling)
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
ECj,, - growth
ECX - growth
EC*) - 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
AOUIRE 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-28
23
-------
Pentachlorobenzene: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
0*g/L)
Duration
Effect
Reference
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
4 days
28 days
14 days
21 days
96 hours
192 hours
48 hours
48 hours
24 hours
48 hours
24 hours
LCjo
LC*
LC*
LCjo
LCjQ
LCW
LC*
No effect - mortality
LCW
LCW
LCjo
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
Chronic Endpoints
Fathead minnow
Zebrafish (egg)
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Ceriodaphnia dubia
$
110
350
520
31 days
7 - 28 days
7 days
7 days
NOEC
NOEC - reproductive effects
Chronic reproductive value
EC^ - reproduction
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
24
-------
Pentachlorobenzene: Aquatic Toxicity
Organism
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Algae
Algae
Algae
Concentration
0*g/L)
710
900
1,300
1,980
6,630
Duration
4 days
4 days
4 hours
96 hours
96 hours
Effect
Chronic reproductive value
EC^, - reproduction
ECfl, - primary productivity
EC,, - cell growth
ECW - cell growth
Reference
AQUERE 1995
AQUIRE 1995
IPCS 1991b
IPCS 1991b
IPCS 199 Ib
Volume VI
Appendix VI-28
25
-------
APPENDIX VI-29
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - AQUATIC (SEDIMENT)
Volume VI
Appendix VI-29
-------
Available Sediment Guideline Values
Chemical
Partitioning-Based Values (mg/kg)"
NYSDEC
USEPA
Calculated"
SLC-Based Values (mg/kg)
Wisconsin"
MOE LEL
NOAA ER-L
NYSDEC
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silvej
Thallium
Zinc
--
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
~
-
--
-
~
-
-
--
--
--
-
-
-
~
--
-
-
-
~
-
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-
~
~
-
~
NAd
NA
10
500
NA
1.0
100
100
50
0,10
100
1
NA
NA
ioo
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
to$
m
^
m
0.20
i*
NA
0.5
NA
120
NA
3
33
NA
NA
5.0
80
70
35
0.15
30
NA
*
NA
120
NA
2
6
NA
NA
m
M
:M>
3i
0.15
m
NA
1
NA
120
Organics
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
NA
NA
NA
NA
»
&&$&
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
__
-
Volume VI
Appendix VI-29
-------
Available Sediment Guideline Values
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
Dimelhylamine
Dimethylhydrazine
Di-n-octylphthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Dioxin/ftiran (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Formaldehyde
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine ->
Partitioning-Based Values (mg/kg)"
NYSDEC
NA
NA
5.99
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.000006
NA
0.0009
0.36
&!£
0.132
NA
NA
USEPA
NA
31.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.025
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0033
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Calculated11
u^^^SSSSt^^^*^*i*^^nSm
0.34
1.91
141
0,016
0.005
(UJI9
0.00004
l.!W
0.0014
1.71
5|^S
0.0006
w&
0.0009
04)002
0.308
&Jf
&m
&wm
SLC-Based Values (mg/kg)
Wisconsin0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
poooftt
NA
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MOE LEL
0.220
04$
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
u$me
0.01"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOAA ER-L
0,085
0.400
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NYSDEC
—
Volume VI
Appendix VI-29
-------
Available Sediment Guideline Values
Chemical
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Vinyl chloride
Partitioning-Based Values (mg/kg)a
NYSDEC
NA
1.20
0.042
NA
USEPA
NA
NA
0.585
NA
Calculated11
2$;$$
y*
«s
$M$
SLC-Based Values (mg/kg)
Wisconsin'
NA
NA
0.05
NA
MOE LEL
NA
NA
O.OP
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.
0 As reported in Hull and Suter (1994) and Beyer (1990).
d Not Available.
No Effect Level (NEL).
Volume VI
Appendix VI-29
-------
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
724,436
2.45
Chronic
AWQCOig/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 Gig/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-Adjusted
Value (rag/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 j
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-29
-------
APPENDIX VI-30
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES - INGESTION
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
-------
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 VI-30
-------
Aluminum: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
261
770
Single dose
Single dose
LD*>
LDW
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
Mouse
9 Rat
Dog
Rat
Ringed dove
9 Rat
Chicken
0
19
50
®
100
m
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
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
ATSDR 1990a
Opresko et al. 1995
ATSDR 1990a
HSDB 1995
1 Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
-------
Antimony: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Rat
7,000
16,714
Single dose
Single dose
LD*>
NOAEL - death
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1990b
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
9 Rat
? Mouse
Rabbit
Field vole
Field vole
Northern bobwhite
0.262
0,35
0.748
1.25
1.25 - 13.75
150
6,000
&?40
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
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
ATSDR 1990b
Opresko et al. 1995
HSDB 1995
Ainsworth et al. 1991
Ainsworfti et al. 1991
Opresko et al. 1993
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
-------
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
Whitertailed 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
<$B .
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 reported
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Acutely toxic
Acutely toxic
LD*
LDM
LDjo
LDso
LD*,
LDjo
LD*
LD*,
LDX
LDM
Toxic dose
Lethal dose
LDjo
LD*.
LDW
LDjo
LD»
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-30
-------
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
LD*
LDjo
LDs,
LDW
LD*
LD*,
LD»
LD*
Reference
OHM/TADS 1995
RTECS 1995
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
OHM/TADS 1995
Eisler 1988a
Eisler 1988a
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
? Rat
Mouse
Mouse
Cat
? Hamster
$ Mouse
Mouse
&$$Q
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 reported
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
Petal 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
Appendix VI-30
-------
Arsenic: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Hamster
Mouse
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
14
68
Duration
1 day
1 day
Effect
Prenatal mortality
Fetal malformations
Reference
ATSDR 1993a
ATSDR 1993a
" All data are for inorganic arsenic only. Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
-------
Barium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Mouse
Guinea pig
Dog
Rat
Rai
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 •
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 Hfespan in males
NOAEL - death
Lowest lethal dose
Lowest lethal dose
Lowest lethal dose
LD*
LD*
Lowest lethal dose
LD*
LD75
LDM
LD*
LD*
Lowest lethal dose
LD*
LD*
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
Appendix VI-30
-------
Barium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Dog
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
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
Effect
LD*
LDj,,
LDjo
IA,,
LD*.
