THE NATIONAL DIOXIN STUDY
Tiers 3, 5, 6, and 7
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Monitoring and Data Support Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
February 1987
U.S. Environmental Protection Ageno?
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
£30 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V
1.1 Ba ckg rou nd * v
1.2 Levels of Concern v
1.3 Findings and Conclusions vi
1.4 Accomplishments viii
2.0 INTRODUCTION 1
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NATIONAL DIOXIN STUDY 4
3.1 Objective 4
3.2 Approach 4
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS OF THE STUDY 9
4.1 Tier 3 9
4.2 TierS 26
4.3 Tier 6 37
4.4 Tier 7 46
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 57
5.1 Introduction 57
5.2 Overall Approach to Quality Assurance 57
5.3 Data Quality Objectives 62
5.4 Estimates of Data Quality 64
6.0 REFERENCES 72
-ill -
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Health Assessments for TCDD A-l
Appendix B - Fate of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Soil B-l
Appendix C - Estimation Procedures and Results C-l
Appendix D - Analytical Data D~l
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Locations of Sampled Tier 3 Sites vii
1-2 Locations of Sampled Tier 5 Sites vni
1-3 Locations of Sampled Tier 6 Sites ix
1-4 Locations of Sampled Tier 7 Soil Sites x
1-5 Locations of Sampled Tier 7 Fish and Shellfish
Sites xl
3-1 Activities and Data Flow in the
National Dioxin Study 5
4-1 Distribution of Contamination at Tier 3 Sites 14
4-2 Distribution of Soil Samples at Contaminated
Tier 3 Sites 16
4-3 Distribution of Sampled Tier 3 Sites by
Chemical Handled 18
4-4 Distribution of Contamination at Tier 6 Sites 42
4-5 Distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentrations
in Fish (Maximum Level at Each Site) 51
4-6 Comparison of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Whole Fish and
Filets at Background Sites 53
TABLES
Table 4-1 Statistically Selected Tier 3 Sites
That Were Ineligible i1
4-2 Statistically Selected Tier 3 Sites
That Could Not Be Sampled 13
4-3 Tier 5 Site Characterization 28
4-4 Tier 6 Compounds and Number of Sampled Sites 38
4-5 Statistically Selected Tier 6
That Were Ineligible 4 1
4-6 Statistically Selected Tier 7
Fish Sites That Could Not be Sampled 49
4-7 Summary of Industrial Discharges at
Tier 7 Fish Sites 54
5-1 Quantitative Objectives for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Analyses
5-2 Summary of Precision Statistics °*
5-3 Summary of Bias Statistics
- iv -
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1,1 Background
As part of its Dioxin Strategy, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) conducted the National Dioxin Study, an
investigation to determine the extent of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodi-
benzo-p_-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) contamination in the environment.
This report presents the findings and conclusions from the sampling
efforts conducted for four of the seven tiers (Tiers 3, 5, 6, and
7) defined in the Dioxin Strategy. The EPA defined these four tiers
as follows:
Tier 3 - Formulators, blenders, and packagers
of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (2,4,5-TCP)-
based pesticides;
Tier 5 - Sites where suspected contaminated
pesticides were commercially applied;
Tier 6 - Other chemical producers with a lower
potential for contamination; and
Tier 7 - Background sites.
This report also discusses the environmental fate processes and
health assessments related to 2,3,7,8-TCDD which can be useful 'in
interpreting the results of the study. Finally, the report
describes the quality assurance program implemented to ensure
that the quality of the data would be sufficient to meet the
objectives of the study.
1.2 Levels of Concern
Three federal agencies (the Environmental Protection Agency -
EPA, the Food and Drug Administration - FDA, and the Centers for
Disease Control - CDC) have established at various times levels
of concern for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in different media (see Appendix A
for a detailed discussion) . The EPA has published a water quality
criteria document that reports an estimated increased lifetime
cancer risk of 1 in a million from drinking water and eating
fish from waters containing 0.013 part per quadrillion (ppq) of
2,3,7,8-TCDD. Applying the fish bioconcentration factor and the
consumption estimates presented in the criteria document results
in a calculated lifetime cancer risk of approximately 1 in 100,000
from eating fish contaminated at the nominal detection level of 1
part per trillion (ppt) . The FDA has advised that, for consumption
patterns and fish species typical to the Great Lakes area, fish
consumption should be limited if concentrations in the edible
portion exceed 25 ppt, and should be banned if concentrations
exceed 50 ppt. The CDC established a level of concern of 1 part
- v -
-------
per billion (ppb) in residential soils; this level of concern
would vary depending on land use in an area. For example, levels
as low as 6 ppt could be of concern in areas where dairy cattle
are grazing, while levels well above 1 ppb could be acceptable in
many industrial settings.
1.3 Findings and Conclusions
More than 4,000 samples from 862 sites nation-wide were col-
lected and analyzed for the investigations of Tiers 3, 5, 6, and
7 (Figures 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, and 1-5). Sampled media included
soil, sediment, fish, water, and various animal and plant tissues.
The major findings and conclusions from this study are:
Tiers 3 and 6
0 The EPA estimates that approximately 10 percent of the
facilities identified in its data bases as Tiers 3 and
6 sites would be found contaminated if they were sampled
and analyzed using the protocols for this study.
0 At contaminated Tier 3 and Tier 6 sites, the extent of
contamination was usually limited to one or two soil
samples with concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD above 1 ppb.
Only two Tier 3 sites were extensively contaminated; no
Tier 6 sites were found extensively contaminated.
0 Based on the limited number of sites found to be contami-
nated, the small number of positive samples at most of
the contaminated sites, and the generally low levels of
2,3,7f8-TCDD detected, immediate national investigation
of all of the remaining Tiers 3 and 6 facilities does not
appear warranted.
0 All contaminated Tier 3 sites were at or near facilities
that handle 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TCP, and/or silvex, and the two
extensively contaminated facilities both handled more
than 100,000 pounds of these compounds. Therefore, the EPA
is undertaking further evaluation of all other large
handlers of these three compounds. The EPA sampled 12 of
the 29 facilities handling greater than 100,000 pounds of
these compounds during the study and is now collecting
information on the 17 remaining facilities.
0 All contaminated sites have been referred to the Superfund
program for appropriate follow-up actions where necessary.
Tier 5
0 Contamination was found in various media (soil, sediment,
and fish) at 15 of the 26 sites sampled where 2,4,5-T,
silvex, and 2,4,5-TCP-based pesticides were used.
- vi -
-------
I
H-
P-
I
OF MTE«
CONTAMMMTtO'
NUMBER OF M1t«
NOT CONTAMNMTED
(Q)
» 1 ppk to ION or «
FIGURE 1-1. LOCATIONS OF SAMPLED TIER 3 SITES
-------
H-
H-
H-
FIGURE 1-2. LOCATIONS OF SAMPLED TIER 5 SITES
-------
H-
X
FIGURE 1-3. LOCATIONS OF SAMPLED TIER 6 SITES
-------
1 OF
AN FRANCISCO. CA
I
X
I
1 OF MTES
O LAKE CHARLES, LA
NUMBER Of SITES )4(
NOT CONTAMINATED
1(9)
FIGURE 1-4. LOCATIONS OF SAMPLED TIER 7 SOIL SITES
-------
FIGURE 1-5. LOCATIONS OF SAMPLED TIER 7 FISH AND SHELLFISH SITES
-------
o
Contaminated sites included forests, rangeland, rice
fields, sugarcane fields, canals adjacent to sugarcane
fields, and rights-of-way. However, at sites where spray-
ing of pesticides occurred, the levels found were generally
very low (less than 5 ppt) and therefore not of concern.
With the exception of certain pesticide mixing-loading
areas, further national investigation of spray areas does
not appear to be warranted.
The highest levels for each medium were found where
sampling was targeted for specific areas most likely to
be contaminated (areas where contaminants would tend to
accumulate).
2,3 ,7 ,8-TCDD was more frequently detected and was occasion-
ally at higher levels at Tier 5 sites than at background
sites (Tier 7). Soils collected at contaminated sites had
2,3,7,8-TCDD levels between 0.2 and 6623 ppt; levels in
sediments were between 0.7 and 200 ppt; and levels in
whole fish were between 9 and 47 ppt.
The current source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the most signifi-
cantly contaminated site (Petenwell Flowage) may not be
related to slimicide use. (Certain pulp and paper mill
processes are currently suspected of being the source of
2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Petenwell Flowage, and investigations
of these sources are currently underway in coordination
with other pulp and paper mill studies, as described in
the Tier 7 discussion.)
Tier 7
2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected infrequently and at very low
levels at the statistically selected background soil
sites. Seventeen of the 221 urban sites and 1 of the
138 rural sites had detectable levels, with the highest
level found being 11.2 ppt in an urban soil sample.
2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected more frequently in background
fish samples than in background soil samples. The EPA
estimates that 21 percent of the sites in the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey's national monitoring networks would have
detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish. The frequency
of detection is greater (31 percent) at sites selected by
the EPA's regional offices, many of which are near indus-
trial and urban areas.
An even higher proportion (23 of 29) of Great Lakes fish
sampling sites was found to have detectable levels of
2,3,7,8-TCDD. This is consistent with previous findings
and is not surprising since the long water retention
- xii -
-------
times tend to increase bioaccumulation potential. Out-
side of the Great Lakes, fish contamination was primarily
found in major river systems, such as the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers, or in waterways with significant"
industrial activity.
0 Levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD found in whole fish ranged up to
85 ppt, while levels found in filets ranged up to 41 ppt.
Two fish consumption advisories have been issued based on
findings from the study.
0 Levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish filet samples may be a
cause for concern at specific locations under certain
consumption patterns; local exposure conditions need to
be evaluated to determine a level of concern for those
areas.
0 Fish and shellfish from estuarine and coastal waters were
rarely contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD; three of the four
contaminated sites were in areas heavily influenced by
industrial discharges.
0 A previously unsuspected possible source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
contamination in some areas appears to be certain types
of pulp and paper mill discharges; mills using a chlorine-
bleaching process are being investigated by the EPA, -the
states, and the paper industry to determine the source of
contamination within the mills.
0 Since recent studies indicate that 2,3,7,8-TCDD has a
half-life of less than one year in fish, fish contamina-
tion is a current and continuing phenomenon.
1.4 Accomplishments
There were several significant accomplishments that resulted
from the National Dioxin Study. These include:
0 A major increase in the amount of available data and
knowledge on 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels in the environment;
0 Development of more reliable and less costly analytical
methods to routinely measure 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the ppt level
of detection, or lower in several types of environmental
media;
0 Development of a sampling guidance document to ensure
uniform sampling procedures for this type of study; and
0 Development of uniform review procedures to assess and
validate analytical data.
- xiii -
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
On December 15, 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued its Dioxin Strategy (EPA, 1983a) for identifying,
investigating, and cleaning up sites contaminated by dioxin,
particularly 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD).
The major factors that led to the development of the Dioxin
Strategy were:
(1) the toxicity of chlorinated dioxins,
particularly 2, 3,7,8-TCDD;
(2) the persistence of dioxins in soil
and sediments;
(3) the detection of dioxins at a variety
of sites in the U.S.; and
(4) the need for a systematic study to
determine the extent of dioxin
contamination.
Although there are 75 isomers of chlorinated dioxins, the
strategy focused on the 2,3,7,8-TCDD isomer, primarily because it
is thought to be the most toxic of the dioxins and is the one
about which the most is known. Exceptionally low doses of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD elicit a wide range of toxic responses in animals, including
carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, fetotoxicity, reproductive dys-
function, and immunotoxicity. The EPA's Carcinogen Assessment
Group has determined that there is sufficient evidence to con-
clude that 2,3,7,8-TCDD is an animal carcinogen and probably a
carcinogen in humans as well. This compound is the most potent
animal carcinogen evaluated by the EPA.
The EPA (1984a) has published a water quality criteria
document, which presents estimates of the increased cancer risk
from consuming contaminated water and fish from those waters.
The document presents an estimated increased lifetime risk of 1
additional cancer in 1,000,000 people from drinking water and
eating fish from waters contaminated at a concentration of 0.013
part per quadrillion (ppq). The EPA's assessment shows that the
risk is primarily associated with the consumption of contaminated
fish. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 1981) advised the
State of Michigan that fish consumption should be limited if
2,3,7,8-TCDD levels in samples of the edible portions were above
25 parts per trillion (ppt), and should be banned if levels were
above 50 ppt. This advisory is based on consumption patterns in
the Great Lakes area. The edible portions of fish are generally
the filets, although whether the filets should be analyzed with
the skin on or off varies according to the size and type of
- 1 -
-------
fish. All filet analyses for the National Dioxin Study were
done with the skin off.
The Centers for Disease Control (Kimbrough et al. , 1984)
has indicated that 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels above 1 part per billion
(ppb) in residential soils are of concern, particularly to
children living in contaminated areas. Levels of concern in
industrial areas would be somewhat higher because of the reduced
potential for ingestion of soil, particularly by children. On
the other hand, levels of concern in grazing areas are lower
because of the potential for 2,3,7,8-TCDD to bioaccumulate in
grazing animals. The CDC guidelines indicate that soil concen-
trations of 6 ppt and 20 ppt can produce maximum allowable residues
in milk and beef, respectively. (Additional discussions of these
health assessments are presented in Appendix A.)
The 2,3,7,8-TCDD isomer appears to be persistent, although
not particularly mobile, in the environment. It has a high
potential for bioaccumulation, and is strongly adsorbed to soil
or sediment (Appendix B).
Sampling and analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the environment
have been limited, primarily because of the difficulties of
analysis at the relatively low concentrations found in the
environment. At the time the Dioxin Strategy was developed,
numerous sites had been confirmed to be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-
TCDD. The EPA, other federal agencies, and state and municipal
agencies have all been involved in assessing these and other
contaminated sites, and have initiated appropriate actions to
protect public health.
The EPA developed the Dioxin Strategy to determine the over-
all extent of dioxin contamination and to provide a systematic
approach for dealing with dioxin contamination problems. To
implement the strategy, the EPA defined seven categories (or
tiers) of sites for investigation, ranging from the most probable
tier of contamination (Tier 1) to the least likely (Tier 7) as
follows:
Tier 1 - 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (2,4,5-TCP)
production sites and associated waste
disposal sites;
Tier 2 - Sites and associated waste disposal
sites where 2,4,5-TCP was used as a
precursor to make pesticidal products;
Tier 3 - Sites and associated waste disposal
sites where 2,4,5-TCP and its derivatives
were formulated into pesticidal products;
- 2 -
-------
Tier 4 - Combustion sources;
Tier 5 - Sites where 2,4,5-TCP and pesticides
derived from 2,4,5-TCP have been, or are
being, used on a commercial basis;
Tier 6 - Sites where improper quality control on
manufacturing of certain organic chemicals
and pesticides could have resulted in the
inadvertent formation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD; and
Tier 7 - Control sites where contamination from
2,3,7,8-TCDD is not suspected.
A complete investigation at all sites in Tiers 1 and 2 is
being conducted because they are suspected of being the most con-
taminated. Only a representative sample of sites in the other
tiers was initially investigated because of 1) the large number of
sites in each of those tiers, and 2) the lower potential for
contamination at those sites. Investigations conducted at sites
in Tiers 1 and 2 are being managed by the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) and are being funded under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA).
The investigations of sites in Tiers 3 through 7 constitute
"The National Dioxin Study". The Office of Water (OW) was respon-
sible for the studies in Tiers 3, 5, 6, and 7; this report describes
the approach to and the results of those studies. The Office of
Air and Radiation (OAR) managed the studies in Tier 4; those results
are presented in a separate report.
Because of a lack of documentation on the identity or location
of storage sites, such as the contaminated site at Fort A. P. Hill
in Virginia where 2,3,7,8-TCDD was found in soil at concentrations
of up to 1200 ppb, these sites were not incorporated into the
overall investigation. Sites associated with the transportation
and distribution of the chemicals of concern also were not investi-
gated for the same reasons.
-------
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NATIONAL DIOXIN STUDY
3.1 Objective
The objective of the National Dioxin Study was to examine
the extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination in each of the study tiers.
Specifically, in Tiers 3 and 6 the objective was to determine
the percentage of the facilities with 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations
in soil above 1 part per billion (ppb) , or at any detectable
level in other environmental media (e.g., fish in nearby streams).
The objective of the Tier 5 investigation was to determine whether
2,3,7,8-TCDD could be detected in selected areas where use of
pesticides suspected of containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD as a contaminant
has been documented. The objective of the Tier 7 study was to
evaluate the extent and severity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamxnation
in fish and soil samples from background sites at a level of
detection of approximately 1 part per trillion (ppt). The National
Dioxin Study objectives are discussed in detail in the "Quality
Assurance Project Plan for Tiers 3, 5, 6, and 7 of the National
Dioxin Study" (EPA, 1984b).
All sites found to contain 2,3,7,8-TCDD were referred to
appropriate EPA offices or other federal or state agencies for
appropriate response or follow-up action.
3.2 Approach
The EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS)
was responsible for developing the study design and work plan,
and for the statistical selection of sites to be sampled. The
regional offices assisted in the planning and site selection for
the study, and were responsible for managing the sampling effort.
Most of the actual sampling was done by state agency personnel
and the EPA contractors. The analysis of samples was done by
OSWER's Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), three EPA laboratories
(Duluth, Bay St. Louis, and Research Triangle Park), and Wright
State University.
The specific steps in the development and implementation of
the National Dioxin Study were (Figure 3-1):
1. Development of the Quality Assurance Project Plan;
2. Site Selection;
3. Preparation of site-specific Sampling Plans;
4. Sampling of Sites;
5. Analysis of Samples;
6. Data'Review and Validation; and
7. Data Management.
- 4 -
-------
QA Task Force.
1. Project Plan
(OWRS)
FATES
Ambient Networks
I
Regional Coordinators
2. Site Selection
(OWRS)
Site Reconnaissance
I
OPP Data
> Regional Selections
State Suggestions
3. Site-Specific
Sampling Plans
(Tiers 3,5, and 6)
(Regional Offices)
Federal/State
Agencies
SCC Tracking and
Scheduling
I
Information
Request Letters
4. Sampling
(Regional Offices)
(Part per (Part per
Trillion Analysis) Billion Analysis)1
SMO Tracking
and Scheduling
5. Analysis
(Troika)
5. Analysis
(CLP Labs)
6. Data
Validation
(Troika/Regions)
1
6. Data
Validation
(Reg. Offices)
7. Data
Management
(OWRS)
FIGURE 3-1 ACTIVITIES AND DATA FLOW IN THE
NATIONAL DIOXIN STUDY
- 5 -
-------
3.2.1 Development of the Quality Assurance Project Plan
The OWRS, with the assistance of the Quality Assurance Task
Group (composed of headquarters and regional personnel) and the
regional dioxin study coordinators, prepared a Quality Assurance
Project Plan, as required by the EPA for all environmental
monitoring tasks. The project plan provided an overview of the
study and included study objectives, site selection methodology,
field sampling procedures, sample custody procedures, references
for analytical protocols, field and laboratory audit procedures,
and data quality requirements and assessment procedures.
Before implementation of the study, the project plan underwent
extensive internal (EPA) and external reviews. External reviewers
included staffs of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the
Office of Technology Assessment, several members of the EPA's
Science Advisory Board, and the American Chemical Society.
3.2.2 Site Selection
The EPA used several different approaches to identify poten-
tial sampling sites in the various tiers. The statistically
selected Tier 3 sites were chosen from those facilities identified
in the FIFRA and TSCA Enforcement System (FATES) data base as
formulators or packagers of the Tier 3 pesticides. Statistically
selected Tier 6 sites were chosen from facilities identified as
producers of Tier 6 chemicals or pesticides in the Directory of
Chemical Producers (SRI, 1977-1983), the EPA publication Dioxins
(EPA, 1980),or the FATES data base. In addition, the regional
offices and states selected sites of particular interest for
sampling in these two tiers.