LD,,,
Reference
IPCS 1990a
1PCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
IPCS 1990a
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
Rat
Rat
26
138
198
198
29 days before conception
and during pregnancy
10 days
Single dose
Increased mortality in offspring; embryotoxic
effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased ovary weight
NOAEL - reproductive effects
IPCS 1990a
ATSDR 1990c
ATSDR 1990c
• Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
-------
Beryllium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
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
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LDso
LD*
LD*
LD»
LD*
LD»
LDjo
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
Chronic Endpoints
Rat <,
Mouse
Rat
m
0.95
31
3. 2 years
898 days
2 years
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
Appendix VI-30
10
-------
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 reported
5 days
Single dose
Single dose
Not reported
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
5 days
LD,,,
LDjo at 96 hrs
LDW
LDso at 8 days
LD*
LDjo
Death - lowest oral dose
LD*
LDjo at 8 days
LDjo at 14 days
Death - lowest oral dose
LDW
LDjo at 24 hrs
LDM
LDso
IPCS 1992a
ATSDR 1993b |
IPCS 1992a
ATSDR 1993b
IPCS 1992a
OHM/TADS 1995
Eisler 1985a
IPCS 1992a
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
Eisler 1985a
OHM/TADS 1995
ATSDR 1993b
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1992a
Chronic Endpoints ||
Rat
0.014
90 days
NOAEL - reproductive effects
ATSDR 1993b |
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
11
-------
Cadmium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
? Rat
Dog
? Rat
Rat
9 Rat
Mouse
$ Rat
$ Rat
American
black duck
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
? Rat
Rat
9 Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
0.73
5.5
$?3
1.0
10
1.5
1.9
1.9
2
2
1 :>$
&*&*£
3.5
4
4
40
5
6.1
18.4
8.0
8.4
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; 14 weeks
1 d/w; 10 weeks
GD 6-15
24 weeks
GD 1-20
Effect
NOAEL
LOAEL - 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
LOAEL - increased duration of estrous cycle
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - fetal malformations
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Decreased fetal weight
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
12
-------
Cadmium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Mallard
9 Rat
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
Rat
Fat
Mouse
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
Rat
6 Mallard
Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
9
118
12.5
14
19.7
21
21.5
23
25
25
30
60
31
66
40
40
50
100
113
155
Duration
90 days
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
Iday
90 days
cJ: 13 weeks prior to mating
? : 13 weeks prior to mating
to 3 weeks of pregnancy
Effect
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased egg production
NOAEL - developmental effects
Testicular necrosis
Reduced birth weight
NOAEL - developmental effects
Pre-implantation mortality; germ cell effects
Developmental abnormalities
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - testicular necrosis
NOAEL
LOAEL - testicular necrosis
Developmental anomalies
Increased fetal resorption; skeletal, kidney, &
heart abnormalities in fetuses and offspring
NOAEL
LOAEL - testicular necrosis; reduced fertility
No effect - mortality and body weight
Effects on growth statistics of newborn
Behavioral effects on newborn
Reference
Eisler 1985a
Opresko et al. 1995
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
ATSDR 1993b
HSDB 1995
ATSDR 1993b
Eisler 1985a
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
13
-------
Cadmium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Rat
220
GD 1-22
Effects on embryo or fetus
RTECS 1995
Mouse
448
Multigenerations
Fetotoxicity; fetal death
RTECS 1995
Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
14
-------
Chromium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
(JRat
d Rat
9 Rat
6* Rat
(J Rat
-------
Chromium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
d Mouse
$ Mouse
Am. black duck
cJ Chicken
9 Mouse
Rat
Rat
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
Effect
Decreased spermatogenesis
Decreased spermatogenesis
Reduced survival
No adverse effects
Increased fetal resorptions; increase in gross
anomalies 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
a Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
16
-------
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
o
1.52
12,9
22.8
3»
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-30
17
-------
Lead: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Japanese quail
Ringed turtle dove
Mallard
Guinea pig
12
24.6
75
107
1,330
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
LD*,
LDso
Some deaths
Death
LD,,,
Eisler 1988b
Eisler 1988b
Eisler 1988b
Eisler 1988b
OHM/TADS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Dog
? Sheep
Rat
Rat
Japanese quail
Monkey
Mouse
Mouse
9 Rat
Rat
Monkey
0,32
0.5
0,7
3.5
0.9
:L!3
ii.3
1.3-5
1.5
2.2
3.5
3.5
3.8 .
Not reported
Entire pregnancy
27-39 weeks
63 days
12 weeks
5 d/w; 75 months
Not reported
Not reported
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
LOAEL - 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
Appendix VI-30
18
-------
Lead: Oral Toxicity
Organism
American kestrel
Mouse
-------
Lead: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Mouse
9 Goat, Sheep
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
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
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 mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
20
-------
Mercury: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
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
LDM
LD»
LD*
LD*>
LDW
LDso
LDjo
U^
LDjo
LD*
LDM
LDW
LD»
LD»
LDW
LDM
LD86
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Hill and Camardese
1986
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
ATSDR 1989a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
21
-------
Mercury: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Passerine bird
Chicken
Quail
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)a
50
60.0
235
Duration
6-11 days
14 days
5 days
Effect
LD33
LDs,
LDso
Reference
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Chronic Endpoints
Rhesus monkey
Rat
Rat
Mallard
Rat
9 Dog
Mink
Rat
Japanese quail
Quail
Ring-necked pheasant
Mink
Rat
0.016
0.M3
0.160
0.05
0.25
0,0$
0.10
04
OU5
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 through post-
gestation day 42
During pregnancy
93 days
During pregnancy
1 year
Chronic
12 weeks
Not reported
GD 6-14
No adverse effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproduction
NOAEL
LOAEL - 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
LOAEL - fetotoxicity
Eisler 1987a
Opresko et al. 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
Appendix VI-30
22
-------
Mercury: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Cat
Cat
Mammals
Quail
Rat
Pig
Rhesus monkey
Ring-necked pheasant
Japanese quail
Quail
Quail
Birds
Pheasant
Japanese quail
Chicken
Rat
9 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 reported
During pregnancy
During pregnancy
70 days
3 weeks
Not reported
5 days
—
30 days
3 weeks
8 weeks
7 days
GD 6-17
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
LDjo
Decreased gonad weight
Decreased egg fertility
Some deaths
LD»
Chronic bird threshold level (oral)
Reduced reproductive output
Reduced egg production, fertility of eggs,
and hatch rates
LOAEL - reproduction
Effects on male fertility
NOAEL
LOAEL - fetal death
Reference
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987*
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Scheuhammer 1987
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
Eisler 1987a
IPCS 1989a
Opresko et al. 1993
ATSDR 1989a
ATSDR 1989a
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
23
-------
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
LOAEL - fetal death
No mortality
NOAEL
NuAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - fetal resorption
LOAEL - reproduction
Reference
Eisler 1987a
ATSDR 1989a
Eisler 1987a
Opresko et al. 1993
ATSDR 1989a
ATSDR 1989a
Opresko et al. 1993
• Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
24
-------
Nickel: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Guinea pig
Rat
Rat
Rat
Mouse
9 Rat
6*Rat
<5 Mouse
9 Mouse
6* Rat
9 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
LDu,
25% mortality
LD*
LD*,
LD*.
LD*,
LD*>
LDM
LD*,
LDM
LDjo
LDM
Chronic Endpoints
V
Chicken
Rat
Rat
9 Mouse
Mallard
n*
so
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
OHM/TAUS 1995
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 19931
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
IPCS 1991c
Opresko et al. 1993
ATSDR 19931
ATSDR 1993i
ATSDR 1993i
Cain & Pafford 1981
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
25
-------
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
Appendix VI-30
26
-------
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 reported
Single dose
Not reported
Not reported
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Not reported
Not reported
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
LD*
LDso
LD*,
Death
LDX
Minimum lethal oral dose
Minimum lethal oral dose
LD*
LD*
LDM
Minimum lethal oral dose
Minimum lethal oral dose
LD*.
LD*
LDjo
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 Endpoints
Rat
0.06
Lifetime
Minimum toxic concentration affecting longevity
Eisler 1985b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
27
-------
Selenium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Mouse
Mouse
Rat
Mallard
? Pig
Mouse
Mallard
Japanese quail
Chicken
Mallard
,-
Mallard
Mallard
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
$m
0.34
0.34
0.35
1.05
0.4
0.8
0.41
0.42
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
100 days
6 weeks
3 generations
78 days
Not reported
Not reported
3 months
3 months
3 months
1 month
Not reported
16 weeks
Effect
NOAEL
LOAEL - reduced fetal growth
NOAEL - reproductive effects
50% reduction in reproduction
No reproduction - females
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproductive effects
Fetal, maternal toxicity
Fetal lethality; 50% reduction in number of offspring
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
Opresko et al.
1995
ATSDR 1989b
ATSDR 1989b
Opresko et al.
1995
Eisler 1985b
Eisler 1985b
Eisler 1985b
Eisler 1985b
Heinz and
Fitzgerald 1993
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
28
-------
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 rog/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
29
-------
Silver: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Rat
100
181
362
1,680
2,820
Single dose
2 weeks
4 days
Single dose
LDX
NOAEL - mortality
25% mortality
Mortality
LD*
Jorgensen et al. 1991
ATSDR 1990d
ATSDR 1990d
Jorgensen et al. 1991
Chronic Endpoints
No studies were located regarding chronic reproductive toxicity following oral exposure to silver.
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-30
30
-------
Thallium: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)4
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Guinea pig
Dog
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
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
LDLO
Lethal
LDX
LD*
LDu,
">»
LD*
LDjo
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
9 Rat
6 Rat
0.1
m
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-30
31
-------
Zinc: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
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
LDs,
LD^,
LDM
LDW
LD*
LD*
LDM
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
Eisler 1993
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
Chronic Endpoints
Chicken (chicks)
Mink
9 Rat
Dog
9 Chicken
17.5
350
150
525
700
1,400
2,800
$y$
m
25
up to 31
21 days
21 days
30 days
30 days
4 weeks
5 weeks
5 weeks
25 weeks
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
Appendix VI-30
32
-------
Zinc: Oral Toxicity
Organism
<$ Rat
Rat
9 Rat
Rat
Ferret
9 Rat
Mouse
? Rat
?Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Chicken
Mouse
9 Japanese quail
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
38
50
250
50
250
54
160
320-400
400-800
540
80
240
480
100
104
1,040
200
200
200
250
up to 350
1,110
1,200 ',
Duration
6 weeks
150 days
150 days
13 weeks
Chronic
18 days
Not reported
13 weeks
up to 197 days
36 days; GD 1-15
13 weeks
GDO-18
GD 1-15
GD 1-21
5 weeks + GD 0-14
12-44 weeks
13 weeks
7 days
Effect
Adverse effects - testes/spermatogenesis
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproductive effects in females
NOAEL
LOAEL - increased still births
NOAEL
Tolerated without adverse effects
Fetotoxic
Decreased growth
Decreased growth
No effect
Death by Day 21
Death by Day 9
NOAEL - developmental effects
No effect
Decreased survival and growth
Increased pre-implantation loss
29% fetal resorption; decreased fetal weight
100% fetal resorption
NOAEL - developmental effects
No effect on reproduction or progeny
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Decrease in body weight and egg production
Reference
Eisler 1993
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
Eisler 1993
Eisler 1993
ATSDR 1992d
Eisler 1993
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
ATSDR 1992d
Eisler 1993
ATSDR 1992d
Eisler 1993
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
33
-------
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
Appendix VI-30
34
-------
Anthracene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Red-winged blackbird
House sparrow
> Hi
> 244
Single dose
Single dose
LD*.
LD,,,
Schaferetal. 1983
Schafer et al. 1983
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
3$W
Not reported
Carcinogenicity
Eisler 1987b
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
35
-------
Benzo(a)pyrene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat/Mouse
50
Not reported
LDM
Eisler 1987b
Chronic Endpoints
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Rat
9 Mouse
$ Mouse
Mouse
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
Mouse
9 Mouse
10
10
40
40
160
40
40
40- 160
75
75
100
100
100
120
133.3
1,280
During pregnancy
GD 7-16
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
Reduction in fertility and reproductive capacity
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased pup weight
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased pregnancy maintenance
Near complete sterility in offspring
Effects to en.bryo/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
HSDB 1995
ATSDR 1989c
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
Appendix VI-30
36
-------
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 mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
37
-------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
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
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
LDX
LDM
LDX
LDW
LDW
LD»
LDso
RTECS 1995
Thomas et al. 1978
OHM/TADS 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1993e
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1993e
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Ring dove
$ Rat
6* Rat
Mouse
V
? Mouse
9 Mouse
6" Rat
*'|1
5
10
13
130
44
91
50
100
200
4 weeks
14 days prior to
mating
102 weeks
166 days
GD 0-17
7 days of pregnancy
5 days
NOAEL - reproduction
Maternal effects to ovaries and fallopian tubes
Inhibition of spermatogenesis
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased fertility
NOAEL
LOAEL - external, visceral and skeletal abnormalities
Fetotoxicity
NOAEL
LOAEL - reduced testicular weight; delayed spermatid
maturation
Opresko et al. 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
ATSDR 1993e
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1993e
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
38
-------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: Oral Toxicity ]
Organism
c?Rat
-------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: Oral Toxicity
Organism
6* Rat
3 Rat
? Mouse
Rat
-------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Mouse
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
4,882
9,756
7,140
9,766
10,000
78,880
Duration
GD 12
GD 1-21
12 days during
gestation
GD 6-15
GD6-13
Effect
Slight increase in dead, resorbed, malformed fetuses
Significant increase in dead, resorbed, malformed fetuses
Fetotoxicity
Musculoskeletal abnormalities
Fetotoxicity
Decreased litter size
Reference
ATSDR 1993e
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
" Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
41
-------
2,4-D: Oral Toxicity
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
LD*
LD^
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*,
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*,
LD*
LD*
LD*
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
Appendix VI-30
42
-------
2,4-D: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Mule deer
Japanese quail
Rock dove
Rabbit
Mallard
Chicken
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
600
668
668
800
> 1,000
4,000
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Effect
LD*
LD*.