The regional offices sent information request letters to the
facilities selected in Tiers 3 and 6 to verify existing EPA
records on chemicals and volumes formulated or produced, and to
obtain additional information on the types and quantities of
waste generated, the waste disposal methods, and the location of
disposal sites. In addition, regional staff visited the selected
sites in Tiers 3 and 6 prior to sampling to identify potential
sampling locations. In some cases the information gathered
through these efforts resulted in a decision not to sample a
particular facility, either because the facility did not actually
produce or formulate the compounds of interest or because site
reconnaissance revealed that the site was not suitable for
sampling (e.g., extensive paving).
The sites in Tier 5 were selected based on pesticide use
information provided by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
the regional offices, and state and local agencies. In this
tier, a statistical sample was not practical because of the variety
- 6 -
-------
of uses and conditions. As a result, a number of sites were
purposely selected to provide a range of conditions and uses.
For Tier 7, sampling sites were statistically selected from
three national environmental monitoring networks. Soil sampling
locations were selected from the Urban and Rural Soil Networks of
the EPA's National Soils Monitoring Program. Fish sampling
locations were selected from the combined National Stream Quality
Accounting Network (NASQAN) and the Benchmark Network, both
established by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In addition,
the regional offices selected a large number of fish sampling
locations. For purposes of this report, these sites are referred
to as "background" sites.
3.2.3 Preparation of Site-specific Sampling Plans
Site-specific sampling plans were prepared by the regional
offices for each site to be sampled in Tiers 3, 5, and 6. These
plans included information on site location, site history, the
location and rationale for each sample to be collected, and site-
specific safety and community relations plans. The OWRS reviewed
the sampling plans to ensure that they were consistent with the
objectives of each tier. Plans were not required for Tier 7
sites, as the location and type of sample were determined by the
site selection process.
3.2.4 Sampling of Sites
Field sample collection activities were managed by the
regional offices and involved the participation of state and
local agencies and EPA contractors as well. The OWRS, with the
assistance of the regional coordinators, developed a guidance
document, the "Sampling Guidance Manual for the National Dioxin
Study" (EPA, 1984c) to provide uniform methods for collecting,
preserving, shipping, and tracking environmental samples for the
study. In cases where the guidance manual was not applicable,
the site-specific methods to be used were evaluated by the OWRS
to assure consistency with the objectives of the study.
The soil sampling protocol specified that all samples would
consist of 4-inch deep cores that would then be thoroughly
mixed prior to extraction and analysis. The selection of a
4-inch core was a judgment based on environmental fate infor-
mation such as that presented in Appendix B.
The fish sampling protocol was defined to limit variability
among sites. Target fish species were specified to reduce inter-
species variations, and fish of similar ages were collected where
possible.
- 7 -
-------
3.2.5 Analysis of Samples
Two major laboratory programs performed analyses for the
study: (1) the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), consisting of
commercial laboratories under EPA contract and managed by the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response? and (2) the Troika,
consisting of three EPA laboratories (Duluth, Bay St. Louis, and
Research Triangle Park) in the EPA's Offices of Research and
Development (ORD) and Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS).
The Troika contracted with Wright State University for additional
assistance in sample analysis. Analytical methods used by the
CLP had a nominal detection limit of 1 part per billion (ppb) for
soils (dry weight), while methods used by the Troika and Wright
State University had a detection limit of approximately 1 part
per trillion (ppt) for all media (soil/sediment - dry weight;
biological tissue - wet weight) other than water and approximately
10 parts per quadrillion (ppq) for water. The limit of detection
was established as a signal level 2.5 times the noise level for
each sample. For the most part, the CLP analyzed soil samples
from Tiers 3 and 6; the Troika and Wright State University
analyzed soil samples from Tiers 5 and 7, and other environmental
samples from all tiers.
The Troika's analytical methods for routine analysis of
2,3,7,8-TCDD at ppt and ppq levels in biological tissue, water,
and soil samples are described in "Analytical Procedures and
Quality Assurance Plan for the Analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Tiers
3-7 Samples of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National
Dioxin Study" (EPA, 1984d). This document has undergone internal
(EPA) and external peer reviews. The analytical procedures for
the CLP had been previously developed and reviewed, and are
presented in the Information for Bid for Chemical Analytical
Services for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (EPA, 1984e).
3.2.6 Data Review and Validation
All laboratory data were validated before they were considered
final. The Troika reviewed and evaluated data internally utilizing
procedures reviewed by the QA Task Force. The regional offices
reviewed and evaluated the CLP data. Section 5.0 discusses the
data validation procedures followed by the laboratories and
regional offices.
3.2.7 Data Management
All validated sample data and quality control (QC) data from
the Troika and CLP laboratories were entered into EPA data bases,
from which the necessary information will be transferred into
STORET, the EPA's water quality file.
- 8 -
-------
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS OF THE STUDY
4.1 Tier 3
4.1.1 Objective
Tier 3 consisted of facilities and associated waste disposal
sites where 2,4,5-TCP and its derivatives (listed below) were
formulated into pesticidal products. Generally, these products
were herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and germicides.
Products Uses
2,4,5-trichlorophenol fungicide; bactericide
(2,4,5-TCP)
2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic plant hormone; herbicide;
acid (2,4,5-T) defoliant
silvex herbicide; plant growth
regulator
erbon herbicide
ronnel insecticide
hexachlorophene topical anti-infective
(restricted);
germicidal soaps,
veterinary medicine
isobac 20 topical anti-infective
(restricted);
germicidal soaps;
veterinary medicine
The objective of the Tier 3 sampling program was to determine
the percentage of facilities identified in the FIFRA and TSCA
Enforcement System (FATES) data base as Tier 3 facilities that are
contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD above 1 part per billion (ppb) in
soil, or at any detectable level in other environmental media
(e.g., fish in nearby streams). The detection limits for other
media, and therefore the levels that determine whether contami-
nation is present, vary slightly from site to site.
4.1.2 Methods
Site Selection
Initially, the EPA identified 258 facilities in the FATES data
base as Tier 3 sites. Additional queries of the data base identi-
- 9 -
-------
fied another 54 facilities. This data base lists the quantities
of each Tier 3 chemical formulated at each facility during the
period 1976-1981. An additional 325 potential Tier 3 facilities
were identified from four other data sources as described in the
QA Project Plan; however, these were not included in the sampling
frame because documentation that they actually did formulate the
compounds of concern was not available.
Sixty-one facilities were selected using a stratified,
random sampling approach from the 312 facilities identified in
FATES (Appendix C presents detailed selection procedures). Fifty
facilities were selected from the 258 initially identified in
FATES and an additional 11 were selected from the 54 facilities
later identified in FATES. Large facilities (those handling at
least 100,000 pounds total of active ingredients listed in Section
4.1.1) were selected as part of the 61 facilities.
The regional offices identified 23 additional facilities of
particular interest for sampling, based on known activities at
the facility or on previous contamination incidents. The results
for these facilities will be reported separately in this report;
they were not used in the statistical analysis for this tier.
Sampling Locations
The specific sampling locations within each Tier 3 facility
were determined on a site-by-site basis. A targeted sampling
approach was used when information was available to allow identi-
fication of areas most likely to be contaminated. Targeted areas
where contamination was considered most probable included loading/
unloading areas, storage areas, disposal areas, and storm water
drainage areas.
A random sampling scheme (described in the QA Project Plan)
was developed for sites where there was not enough information to
identify areas most likely to be contaminated.
At several sites a combination of the two sampling approaches
was used. Some samples were targeted in areas of suspected con-
tamination, while the remainder were randomly distributed across"
the rest of the site. In some cases, the areas of suspected
contamination were large, and random sampling was done within
those areas.
4.1.3 Results
Site Characteristics
Of the 61 statistically selected sites, 13 were considered
ineligible (Table 4-1) because further information revealed that
no Tier 3 compounds were actually handled at the facility or that
- 10 -
-------
TABLE 4-1
STATISTICALLY SELECTED TIER 3 SITES
THAT WERE INELIGIBLE*
Site
Region I
Nutmeg Chemical Co.
New Haven, CT
Region II
Duveen Soap Corp.
Brooklyn, NY
Nationwide Chemical Co.
Brooklyn, NY
Region IV
Amrep, Inc. (formerly Aero Mist, Inc.)
Marietta, GA
Davis Specialty Chemicals, Inc.
Ridgeland, MS
Region V
Mogul Corp.
Minneapolis, MN
Roberts Consolidated Industries, Inc.
Kalamazoo, MI
Region VII
Mozel Chemical Products Co.
St. Louis, MO
Ross Daniels, Inc.
W. Des Moines, IA
Region IX
Kern Manufacturing Co.
South San Francisco, CA
Magna Corp.
Ventura, CA
Target Chemical Co.
Cerritos, CA
Region X
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
Tacoma, WA
* Did not handle Tier 3 compounds or site was only a warehouse
- 11 -
-------
the site was only a warehouse. Seven other sites (Table 4-2)
were not sampled because they were either covered with pavement
or the soil on site had been so extensively reworked that no
original soil could be identified for sampling. These seven
sites are considered missing for purposes of statistical analysis,
as they are still in the sample frame but could not be sampled.
Of the 41 eligible sampled facilities, 30 handled only one
of the Tier 3 compounds, six handled two of the compounds, and
five handled three of the compounds. Ronnel was the most widely
handled pesticide (18 facilities), while 2,4,5-T and silvex were
handled at 11 and 10 facilities, respectively.
Twenty-three regionally selected Tier 3 sites were sampled.
Of these, 17 facilities handled only one of the Tier 3 compounds,
four facilities handled two, one facility handled three, and one
facility handled four of the compounds. Silvex, 2,4,5-T, and
ronnel were the most widely handled compounds at these facilities.
Information about the generation and disposal of waste by
Tier 3 facilities is often incomplete. Partial information for
33 of the 41 eligible statistically selected sampled sites indi-
cated that 12 generated process wastewater and 17 generated solid
waste (eight generated both). Information for 19 of the 23
regionally selected sampled sites indicated that 11 generated
process wastewater and 16 generated solid waste (9 generated both)-.
For several sites, however, it is not clear whether the liquid
and solid wastes were related to the processing of the Tier 3
compounds.
None of the statistically selected sites and only two of the
regionally selected sites that generated wastewater were direct
dischargers to surface waters. Fifty percent of the Tier 3 sites
that generated wastewater discharged to publicly owned treatment
works, while the rest incinerated, evaporated, or deep well-
injected their wastewater. Most of the solid wastes were disposed
of in off-site landfills.
Analytical Results and Discussion
Data for the 41 statistically selected eligible sampled
sites indicated contamination (soil concentrations at levels
greater than or equal to 1 ppb or detectable levels in other
media) at six of these sites (Table D-l, Appendix D) . Five
additional sites had 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in soil below 1
ppb (Figure 4-1).
The estimate of facilities identified in the FATES data base
that are actually eligible Tier 3 sites is 79 + 10 percent
(estimate^ 2 x standard deviation)(Appendix C) . The estimate
- 12 -
-------
TABLE 4-2
STATISTICALLY SELECTED TIER 3 SITES
THAT COULD NOT BE SAMPLED*
Site
Region I
Shield Packaging Co. , Inc.
Canton, MA
Region III
Purex Corp.
Philadelphia, PA
Region IV
Tobacco States Chemical Co. , Inc.
Lexington, KY
Region VI
Amrep, Inc. (formerly Research Products Co.)
Dallas, TX
Region X
Associated Chemists
Portland, OR
Webfoot Fertilizer Company, Inc.
Portland, OR
Western Stockmen's Supply
Twin Falls, ID
* Because of pavement or earth work on site.
- 13 -
-------
61 STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
13
INELIGIBLE
NOT
SAMPLED
30
2,3,7,8-TCDD
NOT
DETECTED
COULD NOT
BE SAMPLED
CONTAMINATED*
2,3,7,8-TCDD DETECTED,
NOT CONSIDERED
CONTAMINATED*
23 REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
13
2,3,7,8-TCDD
NOT
DETECTED
CONTAMINATED'
^2,3,7,8-TCDD DETECTED, NOT
CONSIDERED CONTAMINATED*
*A SITE WAS CONSIDERED CONTAMINATED IF ANY SOIL SAMPLE CONTAINED MORE THAN
1 ppb OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD OR IF ANY SAMPLE FROM ANOTHER MEDIUM (FISH OR SEDIMENTS
FROM ADJACENT STREAM.GROUNDWATER) CONTAINED A DETECTABLE LEVEL OF
2,3,7,8-TCDD. DETECTION LIMITS FOR OTHER MEDIA WERE APROX1MATELY 1 ppt EXCEPT
FOR WATER FOR WHICH THE DETECTION LIMIT WAS APPROXIMATELY 10 ppq.
FIGURE 4-1. DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINATION AT TIER 3 SITES
- 14 -
-------
of eligible facilities that would be found contaminated if sampled
depends on what assumption is made concerning the seven missing
(not sampled) eligible sites. Three possible assumptions are: 1)
the seven missing eligible sites are similar in frequency of
contamination to those with data, 2) the seven sites are not
contaminated, or 3) all seven sites are contaminated. If the
first assumption for the missing sites is used, the estimate of
eligible facilities that would be found contaminated is 16 +_ 10
percent, and the estimate of all facilities in the FATES data
base that would be found contaminated is 12 +_ 8 percent. If the
second assumption is used, the respective percentages are 13+8
and 10 +_ 6; if the third assumption is used, the respective
percentages are 28 + 10 and 22 + 10.
These estimates apply to the 312 facilities identified in
FATES, but do not necessarily apply to the additional 325 facili-
ties identified from other sources but not listed in FATES.
Possible explanations for why these facilities are not in the
FATES data base include: 1) some of the facilities may have
registered to handle the pesticides but never actually did so
because of the cancellation proceedings for 2,4,5-T, and 2) some
of the facilities may have handled only the pesticides of interest
prior to 1976, before FATES was available.
Six of the 23 regionally selected sites were found to be
contaminated, and four additional ones had detectable 2,3,7,8-TCDD
levels in soil below 1 ppb (Table D-2, Appendix D).
Contamination when found was usually limited within a site
area (Figure 4-2). At four of the six statistically selected
contaminated sites, only one or two soil samples (4 to 13
percent of samples analyzed) had levels above 1 ppb. A fifth
site had no soil contamination, but had levels of less than 3 ppt
in all three fish samples from the adjacent river. The sixth
site was widely contaminated and is discussed below. Similarly,
four of the six contaminated regionally selected sites had only
one or two soil samples (2 to 20 percent of samples analyzed)
at levels above 1 ppb, and a fifth site had no soil contamination
but had levels between 1 and 6 ppt in seven of eight fish samples
and between 5.5 and 23 ppt in five of nine sediment samples from
the adjacent river. The sixth site was widely contaminated and
is discussed below.
The one widely contaminated statistically selected site (13
of 14 soil samples at levels greater than or equal to 1.0 ppb)
handled 2,4,5-T, silvex, and 2,4,5-TCP, with the total amount
handled greater than 100,000 pounds. This site was already under
investigation through the Superfund program when it was selected
for this study. The one widely contaminated regionally selected
site (16 of 26 soil samples at levels greater than or equal to
- 15 -
-------
60 -
Q
UJ
N
so
tn 40 -
tn
5 30 -I
-------
1.0 ppb) also handled 2,4,5-T and silvex, with the total amount
handled greater than 100,000 pounds.
The EPA has identified 29 facilities in the FATES data base
that handled more than 100,000 pounds total of 2,4,5-T, silvex,
and/or 2,4,5-TCP. The EPA investigated 12 of these as part of
this study and is gathering information on the remaining 17 to
determine if future sampling is needed.
All 12 contaminated sites (six statistically selected and
six regionally selected) handled at least one of these three
compounds (Figure 4-3). Nine of the sites handled only 2,4,5-T
and/or silvex, two handled only 2,4,5-TCP, and one handled all
three. In addition, one also handled a small amount of erbon
and another also handled an unknown amount of ronnel. Overall,
2,4,5-TCP, silvex, and/or 2,4,5-T were handled at 23 of the 41
statistically selected eligible sampled sites and at 15 of the
23 regionally selected sampled sites. None of the facilities
handling only hexachlorophene or ronnel were contaminated with
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Discussion of Contaminated Sites
Region II: *Farmingdale Garden Lab - Farmingdale, NY
This facility, located on 0.5 acre, blended and repackaged
silvex from 1965 to 1978 and erbon in 1969. More than 90 per-
cent of the site is covered by a building and pavement.
Twenty-five random soil samples were collected from a 10-
by 75-ft gravel area at the rear of the processing building.
One of these samples contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD at 17.6 ppb.
This site has been referred to Superfund and will be
resampled under that program.
Region II: *Rockland Chemical Co., Inc. - West Caldwell, NJ
This facility, located on approximately 1.8 acres, formulated
products containing silvex from 1961 to 1979 and products con-
taining 2,4,5-T until 1976. There are currently five underground
storage tanks on-site which are used for storing solvents. A
septic tank was used for disposal of process waste and sanitary
wastewater before the plant connected to a treatment facility.
Ten soil samples were collected along the perimeter of former
and current loading docks where runoff from on-site loading and
"*" denotes a statistically selected site.
- 17 -
-------
2,4,5-TCP
ERBON
HEXACHLOROPHENE
nnnn
nn nn
oooo
oooo
,4,5-T AND/OR SILVEX
(SEE INSERT BELOW)
RONNEL
REGIONALLY STATISTICALLY
SELECTED SELECTED
SITES SITES
O
NON-CONTAMINATED
CONTAMINATED
HEAVILY CONTAMINATED
SILVEX
2,4,5-T
FIGURE 4-3. DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLED TIER 3 SITES
BY CHEMICAL HANDLED
- 18 -
-------
storage areas would collect. The one sample containing 2,3,7,8-
TCDD (1.32 ppb) was collected down-gradient from the current
loading dock area.
Additional sampling at the site indicated levels of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD below 1 ppb at several storage and loading areas. The New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is discussing pos-
sible remedial actions with the facility.
Region III: R.H. Bogle Company - Alexandria, VA
This facility, located on 5 acres, distributed 2,4,5-T and
silvex from 1954 to 1979. These herbicides were stored on-site
and loaded onto railroad sprayer cars for application to railroad
rights-of-way. In 1978 most of the site was clay-capped to contain
arsenic contamination. Residential townhouses, office buildings,
and asphalt parking lots now cover the site.
As the site has been changed substantially in recent years,
40 soil samples were collected at 17 locations receiving runoff
from the site prior to capping. No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in
any of these samples. However, five of the nine sediment samples
taken from Oronoco Bay and the Potomac Estuary, which border the
site, contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD at levels of 5.5 to 23 ppt. Seven of
the eight fish collected from the Potomac Estuary within 2 miles
of the site contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD at levels of 1.6 to 6.3 ppt.
Since the samples containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD were collected off the
site, there is no conclusive evidence that the contamination
came from the Bogle facility.
The Centers for Disease Control concluded that no further
sediment and fish sampling for 2,3,7,8-TCDD is required since the
fish levels were well below the FDA action levels. The EPA Region
III is evaluating the impact that dredging may have on the bio-
availability of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Potomac Estuary.
Region III: *Holder Chemical Company - Ona, WV
This facility, located on 2.5 acres, used a number of
insecticides and herbicides, including 2,4,5-T in formulating
products. The years when 2,4,5-T was used in formulation are
unknown. Based on a 1982 site evaluation, approximately 280 tons
of contaminated topsoil containing malathion, chlordane, sevin,
DDT, dieldrin, heptachlor, lindane, kepone, and 2,4-Dwere removed
from the site (no dioxin analyses were performed).
' *»
denotes a statistically selected site.
- 19 -
-------
Thirty-six soil samples were collected, 31 from locations
surrounding the main building and five from the wooded area
bordering the site. No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in any of these
samples, nor in the five sediment samples and a clam sample
collected from the nearby Mud River. However, all three fish
samples collected from this river 0.5 mile downstream from the
site contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD at levels between 0.5 to 2.9 ppt.
There is no conclusive evidence that the contamination came from
the Holder facility.
No follow-up action is planned for this site.
Region III: Smith Douglas (Borden) - Norfolk, VA
This facility, located on 35 acres, formulated products using
silvex. The formulation activity took place in two buildings.