LD»
LOu,
LDM
lAo
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
Chronic Endpoints
Birds/mammals
9 Rat
Rat
9 Mouse
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Hamster
9 Rat
9 Mouse
19
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
GD 7-1 1
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
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
43
-------
2,4-D: Oral Toxicity
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
GD6-14
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 mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
44
-------
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
LD*
LD*
LD»
LDs,
LDM
LD*
1^
LD*
LD*
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992c
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1992c
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Brown pelican
American kestrel
American kestrel
Dog
Rat
0.028
m
1.8
t
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
Opresko et al. 1993
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
ATSDR 1992c
ATSDR 1992c
Volume VI
Appendix Vl-30
45
-------
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 H/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
Appendix VI-30
46
-------
Dioxin/furan (2,3,7,8 i ( DD): 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
0.0025
0.0042
0.0050
0.001
0.001
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
LD*.
LD*
LD*
No effects (food consumption, body weight) or mortality
LDtt (28-day)
LD)00
LD*
Some death
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD*
LD* (37-day)
LDM
LD*
LD^ (12-day)
LD*,
LD*
RTECS 1995
U.S. EPA 1990c
HSDB 1995
Coulston and
Kolbye 1994b
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
Appendix VI-30
47
-------
Dioxin/furan (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
LDjo (37-day)
LDjo
LDj,, (37-day)
LDW
LDM
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
9 Rat
9 Rat
Rhesus monkey
Rat
Ring-necked
pheasant
Rat
9 Monkey
Chicken
0,000001
0.00001
0.0000015
0.0000017
0.000012
am
0.000075
0.000092
0.0001 v
0.001
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
20-21 days
NOAEL - reproductive effects
LOAEL - 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
LOAEL - 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-30
48
-------
Dioxin/furan (2,3,7,8-TCDD): Oral Toxicity
Organism
9 Mouse
9 Rabbit
9 Rat
Rat
Hamster
9 Mouse
Rat
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Rat,
Hamster
Northern bobwhite
9 Mouse
9 Mouse
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/dayy
0.0001
0.001
0.0001
0.00025
0.0005
0.001
0.000125
0.0005
0.000127
0.00018
0.001
0.00127
0.0015
0.0019
0.002
0.0022
0.00474
0.009
0.012
Duration
GD 6-15
GD 6-15
GD6-15
Multigenerations
GD 7 or 9
10 days of pregnancy
Multigenerations
GD 1-3
GD 10
14 days prior to mating
GD 7 or 9
126 days
12 days of pregnancy
GD 10-13
Effect
NOAEL
LOAEL - 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 index, and weaning
or lactation index
1 1 % increase in kidney abnormalities
Effects to urogenital system
Effects on fertility and newborn growth
Fetotoxicity
Occlusion of ureter by epithelial cells
Increased pre- and post- implantation loss; fetal growth
retardation
Fetal mortality
NOAEL - reproductive effects (number of eggs laid, viable
embryos, eggs hatched, chick survival)
Craniofacial abnormalities
Increased post-implantation mortality; 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
Coulston and
Kolbye 1994b
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
49
-------
Dioxin/furan (2,3,7,8-TCDD): Oral Toxicity
Organism
$ Hamster
9 Mouse
$ Mouse
$ Mouse
Monkey
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
0.018
0.020
0.100
0.200
0.235
107
Duration
9 days of gestation
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
Fetal death
Effects on growth statistics
NOAEL
LOAEL - maternal toxicity; prenatal mortality
Abnormalities to immune and reticuloendothelial system
Behavioral effects
Reference
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Peterson et al.
1993
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
• Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
50
-------
Hexachlorobenzene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Acute Endpoints
Rat
Quail
Ring-necked
pheasant
Cat
Rabbit
Rat
Mouse
Mallard
Quail
Rat
Guinea pig
Concentration
(mg/kg-Bw/day)'
5
45
617
1,700
2,600
3,500-10,000
4,000
> 5,000
> 6,400
10,000
73,000
Duration
Effect
Reference
1 generation
5 days
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
Single exposure
LDW
lAo
LDW
IA,,
LD*.
LD*
LDW
LD*
LD»
LD»
lAo
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
m
ill
m
1.6
Not reported
Not reported
2 years - 4 generations
90 days
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Fetal and postnatal toxicity
NOAEL - reproduction
LOAEL - reduced egg production and hatchability
Coulston and
Kolbye 1994a
Coulston and
Kolbye 1994a
ATSDR 1989e
HSDB 1995
Opresko et al.