Fifty-three soil samples were collected: 15 from around the
storage building, 14 from around the formulation building, 5
from ditches at the perimeter of the property, and 19 at various
other locations around the site. Ten dust samples were also
collected from the storage building and from the formulation
building. A sample of trash from the formulation area was also
analyzed. Only one soil sample contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD (10.1 ppb);
it was collected along a driveway leading to the building where
silvex was formulated. No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in the dust
or trash samples.
Intensive follow-up sampling under the Superfund Program
was conducted around the formulation building. The location of
2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination was confirmed, with no additional con-
taminated locations being identified. The company has agreed to
excavate the contaminated soil and dispose of it, along with the
formulation equipment, in a manner acceptable to the EPA.
Region IV: Chem Spray - Belle Glade, FL
This facility, located on 2 acres, formulated products
using large amounts (greater than 100,000 pounds) of 2,4,5-T from
1967 to 1977. A residue pile is located adjacent to a formulation
building. In addition, canals border two sides of the site.
Nineteen soil samples were collected: two from the residue
pile, four from outside the formulation building, two from between
the formulation building and a second building, and three from
around this second building. Eight random samples were also
taken between the two buildings. The two soil samples containing
2,3,7,8-TCDD (0.2 and 3.0 ppb) were both collected outside the
second building. Seven sediment samples were also collected from
the canals. All contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD at levels between 20.9
to 515 ppt.
- 20 -
-------
Additional sampling and analysis confirmed the isolated
nature of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination. The facility has
secured the contaminated area. The EPA is currently pursuing
alternatives for disposal.
Region IV: *Security Chem (Woolfolk Chem) - Fort Valley, GA
This facility, located on 22 acres, repackaged and stored
silvex from 1978 to 1979 in a general warehouse which housed a
loading dock.
Seventeen soil samples were collected: three from around and
underneath the warehouse (the building is on raised blocks),
three along the street where silvex was transported, five around
another site building, five from various other site locations,
and one from a drainage ditch. The soil sample containing 2,3,7,8-
TCDD (23 ppb) was collected from underneath the warehouse where
55-gallon drums were stored. A field duplicate for the same
sample contained 40 ppb. It appears that the contamination was
due to spillage. The drainage ditch sample also contained 2,3,7,8-
TCDD at,36.7 ppt.
Security Chem, as the responsible party, and the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division conducted a comprehensive sam-
pling survey of the entire facility, confirming the isolated nature
of the contamination. Appropriate measures have been taken to
secure these areas. The EPA is currently pursuing alternatives
for disposal.
Region V: *ETM Enterprises (Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.) -
Grand Ledge, MI
This facility, located on approximately 5 acres, formulated
products using 2,4,5-T and ronnel for an unknown number of years,
although the mixing, manufacturing, and packaging of agricultural
chemicals in general took place there from 1945-1979. Several
areas of this site had previously been found contaminated with
other pollutants, and some excavation of contaminated soil has
taken place.
Twenty-one soil samples were collected: seven from a storm-
water drainage ditch, two from an area where a septic system was
removed as a result of previous sampling, two at the storm drain
pipe (one at the inlet and one at the open catch basin), four off
the southwest corner of the building where previous sampling
indicated other pollutant contamination (no previous 2,3,7,8-TCDD
analyses), one from just outside the parking lot, four from along
'*" denotes a statistically selected site.
- 21 -
-------
the south side of the building near the loading dock in a low
area (under downspouts), and one near the mid-north side of the
building along the roof drain line. The two samples containing
2,3,7,8-TCDD (0.56 and 1.13 ppb) were collected at two depths at
the location where storm water from the storm drain pipe discharges
into the drainage ditch.
Additional samples, collected and analyzed at lower levels of
detection, contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sediments from a nearby stream
and the Grand River at levels of 9 and 15 ppt; soils on-site had
levels between 0.005 and 0.246 ppb. The State of Michigan has
fenced, covered, and paved the drain outlet. A septic tank and
surrounding soils have been removed. Plant floor drains have
been closed. Additional remedial measures are being discussed
between the company and the State.
Region V: Nalco Chemical Company - Bedford Park, IL
This facility, located on approximately 21 acres, used large
amounts of sodium 2,4,5-trichlorophenate (approximately 100,000
pounds) and 2,4,5-TCP (approximately 8,500,000 pounds). According
to one of Nalco's suppliers, the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
in the 2,4,5-TCP was less than 0.098 ppm. Formulation wastes
were disposed of off-site with other solid waste from the plant,
or with plant wastewater that went to the sanitary sewers after
treatment (removal of oils and solids). The sludge was temporarily
stored on-site and then disposed of off-site in a landfill.
Products not meeting specifications were stored on-site in 55-gal-
lon drums and then disposed of off-site in a landfill.
This site is extensively paved. Ten soil samples were
initially collected: seven from loading docks, and one sample
each from outside a warehouse, a processing building, and a
storage building. These three samples were in areas of expected
roof drainage. The two samples containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD (1.9 and
2.2 ppb) were collected at two of the loading docks, one at the
drum-rinsing operation location and the other at a processing
location. Significant levels of other dioxin isomers were also
found in one of these samples.
Additional sampling at the site in areas adjacent to identi-
fied contamination and in areas of expected drainage indicated
the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD ranging from 0.24 to 5.2 ppb in all
samples; significant levels of other dioxin and furan isomers
were also found. Contaminated areas have been covered with
plastic and gravel. EPA issued an unilateral 106 order to Nalco.
to investigate the extent of contamination during a remedial
investigation and to take appropriate steps to prevent migration.
- 22 -
-------
Region V: *Riverdale Chemical Company - Chicago Heights, IL
This site formulated products using silvex, 2,4,5-T, and
2,4,5-TCP and was already scheduled for investigation under the
Superfund Program prior to its statistical selection for this
study. The sampling approach used to sample the site under Super-
fund was slightly different from those used at the other Tier 3
sites.
Fifteen soils samples were initially collected by gridding
and sampling all the open areas. Areas covered by gravel or
pallets were not sampled. Widespread 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination
was found on site; 13 of 14 soil samples collected contained
2,3,7,8-TCDD at concentrations ranging from 1.1 to 364 ppb.
Two Consent Orders are being implemented by the Riverdale
Chemical Company. The first involves covering the area where
2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected with tarp or gravel. The second involves
Riverdale's conducting a remedial investigation/feasibility study
of the site and its surrounding areas to determine the extent of
contamination. This information will be used to develop additional
appropriate remedial action.
Region VII: Union Carbide Agricultural Products Company Inc.
(formerly Amchem Product Co.) - Saint Joseph, MO
This facility was owned by the Amchem Product Co. when it
formulated products containing 2,4,5-T and silvex. More than
100,000 pounds of these compounds were used in formulation from
about 1957 until about 1978. Union Carbide purchased the facility
from Amchem Products in 1978. This site is about 7 acres, with
about 5 acres of open fields.
Twenty-six soil samples were collected at this site: four
from the railroad loading area, four from around a tank used to
store 2,4,5-T, eight from a bare spot where a spill may have
occurred, and ten from a drainage ditch that receives runoff
from on-site loading and unloading areas. Valid analytical
results were obtained for 25 of the 26 samples (questionable
results were obtained from one of the drainage ditch samples).
Of the 25 samples, detectable levels ranging from 0.13 to 39.1
ppb of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were found in 23; values greater than 1 ppb
were detected in 16. The highest concentrations were observed in
soils taken from the bare spot.
After being notified of the results from the sampling,
Union Carbide voluntarily installed a fence around the entire
"*" denotes a statistically selected site.
- 23 -
-------
site in order to limit unauthorized access. The Superfund Program
requested Union Carbide to evaluate pollution abatement options.
Additional samples were collected by the EPA to determine the
extent of pollution more accurately. Further negotiations con-
cerning cleanup activities are on hold pending the review of
analytical results from the additional sampling.
Region IX: Magna Corp. - Sante Fe Springs, CA
This facility, located on 2 acres, blended large amounts
of 2,4,5-TCP (greater than 100,000 pounds) into products from
1961 to 1978.
Ten soil samples were collected along the perimeter of this
facility where drainage would collect. The one sample containing
2,3,7,8-TCDD (2.0 ppb) was collected down-gradient from the 2,4,5-
TCP mixing area.
The EPA issued an immediate removal order under Superfund.
The company drummed all contaminated soil, sediment, and debris
and conducted additional sampling in an off-site drainage ditch.
4.1.4 Findings
0 The estimate of the percentage of Tier 3 facilities that
are contaminated varies depending on the assumptions con-
cerning the seven eligible sites that were not sampled.
If these sites have a similar frequency of contamination
as the sites with data, an estimated 12 percent of the
Tier 3 facilities in FATES would be found contaminated.
0 An estimate of the percentage of the additional 325
facilities identified from other sources that would be
found contaminated cannot be determined.
0 At contaminated sites, the extent of contamination was
usually limited to one or two soil samples having concen-
trations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD above 1 ppb. Only two Tier 3
sites were extensively contaminated.
0 All 12 contaminated sites were at or near facilities
handling 2,4,5-TCP, 2,4,5-T, and/or silvex.
0 The two extensively contaminated facilities were both
large handlers of 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TCP, and/or silvex.
4.1.5 Conclusions
0 Based on the limited number of sites found to be contami-
nated, the small number of positive samples at most of
these sites, and the generally low levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
- 24 -
-------
detected, immediate national investigation of all of the
remaining Tier 3 facilities does not appear to be warranted.
e Since the two extensively contaminated facilities were both
large handlers of 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TCP, and/or silvex, further
evaluation of other large handlers of these three compounds
is warranted. The EPA sampled 12 of the 29 large handlers
of these compounds as part of the study and is collecting
information on the remaining 17 facilities.
- 25 -
-------
4.2 Tier 5
4.2.1 Objective
Tier 5 sites consisted of areas where 2,4,5-TCP and pesti-
cides derived from it (including 2,4,5-T and silvex) were used on
a commercial basis. The objective of the Tier 5 sampling program
was to determine whether 2,3,7,8-TCDD is present at detectable
levels of approximately 1 ppt in areas where major uses of these
pesticides occurred. The detection limits, and therefore the
levels that determine whether contamination is present, vary
slightly from site to site.
With one exception, Tier 5 sampling was limited to those
areas where the use of 2,4,5-T or silvex has been documented,
since information from the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP,
1983b) indicated that these two compounds had been more heavily
used in specific areas and had a greater potential for causing
significant human exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The exception was an
area where chlorophenol-based slimicides, reportedly containing
2,3,7,8-TCDD, were used by pulp and paper mills. The other
compounds (including hexachlorophene, erbon, ronnel, and isobac
20) were of lesser interest because of: 1) low levels of the active
ingredient pesticide in the end-products; 2) lack of use documen-
tation; 3) use on very small areas; or 4) a wide diversity of uses
at low levels of application.
4.2.2 Methods
Site Selection
To identify applicable sites, the Office of Pesticide Programs
compiled general information on areas of use for the compounds of
interest. The EPA regional offices, in conjunction with state or
local agencies, then identified specific sites to be sampled.
Twenty-six sites were selected for sampling in Tier 5. Selected
sites included ones where present or past use of 2,4,5-TCP-based
herbicides or slimicides had been documented, including rice
fields, canals adjacent to sugarcane fields, rangelands, forests,
rights-of-way, and recreational areas.
Sampling Locations
In most cases, suspected "hot spots" could not be identified
within a pesticide use site, and the random sampling approach
described for Tier 3 was used to select the sampling locations
within a Tier 5 site. In a few cases, locations such as equipment
loading areas or drainage ditches could be identified and were
targeted for sampling, since 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination, if pre-
sent, was expected to be higher in these areas.
- 26 -
-------
The environmental media to be sampled were determined by the
regional offices on a site by site basis. They included soils,
stream sediments, fish tissue, vegetation, and animal tissue.
All analyses were done at detection levels of approximately 1 ppt,
as soil concentrations below 1 ppb may be of concern in certain
types of areas, such as grazing lands.
4.2.3 Results
Site Characteristics
A total of 26 Tier 5 sites were sampled, including six
forest sites, seven rice fields, three sugarcane fields, three
rights-of-way, three rangeland areas, and four aquatic sites
(used for recreation, fisheries, or multiple uses) (Table 4-3).
The herbicide 2,4,5-T had been applied at 18 of these sites,
including three where silvex had also been applied. Silvex had
been applied at five additional sites; chlorophenol-based slimi-
cides had been used at one site; and documentation on use is
being compiled for the two remaining sites.
Analytical Results and Discussion
2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected at 15 of the 26 sites (Table D-3,
Appendix D), including two rights-of-way, one aquatic use site,
two sugarcane fields, canals adjacent to one sugarcane field,
four rice fields, three forest areas, one rangeland area, and
one multiple use area. More than 40 percent of the soil and
sediment samples taken at contaminated sites had 2,3,7,8-TCDD
present above the detection limit of approximately 1 ppt. Two
sites had detectable levels in fish. At one of these, all fish
samples were contaminated. Soils initially collected at contami-
nated sites had levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD between 0.6 and 564 ppt,
with 67 percent below 5 ppt; levels in sediments were between
0.7 and 200 ppt, with 61 percent below 5 ppt; and levels in fish
filets were between 8 and 23 ppt. No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected
in animal tissue or vegetation samples collected from land used
for grazing or raising crops; however, only a limited number of
these samples were collected.
Discussion of Contaminated Sites
Region I: Grindstone, ME
In 1977, approximately 1,000 acres of railroad yards and rail-
road rights-of-way were sprayed with an herbicide containing
2,4,5-T. A 16-foot area, 8 feet to each side of the centerline
of the tracks, received the herbicide directly and an estimated
2 feet beyond this area on each side received the herbicide from
aerial drift. An 1,800-foot long section of this right-of-way
was sampled.
- 27 -
-------
TABLE 4-3
Tier 5 Site Characterization
Pesticide Oate(s)
Raaion Name of Site Site Use Applied Treated
I Lake Abenaki, VT Aquatic recreation and Silvex 1975
private water supply
Lake Clara, VT Aquatic recreation Silvex 1971-73
(once each
year)
Grindstone, ME Railroad right-of-way 2.4,5-T 7 1977
1 Yarmouth, ME Powerline Right-of-way 2,4,5-T 1978
to
oo
i
II Long Island Rail- Right-of-Way 2.4,5-TCP based 1970's
Road, MY herbicides
111 King & Queen Co., VA Forest 2,4,5-T 7-1978
Matthews Co., Forest 2,4,5-T with 2,4-0 7-1978
VA
IV Cleveland, Ricefield 2,4,5-T 1978, 1981,
HS 1984
Boyle, Ricefield No information available unknown
MS
Volume
Applied
5 gal. Silvex
5 gal. (1973)
537.5 Ibs.
unknown
Area
Applied
15 acres
(southern
third)
18 acres
(1972) ;
spot treat-
ment (1973)
1075 acres
(along rail-
road)
Within 75 ft
of tower
center line
unknown area unknown
(along railroad)
300 Ibs/yr
(Calculated)
40 Ibs/yr
(Calculated)
unknown
unknown
150 acres
20 acres
unknown
unknown
Rate of Type of
Application(AI) Application
1/3 gal/acre Spraying
(calculated) from boat
Unknown Spraying
from boat
0.5 Ibs/acre Spray
Unknown Sprayed at
base of
selected plant
unknown spray
2 Ibs/acre Unknown;
probably spray
2 Ibs/acre Unknown;
probably spray
1 qt/acre unknown
unknown unknown
-------
Table 4-3 (continued)
Tier 5 Site Characterization
Region Name of Site
IV Scot, MS
(cont.)
West Palm Beach,
FL
Escambia Exp.
Brewton, AL
V Petenwell Flowage,
UI
VI Assumption Parish, LA
i
NJ Pointe Coupee Parish,
^ LA
U. of Arkansas
Experimental Station
Desha County, AR
New Mexico State
Univ. Expt. Ranch
Site Use
Ricefield
Sugarcane Field
Forest
Carp Fishery; closed
since 1983
Sugarcane
Sugarcane field
(soybeans in 1985)
Ricefield (soybean in
rotation)
Rangeland
Pesticide
Applied
2,4,5-T
S i I vex
2,4,5-T
Trichlorophenate
S i I vex
Si I vex
2.4,5-T
2,4,5-T
Silvex
Date(s)
Treated
1984
unknown
1957
? - 1980
1982
1983
1972, 1974
1975
1968
1984
Volume
Applied
unknown
unknown
unknown
9,000 Ibs
unknown
unknown
Area
Applied
unknown
unknown
unknown
Pulp and Paper
mi Us upstream
8.1 acres
2 fields, 2.6
acres and
2.7 acres
15 Ibs each 2 fields,
field (calculated) 20 acres
each
400 Ibs
Unknown
800 acres
4000 acres
Rate of
Application
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
2 Ibs/acre
2 Ibs/acre
0.75 Ibs/
acre
0.5 Ibs/acre
unknown
Type of
Application
unknown
unknown
Aerial spray
paper mi 1 1
biocide
spray from
ground rig
spray from
ground rig
Aerial spray
Aerial spray
Aerial spray
Dona Ana Co., NM
Madison Parish, LA
Rio Grande Plain
Experimental Ranch,
Kinney Co., TX
Ricefield
Rangeland
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-T
1982, 1983 25 gal (1982); 200 acres
17.5 gal (1983) (1982)
(calculated) 140 acres
(1983)
1/8 gal/acre Aerial spray
1981
2.5 Ibs experimental 0.5 Ib/acre
application- 3
plots approx. 5 acres
Aerial spray
-------
Table 4-3 (continued)
Tier 5 Site Characterization
Region Name of Site
Oklahoma Rangeland
Tillman Co.,
OK
Use
Rangeland
Pesticide
Applied
2,4,5-T
Date(s)
Treated
1980, 1984
Volume
Applied
93 Ibs
Area
Applied
93 acres
Rate of
Application
1 Ib/acre
Type of
Application
Aerial spray
Richland Parish, LA
Ricefield
2,4,5-T
1982 (once); 22 gal. total 40 acres
1983 (twice) (calculated) (1982);
65 and 72
acres (1983)
1/8 gal/acre Aerial spray
VII Mark Twain National
Forest, HO
Forest
2,4,5-T
1977 190 Ibs (est.) 3 sites, 2 Ibs acid ground
95 acres total equiv/acre spray
U)
o
IX Tonto National Forest,
AZ
North California Rice
Growing Areas
Santa Ana River, CA
Santiam State Forest,
Gates, OR
Forest
Ricefield
Multiple uses
Forest
2,4,5-T; 2,4-D
S i I vex
2,4,5-T and
S i I vex
No information available
2,4,5-T and
2,4-D
1965-1966;
1968-1969
Before 1971
thru 1982
unknown
1976-1977
5400 Ibs 2,4-D
and 2,4,5-
T; 7260 Ibs
si I vex
117,000 Ibs
Si I vex
37,000 Ibs
2,4,5-T
unknown
unknown
Greater than
2560
acres
8 counties
over 8 counties
unknown
75 acres
2 Ibs acid
equiv./acre
unknown
unknown
2 Ibs acid
equiv./acre
Aerial spr
Spray
unknown
Spray
Max. depth of lake: 7 ft.
Lake was partially drained in 1982; Now about 1/3 the size of original lake, 4-5 ft deep.
Area was sprayed with several pesticides (including 2,4,5-T in 1977) from 1975 to 1983.
Sampled areas include portion of the site where 2,4,5-T was sprayed and where surface runoff from the sprayed sites would drain.
Initial spraying in 1965 and 1966; maintenance spraying in 1968 and 1969.
Sampled area represents points where runoff from ricefields use areas could impact river water quality.
-------
Twenty-two soil samples that were collected approximately
2 feet from the ends of the rail ties were analyzed. Eighteen
of the 22 samples contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD at levels ranging from
8 to 35 ppt.
No additional action is planned at this time. The contami-
nation found is in the ballast or subgrade areas of an active
railroad and thus presents minimal risk.
Region II: Long Island Railroad, NY
This railroad right-of-way was treated with 2,4,5-TCP-based
herbicides during the 1970s.
A 480-foot long section along the tracks was sampled.