1993
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
51
-------
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
GD 6-21
14 days prior to mating
through 17 days after birth
96 days prior to mating
through 21 days after birth
GD 6-17
GD 8-12
GD 7-16
GD 1-22 -f 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 and urogenital developmental effects
Developmental effects - blood, lymphatic, and
immune systems
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
Appendix VI-30
52
-------
Hexachlorobutadiene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
? Rat
9 Rat
-------
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/dayV
rVK
*>,<*«
6.80
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 weeks plus gestation and
lactation periods
13 weeks prior to mating
18 weeks
18 weeks
13 weeks
148 days
-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)*
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
Rat
-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Rat
Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
926
1,300
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
Effect
LDso
LD*
Reference
U.S. EPA 1984b
RTECS 1995
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Rabbit
9 Rabbit
no
30
75
75
975
GD 6-15
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
a Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
56
-------
Hexachlorophene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoints
LD*
LDM
LDjo
LD*
LDM
LD*
LD*
lAo
LDjo
LDa
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-30
57
-------
Hexachlorophene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Northern
bobwhite
Mallard
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
$?S
1,450
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
Effect
LDW
LDsp
Reference
HSDB 1995
HSDB 1995
Chronic Endpoints
Rat
Rat
Dog
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
-------
Hexachlorophene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
$ 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-30
59
-------
Pentachlorobenzene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)*
Duration
Effect
Reference
Acute Endpoinls
9 Rat
9 Rat
LDjo
LDM
LDjo
LDtt
HSDB 1995
IPCS 1991b
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1991b
HSDB 1995
IPCS 1991b
HSDB 1995
RTECS 1995
IPCS 1991b
HSDB 1995
IPCS 1991b
Chronic Endpoints
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Mouse
9 Rat
11
23
17
27
50
50
100
100
180 days
180 days
GD 6-15
GD 6-15
GD 6-15
GD 6-15
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 199 Ib
IPCS 1991b
U.S. EPA 1985b
U.S. EPA 1985b
HSDB 1995
IPCS 1991b
U.S. EPA 1985b
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
60
-------
Pentachlorobenzene: Oral Toxicity
Organism
6 Rat
9 Rat
-------
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
v
Mouse
Eastern chipmunk
6* Rat
Dog
27
27
36
50
65
70
78
80
80-160
100
117
6* 117
? 177
125-275
(J 129
9 134
138
200
146
150
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 reported
Single dose
Single dose
LD*,
LDW
U^
LDW
LDs,
LD*
LDW
LD*
LD»
LDM
LDX
LDM
LD*.
LD»
LDW
LD100
LDX
LDjo
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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
62
-------
Pentachlorophenol: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Hamster
9 Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Japanese quail
Rat
Rat
9 Mallard
9 Ring-necked
pheasant
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
168
175
180
210
211
250
300
400
475
300
320-330
380
504
Duration
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
5 days
5 days
5 days
5 days
2x/week; 1-3 months
Single dose
Single dose
Single dose
Effect
l^
LD*,
LD*.
LDso
LDs,
LD0
LD«
LD*.
LDW
LDM
LDM
LDso
LD*
Reference
RTECS 1995
HSDB 1995
OHM/TADS 1995
HSDB 1995
ATSDR 1992e
Eisler 1989
ATSDR 1992e
OHM/TADS 1995
Hudson etal. 1984
Eisler 1989
Hudson et al. 1984
Eisler 1989
Chronic Endpoints
V
6* Rat
9 Hamster
Rat
9 Mouse
m
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-30
63
-------
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
pj
200
400
120
Duration
181 days
GD6-15
GD 6-15
GD6-15
GD 6-15
22 months
181 days
GD 6-15
Not reported
7 d/w; 2 generations
GD6-15
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
LOAEL - increased incidence of resorptions
NOAEL
LOAEL - 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
Appendix VI-30
64
-------
Pentachlorophenol: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
Duration
Effect
Reference
? Rat
4,000
77 days prior to mating
through 28 days after
birth
Growth effects in young
RTECS 1995
Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
65
-------
Total PCBs: 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-\0inged blackbird
Brown-headed cowbird
Mouse
Mallard
Mink
Rat
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
4,250
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
Single exposure
LD*
34% decreased survival
LD*,
LD*
LD*,
LD*,
LD*,
LD*,
LD*,
LD*,
LD*,
LD*,
LD*,
LD*
LD*,
LDW
LDso
LD*,
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
ATSDR 1993f
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
66
-------
Total PCBs: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
Duration
Effect
Reference
Chronic Endpoints
Monkey
Monkey
9 Mink
Mink
Monkey
Monkey
Monkey
Monkey
Mink
Rat
V
Mink
Mink
$ Monkey
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
0.2. '
12 months
18 months
66 days
160 days
Not reported
238 days
12 months
15 months
18 months
6 months
42 days
8 months
8 months
4 months
6 months
38 weeks
NOAEL
LOAEL - 18% reduction in birth weight
NOAEL
LOAEL - 15% decreased birth weight
NOAEL - reproductive effects
Severe reduction in number of kits produced
Complete reproductive failure
Reproductive failure
Death
100% fetal death
Decreased spermatogenesis; 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
No conception; post-implant bleeding and abortion
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
IPCS 1993a
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR I993f
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
67
-------
Organism
9 Rhesus monkey
9 Mink
Chicken
Rat
Chicken
9 Mink
Eastern screech owl
Mink
9 Cottontail rabbit
9 Mouse
Ringed turtle dove
Mourning dove
White-footed mouse
Ring-necked pheasant
6" Chicken
9 Chicken
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.224
2.24
m
i.5
0.35
0.9
0.4
Q.5
0.9
1
12.5
1.25
12.5
1.4
1.4
5.5
1.5
1.57
3.5
3.5
Total PCBs:
Duration
6 months
4 months
9 weeks
129 days
Not reported
Not reported
39 weeks
2 breeding seasons
247 days
28 days (gestation)
108 days
3 months
6 weeks
up to 18 months
17 weeks
8 weeks
8 weeks
Oral Toxicity
Effect
Reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased reproduction rates, litter size
NOAEL
LOAEL - reproductive effects
NOAEL - developmental effects
LOAEL - 15-24% decrease in litter size
No reproductive impairment
Reproductive impairment
Decreased reproduction rates and litter size
No reproductive impairment
No reproduction
NOAEL
LOAEL - embryotoxicity
NOAEL
LOAEL - 55% decreased conception
Reproductive impairment
Inhibited nesting behavior
Inhibited nesting behavior
Decreased reproductive success
NOAEL - reproduction
NOAEL - semen characteristics
NOAEL - fertility and egg hatchability
==s=
Reference
Eisler I986a
ATSDR 1993f
Newell et al. 1987
ATSDR I993f
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler I986a
ATSDR I993f
Newell el al. 1987
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
Eisler I986a
Linzey 1987; 1988
Opresko et al. 1993
IPCS I993a
1PCS I993a
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
68
-------
Total PCBs: Oral Toxicity
Organism
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
Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)a
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
7.2
Duration
GD 6-15
GD 6-15
GD 18-60
30 days
9 days during lactation
9 months
Not reported
"Long-term"
"Long-term"
2 months
2 months
4 months
67 days
186 days premating
Effect
NOAEL
LOAEL - neurobehavioral effects
NOAEL
12% decreased fetal weight
65% decreased fetal survival
34% increase in fetal death
NOAEL
LOAEL - mortality and reproductive effects
NOAEL
LOAEL - decreased male fertility; 52% decrease in
the number of 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
LDM
NOAEL - developmental effects
LOAEL - 31-45% decrease in litter size
32% decreased preweaning survival
Reference
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR I993f
Newell et al. 1987
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
Newell et al. 1987
Eisler 1986a
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
Newell etal. 1987
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
69
-------
Total PCBs: Oral Toxicity
Organism
Mallard
9 Rat
American kestrel
? Rabbit
9 Mouse
Mouse
White-footed mouse
$ White- footed mouse
9 Rat
Rat
9 Rat
9 Rat
"V
9 Rat
9 Rat
9 Mammal
(Unspecified)
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)"
7.8
8
9
10
12.5
12.5
12.5
29
29
30
30
40
50
100
100
247
325.