Twenty-six samples were collected 13 feet from each end of the
tracks. One sample contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD at a level of 9 ppt.
No additional action is planned.
Region IV: Cleveland, MS
This rice field was treated with 2,4,5-T in 1978, 1981, and
1984.
Twenty random soil samples were collected from a recently
harvested field (60-100 acres) . Sixteen samples contained 2,3,7,8--
TCDD at levels ranging from 0.8 to 1.7 ppt.
No additional action is planned.
Region IV: Scot, MS
This rice field was treated with 2,4,5-T in 1984.
Twenty random soil samples were collected from a recently
harvested field (60-100 acres). Two samples contained 2,3,7,8-
TCDD at levels of 0.6 and 0.7 ppt. No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected
in the one rice sample.
No additional action is planned.
Region IV: West Palm Beach, FL
These sugarcane fields were treated with silvex for weed
control around the perimeter of the fields.
Sampling was not permitted directly on the sugarcane fields
so sediment samples were collected from canals adjacent to the
fields. Twenty-seven of 36 collected sediment samples contained
2,3,7,8-TCDD at levels ranging from 0.7 to 26.5 ppt.
- 31 -
-------
The EPA has notified the State of Florida's Pesticide
Enforcement Division of Inspection, Department of Agriculture
and Commerce Services, of the results.
Region V: Petenwell Flowage, WI
This 23,000-acre reservoir on the Wisconsin River supported
a major commercial carp fishery until 1983 when 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
detected in carp at levels above 50 ppt. Chlorophenol-based
slimicides, reportedly containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD as a contaminant,
had previously been used by several pulp and paper mills along
the river. Usage of these slimicides had been voluntarily stopped
by the mills by 1980.
Whole fish and filets from several species, fatty tissue
from raccoons, aquatic bird tissue and eggs, aquatic sediments,
and sludges from the paper mills were sampled. Also, an infor-
mation request was directed to each of the facilities in order to
acquire more detail regarding past slimicide usage and sludge
disposal practices.
All sampled fish contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD with levels from 9
to 47 ppt in the whole fish and 3 to 23 ppt in the filets.
Aquatic sediments at both ends of the reservoir contained 2,3,7,8-
TCDD at levels from 35 to 200 ppt. A raccoon fat sample contained
2,3,7,8-TCDD at 1.9 ppt and four aquatic bird tissue samples
contained levels from 0.76 to 12 ppt. Two of the paper mills are
still producing sludges with 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels over 100 ppt,
even though chlorophenol-based slimicides are no longer used. A
recently identified potential source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is the
chlorine bleaching process.
As a result of these findings, additional work is being
conducted at this site with particular interest in determining
the cause of 2,3,7,8-TCDD sludge contamination as well as environ-
mental conditions at and near the sludge disposal sites. The
industry has begun follow-up studies under state direction.
Region VI: Assumption Parish, LA
This 2,500-acre site, used for growing sugarcane, was treated
with silvex in 1983.
Twenty-four soil samples were randomly collected from eight
acres. Fourteen samples contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD at levels between
0.3 and 1.1 ppt.
No additional action is planned.
- 32 -
-------
Region VI: Desha County, AR
This experimental agricultural station specializes in rice
reproduction, with soybeans grown in rotation. Two 20-acre
fields at this site were aerially sprayed with 2,4,5-T. One
field was treated with 2,4,5-T in 1972, 1974, and 1975, and the
other was treated in 1975 only.
Forty-six samples were randomly collected from the two
fields and associated drainage ditches. One sample contained
2,3,7,8-TCDD at 3 ppt from the field, which had been treated three
times. No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in the five plant tissue
samples or the three drainage ditch samples.
No additional action is planned.
Region VI: Richland Parish, LA
Approximately 70 acres of this rice field were treated with
2,4,5-T, with one application in 1982 and two applications in
1983.
Thirty-five samples and one sediment sample were randomly
collected? 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in nine soil samples at
levels between 0.3 and 0.4 ppt. No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in
the sediment sample.
No additional action is planned.
Region VI: Pointe Coupee Parish, LA
This site, used for growing sugarcane prior to 1985 and soy-
beans in 1985, was treated with silvex in 1983.
Twenty-five soil samples were randomly collected from two
fields, 2.6 acres and 2.7 acres in area. Twenty samples contained
2,3,7,8-TCDD at levels ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 ppt.
No additional action is planned.
Region VI: Rio Grande Plain Experimental Ranch, Kinney Co., TX
This site is an experimental ranch used for research on brush
control and livestock production. In 1981, parts of three
experimental pastures (5 acres each) were aerially sprayed with
2,4,5-T. Parts of each were left untreated as controls.
Thirty-eight soil samples were randomly collected from tne
three pastures among the treated and untreated areas. Twelve
samples (five from treated areas and seven from untreated areas)
- 33 -
-------
contained 2, 3, 7,8-TCDD at levels between 0.2 and 3 ppt. No 2,3,7,8-
TCDD was detected in a rattlesnake sample or six vegetation
samples collected from the sprayed pastures.
No additional action is planned.
Region VII: Mark Twain National Forest, MO
The herbicide 2,4,5-T was applied in 1977 to three sites
totaling approximately 95 acres within the forest to facilitate
the relief of shortleaf pines from competing hardwoods. A tractor-
drawn, high-volume ground spray tanker unit was used to apply the
herbicide.
A total of 50 soil samples were collected from two sub-areas
at one of the three treated sites. These areas were located at
the bottom of slopes where herbicide runoff would tend to accumu-
late. Twenty-one of the 50 soil samples contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD
at levels between 0.3 and 120 ppt.
No additional action is planned at this time since the area
is not used for grazing.
Region IX: Tonto National Forest, AZ
Between 1965 and 1969, 2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, and silvex were
sprayed over more than 2,500 acres in the Globe Ranger District.
This spraying project was designed to improve rangeland and to
increase water runoff, resulting in increased water yields for
downstream users.
Soil samples were collected from three helicopter landing
areas used as herbicide mixing-loading areas and from five other
locations within the sprayed area. Whole animals and animal
tissue samples were also collected within the sprayed areas.
Twenty-four of 77 soil samples had 2,3,7,8-TCDD at levels of 2
to 564 ppt. Soil contamination was found at two of the three
mixing-loading areas. (The mixing-loading area where no 2,3,7,8-
TCDD was found was later determined not to have been used for
that purpose.) 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected a short distance beyond
the boundaries of the actual mixing-loading locations. No 2,3,7,8-
TCDD was detected in any of the animal tissue samples.
Forty-five additional samples, which included soil and fish,
were collected from three additional and one previously sampled
mixing-loading area. Twenty-one soil samples contained 2,3,7,8-
TCDD at levels from 0.4 to 6623 ppt. Four samples had levels
greater than 1000 ppt. No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in the fish
collected.
- 34 -
-------
The U.S. Forest Service has restricted access to the contami-
nated helicopter-loading areas.
Region IX: Santa Ana River, CA
The Santa Ana River Basin includes agricultural, industrial,
and residential areas.
Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected from stations
along the Santa Ana River and a few of its tributaries. These
locations have been routinely monitored for conventional and
priority pollutants. Fish samples were collected at eight of the
sediment stations where water flow was sufficient to support
fish. One sediment sample contained 0.6 ppt of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and
one of the nine whole fish contained 4.6 ppt of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Region X: Santiam Forest, Gates, OR
A 75-acre area of this forest site was aerially sprayed with
an herbicide containing 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T in 1976 and 1977.
Twelve sediment samples were collected from a stream that
runs through the sprayed area, an area where this stream empties
into the North Santiam River, and an area of the North Santiam
River near the confluence with the stream. Thirty-five soil
samples were collected from a wetlands area south of the sprayed
area, a heliport used by helicopters that sprayed the area, and
the heliport drainage area. One fish sample was collected from
the North Santiam River sampling area. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected
in 3 of 12 sediment samples at levels of 0.2 and 0.4 ppt. No
2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in the 35 soil samples or the one fish
sample.
4.2.4 Findings
Contamination was found at a variety of the sites sampled
where 2,4,5-T, silvex, and 2,4,5-TCP-based pesticides were
used and in various media (soil, sediment, and fish).
However, the levels found were generally very low.
The highest levels for each media were generally found
where sampling was targeted for specific areas most likely
to be contaminated (areas used for equipment loading or
where contaminants would tend to accumulate).
Levels were much lower, in most cases not detected,
for samples in areas where the pesticides were uniformly
applied (spray areas).
- 35 -
-------
0 2,3,7,8-TCDD was more frequently detected and was occasion-
ally at higher levels at Tier 5 sites than at background
sites (Tier 7) .
0 Two of the seven sites where fish were collected had
detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD; whole fish were contami-
nated at levels up to 47 ppt in the Petenwell Flowage.
0 Sludges from two paper mills on the Petenwell Flowage were
found to have levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD over 100 ppt, even
though chlorophenol-based slimicides are no longer used.
4.2.5 Conclusions
0 With the exception of helicopter-loading areas in the Tonto
National Forest, the levels found at Tier 5 sites where
spraying of pesticides occurred were below relevant levels
of concern; further national investigation of Tier 5 spray
areas does not appear to be warranted.
0 The current source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the most significantly
contaminated Tier 5 site (Petenwell Flowage) may not be
related to slimicide use in pulp and paper mills. As
described in greater detail under the Tier 7 discussion,
further investigations of certain types of pulp and paper
mills using the chlorine bleaching process are being
conducted.
- 36 -
-------
4.3 Tier 6
4.3.1 Objective
Tier 6 consisted of organic chemical and pesticide manufac-
turing facilities where improper quality control on production
processes could have caused products or waste streams to become
contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Dioxins (EPA, 1980) identified
125 organic and pesticide compounds whose production could inad-
vertently create dioxin based on their molecular structure,
process sequence, and commercial significance. The production of
60 of these compounds is most likely to lead to dioxin formation,
according to Dioxins. Facilities producing any of these 60
compounds (Table 4-4) were identified as Tier 6 candidates.
The objective of the Tier 6 sampling program was to determine
the percentage of identified facilities that are contaminated
with 2,3,7,8-TCDD above 1 ppb in soil or at any detectable level
in other environmental media (e.g., fish in nearby streams). The
detection limits for other media, and therefore the levels that
determine whether contamination is present, vary slightly from
site to site.
4.3.2 Methods
Site Selection
Initially, the EPA identified 61 facilities that manufacture
one or more of the compounds shown in Table 4-4. Four sources of
information were used to identify these facilities:
" Directory of Chemical Producers (SRI, 1977-1983);
0 FIFRA and TSCA Enforcement System (FATES);
0 Dioxins (EPA, 1980); and
0 EPA regional office staff suggestions.
Nineteen facilities were initially selected for sampling.
(Appendix C presents detailed selection procedures.) One facility
was selected twice and is replicated in the sample data set used
for estimating the results for the entire tier.
Six additional facilities were identified in the FATES data
base after the initial 19 facilities were selected. Rather than
rework the selection model to account for the additional plants,
all six plants were selected for sampling, giving a total of 25
statistically selected sites to represent 67 facilities. (The
facilities producing only brominated Tier 6 compounds were later
considered ineligible as an investigation of the production process
- 37 -
-------
General Name
TABLE 4-4
TIER 6 COMPOUNDS AND NUMBER OF SAMPLED SITES
Chemical Name
Number of
Facilities Number
Sampled Contaminated
Pesticides
Bifenox
Q
ChloraniI
2,4-D and esters & salts
2,4-DB and salts
Dicamba
Dicamba, dimethyl amine salt
Oicapthon
Dichlofenthion
Disul sodium (sesone)
2,4-DP
Nitrofen
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
& salts
Bromoxynil and esters
Carbonphenothion
DCPA
Dichlone
Dim" trobuty I phenol,
ammonium salt
LoxyniI
Lindane
MCPA
MCPB
Mecoprop
Parathion
PCHP
Piperalin
PropaniI
Tetradifon
Methyl-5-(2,4-dichlorephenoxyl)-2 nitrobenzoate
2,3,5,6-Tetrachloro-2,5-cyclohexadiene-1,4-dione
(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid and esters & salts 2(s)
(1)
2,4-Dichlorophenoxybutyric acid and salts
3,6-Dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid
3,6-Dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid dimethylamine
salt
Phosphorothioic acid o-(2-chloro-4-nitrophenyl)
o,o-dimethyl ester
Phosphorothioic acid o-2,4-dichlorophenyl
o,o-diakyl ester
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyethyl sulfate, sodium salt
2-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxyl) propionic acid
2,4-Dichlorophenyl-p-nitrophenyl ether
Pentachlorophenol and salts
o-Benzyl-p-Chlorophenol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
3,5-Dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile
Phosphorodithioic acid s-(([4-chlorophenyl] thio)
methyl) o,o-diethyl ester
2,3,5,6-Tetrachloro-1,4-benzenedicarboxylic
acid dimethyl ester
2,3-Dichloro-1,4,naphthalenedione
2,4-Dinitro-6-sec-butyl phenol, ammonium salt
3,5-Diiodo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile
1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma isomer
(4-Chloro-o-toloxy) acetic acid
4-(2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy) butyric acid
2-(4-Chloro-2-methylphenoxy> propianic acid
Phosphorothioic acid o,o-diethyl o-(4-nitro-
phenyl) ester
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pipecolinopropyl-3-4-dichlorobenzoate
3-(2-Methylpiperidino)propyl-3-4-dichlorobenzoate
3,4-Dichloropropionanilide
1,2,4-Trichloro-5-([4-chlorophenyl]-sulfonyl)
benzene
2,3,6-Trichlorobenzoic acid
2,3,6-Trichlorophenylacetic acid and sodium salt
Triiodobenzoic acid
Us)
Us)
3(s)
Us)
Ks)
Kr)
(1)
(1)
2(r)
Ks)
(1)
(1)
Ks)
Ks)
Ks)
Ks)
Ks)
- 38 -
-------
TABLE 4-4 (continued)
TIER 6 COMPOUNDS AND NUMBER OF SAMPLED SITES
Number of
Facilities Number
General Name Chemical Name Sampled8 Contaminated
Organic Chemicals
4-Bromo-2,5-Dichlorophenol
2-Chloro-4-Fluorophenol
Decabromophenoxybenzene
2,4-Dibromophenol
2,3-D i chIorophenoI
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,5 -D i chIorophenoI
2,6-Dichlorophenol
3,4-D i chIorophenoI
Pentabromophenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Bromophenetole
o-Bromophenol
2-Chloro-1,4-Diethoxy-5-Nitrobenzene
5-Chloro-2,4-Dimethoxy-Aniline
Chlorohydroquinone
o-Chlorophenol
2-Chloro-4-Phenyl phenol
4-Chlororesorcinol
3,5-Dichlorosalicylic Acid
2,6-Dibromo-4-Nitrophenol
3,5-Diiodosalicylic Acid
2,6-Diiodo-4-Nitrophenol
o-Fluoroanisole
o-Fluorophenol
Tetrabromobisphenol-A
Tetrabromobisphenol-B
Note: includes all salts and esters of these compounds.
Production information is available for 11 of 15 sampled, eligible, statistically selected
sites, and 3 regionally selected sites.
s = statistically selected site
r = regionally selected site
b
A statistically selected orthochloraniI production facility was considered
ineligible, as an evaluation of its production process revealed that 2,3,7,8-TCDD could
not be formed.
Note: Facilities producing only brominated Tier 6 compounds were considered
ineligible, as an investigation of the production of brominated compounds
revealed that 2,3,7,8-TCDD could not be formed.
- 39 -
-------
for brominated compounds revealed that 2,3,7,8-TCDD could not be
formed.)
The regional offices identified three additional facilities
of particular interest for sampling based on known activities at
the facility or previous contamination incidents. The results
for these facilities are presented separately in this report and
are not used in the statistical analysis for the tier.
Sampling Locations
The approach to sampling Tier 6 sites was identical to that
described for Tier 3.
4.3.3 Results
Site Characteristics
Of the 25 statistically selected sites, 10 were considered
ineligible (Table 4-5), because further information revealed that
no Tier 6 compounds that could cause 2,3,7,8-TCDD to be formed
were actually produced. A total of 13 of the Tier 6 compounds
were produced by the statistically selected facilities (Table
4-4). Most of these compounds were produced at one selected site
only. An additional four Tier 6 compounds were produced at the
three regionally selected facilities (Table 4-4).
Waste generation and disposal information is available for
11 statistically selected sites and for all 3 regionally selected
sites. Of the 11 statistically selected sites, 10 generated
process wastewater and 7 generated solid waste (6 generated
both). Six of the 10 facilities generating wastewaters discharge
off-site, including 3 that discharge to surface waters and 4
that deep-well inject (one did both). All seven of the facilities
generating solid wastes disposed of at least some of their waste
off-site, primarily in landfills. Two of the three regionally
selected sites disposed of solid waste both on-site and off-site
and liquid waste on-site. The third generated no waste.
Analytical Results and Discussion
Contamination (soil concentrations greater than or equal to
1 ppb or detectable levels in other media) was found at 2 of
the 15 statistically selected eligible sampled sites (Table D-4,
Appendix D). Two additional sites had 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations
in soil below 1 ppb (Figure 4-4).
The estimate of the percentage of facilities in the various
data bases that are actually eligible Tier 6 sites is 67 + 42
percent. The estimate of eligible facilities that would be found
contaminated is 14 + 10 percent (Appendix C). The estimate of
- 40 -
-------
TABLE 4-5
STATISTICALLY SELECTED TIER 6 SITES
THAT WERE INELIGIBLE
Site
Region II
United Guardian, Inc.
Hauppage, NY
International Minerals and Chemical*
Newark, NJ
Region IV
Alpine Labs., Inc.
Minette, AL
Olin Corp.
Leland, MS
Martin Marietta (Sandox)**
Charlotte, NC
Region V
Northwest Ind., Inc.
St. Louis, MI
Sherwin Williams Co.**
St. Bernard, OH
Region VII
Monsanto Co.
Muscatine, IA
Mobay Chemical Corp
Kansas City, MO
Region VIII
Arrapahoe (Syntex)
Boulder, CO
* Has been designated as a Tier 1A or 2A site
** Produced brominated compounds.
- 41 -
-------
25 STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
2,3,7,8-TCDD
DETECTED,
NOT CONSIDERED
CONTAMINATED*
10
INELIGIBLE
NOT
SAMPLED
11
2,3,7,8-TCDD
NOT
DETECTED
CONTAMINATED*
3 REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
2,3,7,8-TCDD
NOT
DETECTED
2,3,7,8-TCDD DETECTED, NOT
CONSIDERED CONTAMINATED*
CONTAMINATED*
*A SITE WAS CONSIDERED CONTAMINATED IF ANY SOIL SAMPLE CONTAINED MORE THAN
1 ppb OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD OR IF ANY SAMPLE FROM ANOTHER MEDIUM (FISH OR SEDIMENTS
FROM ADJACENT STREAM,GROUNDWATER) CONTAINED A DETECTABLE LEVEL OF
2,3,7,8-TCDD. DETECTION LIMITS FOR OTHER MEDIA WERE APROXIMATELY 1 ppt EXCEPT
FOR WATER FOR WHICH THE DETECTION LIMIT WAS APPROXIMATELY 10 ppq.
FIGURE 4-4. DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINATION AT TIER 6 SITES
- 42 -
-------
all 67 facilities identified in the data bases that would be
found contaminated is 9 percent (95 percent confidence range 3-19
percent).
One of the three regionally selected sites was contaminated,
and one additional site had detectable 2,3,7,Q-TCDD levels in
soil below 1 ppb (Table D-5, Appendix D).
At all three contaminated sites, soil contamination was
limited to one or two samples. At the regionally selected con-
taminated site, groundwater contamination was also found at the
0.07 to 0.10 ppt level in three samples. The EPA's water quality
criteria document reports an increased lifetime cancer risk of
1 in 1 million from drinking water containing 0.000022 ppt of
2,3,7,8-TCDD. The groundwater in this case is not used as a
drinking water source.
Discussion of Contaminated Sites
Region II: *W.A. Cleary - Somerset, NJ
This facility, located on 137 acres, produced mecoprop and
2,4-D salts from 1977 to 1983. During this time an estimated
10,000 gallons per year of liquid waste were discharged to an
on-site lagoon.
Thirty-one soil samples were collected: 21 at the areas
around the production buildings and the lagoon and 10 random
samples from the remainder of the property, which includes a
densely wooded area and the company's golf course. One soil
sample collected near a production building (below a loading
dock) contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD at 34.7 ppb. One sediment sample
was collected from the lagoon, but 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected.
This site has been referred to the Superfund Program for
further sampling.
Region VI: *Chemall, Inc. (Riverside Chemical) - Port Neches, TX
This facility is located on 14.19 acres, with the manufac-
turing facility situated on 11.9 fenced acres within the tract.
A former operator of the facility (Riverside Chemical) produced
pentachlorophenol (PCP) at this site prior to the facility's
purchase by Chemall, Inc. in 1978. In addition, a number of
organic chemicals, including 2,4,5-T (a Tier 3 chemical), 2,4-D,
and parathion (both Tier 6 chemicals), have been stored at this
site. As a result of a 1976 Texas Water Quality Board enforcement
"*" denotes a statistically selected site.
- 43 -
-------
order, Riverside removed soils contaminated with PCP and toxaphene
and covered areas around the processing facilities, warehouse,
office, and railroad spur with approximately 1 to 2 feet of
crushed limestone.
Thirty-two soil samples were collected from drainage ditches,
including those from the former PCP process and storage area, and
from locations near unloading and storage areas. Many of these
samples were taken from beneath pools of standing water, and
about half were taken outside the fenced area. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
detected in nine samples, with two samples containing greater
than 1 ppb (1.1 ppb and 1.4 ppb) . These tvo staples were col-
lected from the tank car unloading area and the drainage ditches
behind the central warehouse, where 2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, parathion, and
other chemicals were stored. The runoff area from the former PCP
process and storage area contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD at levels below
1 ppb.
The Texas Water Commission (TWC) currently has Chemall under
an enforcement order to undertake remedial action relating to
contamination found on site and in adjacent ditches. All areas
where 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected will be addressed in the TWC' s
enforcement action. The TWC will coordinate with the EPA Region VI
to assure compliance with the EPA's dioxin regulations.
Region IX: BMI Complex - Henderson, NV
This industrial complex covers more than 350 acres and
includes the Stauffer Chemical Company and its subsidiary, the
Montrose Chemical Corporation.
The Stauffer facility produced lindane from 1948 to 1956,
ethyl and methyl parathion intermittently since 1958, and carbo-
phenothion. Alpha and beta BHC were produced as waste products
from the production of lindane. The waste BHC was disposed of in
a surface pile, which was capped with a 1-foot layer of clay in
1978-1979. Prior to 1974, aqueous wastes from the production of
carbophenothion were disposed of in on-site leach beds, and drums
containing still bottoms from the carbophenothion process were
buried on site. Both areas have been capped with a 1-foot clay
layer. After 1974, carbophenothion wastes were disposed of in
on-site lined ponds or in an off-site landfill.
Montrose Chemical produced chlorobenzenes at this site from
1947 to 1983. From 1947 to 1976, polychlorinated benzene wastes
(still bottoms) were disposed of in the on-site BMI dump. From
1976 to 1983, the polychlorinated benzene wastes were disposed of
in a lined pond. In 1980, the still bottoms from this pond were
transferred to a storage tank.
- 44 -
-------
Thirty-seven soil samples were collected from chemical pro-
duction, storage and loading areas, associated drainage areas,
and areas adjacent to former waste disposal locations. 2,3,7,8-
TCDD was detected at 1 ppb in one soil sample taken down-gradient
from the chlorobenzene still bottom disposal area. Seven ground-
water samples were also collected from Stauffer's groundwater
intercept and treatment system. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in
four of these samples at levels ranging from 0.07 to 0.11 ppt.
Other dioxin isomers were also detected, but not quantified.
Montrose Chemical's use of caustic soda in its former pro-
duction of chlorobenzene may account for the levels of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD. (Chlorobenzenes were not included as Tier 6 compounds
because it was not suspected that 2,3,7,8-TCDD could be formed
during their normal manufacture.) The 2,3,7,8-TCDD detected in
groundwater may have been brought into solution by benzene and
chlorobenzenes disposed on site.
Additional soil, water, and waste samples have been collected.
However, analysis of these samples has been delayed until analy-
tical difficulties have been resolved (complex mixtures of chlori-
nated products).
4.3.4 Findings
0 The EPA estimated that 9 percent of the 67 facilities
originally identified as Tier 6 sites would be found
contaminated.
0 None of the three contaminated sites were extensively
contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
4.3.5 Conclusion
0 Further national investigation of Tier 6 sites for
2,3,7,8-TCDD does not appear to be warranted.
- 45 -
-------
4.4 Tier 7
4.4.1 Objectives
Tier 7 consisted of sites that did not have any previously
known sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination. The Tier 7 investi-
gation was intended to establish the prevalence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
in soil and fish at the ppt level of detection, and to provide a
basis for comparison with results from the other tiers.
The specific objectives of the Tier 7 sampling program were
to:
0 Determine the percentage of sites in the EPA Urban and Rural
Soil Networks that have detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
in soil at a detection limit of approximately 1 ppt; and
0 Determine the percentage of sites in the combined U.S.
Geological Survey's (USGS) National Stream Quality Accounting
Network (NASQAN) and Benchmark Network that have detectable
levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish tissue at a detection limit of
approximately 1 ppt.
The EPA regional offices also selected a large number of
additional fish sampling sites in areas of general interest,
including areas near population centers, recreational or commer-
cial fishing areas, or historical sampling areas.
4.4.2 Methods
Site Selection - Soils
Soil sampling locations were chosen from the Rural and Urban
Soils Networks of the National Soils Monitoring Program, which
was established to monitor pesticide residues in rural and urban
soils. The Rural Soils Network .consists of 13,280 rural sites
identified in the 1967 Conservation Needs Inventory of rural land
areas within the contiguous United States. A cluster sample
approach was used to randomly select 200 sites from this network
(Appendix C) . A similar approach was used to select 300 urban
soil sites from the Urban Soils Network, which is comprised of
1,761 sites in 20 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. One
soil sample was taken per site.
The Rural Soils Network and the Urban Soils Network both
have unknown probability structures and thus cannot be considered
representative of the soils in the U.S. Therefore, the results
from this study can be used only to provide estimates describing
the soils in the networks.
- 46 -
-------
Site Selection - Fish
One hundred fish sampling sites were statistically selected
from the 554 sites in combined USGS NASQAN and Benchmark Networks
(Appendix C) . In addition, 305 sites suggested by the OWRS or
EPA regional offices were also chosen for sampling based on
proximity to population centers, commercial or recreational fishing
activity, or availability of historical water quality information.
Of these, 73 were in the USGS networks; the results from them
were combined with the 100 statistically selected sites for
statistical extrapolation to the combined NASQAN and Benchmark
Networks.
Protocols were defined to limit fish and sample collection
variables among sites as described in the sampling guidance
document. Target species were specified to reduce interspecies
variations; fish of similar age were sampled where possible; and
the time of sampling was limited to reduce seasonal variations,
such as weight loss during spawning.
Four composite samples per site were collected: 1) a whole
bottom-feeding fish, 2) a bottom-feeding fish filet, 3) a whole
predator or game fish, and 4) a predator or game fish filet.
Whole fish composites of bottom feeders were analyzed first
because data indicate that 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations are likely
to be highest in those samples. If 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in
a whole fish bottom feeder sample, then the other three samples
from that site were analyzed. Because of differences in species,
age, or fat content of the fish being composited for each separate
analysis, it is possible that the highest level found at a site
could be in a sample other than the whole bottom-feeding fish.
Sampling Locations
In Tier 7, the site locations were the sampling locations.
4.4.3 Results
Site Characteristics
From the soil networks, 141 of the 200 statistically selected
rural soil sites and 221 of the 300 statistically selected urban
sites were sampled. The remaining 59 rural sites and 79 urban
sites could not be sampled because their locations could not be
precisely identified (131 sites), or because permission to collect
a sample was denied (7 sites). Of the 100 statistically selected
fish sampling sites, 90 were sampled. The remaining 10 sites
could not be sampled because of lack of water, fish, success in
catching fish at the time sampling was attempted, or dangerous
access to the site (Table 4-6).
- 47 -
-------
TABLE 4-6
STATISTICALLY SELECTED TIER 7 SITES THAT
COULD NOT BE SAMPLED
REGION I
Wild River at Gilead, ME
REGION II
McDonalds Branch in Lebanon State Forest, NJ
REGION IV
Falling Creek near Juliett, GA
REGION V
Upper Twin Creek at McGaw, OH
Bad River at Odanak, WI
REGION VI
North Canadian River at Woodward, OK
Double Mtn. Fork Brazos River Near Asperment, TX
Rio Grande at Brownsville, TX
REGION IX
Quinn River near McDermitt, NV
REGION X
Queets River near Clearwater, WA
- 48 -
-------
Analytical Results and Discussion
Urban Soils
Seventeen of the 221 samples in the Urban Soils Network
were found to have detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Table D-6,
Appendix D) . The EPA's best estimate is that 8 percent of the sites
would have detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, although the large
number of missing sites (79) means that the 95 percent confidence
range is from 6 to 32 percent of the network sites would have
detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Appendix C).
Levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the 17 positive samples were very
low, between 0.2 and 11.2 ppt; seven of the 17 samples were less
than 1 ppt. By comparison, 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels in soil at Times
Beach, MO, a Tier 1 disposal site that was permanently evacuated,
ranged up to greater than 1,000 ppb (1,000,000 ppt). These soils
were sprayed for dust control with a mixture of waste oil and
concentrated waste sources containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Also, all 32
soil samples collected in public use and residential areas in
Midland, MI, near the Dow Chemical facility (also a Tier 1 site)
showed 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination. The range of soil contami-
nation was between 3 and 76 ppt in open public and residential
areas and up to 270 ppt beneath downspouts in residential areas
(EPA, 1985a). Historical air emissions from Dow Chemical's
hazardous waste incinerator and other less significant sources
were identified as the likely sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Midland
soils. Two additional urban areas were sampled during the Midland
study as a basis for comparison, and the results from these two
areas were similar to the results from the Tier 7 urban sites
(2,3,7,8-TCDD infrequently detected and at low levels), even though
these samples consisted of 0.5 to 1-inch deep cores as compared to
the 4 inch deep cores for Tier 7 samples.
Rural Soils
Only one of the 138 samples from the Rural Soils Network
contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and the concentration was only 0.5 ppt
(Table D-7, Appendix D) . (Samples for three sites were not
analyzed because they were either lost or broken during shipment.
These samples were considered missing for the purpose of statisti-
cal estimation.) The EPA's best estimate is that less than 1
percent of the rural sites would have detectable levels of
2,3,7,8-TCDD, although the large number of sites that could not
be sampled (59) means that the 95 percent confidence range is
from 0.5 to 23 percent (Appendix C) . Similarly, surface soil
samples (0.5 to 1-inch) collected in Minnesota's natural woodland
and prairie areas as part of the overall Midland study had no
detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
- 49 -
-------
Fish
Fish from 17 of the 90 statistically selected sites had
detectable levels up to 19 ppt in the whole fish composite sample
(Table D-8, Appendix D) . The EPA's best estimate is that 21 percent
of the sites from the USGS monitoring networks would contain fish
with detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. This assumes that the
unsampled sites are similar to the sampled sites in frequency of
contamination. (See Appendix C for a discussion of the statisti-
cal analyses and an explanation of why a confidence interval is
not presented.)
Ninety-five (31 percent) of the 305 regionally selected
sites (.including rivers, Great Lakes, and estuarine and coastal
sites) had detectable levels in whole fish composite samples,
with levels ranging up to 85 ppt (Table D-9, Appendix D). This
frequency is greater than that found for the statistically selected
sites; however, a possible explanation is that many of the region-
ally selected sites were near urban or industrialized areas.
Of the 112 sites where 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected, the maximum
value was below 5 ppt at 74 sites (67 percent), while at four
sites (1 percent) levels were above 25 ppt (Figure 4-5). As a
result of these findings, advisories to limit fish consumption
have been issued by the States of Maine (for the Androscoggin
River at Lewiston) and Minnesota (for the Rainy River at Inter-
national Falls). An advisory was already in effect for fish
caught in Lake Ontario because of the contamination from mirex,
PCBs, and mercury. Additional sampling will be conducted at the
fourth site (the Flint River at Elms Road) to verify levels and
identify potential sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Twenty-three (79 percent) of the 29 sampled sites in the
Great Lakes were found to have detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD,
which is a much higher proportion than that found in the statisti-
cally selected or other regionally selected sites. Possible
explanations for this finding include: 1) the sites were selected
based on potential contamination from prior evaluation of toxic
pollutants, 2) the long water retention of the lakes causes
elevated pollutant levels in the system, and 3) there are many
sources of pollutants entering the lakes. Areas in the lakes
with higher levels are the subject of fish advisories for other
chemicals. Further investigation is being conducted by the
regional offices, states, and the Great Lakes National Program
Office.
Only 4 of 57 estuarine or coastal sites had detectable
levels in fish or shellfish, with concentrations ranging from
1.08 to 3.5 ppt. Three of the four sites with detectable levels
were in heavily industrialized areas, while the fourth contami-
nated sample was collected from weathered, chemically-treated
- 50 -
-------
100-
75-
25
[] STATISTICAL SITES (n=90)
REGIONAL SITES (n=276)
GREAT LAKES SITES* (n=29)
GREAT LAKES SITES INCLUDE FISH FROM OPEN WATERS
AND FROM HARBOR AREAS
FIGURE 4-5.
DISTRIBUTION OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATIONS
IN FISH (MAXIMUM LEVEL AT EACH SITE)
- 51 -
-------
wood pilings. Additional analyses of shellfish attached to
recent, chemically-treated pilings and artificial substrates at
this site showed no detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Outside of the Great Lakes, detectable levels in fish were
most frequently found in major river systems, such as the Ohio
and Mississippi Rivers, or in waterways with significant industrial
activity.
Levels found in filet samples (between 0.4 to 41 ppt) were
lower than levels in the whole fish samples at 79 of the 86
sites with both whole fish and filet data (Figure 4-6). At 46
percent of the sites where 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in whole
fish, it was not detected in the filet sample. The levels found
in fish filets may be a cause for concern under particular
conditions at specific locations. For example, using the EPA
cancer model and the consumption estimates from the EPA's water
quality criteria document (see Table A-3, Appendix A), fish
contaminated at the detection level of approximately 1 ppt could
cause an increased lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 100,000. The
results from Tier 7 should be carefully evaluated by local,
state, and federal agencies in light of local exposure conditions
in determining a level of concern. Site-specific factors include:
consumption patterns (type of fish and amount consumed), length
of exposure, level of contamination, and percent of fish contami-
nated.
The EPA used two approaches in an effort to determine possible
associations between the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish and
various sources: 1) preparing stream profiles that identified
types of industrial dischargers in the vicinity of the Tier 7
fish sampling sites, and 2) conducting additional sampling at
selected sites.
Stream profiles were prepared that identified the major types
of industrial dischargers 30 miles upstream and 3 miles downstream
of the statistically selected and regionally selected fish sites;
summaries of the stream profiles are presented in Tables D-10 and
D-ll in Appendix D. Chemical plants and pulp and paper mills
were the facilities that appeared to be most frequently associated
with the detection of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish (Table 4-7). Certain
types of chemical plants were already under investigation under
Tiers 1, 2, and 6, while pulp and paper mills had not previously
been suspected as a source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Both of the two sites with the highest 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels
in whole fish (the Androscoggin River - maximum 29 ppt, and the
Rainy River - maximum 85 ppt) had upstream pulp and paper mill
discharges. Further investigations at those sites included samp-
ling of waste treatment sludges from the mills. Although the
analyses are not complete, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was found in sludge
- 52 -
-------
100 -
0)
UJ
< 75
CO
u.
o
UJ
o
UJ
O
oc
ui
O.
25 -
NO 0-5 5.1-15 15.1-25 >25
CONCENTRATION (PPT)
II WHOLE FISH
D FILET
SITES FOR WHICH BOTH WHOLE FISH AND FILET DATA WERE AVAILABLE.
PROTOCOL SPECIFIED ANALYZING FILET SAMPLES ONLY WHEN 2,3,7,8-TCDD
WAS DETECTED IN THE WHOLE FISH SAMPLES.
FIGURE 4-6.
COMPARISON OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN WHOLE FISH AND
FILETS AT BACKGROUND SITES
- 53 -
-------
TABLE 4-7
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES AT TIER 7 FISH SITES
Statistical
Industry* Detected Not Detected
No Industry
Any Industry
Pulp 4 Paper
Steam Electric
Organic Chemicals
Inorganic Chemicals
Superfund Sites
POTWs
Metal Discharging
Other Industrial
Misc. Industries
2
15
7
8
3
3
2
13
6
8
11
22
51
6
14
5
7
3
44
21
14
32
Number
of Sites*
Regional
Detected
28
69
27
36
27
19
17
65
46
36
53
Not Detected
28
126
24
40
15
10
18
108
60
36
71
Detected
30
84
34
44
30
22
19
78
52
44
64
All
Not Detected
50
177
30
54
20
17
21
152
81
50
103
aNumbers reported for industrial categories are not mutually exclusive; surnnary excludes
Great Lakes, estuarines, and coastal sites.
Total Number of Statistical Sites = 90 Total Number of Regional Sites = 223
Detected = 17 Detected = 69
Not Detected = 73 Not Detected = 154
*The industrial categories include the facilities in the following SIC codes:
Pulp and Paper - SIC 2611, 2621, 2631, 2641, 2642, 2643, 2645, 2646, 2647, 2648, 2649,
2651, 2652, 2653, 2654, 2655, and 2661
Steam Electric - SIC 4911 and 4931
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers and Pesticides Manufacturers SIC 2821,
2823, 2824, 2865, and 2869.
Inorganic Chemicals and Pesticides Manufacturers - SIC 2812, 2813, 2816, and 2819
Superfund Sites - SIC 8999.
POTWs - SIC 4952 and 4954
Metal Discharging Industry - Includes all facilities identified in the following
industrial categories: Aluminum Forming, Battery Manufacturing, Coal
Mining, Coil Coating, Foundries, Iron & Steel, Metal Finishing, Nonferrous Metals, Ore
Mining, Paint, Porcelain Enameling, Copper Forming, Ink, Auto and
Other Laundries, Photographies, and Electrical Components
Other Industrial Categories - Includes all facilities identified in the following
industrial categories: Leather Tanning, Textiles, Timber,
Pharmaceuticals, Petroleum Refining, Misc. Chemicals, Argicultural Chemicals, Misc.
Petroleum Products.
Miscellaneous Industries - Includes all the remaining industrial categories, such as Food
Products, Lumber, Real Estate.
- 54 -
-------
samples, with levels of up to 414 ppt in samples from mills
using a chlorine bleaching process. Additional investigations,
including those previously described for the Petenwell Flowage
Tier 5 site, are underway by the EPA, the states, and the paper
industry to determine the sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD within several
mills that produce bleached pulp using chlorine-based chemicals.
4.4.4 Findings
0 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected infrequently and at very low
levels in background soil samples. Seventeen of the
221 urban sites and 1 of 138 rural sites had detectable
levels, with the highest level found being 11.2 ppt in
an urban soil sample.
0 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected more frequently in background
fish samples than in background soil samples. The EPA
estimates that 21 percent of the sites in the U.S.
Geological Survey national monitoring networks would
have detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish. The
frequency of detection is greater (31 percent) at
sites selected by the EPA's regional offices, many of
which are near industrial and urban areas.
0 An even higher proportion (23 of 29) of Great Lakes
fish sampling sites had detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD. This is consistent with previous findings and
is not surprising since the long water retention times
in the Great Lakes tend to increase the potential for
bioaccumulation and there are many sources of pollutants
entering the lakes.
4.4.5 Conclusions
0 Levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD found in filet samples may be
a cause for concern at specific locations under certain
consumption patterns; local exposure conditions need
to be evaluated in determining a level of concern for
those areas.