Duration
10 days
9 days during lactation
62-69 days
GD 1-28
GD 6-18
108 days
60 days
2 weeks
1 month
1 month
GD 6-15
GD 7-15
GD 6-15
60 days prior to mating
through 22 days after
birth
30 days prior to mating
and GD 1-36
Effect
No reproductive effects
Decreased male fertility; 21% decreased implants;
29% decreased embryos
Decreased sperm count
NOAEL
LOAEL - 71 % fetal death
NOAEL - developmental effects
NOAEL - developmental effects
Reproductive impairment
Reduced sperm count
Increased estrus; decreased receptivity
35 % decreased litter size; decreased pre- and post-
weaning survival
Behavioral effects on newborns
NOAEL
LOAEL - 60% decreased survival at weaning
NOAEL - developmental effects
Behavioral and metabolic effects on newborns
Stillbirths; effects on live birth index and viability
index
Reference
Eisler 1986a;
Newell et al. 1987
ATSDR 1993f
Eisler 1986a
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
IPCS 1993a
IPCS 1993a
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
RTECS 1995
ATSDR 1993f
ATSDR 1993f
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
70
-------
Total PCBs: Oral Toxicity
Organism
+ Mammal
(Unspecified)
9 Rat
Concentration
(mg/kg-BW/day)'
325
420
Duration
30 days prior to mating
and GD 1-36
21 days after birth
Effect
Effects on growth statistics
Behavioral effects on newborns
Reference
RTECS 1995
RTECS 1995
* Single dose concentrations are in mg/kg BW.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-30
71
-------
APPENDIX VI-31
ALLOMETRIC SCALING OF INGESTION TOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
-------
Ingestion Toxicological 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"
Toricity 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 Chapter 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-31
-------
Ingestion Toxicological 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
94.8*
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.35
0.34
0.41
0.10
0.15
94.8
119
60
101
Body Weight
(kgT
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 Chapter V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
c Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
-------
Digestion 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
47.6°
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.12"
0.48"
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 Chapter V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
c Lowest acute LDj,, value for an avian wildlife species.
* Acute LDso value divided by 100.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
-------
Digestion lexicological 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
-
1 Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species were from
Chapter V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
0 Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
d Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
-------
Ingestion 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)
0.07"
-
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
Chapter V.
b Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Cadmium
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Shon-tailed Shrew
Dog
Red Fox
Mink
American Black Duck
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
-
—
2.25°
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
1.5"
0.75
0.454
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 firom Newell et al. (1987), for the American black duck
were from U.S. EPA (1993d), and for the indicator species were from Chapter 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-31
-------
Digestion lexicological 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
* 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 Chapter V.
b Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
-------
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/k^/d)
0.24"
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
a 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 Chapter V.
b Chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
c Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
-------
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 Chapter V.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
10
-------
Ingestion Toxicological 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)1
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 Chapter V.
b Chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
11
-------
Ingestion lexicological 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*
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
(kgr
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 Chapter 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
AnrwnHiY V
-------
Ingestion T oncological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Selenium
Test Species
Indicator Species
Mouse
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
Mallard
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.034k
0.40
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.034
0.033
0.040
0.010
0.014
0.40
0.78
0.39
0.66
Body Weight
(kg)*
0.032
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
1.10
0.077
1.22
0.147
• Body weights for the mouse were from Newell et al. (1987), for the mallard were from U.S. EPA
(1993d), and for the indicator species were from Chapter V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
13
-------
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"
-
Toricity 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 tbe indicator species were
from Chapter V.
b Acute value divided by 100.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
14
-------
Digestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Thallium
Test Species
Indicator Specie
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
l.OC
-
* Body weights for the rat were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species were from
Chapter V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
° Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
d Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
15
-------
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)
—
-
-
350
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
2.5b
25
20.8
14cd
Toricity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
2.5
3.8
4.6
25
31
20.8
14
25
13
21
Body Weight
(kgT
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 Chapter 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-31
16
-------
Ingestion lexicological 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.lllc
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 Chapter V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Acute LDj,, value divided by 1,000.
d Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
17
-------
Ingestion lexicological 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)
0.02"""
-
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.020
0.019
0.023
0.006
0.008
—
Body Weight
(kg)a
0.032
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
~
a Body weights for the mouse were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species were
from Chapter 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-31
18
-------
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)
5.0
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
0.1*
0.222"
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
-------
Ingestion Toxicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
2,4-D
Test Species
Indicator ; ties
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 Chapter V.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
20
-------
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
0.182b
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 Chapter V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
21
-------
Digestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Dioxin/furan (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
0.0000028"
Toxicity Benchmark
(mg/kg/d)
0.00000100
0.00000152
0.00000185
0.00000046
0.00000067
0.0000028
0.0000055
0.0000028
0.0000047
Body Weight
(kg)*
0.200
0.037
0.017
4.50
1.00
1.14
0.077
1.22
0.147
a Body weights for the rat and pheasant were from Newell et al. (1987) and for the indicator species
were from Chapter V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
22
-------
Digestion lexicological 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
0.032b
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 Chapter V.
b Lowest chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
23
-------
Digestion 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 Chapter V.
b Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
24
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Test Species
Indicator Species
Rat
Meadow Vole
Short-tatted Shrew
Red Fox
Mink
No Data for Birds
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
—
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
1.00"
-
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
Chapter V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
25
-------
Ingestion Toxicological 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)
-
5.0
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 Chapter V.
b Chronic LOAEL value divided by 5.