0 Fish and shellfish from estuarine and coastal waters
were rarely contaminated; three of the four contami-
nated sites were in areas heavily influenced by
industrial discharges.
0 A previously unsuspected source of contamination in
some areas appears to be certain types of pulp and paper
mill discharges; mills using a chlorine bleaching
process are being investigated by the EPA, the states,
and the paper industry to determine the source of
2,3,7,8-TCDD within the mills.
- 55 -
-------
Since recent studies (EPA, I985c; Mehrle, 1986) indi-
cate that 2,3,7,8-TCDD has a half-life of less than
one year in fish, fish contamination is a current and
continuing phenomenon.
- 56 -
-------
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
5.1 Introduction
The overall objective of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) program was to ensure that the quality of the data would
be sufficient to meet the goals of the National Dioxin Study. To
achieve the overall QA/QC objective, general requirements for
data comparability, data representativeness, and data completeness
were established. In addition, specific data quality objectives
(DQOs) for the analytical data were defined (e.g., precision,
bias, minimum levels of detection, and isomer specificity).
The requirement for comparability was particularly signifi-
cant, since sampling and analytical activities were conducted
throughout the nation by a number of different organizations.
Sampling was performed by EPA personnel, state personnel, and
contractors; analyses were performed in 13 contract laboratories
(CLP), three EPA laboratories, and one additional laboratory used
to supplement the EPA capacity; and the data were reviewed and
validated by the EPA laboratories and the EPA regional offices.
The QA/QC task was further complicated by the number of
analytical procedures that were required, since they involved
different limits of detection and different sample matrices. For
example, sample types collected for 2,3,7,8-TCDD analysis included,
but were not limited to, soil, sediment, water, air, fish, and
other biological specimens. The 13 CLP laboratories performed
soil/sediment/dust analyses for Tiers 3 and 6 samples at a
detection limit of approximately 1 ppb. The Troika laboratories
analyzed samples from Tiers 5 and 7, as well as any non-soil/
sediment samples from Tiers 3 and 6 at a detection limit of
approximately 1 ppt. Water samples were analyzed at a detection
limit of approximately 1 to 10 ppq.
The overall project control and flow of information were
described in Section 3.0. This section addresses the quality
assurance approach, the specific QA/QC data objectives, the
controls established to ensure achievement of those objectives,
and the results of the data assessment. Brief summaries of the
relevant guidance documents and reports are included, where
appropriate, to illustrate the technical controls and guidance
applied to this study.
5.2 Overall Approach to Quality Assurance
5.2.1 Background
A comprehensive QA/QC program was established for the National
Dioxin Study. In order to oversee this program, a Quality Assurance
Task Group (QATG) was formed, which consisted of the OWRS QA Officer
- 57 -
-------
and representatives from the EPA Regions II, V, and VII. These
three regions were included because of their extensive experience
with dioxin sampling and analysis. The QATG provided overall
QA/QC guidance and established the data assessment and validation
procedures. The QATG also ensured, through field and laboratory
audits, that the established QA/QC procedures were followed and
that any necessary corrective action was implemented.
The QA/QC effort under the National Dioxin Study included
the development and implementation of a series of guidance docu-
ments, procedures, and management controls directed at ensuring
effective project control and final data utility. These are
discussed briefly below.
5.2.2 Guidance Documents
Overall Project
A controlled approach to the National Dioxin Study was
established from the start by the development of the Dioxin
Strategy (EPA, 1983a), as discussed in Section 3.0.
The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Tiers 3, 5, 6,
and 7 of the National Dioxin Study (EPA, 1984b) was prepared
to provide overall QA/QC guidance for the study. This document
set forth the basic objectives of the study, described the
methodology to be used to achieve the study objectives, and
identified the important elements of field and laboratory QA/QC
that had to be met. The QA plan proposed a uniform approach to
fulfilling those objectives so that a valid basis for a national
dioxin assessment could be established.
Field Sampling
The need for sampling guidelines was recognized as crucial
if the study objectives of data comparability, data completeness,
and data representativeness were to be achieved. A method for
selecting sampling sites within the various tiers was developed,
and procedures were established for selecting sampling points
within a specific site.
The Sampling Guidance Manual for the National Dioxin Study
(EPA, 1984c) provided standard operating procedures for collecting
representative, comparable, and consistent dioxin samples in all
media on a national level. This document addressed sample control,
sample handling, sample preservation, sample shipment, and safety
considerations. Major emphasis was focussed on procedures for col-
lecting soil, fish, shellfish, and sediment samples. Recommen-
dations for sampling ambient water, groundwater, and terrestrial
specimens were also included.
- 58 -
-------
Analysis
The National Dioxin Study followed the stringent measures
used by the EPA since 1975 to validate quantitative measurements
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD obtained by different laboratories. The basic
validation principles include: 1) demonstration arid validation of
methods in participating laboratories; 2) analysis of blind and
identified QA samples during analysis of field samples; and 3)
use of defined analytical criteria for confirmation of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD detection.
The Troika analytical and OA procedures are detailed in the
Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan for the Analysis
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Tiers 3-7 Samples of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency National Dioxin Study (EPA, 1984d). These pro-
cedures were designed to be used for most of the samples received
by the Troika. It was acknowledged, however, that "troublesome"
samples might necessitate modification, or additional method
development, to provide valid analytical data.
Thirteen CLP laboratories, which had previously demonstrated
and validated their analytical capabilities in the EPA EMSL-LV
certification program, used the detailed methodology developed
for the Superfund Program to perform 2,3,7,8-TCDD analyses. The
methodology requires strict adherence to chain-of-custody proto-
col, document control, state-of-the-art GC/MS/DS instrumentation,,
and quality assurance procedures. The analytical procedures and
the QA/QC requirements were specified in detail. Criteria used
for confirming or negating the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and
methods for calculating its concentration or estimating the
minimum detectable amount, are provided (EPA, 1984e); strict
acceptance criteria for field samples and quality control samples
are also given.
Data Validation
Review and validation of all CLP data for the National Dioxin
Study were performed by EPA regional personnel. The QATG provided
guidance on data assessment and validation (EPA, 1985b) to ensure
that the independent data reviews by each regional office utilized
uniform data acceptance, rejection, or qualification criteria.
Validation of the Troika results was performed within the EPA
laboratories.
5.2.3 Controls
Several review steps were established to determine whether
the developed guidelines had been appropriately implemented.
These steps are briefly summarized below.
- 59 -
-------
Regional Plans
Each EPA regional office prepared an overall implementation
plan, addressing the arrangements for sampling in each tier, a
tentative schedule for sampling, and a Tier 7 sampling plan.
Subsequently, the regional offices prepared site-specific work
plans for each Tier 3, 5, or 6 site, as described in Section 3.0.
Once detailed sampling plans had been reviewed to ensure that
sample collection procedures conformed to the guidance manuals,
the regional offices initiated field sampling.
Audits
Identifying, correcting, and documenting quality control
problems are among the most crucial aspects of a quality assurance
plan. in accordance with the QA Project Plan for the National
Dioxin Study (EPA, 1984b), the EPA regional offices performed
periodic field audits with guidance from the QATG. During the
audits, sampling activities were observed and checked for consist-
ency with the recommendations in the project plan (EPA, 1984b),
the sampling guidance manual (EPA, 1984c), and the site-specific
work plans. Where necessary, changes or corrections in the
sampling procedures were made. Reports documenting the findings
of the field audits were submitted to the QATG.
The QA plan also addressed on-site laboratory audits. Audit
teams consisting of at least one member of the QATG, two or three
additional EPA personnel designated by the QATG, and a represent-
ative from EMSL-LV performed audits of the Troika laboratories.
In addition, an external audit team performed an overall manage-
ment systems audit of the Troika analytical program. Conformance
with analytical methodologies and QA guidance, as well as any
other recommendations of the audit team, was documented in the
audit reports.*
As part of the Contract Laboratory Program, EMSL-LV developed
and implemented a certification and audit program (EPA, 1984e;
EPA, 1984f). All CLP laboratories utilized in the National
Dioxin Study had been certified by this program. No additional
laboratory audits were conducted by the QATG.
Performance audits, consisting of the analysis of perfor-
mance evaluation (CLP) and reference (Troika) samples, were
incorporated into the analytical programs. The results of these
*Reports on both the laboratory and field audits were prepared
and submitted to the QATG; these are available from the QA officer
at the OWRS.
- 60 -
-------
analyses were required to fall within acceptable limits for each
set of samples before the sample data could be considered valid.
The audit teams reported any deficiency or unacceptable
performance detected during any of the audits to the QATG and
immediately notified the responsible party of their findings and
of the deadline for implementing corrective action.
Validation
All laboratory analytical data were validated before they
were considered final. The Troika data were reviewed and validated
internally.
The CLP data were validated according to standard procedures
established by the QATG (EPA, 1985b), and utilized by the EPA
regional offices responsible for the specific sites. The purpose
of the review was:
1. to assure the validity of data reported by
the laboratory;
2. to assure that the laboratory followed
appropriate quality control measures as
stated in the method; and
3. to assure that the data were displayed in
an acceptable manner, i.e., to allow quick
review and transmittal to the data user.
The data review resulted in a classification of each sample
as either valid or invalid. Data quality discrepancies were
resolved by the regional reviewers, the QATG, and the reporting
laboratory. The criteria used to evaluate data were based on
examination of:
0 Data Completeness ° Internal Standards
0 Instrument Performance ° Laboratory Reagent Blanks
0 Calibration Review ° Fortified Field Blanks
0 Qualitative Review ° Duplicates (field and
laboratory)
0 Quantitative Review ° Performance Evaluation
Samples
0 Surrogate Spikes ° Rinsate Samples
The data obtained for each site were reviewed by the respective
regions and will be incorporated into site-specific final reports.
The final reports summarize available information on the site,
analytical results, and regional recommendations on follow-up
activities.
- 61 -
-------
5.3 Data Quality Objectives
The data quality objectives for the National Dioxin Study
were both qualitative and quantitative. The objectives of data
comparability and data representativeness are generally qualita-
tive in nature. Their achievement is ensured by adherence to
sampling, analysis, and QA plans and by fulfilling more quantita-
tive objectives, such as data completeness, precision and bias
requirements, and minimum detection limits. Both types of objec-
tives and their means of implementation are discussed below.
5.3.1 Comparability
Data comparability is defined as the extent to which the
sample results can be duplicated by another independent labora-
tory or compared against previous results. This objective was
extremely important to the success of the National Dioxin Study,
since samples collected by various sampling teams were analyzed
in up to 13 CLP laboratories and 3 EPA laboratories.
The measures taken to ensure data comparability, as outlined
in the QA Project Plan (1984b), are summarized below:
0 Uniform supply of sampling containers;
0 Standard handling and shipping procedures;
0 Written standard operating procedures for sampling
and analysis activities;
0 Standardized forms for recording field data and
analytical data, prepared sample identification
tags, and chain-of-custody records;
0 Certified standard solutions of 2,3,7,8-TCDD;
(1) CLP laboratories received solutions provided
by EMSL-LV for preparation of all calibration
standards, and (2) Troika laboratories used primary
analytical standards referenced to the EMSL-LV
standard or other verified standards;
0 Regular distribution of performance evaluation
samples for analysis; and
0 Regular analysis of replicates and reference
samples to enable evaluation of intra- and
inter-laboratory precision.
The results obtained for the performance evaluation samples
and the inter-laboratory duplicate analyses were the primary
direct means of verifying data comparability. The Troika QC data
also provided a means of evaluating method performance and the
comparability of the methods used for the various sample matrices.
Analytical data for each sample set were reviewed and
validated according to established data review procedures (EPA,
- 62 -
-------
1984d; EPA, 1985b). The primary components of the data review
included:
0 Verification of isomer specificity;
0 Check of qualitative criteria (isotope
ratios and retention times) for all positive
identifications;
0 Verification that field blanks and method
blanks were free of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination
above an established level;
0 Check of acceptability for performance evaluation
samples of known 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration;
0 Check of acceptability for matrix spike samples
of reference samples;
0 Check of acceptability for recovery of labeled
TCDD spiked into samples prior to extraction;
0 Check of laboratory duplicate analyses; and
0 Verification of achievability of minimum
detection limit.
5.3.2 Data Representativeness
Data representativeness can be defined as the extent to which
the data set is demonstrably unbiased or within established bias
limits. Criteria for data representativeness, i.e., acceptable
sampling variances, are set such that the data will meet the
objectives of the study.
In the case of the National Dioxin Study, a methodical
approach to selecting sampling sites was developed so that the
samples collected would be as representative as possible of the
designated tiers. In addition, detailed sample collection pro-
cedures were developed in the sampling plan (EPA, 1984c). These
included, for example, use of tulip planters to collect soil
samples of a uniform depth, use of core liners for most sediment
samples, and identification of target species to comprise the
fish samples. The representativeness of the sampling procedures
was evaluated by the blind-coded analyses of field duplicates.
The representativeness of the measured concentrations was also
evaluated by calculating the analytical bias based on analysis
of samples spiked with known concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
5.3.3 Data Completeness
Completeness was defined as the percentage of valid data
(i.e., that which meets all QA requirements) compared to the
total number of samples analyzed. The National Dioxin Study
established a target for data completeness of 80 percent for
Tiers 3, 5, 6, and 7 (EPA, 1984b). The Troika QA plan (EPA,
1984d) sets a target of 100 percent for data completeness, since
- 63 -
-------
only data that have been reviewed and have met all requirements
to assure their validity were expected to be included in the data
system. A computerized sample tracking/status system was used to
monitor data completeness and progress of the program.
5.3.4 Quantitative Analytical Objectives
The quantitative objectives for the analytical data are
generally expressed in terms of precision, bias, and detection
limit; other analytical issues include isomer specificity, cali-
bration, and false positives. Based on CDC action levels and the
best available analytical methodologies, objectives were estab-
lished for analytical precision, bias, and detection limits
(Table 5-1).
The precision of the analyses was estimated by evaluating
laboratory and field duplicate sets for each of the CLP and
Troika laboratories. The performance evaluation samples, analyzed
repeatedly by the CLP laboratories, provided an additional measure
of precision. This was particularly important since most of the
field samples and duplicate pairs were found to be below the
target detection limit. Bias measurements were based on the
accuracy of matrix spike samples (CLP and Troika) and surrogate
accuracy (CLP).
Daily column performance checks and strict identification
criteria with respect to retention time and mass ion ratios were
established to ensure isomer specificity. Similarly, initial and
daily calibration criteria were specified to ensure correct
calculation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration levels.
Blanks were analyzed to control the possibility of false
positives. Demonstration of the minimum detection limit for
each sample in which 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected was also
required to control for false negatives.
The implementation of these qualitative or analytical objec-
tives, verified by the data review process, provided direct
assurance that the data comparability and data completeness
objectives would be met. The entire QA plan assured that the
data collected for the National Dioxin Study would be of suffi-
ciently high quality to meet the study objectives.
5.4 Estimates of Data Quality
The data quality objectives that lend themselves to quanti-
fication are summarized below. Each was based on one or more of
the requirements of the QA/QC program. The procedures outlined
in Sections 5.3.3 and 5.4.3 of Calculation of Precision, Bias and
Method Detection Limit for Chemical and Physical Measurements
(EPA, 1984g) were used for guidance.
- 64 -
-------
TABLE 5-1
QUANTITATIVE OBJECTIVES FOR 2,3,7,8-TCDD ANALYSES
Target
Detection Limit Precision3 Biasb
CLP 1 ppb _< 25% + 25%
Troika
Soil/sediment/ 1 ppt _< 50% + 50%
biological tissue
Water 10-40 ppq _< 50% + 50%
aExpressed as relative standard deviation (RSD) of duplicate or
replicate measurements.
^Expressed as the percent variation of the actual recovery
compared to 100 percent of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD added into
laboratory-spiked matrices.
- 65 -
-------
5.4.1 Precision
Approach
Measurements of the precision of the National Dioxin Study
data included data for field duplicates, laboratory duplicates,
and performance evaluation (CLP) or reference (Troika) samples.
The performance evaluation or reference samples were particularly
important because a large percentage of the National Dioxin Study
duplicate analyses were below the limit of detection. All the
valid data compiled for each analytical laboratory were used to
make precision estimates for that laboratory.
The duplicate data provide a measure of the intra-laboratory
precision achieved in the analysis of National Dioxin Study
samples. The mean concentration (x), standard deviation (s), and
relative standard deviation (RSD) were determined for each dupli-
cate pair having both measurements above the detection limit.
In the case of Troika duplicate pairs in which one sample was
positive and one sample was not detected (ND), the detection
limit was used as an estimate of the concentration of the not
detected sample. The values for each matrix type were evaluated
to determine the relationship between precision and concentration.
A summary precision value, pooled standard deviation (Sp) , was
calculated for the reported concentration range or smaller con-
centration ranges within the reported range. An overall RSD was
also calculated by using the mean concentration of all data points
within the data set.
The performance evaluation (PE) and reference samples pro-
vide a measure of inter-laboratory precision to the extent that
they were analyzed in different laboratories. For the CLP data,
the PE samples were generally analyzed repeatedly in different
laboratories and provide a measure of inter-laboratory and intra-
laboratory precision. For the Troika data, the fish reference
samples were analyzed exclusively at ERL-Duluth and provided only
intra-laboratory precision; the sediment and soil reference samples
were analyzed in different laboratories and did provide a measure
of inter-laboratory precision.
In using the performance evaluation (PE) and reference
samples as a measure of precision, all measurements corresponding
to a single PE concentration or single reference sample were
treated as replicate measurements and used to generate a mean
concentration (X), standard deviation (s), and relative standard
deviation (RSD). If more than one PE concentration was used, the
relationship of s vs. X or RSD vs. X was assessed and the summary
precision estimates were reported.
For each matrix type, a summary estimate, i.e., a pooled
standard deviation (Sp), was calculated from the data obtained
- 66 -
-------
for the different reference/PE samples within the matrix type.
The formula used to calculate the pooled standard deviation for
the reference samples considers the number of analyses of each
reference sample as well as the standard deviation for the set of
analyses. These statistics were computed for the concentration
range of PE/reference samples or a narrower concentration range
within the overall range if appropriate. An overall RSD was
also calculated by using the mean concentration of all data
points within the selected concentration range.
Results
Table 5-2 summarizes precision estimates available for the
CLP laboratories and the Troika laboratories. The CLP precision
results are presented as the mean relative standard deviations
calculated from the pooled standard deviations, where appropriate.
There was one field duplicate pair and eight laboratory duplicate
pairs for which positive 2,3,7,8-TCDD values were obtained for
both samples. (Four of the positive laboratory duplicate pairs
were actually PE samples analyzed in duplicate.) All results fell
within the precision targets.
The Troika precision, based on duplicate data, was also
reported as the mean relative standard deviation calculated from
pooled standard deviations, where appropriate. Results were
presented for each matrix. There were 34 fish laboratory dupli-
cate pairs for which positive 2,3,7,8-TCDD values were obtained;
20 soil pairs, 14 sediment pairs, and one water pair met the same
criteria. Troika field duplicate pairs with positive results
included 19 soil pairs, 5 sediment pairs, and 1 water pair.
For most of the individual duplicate pairs, the RSD was within
the 50 percent precision target set for the Troika analyses.
Exceptions included three duplicate pairs (one sediment and two
soil pairs) where the RSDs ranged from 60 to 102 percent and four
laboratory duplicate pairs (one sediment, one fish, and two soil
pairs) where the RSDs ranged from 60 to 84 percent.
The reference sample data for fish and soil reflect the
fact that three reference fish samples and various reference
soil concentrations were analyzed. Pooled standard deviations
and relative standard deviations were calculated as discussed
previously. None of these precision summaries exceeded the
targets presented in Table 5-1.
Additional information on precision estimates, and duplicate
and replicate analyses are available in a detailed report to the
OWRS QA officer.
- 67 -
-------
TABLE 5-2
SUMMARY OF PRECISION STATISTICS
MATRIX n RSD
CLP
Soil
Laboratory Duplicates (0.4-7.9 ppb) 8 pr. 7%a
Field Duplicates (0.4 ppb) 1 pr. 7%D
PE Samples (0.84-7.9 ppb) c 16%a
Troika
Fish
Laboratory Duplicates (0.4-18 ppt) 33 pr. 12%a
(36 ppt) 1 pr. 14%b
Reference Samples (14-35 ppt) d 16%a
Soil
Laboratory Duplicates (0.3-7 ppt) 17 pr. 26%a
(16-42 ppt) 3 pr. 7%a
Field Duplicates (0.4-3 ppt) 9 pr. 36%a
(6-35 ppt) 7 pr. 25%a
(77-2600 ppt) 3 pr. 22%a
Reference Samples (5-50 ppt) e 16%a
Sediment
Laboratory Duplicates (1-5 ppt) 11 pr. 29%a
(11-38 ppt) 3 pr. 35%a
Field Duplicates (0.6-65 ppt) 5 pr. 13%a
Water
Laboratory Duplicate (0.4 ppt) 1 pr. 0%b
Field Duplicate (0.1 ppt) 1 pr. 7%
Calculated from pooled standard deviation (Sp), as discussed in text
t>RSD of single duplicate pair or one reference sample.
C122 analyses of 8 PE samples.
cll03 analyses of 3 reference fish.
©42 analyses of contaminated soil at 8 concentrations.
Data as of May 1986
- 68 -
-------
5.4.2 Bias
Approach
The bias of the laboratory measurements was determined on
the basis of 1) recovery of surrogates spiked into each sample
prior to extraction (CLP), and 2) recovery of unlabeled 2,3,7,8-
TCDD spiked into blank matrices (CLP and Troika). The percent
bias, reported as the positive or negative variation from 100
percent of the true value, was calculated^ according to the fol-
lowing formula: % Bias = P-100, where P is the mean percent
recovery. Bias estimates were generated for each laboratory
program (CLP/Troika) and each matrix was analyzed within the Troika
program.
Based on the surrogate recovery data, P was computed as the
mean percent recovery of the surrogate using all valid data
reported during the_ specified time period. With the fortified
blank matrix data, P was computed as a mean percentage recovery
of 2.3,7,8-TCDD spiked into the blank samples.
Results
Table 5-3 summarizes the bias estimates for the CLP labora-
tories and the matrices analyzed in the Troika laboratories. The
CLP data are presented as an average bias calculated for all CLP
samples. The estimates in Table 5-3 do not exceed the target of
+25 percent presented in Table 5-1. Additional information is
available in the detailed report to the OWRS QA officer.
The Troika data are presented as the average bias estimates
and range of bias values calculated for individual matrices.
Two of the fish spikes fell outside the target bias limits of
+_50 percent; the two bias values were +80 and +82 percent. All
other fish recoveries fell within the range of +18 to +46 percent
bias. One soil spike also exhibited a bias outside of the accept-
able range, i.e., -76 percent bias; all other soil spikes fell
within the range of -25% to +33 percent bias. The single egg
spike and one of the two vegetation spikes exhibited bias values
of +72 percent and +60 percent, respectively; these also fell
outside of the +_50 percent target for bias.
5.4.3 Completeness
Data completeness was calculated as the percentage of analyzed
samples having valid data, i.e. , fulfilling all QA/QC requirements.
All Troika data met established validation criteria. There were
several samples for which the detection limits were higher than
the proposed target detection limit. The Troika data base is
approximately 97 percent complete, since there are some samples
for which valid analyses have not been obtained.
- 69 -
-------
TABLE 5-3
SUMMARY OF BIASa STATISTICS
CLP
Soil
Dust
Sediment
n
Fortified Field Blank - Soil 117
Surrogate:
2243
32
32
Avg. Bias
-2.3%
+ 1.8%
+ 2.3%
-5.7%
SD
12.2
11.8
11.7
11.7
Troika
Fortified Matrix:
Fish
Mollusk
Soil
Sediment
Water
Vegetation
aReported as % Bias
Range
+18% to +82%
-15% to 0%
-76% to +33%
-32% to +5%
-30% to +44%
- 3% to 60%
= p-100, where P is mean percent recovery.
n
6
2
118
8
7
2
Avg. Bias
+49%
-8%
+ 0.5%
-6%
+ 19%
+ 28%
Data as of May 1986
- 70 -
-------
Ninety-two percent of the CLP data met all QA/QC requirements; 91
percent of the Tier 3 CLP data and 97 percent of the Tier 6 data
were considered valid.
5.4.4 False Positives
The issue of false positives was evaluated by reviewing the
data for the blank samples analyzed with the field samples. For
the CLP data, only one field blank sample was reported to be
contaminated at a level greater than 0.05 ppb (0.39 ppb). There
were no positive field samples associated with this field blank.
In addition, one contaminated reagent blank (0.07 ppb) was
reported; no contaminated rinsates have been reported in the CLP
data received to date.
Two positive soil matrix blanks (2.0 and 0.3 ppt) were
reported in the Troika data base; a total of 80 soil matrix blanks
were analyzed. None of the 63 matrix blanks for other media were
found to be contaminated. No contaminated field blanks or method
blanks were reported; there were 63 field blanks and 151 method
blanks analyzed.
- 71 -
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
Burkhard, L.P.; Kuehl, D.W., 1986. N-octanol/water
partition coefficients by reverse phase liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry for eight tetra-
chlorinated planar molecules. Chemosphere 15(2):163-167.
EPA. 1980. Dioxins. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600/2-80-197.
EPA. 1983a. Dioxin strategy. Washington, DC: Office of
Water Regulations and Standards and Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response in Conjunction with Dioxin
Management Task Force. November 28, 1983.
EPA. 1983b. Memo from Edwin L. Johnson, Office of
Pesticide Programs to Stephen Schatzow, Director, Office
of Water Regulations and Standands. Sites of use of
pesticides possibly contaminated with Dioxon; November 8,
1983.
EPA. 1984a. Ambient water quality criteria for
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. EPA-440/5-84-007.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,
DC.
EPA. 1984b. Quality assurance project plan for tiers 3,
5, 6, and 7 of the National Dioxin Study. Washington, DC:
Office of Water Regulations and Standards in Conjunction
with the Dioxin Management Task Force; July 23, 1984.
EPA. 1984c. Sampling guidance manual for the National
Dioxin Study. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6160; May 16,
1984.
EPA. 1984d. Analytical procedures and quality assurance
plan for the analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in tiers 3-7 samples
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National
Dioxin Study. EPA/600/3-85/019.
EPA. 1984e. IFB WA 84-A002. Statement of work for the
dioxin analysis under Contract Lab Program. Washington,
DC: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA. 1984f. Quality assurance program plan: Superfund
Contract Laboratory Program. Washington, DC: Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response; September 1984.
EPA. 1984g. Calculation of precision, bias and method
detection limit for chemical and physical measurements
(Chapter 5). Washington, DC: Office of Research and
Development; March 30, 1984.
- 72 -
-------
EPA. 1985a. Dioxin and other toxic pollutants. Prepared
by Region V; April 1985.
EPA. 1985b. National Dioxin Study guidelines for review
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD data. Prepared by National Dioxin Study
QATG; April 1985.
EPA. 1985c. Uptake and depuration studies of PCDDs and
PCDFs in freshwater fish. EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory. Duluth, Minnesota.
FDA. 1981. Food and Drug Administration. Letter to G.
Milliken providing advice on dioxin levels in fish. From
A.H. Hayes, Jr., Commissioner of Food and Drugs; August
26, 1981.
Kenaga, E. 1980. Environ. Sci. Technol 14:553. As cited
in Marple et al., 1986.
Kimbrough, R.D., Falk, H., and Stehr, D. 1984. Health
implications of 2378-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD)
contamination of residential soil. J. Toxico. Environ.
Health. 14:47-93.
Mackay, D.; Shiu, W.J. 1981. J. Phys. Chem. Data 10:1175.
As cited in Podoll et al., 1986.
Marple, L.; Berridge, B.; Throop, L. 1986. Measurement of
the water-octanol partition coefficient of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Environ. Sci. Tech. 20(4):
397-399. v '
Mehrle, P.M. 1986. TCDD and TCDF impact on rainbow
trout: An assessment of chronic toxicity and
bioconcentration. Columbia National Fisheries Research
Laboratory, Fish and Wildlife Service. Task Report to the
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Podoll, R.T.; Jaber, H.M.; Mill, T. 1986. Tetrachloro-
dibenzodioxin: Rates of volatilization and photolysis in
the environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 20(5):490-492.
SRI. 1977. Stanford Research Institute Directory of
Chemical Producers - United States of America. Menlo
Park, CA.
SRI. 1978. Stanford Research Institute Directory of
Chemical Producers - TT~-n-.e£j states of America. Menlo
Park, CA.
- 73 -
-------
SRI. 1979. Stanford Research Institute Directory of
Chemical Producers - United States of America. Menlo
Park, CA.
SRI. 1980. Stanford Research Institute Directory of
Chemical Producers - United States of America. Menlo
Park, CA.
SRI. 1981. Stanford Research Institute Directory of
Chemical Producers - United States of America. Menlo
Park, CA.
SRI. 1982. Stanford Research Institute Directory of
Chemical Producers - United States of America. Menlo
Park, CA.
SRI. 1983. Stanford Research Institute Directory of
Chemical Producers - United States of America. Menlo
Park, CA.
Schroy, J.M.; Hileman, F.E.; Cheng, S.C. 1984. The
uniqueness of dioxins: Physical chemical characteristics.
8th ASTM Aquatic Toxicology Symposium, Ft. Mitchell, KY,
April 15-17, 1984. As cited in Thibodeaux and Lipsky,
1985.
Schroy, J.M.; Hileman, F.E.; Cheng, S.C., 1985. Physical/
chemical properties of 2378-TCDD. Chemosphere
14(6/7) -.877-880.
Thibodeaux, L.J.; Lipsky, D., 1985. A fate and transport
model for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in fly ash
on soil and urban surfaces. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous
Materials 2(2):225-235.
- 74 -
-------
APPENDIX A. HEALTH ASSESSMENTS FOR TCDD
A.I Introduction
The detection of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in various environmental media
has prompted several federal agencies to develop guidelines or
criteria for levels of concern in water, soils, and fish. For
example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established
a Water Quality Criteria for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) has recommended levels of concern for soil contami-
nated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has developed levels of concern for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish
in the Great Lakes. These recommended levels or criteria, sum-
marized in Table A-l, can be useful to evaluate the results of
the National Dioxin Study. However, they were developed for
different purposes based on different assumptions, and sometimes
for specific locations. The purpose of this appendix is to
discuss those assumptions and to provide a basis for using the
assessments under different conditions. The following sections
address the purposes of the recommendations and the related
exposure and toxicity assumptions made for each.
This appendix provides a discussion of several specific
health assessments for exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD which can be
useful in interpreting the data from the National Dioxin Study.
It should be noted that there are other methodologies for esti-
mating exposure and cancer risks associated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD
exposure using various approaches, assumptions, and evaluations
(e.g., Schaum, 1984; Kreiger, 1985).
A.2 Purposes of the Three Health Assessments
A.2.1 Water Quality Criteria for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
(U.S. EPA I954a)
Section 304(a)(i) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-
217) requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to publish criteria for the protection of water quality.
The water quality criteria represent non-regulatory scientific
assessments of effects on aquatic life and human health and are
intended to assist the states in developing water quality stan-
dards. In developing their water quality standards, the states
may choose to consider local environmental conditions and exposure
patterns.
A.2.2 Level of Concern in Residential Soil
(CDC-Kimbrough et al., 1984)
As a result of several contamination incidents in Missouri,
the CDC was asked to provide a level of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in soil that
represented an unacceptable health risk to the population living
-------
TABLE A-l
RECOMMENDED LEVELS OR CRITERIA FOR 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Recommending
Agency
EPA
FDA
CDC
Type of Recommendation
Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection
of Human Health:
- ingestion of water and
aquatic organisms
- ingestion of aquatic
organisms only
- ingestion of water only
Advisory to the Governor
of Michigan regarding
concentrations of concern
in fish in the Great Lakes
Soil level of concern:
- Residential areas
- Grazing areas
Level
1.3x10-9 _ 1.3x10-7 ug/La
1.4xlO-9 - 1.4xlO-7 ug/La
2.2xlO-8 - 2.2xlO-6 ug/La
25 ppt - little
cause for concern
25-50 ppt - sport
fishermen limit
consumption of fish
from these areas to
no more than one meal/
week. Permanent residents
limit consumption to no
more than 1-2 meals/month
>50 ppt - states should
consider limiting fishing
in these areas
1 ppb
6-20 ppt
a For an increased lifetime cancer risk ranging from 10"? to 10~5
A-2
-------
in the contaminated area. In response, the CDC considered the
health effects associated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the relevant
exposure patterns for soil contamination, particularly exposure
patterns for children. The resulting recommended level of concern
of 1 ppb in residential soil applied initially to the specific
exposure occurring in Missouri. However, Kimbrough et al. (1984)
suggest that it applies to all residential soils, since the
exposure patterns are not particularly site-specific. Addition-
ally, the level of concern for soil concentrations can be more or
less than 1 ppb, depending on land use.
For grazing areas, 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels in soil that are pro-
jected to produce the maximum allowable residue levels in foods
are: 6.2 ppt for milk; 12 ppt for pork; and 20 ppt for beef. In
certain industrial settings, levels well above 1 ppb may be
acceptable. Kimbrough et al. (1984) suggest that these values
should be considered a guide to situations that require a more
detailed evaluation.
A.2.3 Level of Concern for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Fish (FDA, 1981)
A level of concern was developed by the FDA in response to
requests from the several states confronted with the discovery of
dioxin contamination in fish in the Great Lakes. The level of
concern is based on observed contamination in specific species
and on exposure patterns for the Great Lakes. Levels of contami-
nation and the species found, as well as fish consumption patterns,
would generally be different in other areas of the country.
The FDA determined that concentrations of up to 25 ppt in the
edible portion of fish did not pose an unacceptable risk to the
public health in that area. For concentrations between 25 and
50 ppt, the FDA recommended limiting consumption; for concen-
trations above 50 ppt, the FDA recommended a ban on consumption.
The FDA also concluded that these recommendations would have only
a minimal impact on the availability of Great Lakes fish as a
food source.
A.3 Exposure Considerations
Varying assumptions were made for exposure pathways and
patterns in the three Agency assessments. These assumptions are
summarized in Table A-2 and are discussed below.
A.3.1 Water Quality Criteria (U.S. EPA, 1984a)
The EPA water quality criteria for the protection of human
health are all based on an average consumption of 2 liters per
day of water and/or 6.5 grams per day of fish and shellfish over
a 70-year lifetime. All water quality criteria also assume that
100 percent of the fish consumed is contaminated. For 2,3,7,8-
A-3
-------
TABLE A-2
MAJOR EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE RECOMMENDED LEVELS
Recommendations
EPA Water Quality Criteria
for Surface Water
FDA Level of Concern for
Fish
Exposure Assumptions
0 Consumption of 2 L/day drinking
water and/or 6.5 g/day fish,
shellfish over a 70 year lifetime,
100% from water body of interest
0 Weighted average bioconcentration
factor of 5000 based on weighted
average 3% lipid in typical fish/
shellfish seafood diet
0 Bioconcentration factor applied
to all fish in diet (100% contami-
nated)
0 All fish consumed contaminated
equally
0 Absorption in GI tract - 100%
0 Human body weight - 70 kg
0 Criteria presented for an
increased lifetime risk of
cancer of 10~7 - 10~5
0 Fish consumption of 15.70 g/day
over a 70 year lifetime, 10% of
which would be contaminated
bottom feeders from the area.
0 Absorption in the GI tract - 100%
0 Average fish concentration levels
would be approximately 1/3 of
advisory levels (25 ppt).
0 Human body weight - 70 kg.
0 An increased lifetime risk of
cancer of about 3xlO~6 would
result with a 25 ppt maximum
residue level.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-2 (Cont'd)
MAJOR EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE RECOMMENDED LEVELS
Recommendations
CDC Level of Concern for Resident!al Soil
General Assumptions
Exposure Assumptions
CDC Exposure Pathway Specific
Assumptions -
Ingestion
Dermal
0 TCDD has a half-life in soil
of 12 yr.
0 All soil assumed contaminated
at same level (100% contami-
nation)
8 Exposure occurs during 6
months of the year and i s
averaged over a 70-year life-
time.
0 Human body weight - 70 kg.
0 An increased lifetime risk for
cancer of approximately 2.5xlO~5
would result, assuming an
initial soil concentration of
1 ppb and the lower bound for
the virtually safe dose.
Daily soil consumption varied
with age:
0-9 months - 0 g
9-18 months - 1 g
1-1/2 - 3-1/2 yrs - 10 g
3-1/2 - 5 yrs - 1 g
>5yrs -O.lg
Absorption in GI tract - 30%
Daily soil contact with skin
varied with age:
0-9 months - 0 g
9-18 months - 1 g
1-1/2-3 - 1/2 yrs - 10 g
3-1/2 - 15 yrs - 1 g
> 15 yrs - 0.1 g
Absorption through skin - 1%
A-5
-------
TABLE A-2 (Cont'd)
MAJOR EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE RECOMMENDED LEVELS
Exposure Assumptions
Inhalation ° Concentration of TCDD on
airborne dust is equivalent
to soil.
0 15 m3 of air exchanged/day
0 100% of TCDD inhaled is
absorbed
A-6
-------
TCDD, a weighted average bioconcentration factor of 5000 was used
in developing the criteria. This bioconcentration factor is
based upon a 3 percent weighted average percent of lipids for
freshwater and estuarine fish and shellfish in the typical diet.
Local factors that should be considered in applications of
the EPA water quality criteria are:
0 Local patterns of fish consumption;
0 Consumption of fish from a contaminated water
body relative to that from other locations; and
0 Percent lipids in locally consumed species.
Table A-3 presents several exposure scenarios using the EPA
cancer model to derive average levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the
edible portion of fish with the corresponding lifetime risks.
The scenarios and corresponding fish tissue levels are not meant
to be used in setting levels of concern, but rather to show
average levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in filets that could result in
various lifetime cancer risks using different assumptions. Site-
specific considerations described previously should be evaluated
by health departments to determine appropriate levels of concern.
A.3.2 FDA Level of Concern for Fish (FDA, 1981; Miller, 1983)
The FDA assumed a fish consumption level of 15.7 g/day, com-
pared to the 6.5 g/day assumed by the EPA. This value was the
90th percentile freshwater fish consumption in the eight states
that border the Great Lakes, and was based upon a survey of con-
sumption patterns. The selected fish that were likely to be
contaminated included bottom feeders, which were thought to
represent about 10 percent of the freshwater fish consumption.
Thus, the FDA's consumption level was designed for fish species
consumed in a specific geographic area. In addition, it was
based on the 90th percentile consumption value for fish in the
Great Lakes area. The consumption value used by the EPA in the
water quality criteria, however, represents the mean fish and
shellfish consumption for the nation.
Like the EPA, the FDA assumed that all fish consumed come
from the contaminated area, although the FDA limited its estimate
to the specific species most likely to be contaminated. Those
species represent about 10 percent of the diet of freshwater fish
in that area. In addition, the FDA assumed that the average
level of contamination would be about 1/3 of the 25-ppt level of
concern.
Local factors that should be considered in using the FDA
levels of concern include:
A-7
-------
TABLE A-3
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (PPT) IN EDIBLE PORTION OF FISH CORRES-
PONDING TO DIFFERENT CANCER RISKS (BASED ON EPA MODEL) FOR VARIOUS
CONSUMPTION PATTERNS
Consumption Pattern
10
Cancer Risk
-4 iQ-5 10-6
1) 10 years
6.5 grams/day
100% of fish contaminated
2) 10 years
15.7 grams/day
10% of fish contaminated
3) 70 years
6.5 grams/day
100% of fish contaminated
4) 70 years
15.7 grams/day
10% of fish contaminated
48
200
6.9
29
4.8
20
0.69
2.9
0.48
2.0
0.069
0.29
NOTE: The FDA estimated that, to assure that no sample from
an area exceeds an established residue level, the average
level from that area should probably not exceed 1/3 of
that amount. Thus the 25 ppt advisory level assumed an
average level of about 8 ppt in the contaminated fish.