Acute LDj,, value divided by 1,000.
d Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
26
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Pentachlorobenzene
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)
1.10"
-
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
Chapter V.
b Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
27
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Pentachlorophenol
Test Species
Indicator Sperms
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
2.0bc
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 Chapter V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
c Includes an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
28
-------
Ingestion lexicological Benchmarks for Selected Indicator Species
Total 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
0.0016k
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)a
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 Chapter V.
b Includes a subchronic to chronic uncertainty factor of 5.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-31
29
-------
APPENDIX VI-32
RISK ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32
-------
APPENDIX VI-32
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 HI, respectively, of this appendix.
In Section I, the exposure estimates are either media concentrations of a given
chemical (i.e., ground-level air, surface soil, surface water, and sediments) or dietary doses
based on chemical concentrations in food items (e.g., tissues of plants and animals) and in
water that are ingested. The estimated concentrations of a given chemical in the various
environmental media and in dietary items are a result of modeling the entire process which
includes: (1) an emission rate (from a particular source, for example the stack, and for a
particular scenario, for example the stack high-end organic scenario), (2) a dispersion factor,
(3) a deposition rate, and (4) partitioning among the environmental media based on chemical
fate and transport (including uptake rates for bioaccumulative chemicals). Exposures are
either by direct contact with these media (e.g., inhalation of air) or by food chain dietary
contact (ingesting plants and/or animals that have been in direct contact with the
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 the same as those for the HHRA. Many of the equations and
calculations for these steps are incorporated into the example illustrations below by reference
to the appropriate sections of the WTI Risk Assessment, specifically Volume in -
Characterization of the Nature and Magnitude 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 that are unique to the SERA are detailed in Section I of this
appendix.
In Section n, the chronic lexicological benchmark values are chemical- and medium-
specific estimates of no adverse effecl levels in ground-level air, surface soil, surface water,
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32
-------
sediment, and ingested dietary items. Example illustrations are provided for the derivation of
benchmark values.
In Section HI, the exposure estimates and lexicological benchmark values are
compared using a simple ratio, termed the hazard quotient. Example illustrations are
provided.
Example illustrations of the 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
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 ffl 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 = (ER) (DF)
where: C, = air concentration 0*g/m3)
ER = emission rate (g/sec)
DF = dispersion factor (/ig/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"* and for pentachlorophenol is 1.10 x ICT5. Thus for nickel:
C, = (5.00 x 10^(0.91) = 4.55 x 10"* /*g/m3
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32
-------
and for pentachlorophenol:
C, = (l.lOx 10-5)(0.91) = l.OOx ID'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 Itt4 mg/kg and for pentachlorophenol is 1.97 x 10'5 mg/kg.
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"11 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).
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32 4
-------
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.
s
For nickel, the resulting plant concentration is 5.64 x 10~7 mg/kg and for
pentachlorophenol is 7.75 x IQr6 mg/kg.
2. Earthworms
Estimated earthworm tissue concentrations are calculated to derive ingestion
exposures for the indicator species (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 I.B of this appendix)
by chemical-specific measured bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or calculated
bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for earthworms (presented in Table V-21 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 (hi dry weight) by the BAF yields tissue concentrations in mg/kg
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:
CF
where: Cm = 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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32
-------
Thus, the estimated earthworm tissue concentration for nickel is:
Cw = [(2.08 x 104)(0.72)] -s- 4 = 3.75 x 10'5 mg/kg
and for pentachlorophenol is:
C^ = [(1.97 x 10-5)(8.0)] -4- 4 = 3.93 x 10"5 mg/kg
3. Fish
Estimated fish tissue concentrations are calculated to derive ingestion
exposures for the indicator species (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 (unitiess)
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
indicator species used in the SERA (belted kingfisher and mink) consume fish
primarily from this trophic level (U.S. EPA 1995c). 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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32
-------
and for pentacblorophenol is:
BAF = (1,066)(3.597) = 3,834
Fish concentrations are determined as follows:
Cf = (C J (Atf)
where: Cf = concentration in fish (mg/kg wet weight)
Cw = 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^(61) = 6.37 x 10'8 mg/kg
and for pentachlorophenol is:
Cf = (1.73 x 10rll)(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 (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/furan, and total 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 and the percentage of
the total dietary intake each component represented, as follows:
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32
-------
$ (BAF)
where: TCX = whole-body tissue concentration of chemical x 0*g/g)
MC,u = concentration of chemical x in food item i (/tg/g)
PDC; = percentage of diet for food item i
BAF = diet to whole-body BAF (unitless)
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
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 calcukted as described in Sections I.D. 1
and I.D.2 of this appendix. Soil concentrations (for incidental soil ingestion) for the
ECOCs are determined as described in Section I.B of this appendix. Food ingestion
rates, and dietary compositions, for the meadow vole and short-tailed shrew are
summarized in Table 1.
In the following calculations, the three terms within the { } are the plant tissue
concentration multiplied by the percent plant matter in the diet, the earthworm tissue
concentration multiplied by the percent earthworms in 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:
TCNi = [{(5.64 x 10-7)(0.956)+(3.75 x 10-s)(0.02)+(2.08 x lO^XO.OW)} x 1]
= 6.28 x 10-6
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.llS)} x 1]
= 5.26 x 10s
Pentachlorophenol concentrations in the meadow vole are:
p = [{(7.75 x !O6)(0.956)+(3.93 x 10-5)(0.02)+(1.97 x 10-5)(0.024)} x 1]
= 8.67 x
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32
-------
and for the short-tailed shrew are:
TCpcp = [{(7.75 x 10^(0. 122) +(3.93 x 1Q-5)(0. 763) +(1.97 x 10-s)(0.115)} x 1]
= 3.32 x 10 5
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):
,
(MCX .) (PDQ] + [(— 3 (WT)]
BW
where: DI, = intake of chemical x (fig/g-BW/day)
FR = feeding rate (g food/day)
MC^ = 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 (/xg/L)
WI = water ingestion rate (g water/day)
UCF = unit conversion factor (jig/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 1Q-5)(0.84)+(2.08 x lO^O-lM)}] +
[{(1.04 x 10-*) -s- (1000)} 10.8]) + 77.3 = 6.40 x 10'5
and for pentachlorophenol:
DIpcp = ([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-*) -^ (1000)} 10.8]) + 77.3 = 4.28 x 10"5
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32
-------
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 Ihey are generally Ihe mosl studied chronic lexicological
endpoinls for ecological receptors. When chronic NOAEL lexicological benchmark values
are unavailable, estimates are derived or exlrapolaled from chronic Lowesl Observed
Adverse Effecl 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 dala obtained from dala bases and Ihe lileralure. The lowesl
available value is selected for each ECOC. For nickel, Ihe plant benchmark is 2.0 ^g/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
/xg/m3 and Ihe inhalation benchmark for penlachlorophenol is 500 /ig/m3 (Appendix VI-25).
B. Surface Soil
Toxicological benchmark values for soil fauna and for terreslrial plants exposed to
chemicals in surface soils are based on data obtained from data bases and the literature. For
nickel, the plant benchmark is 30 mg/kg, the lowest available value (Appendix VI-26). For
penlachlorophenol, Ihe planl benchmark is derived by laking Ihe lowesl available value (20
mg/kg; Appendix VI-26) and dividing by a LOAEL to NOAEL uncertainly factor of 5, since
this value is based on a chronic EC50. This resulls hi a final benchmark value of 4 mg/kg
(See Chapter VI, Table VI-3).
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32 10
-------
For soil fauna, the nickel benchmark is based on the lowest available chronic value (a
LOAEL of 200 mg/kg; Appendix VI-27), adjusted using a LOAEL to NOAEL uncertainty
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-27).
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, 1995), 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 /ig/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-28). For pentachlorophenol, the lowest AWQC (8.6
(j.g/'L) is from Ohio (Appendix VI-28); this value is used as the benchmark, adjusted based on
a pH of 7.5 (see Chapter VT). Hardness and pH adjustments are based on U.S. EPA
guidance (U.S. EPA 1986a, 1996c).
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
lexicological 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:
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32 11
-------
Value (mglkg) = (KJ () (TOQ
UCr
where: K^ = adsorption coefficient normalized to the organic content
of the sediment (from Chapter V, Table V-2) (unitless)
CWQC = chronic water quality criterion (from Chapter VI, Table
VI-4) (/*g/L)
UCF = unit conversion factor (/*g/L to mg/L) of 1,000
TOC = total organic carbon content (percent, as a fraction)
A TOC value of three percent (0.03), a default value used in the HHRA models (U.S.
EPA 1994d), is used (see Volume V, Appendix V-7). 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.
For nickel, the sediment benchmark (16 mg/kg) is based on the lowest available
guideline value (Appendix VI-29). 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.
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32 12
-------
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-30. 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
uncertainty factor of 10 are applied as follows:
Benchmark = (50 mg/kg/day) -s- [(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-30. Since
this NOAEL 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 = (21.4 mg/kg/day) -^ [(5)(10)] = 0.428 mg/kg/day
For pentachlorophenol, the lexicological benchmark value for mammalian
indicator species is based on the lowest available mammalian NOAEL value (1.2
mg/kg/day), as shown in Appendix VI-30. 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 data for more lhan
Ihree 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
shown in Appendix VI-30. Since Ihis value is based on a subchronic study and dala
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 Ihen adjusted
for each of the seven bird and mammal indicator species using the scaling factor
approach oullined in U.S. EPA (1995c). The allometric scaling approach is applied
to pairs of species wilhin 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
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32 13
-------
determined toxic daily intake information from one species to another by the
following formula:
Da =
where: Da = the intake or dose in an untested species a (mg/kg/day)
Db = experimentally determined intake or dose in species b
(mg/kg/day)
BW, = body weight of untested species a (kg)
BWb = body weight of species b (kg)
For nickel, the toxicological benchmark 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) +(0.037)]° * = 1.52 mg/kg/day
The toxicological benchmark 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 toxicological benchmark 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:
Benchmark,^ = (1.2)[(0.200)+(0.037)]a25 = 1.8 mg/kg/day
The toxicological benchmark 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)+(0.077)]°-25 = 3.6 mg/kg/day
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32 14
-------
m. CALCULATION OF HAZARD QUOTIENTS
Hazard quotients, which are the expression of potential risk in the SERA, are
calcukted by dividing the estimated media concentration or dietary dose by the appropriate
toxicological benchmark value:
where: HQ = hazard quotient (unitless)
C = concentration or dose (units vary)
B = benchmark value (units vary)
In this section, the media concentrations or dietary doses calculated in Section I are
compared with the toxicological benchmarks from Section EL
A. Air
The air concentration from Section I is divided by the plant and animal toxicological
benchmark values from Section EL For nickel:
Plant HQ = (4.55 x 10* Mg/m3) -r (2.00 x 10° /ig/m3) = 2.28 x KT6
Animal HQ = (4.55 x 10"6 ng/m3) + (4.00 x 102 /ig/m3) = 1.14 x 10"*
For pentachlorophenol:
No plant benchmark available
Animal HQ = (1.00 x 10"3 ^g/m3) -s- (5.00 x 102 ng/m3) = 2.00 x 10*
B. Surface Soil
The surface soil concentration from Section I is divided by the plant and soil fauna
toxicological benchmark values from Section n. For nickel:
Plant HQ = (2.08 x 10^ mg/kg) -r- (3.00 x 101 mg/kg) = 6.94 x 10"6
Soil Fauna HQ = (2.08 x 1Q4 mg/kg) -r (4.00 x 101) = 5.20 x
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32 15
-------
For pentachlorophenol:
Plant HQ = (1.97 x 10'5 mg/kg) -s- (4.00 x 10° mg/kg) = 4.92 x lO""
Soil Fauna HQ = (1.97 x 10'5 mg/kg) -f- (4.00 x 10° mg/kg) = 4.92 x 10^
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^ fig/L) -r (1.60 x 102 /tg/L) = 6.52 x 10 9
For pentachlorophenol:
HQ = (1.73 x 10-8 /xg/L) -r (8.60 x 10° /tg/L) = 2.01 x 10 9
D. Sediment
The sediment concentration from Section I is divided by the benchmark value from
Section n. For nickel:
HQ = (9.40 x 10-8 mg/kg) -r (1.60 x 101 mg/kg) = 5.87 x 10 9
For pentachlorophenol:
HQ = (1.80 x 10-9 mg/kg) + (8.90 x 10'1 mg/kg) = 2.02 x 109
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 Ifr5 mg/kg/day) -5- (7.68 x 10'1 mg/kg/day) = 8.33 x 10s
For pentachlorophenol:
Robin HQ = (4.28 x Itf3 mg/kg/day) -s- (3.60 x 10° mg/kg/day) = 1.19 x 10'5
Volume VI
Appendix VI-32 16
-------
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"
10.4°
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 irom 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
Appendix VI-32
17
------- |