A-8
-------
0 Local patterns of fish consumption;
0 Species that are likely to become contaminated and the
consumption of these species; and
0 Consumption of fish from the contaminated water body
relative to that from other locations.
A.3.3 CDC Level of Concern for Soil (Kimbrough et al., 1984)
The level of concern for soil, developed by the CDC, was based
on consideration of dermal, ingestion, and inhalation pathways.
The general assumptions made for all these pathways were that
2,3,7,8-TCDD has a 12-year half-life in soil, all soil is contami-
nated at the same concentration, and that exposure occurs over 6
months of the year.
Pathway-specific assumptions include consumption, contact
or inhalation rate values, and absorption values. For both
ingestion and dermal contact, consumption or contact varied with
age. These values were generally based on the CDC's judgment, as
data on dirt consumption or contact are limited. Absorption from
soil was assumed to be 30 percent in the GI tract, and 1 percent
through the skin, based upon available literature. For inhalation,
the exposure model does not vary with age, but a lifetime air
exchange of 15 m3/day is assumed. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD in airborne dust is assumed equivalent to soil; absorption of
inhaled 2,3,7,8-TCDD was assumed to be 100 percent.
These estimates were developed for residential soil, and
exposure patterns are not expected to vary geographically. How-
ever, the time period of exposure (6 mo/yr) may be different in
areas of the country with milder climates. The CDC provided some
guidance for other soil contamination situations, but in these
instances local exposure patterns are important considerations.
The consumption patterns and times of contact were assumed
by the CDC based upon their judgment. Revisions to these assump-
tions would likely be based upon the availability of additional
data that would be generally applicable, rather than upon site-
specific considerations.
A.4 Toxicity Considerations
The carcinogenicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to animals has been
established in feeding studies conducted with rodents (U.S. EPA,
1984a; Kimbrough j|t al. , 1984). Based on these findings, the EPA
has classified this compound as a probable human carcinogen.
A-9
-------
This section describes the differences in the assumptions
and approaches used by each agency to estimate the lifetime
cancer risk associated with ingestion of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
A.4.1 Major Assumptions
As described below, minor differences exist in the assumptions
used by the CDC, EPA, and FDA to develop lifetime cancer risks.
Tables A-4 (EPA), A-5 (FDA), and A-6 (CDC) summarize the toxico-
logical data base on which the recommendations are founded, the
mathematical risk model used to extrapolate from high animal
doses to low human exposures, and any assumptions that were used
to calculate the upper-limit individual lifetime cancer risk for
each of the risk analyses.
A.4.2 Analysis of CDC, EPA and FDA Toxicity Considerations
The CDC, EPA, and FDA each used the same mathematical model
and response data for female rats reported in the study by Kociba
and coworkers (1978) to estimate the upper limits of excess
individual lifetime cancer risk associated with ingestion of
2,3,7,8-TCDD. However, the EPA viewed 2,3,7,8-TCDD as being 4
times more potent than did the CDC and 9 times more potent than
did the FDA.
The difference in the CDC and EPA potency estimates for
2,3,7,8-TCDD is due to the following factors:
0 A dose per unit body weight equivalence factor was used by the
CDC to extrapolate the animal dose to humans, in contrast to
the EPA's established procedure utilizing body surface area to
normalize animal-to-man dose equivalence. This difference
amounted to a 5.4-fold lower potency value in the CDC's
assessment compared to that generated by the EPA.
0 The lack of correction for high early mortality in the animal
data by the CDC, which produced a 1.7-fold lower estimate than
that generated by the EPA.
0 An average liver concentration at terminal sacrifice was used
by the CDC rather than administered dose. Since the liver
concentration showed saturation at the highest administered
dose, this adjustment had the effect of halving the dose at
the highest tumor response point, resulting in increasing the
slope by a factor of 2 over the result from fitting the data
to the administered dose (i.e., the EPA approach).
The first two items also represent differences between the
EPA and FDA potency estimates. Most of the remaining difference
between the two estimates is due to the EPA's use of a histopatho-
A-10
-------
TABLE A-4
TOXICITY ASSUMPTIONS -
EPA AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
95% Upper-Limit
Individual Lifetime
Cancer Risk:
Risk Model:
Toxicological
Data Base:
Assumptions:
1.56 x 105 (mg/kg/day)-l
Linearized multistage
Lifetime feeding study conducted
by Kociba et al. (1978) with
Sprague-Dawley rats. Utilized
dose-response data for female
rats for all significant tumors
based on slide reviews of
Kociba and independent
pathologist (Dr. R. Squire).
Data adjusted to compensate for
high early mortality.
Laboratory
surrogates
animals are
for humans.
reliable
Humans are as sensitive to the
carcinogenic effects of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD as the most sensitive
animal species.
There is no threshold level below
which adverse health effects may
not occur.
Body surface area is an appropriate
normalization factor for animal
versus human potency.
Source: U.S. EPA (1984a)
A-ll
-------
TABLE A-5
TOXICITY ASSUMPTIONS -
FDA GUIDELINE TO LIMIT HUMAN EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED FISH
95% Upper-Limit
Individual Lifetime
Cancer Risk:
Risk Model:
Toxicological
Data Base:
Assumptions:
1.75 x 104 (mg/kg/day)-l
Linearized multistage
Lifetime feeding study conducted
by Kociba et al. (1978) with
Sprague-Dawley rats. Utilized
dose-response data for liver
tumors in female rats and
Kociba's histopathological
diagnosis. No adjustment for
early mortality.
Laboratory animals are reliable
surrogates for humans.
Humans are as sensitive to the
carcinogenic effects of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD as the most sensitive
animal species.
There is no threshold level below
which adverse health effects may
not occur.
Body weight is an appropriate
normalization factor for animal
versus human potency.
Source: FDA (1981), Miller (1983)
A-12
-------
TABLE A-6
TOXICITY ASSUMPTIONS -
CDC LEVEL OF CONCERN - RESIDENTIAL SOIL
95% Upper-Limit
Individual Lifetime
Cancer Risk:
Risk Model:
Toxicological
Data Base:
Assumptions:
3.6 x 104 (mg/kg/day)-l (when
reconverted to administered dose
See Kimbrough e_t al. 1984)
Linearized multistage
Lifetime feeding study conducted
by Kociba et al. (1978) with
Sprague-Dawley rats. Utilized
liver concentration-liver tumor
response data for female rats.
Effective dose rather than
administered dose (i.e., liver
concentration at administered
dose) and slide reviews of
independent pathologists
(Dr. R. Squire and Kociba). No
adjustment for early mortality.
Laboratory animals are reliable
surrogates for humans.
Humans are as sensitive to the
carcinogenic effects of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD as the most sensitive animal
species.
There is no threshold level below
which adverse health effects may
not occur.
Body weight is an appropriate
normalization factor for animal
versus human potency.
Source: Kimbrough et al. (1984)
A-13
-------
logical review by an independent pathologist (Dr. R. Squire) as
well as the original Kociba data. The FDA used only Kociba's
results.
In recent conferences (EPA, 1984b) among the three agencies,
the CDC and FDA agreed that it was appropriate for the EPA to
adjust tumor response data for early mortality, although no
adjustments have been made to the CDC's or FDA's recommended
levels. Thus, the 2,3,7,8-TCDD potency value estimated by the
EPA, when compared to the potency values of the CDC and FDA
corrected for early mortality, is now 2.7 times higher than the
CDC; and 5.4 times higher than the FDA's. These remaining
differences are primarily attributed to the EPA's use of body
surface area as opposed to body weight to normalize animal-to-
human dose equivalence.
A.5 Summary
This review of the three health assessments for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
reflects the major differences in the assumptions made regarding
both exposure and toxicity. The exposure assumptions made are
not strictly comparable because they consider exposure by different
pathways. In addition, the assessments were intended for different
applications. Both the EPA water quality criteria and the FDA
level of concern can be used in evaluating results from the
National Dioxin Study if local consumption patterns are considered.
The CDC level of concern applies generally to residential soil,
and other exposure patterns should be considered for other soil
contamination situations.
The estimates of lifetime cancer risks used as the basis in
the three assessments do not differ greatly. The difference in
potency among the three original assessments is less than an order
of magnitude. With the revised potency estimates for the CDC and
FDA, the differences are less than a factor of 6.
A-14
-------
APPENDIX A REFERENCES
EPA. 1984a. Ambient water quality criteria for
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. EPA-440/5-84-007. Office
of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1984b. Draft. Environmental Protection Agency,
Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Disease Control
Consensus Report on the Dioxin Carcinogen Risk Assessment
Meeting of January 25, 1984.
FDA. 1981. Food and Drug Administration. Letter to G.
Milliken providing advice on dioxin levels in fish. From
A.H. Hayes, Jr., Commissioner of Food and Drugs; August 26,
1981.
Kimbrough, R.D., Falk, H., and Stehr, D. 1984. Health
implications of 2378-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD)
contamination of residential soil. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health.
14:47-93.
Kociba, R.J., Keyes, D.G., Beyer, J.E., Carreon, R.M., Wade,
E.E., Dittenber, D.A., Kalnins, R.F., Frausen, L.F., Park, D.N.,
Barnard, S.D., Hummel, R.A., and Humiston, C.G. 1978. Results
of a two year chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study of
2,2,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in rats. Toxicol.
Appl. Pharmacol. 46:279-303.
Kreiger, R.A. 1£33. Derivation of a virtually safe dose (VSD)
estimate for sport fish containing 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-
dioxin. Minnesota Department of Health; Dec. 12, 1985.
Miller, S.A. 1983. Statement by S.A. Miller, Director, Bureau
of Foods, FDA, before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources,
Agriculture Research and Environment, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives; June 30, 1983.
Schaum, J. 1984. Risk analysis of TCDD contaminated soil.
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Exposure
Assessment Group. PB85-145704.
A-15
-------
APPENDIX B. FATE OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN SOIL
B.I. Introduction
This appendix is intended to assist in evaluating the data
from Tiers 3 through 7 of the National Dioxin Study, since an
understanding of the processes that affect the fate of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD is important for characterizing the impacts of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
It summarizes the current literature available on the fate of
2,3,7,8-TCDD in soil and identifies the predominant fate processes.
Issues particularly relevant to the objectives of the National
Dioxin Study are highlighted, such as information on observed
distribution and migration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from sites contaminated
with production wastes or herbicide formulations. Data on 2,3,7,8-
TCDD bioaccumulation in plants and animals as a result of soil
contamination are also summarized.
B.2. Physicochemical Properties of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Pure 2,3,7,8-TCDD is a white crystalline solid with oa molec-
ular weight of 321.9 and a melting point of 302-305 C. The
solubility of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in water is low (3.17 x 10~4 mg/L);
solubility in organic solvents, particularly nonpolar organic
solvents, is higher. Table B-l presents some environmentally
relevant properties of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
On the basis of its physicochemical properties, 2,3,7,8-
TCDD is not expected to be particularly mobile in the soil
environment. Partition coefficient data (log Kow and log Koc)
suggest that it will rapidly absorb onto the organic matter in
soil, and that desorption will be slow. It has been found that
dioxins are more tightly bound to soils with relatively high
organic content than to sandy soils (EPA, 1980). The enhanced
solubility of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in organic solvents, particularly non-
polar solvents, may be an important factor in its environmental
mobility, since 2,3,7,8-TCDD released to the environment is
generally present as a contaminant in organic formulations (aerial
spraying, production wastes) or stored along with other organic
solvents (landfills). Bioaccumulation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is expected
to occur and has been reported for fish, cattle, rodents, and
other wildlife (EPA, 1980).
B.3 Fate Processes in Environmental Soils
B . 3.1. Observed Distribution and Persistence in Soil
Several authors have discussed the persistence and distri-
bution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in environmental soils (NRCC, 1981; EPA,
1980; DiDomenico et al. , 1980, 1982; Young, 1981; Young et al. ,
1983; Harrison and" Crews, 1981; Wipf and Schmid, 198TT; and
-------
TABLE B-l
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Molecular formula
Molecular weight
Melting point
Decomposition temperature
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
15°C
25°C
25°C
30°
40°
55°C
62°C
Solubility (mg/L) at 25°c in:
Water
Water
Water
Methanol
n-Octanol
Acetone
Chloroform
Benzene
o-Di chlorobenzene
Henry's Law Constant
(atm.m3/mole)
log KQC (experimental)
(calculated)
log KOW
Bioconcentration
Factors (BCF)
(estimated)
catfish
rainbow trout
mosquito fish
C12H4C14°2
321.9
302-305°C
>700°C
1.02x10-10
1.45x10-9
7.04x10-10
3.46x10-9
1.60x10-8
1.37x10-7
3.73x10-7
7.9x10-6
1.9x10-5
3.17x10-4
10
50
110
370
570
1400
2.12xlO-6
1.6xlO-5
7.15-7.34
6.95
6.15
6.64
7.02
6.15-7.28
3.3xl04
2xl03
3.3xl04-8.6xl04
2.4xl04
2.4x!02-l.5xl04
U.S. EPA (I984a)
U.S. EPA (I984a)
U.S. EPA (1984a)
ADL (1981)
Schroy et al. (1984)
Schroy et al. (1984)
Podoll et al. (1986)
Schroy et_ al. (1985)
Schroy et_ al. (1984)
Schroy et a^. (1985)
Schroy et al. (1985)
Adams and Blaine (1986)
MacKay and Shiu (1981)
Freeman and Schroy (1984)
U.S. EPA (I984a)
U.S. EPA (I984a)
U.S. EPA (I984a)
U.S. EPA (I984a)
U.S. EPA (I984a)
U.S. EPA (I984a)
Schr oy
Podoll
et al. (1983)
et al. (1986)
Jackson
Jackson
(1985)
(1985)
Kenaga (1980)
Marple et al. (1986)
Burkhard & Kuehl (1986)
U.S. EPA (I984a)
NRCC (1981)
Dow Chemical Co. (1978)
Mehrle (1986)
Dow Chemical Co. (1978)
Dow Chemical Co. (1978)
B-2
-------
Thibodeaux, 1983). In spite of its strong sorptive properties,
2,3,7,8-TCDD has been found distributed vertically through the
uppermost soil layers and horizontally beyond the boundaries of
the initial contaminated zone. The studies at Air Force test
sites and in Seveso, Italy provide some data on the vertical
distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in soils. These studies are summa-
rized below.
Air Force Test Sites
The vertical distribution patterns of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in soil
at Air Force test sites that had been repeatedly sprayed with
herbicide orange formulations have been described by EPA (1980)
and are summarized in Table B-2. The data indicate some vertical
migration, with most of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD remaining in the upper 6
in. of soil. Each data set reported in Table B-2 corresponds to
unique spray conditions and is used here only to illustrate
potential vertical distribution patterns. Furthermore, sampling
techniques used for sets D, E and F resulted in cross-contami-
nation; the EPA (1980) reported that later studies at the same site
showed no contamination below 6 in. Data for samples collected
from Eglin Air Force Base 414 days after herbicide orange appli-
cation (data set B) indicated that soil penetration by the herbi-
cide was greater than that by 2,3,7,8-TCDD. For example, herbicide
orange concentrations of 160 ppm and 20 ppm were measured at
24-30 in. and 30-36 in., respectively (Young et al. , 1976).
Seveso, Italy
After the July 1976 industrial accident at the ICMESA plant
in Seveso, Italy, the vertical distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD down
to a 30-cm (12-in.) depth was studied. DiDomenico e_t al. (1980)
reported that, in general, concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD dropped
sharply in the top 8 cm (3 in.), regardless of sampling site
locations or 2,3,7,8-TCDD level. Conversely, 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels
remained relatively constant from 8-cm to 24-cm depths. The con-
centration levels detected more than 8 cm below the surface were
approximately one order of magnitude less than the levels detected
down to' 8 cm. Furthermore, the highest levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
were not found in the uppermost soil layer (0.5 cm), but most
often in the second (0.5-1.0 cm) or third (1.0-1.5 cm) layers.
DiDomenico e_t al. (1980) reported a significant difference
(p less than 0.05) in the 2,3,7,8-TCDD distribution patterns
observed six months apart in 1976 and 1977. Compared with the
1976 distribution, a higher proportion of the total 2,3,7,8-TCDD
was observed in deep soil layers (8 cm) in 1977. However, no
significant differences in deep soil concentrations were reported
over an eight-month period in 1977, suggesting that some stabili-
zation occurred in 1977, as compared to 1976.
B-3
-------
TABLE B-2
SOIL CONCENTRATIONS (PPT) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
AFTER AERIAL APPLICATION of HERBICIDE ORANGEa
Depth
(in.)
Eglin AFB
B
Utah Test Site
Fb
0-1
1-2
2-4
4-6
0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24
24-30
30-36
150
160
700
44
250
50
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
15,
3,
000 650
000 11
90
120
1,600 6,600
90 200
a Source: EPA (1980)
k Cross-contamination between sample depths was suspected because of
sampling techniques
B-4
-------
Belli et cLL. (1982) also examined the distribution of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD at Seveso as a function of underground depth. They observed
that 2,3,7,8-TCDD penetrated the soil to 20 cm or so, and that
penetration occurred during the first 10-15 months. Further-
more, Belli et al. (1982) concluded that downward migration was
the only transport mechanism at work, and that 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
not removed from the surface layer via other mechanisms.
DiDomenico et al. (1982) examined the environmental per-
sistence of 2,3 77", 8-TCDD at Seveso. They concluded that mean
2,3,7,8-TCDD levels in soil diminished sharply in the first six
months after contamination, followed by negligible changes in
soil concentration levels. They also predicted that, 10 years
later, significant levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (30-44% of those after
six months) would remain. The initial observed decrease in soil
concentrations levels occurred at an unexpectedly high rate
compared to data in the literature, and was largely attributed
to photodecomposition and heat-promoted volatilization. The
authors reported the downward migration of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD
remaining after the initial interaction with the environmental
factors responsible for the initial disappearance.
B.3.2 Transformation and Transport Processes
The above discussion suggests that 2,3,7,8-TCDD can be
removed from the soil surface and penetrate the soil column to
some extent. Possible explanations for these observations include:
0 Photodegradation;
0 Volatilization and diffusion;
0 Sorption processes, including desorption or
comigration with organic solvents;
0 Vertical or lateral translocation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
bound to soil particles;
0 Biodegradation; and
0 Accumulation in plants and animals.
These processes are discussed in the following subsections.
Photodegradation
In laboratory experiments, 2,3,7,8-TCDD readily undergoes
photolysis (dechlorination) in the presence of a hydrogen donor
(alcohols, ethers, hydrocarbons) and ultraviolet light (Helling
e_t a_l. , 1973; Crosby et al. , 1971; Liberti et al. , 1978).
Dechlorination occurs preferentially at the 2,3,7,8-positions
(Buser and Rappe 1978; Nestrick et al., 1980). Therefore,
evolution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from photolysTi" of highly chlorinated
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDD) in the presence of organic
solvents and ultraviolet light is unlikely.
B-5
-------
In an aqueous suspension, no appreciable photolysis of
2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected; however, addition of a surfactant
resulted in significant photolysis (Helling et al., 1973; Plimmer
e_t a_l. , 1973). In the absence of an organic solvent, little
photodecomposition was observed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD spread on glass
or marble, although some degradation was observed on silica gel
and aluminum in the absence of an organic solvent (Liberti et
al. , 1978). Crosby e_t al. (1971) observed negligible photo-
degradation of pure 2,3,7,8-TCDD on glass and wet or dry soils.
The environmental significance of 2,3,7,8-TCDD photolysis
is not well documented. However, several photolysis studies
performed under environmental conditions or with commercial pesti-
cide formulations indicated that photodegradation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
solutions may occur where pure 2, 3, 7,8-TCDD would have been stable.
For instance, 2,3,7,8-TCDD in herbicide formulations such as
Agent Orange, has been shown to photodecompose on glass plates,
plant leaves and surface soils exposed to sunlight (Crosby and
Wong, 1977). The reported loss of 2,3,7,8-TCDD over a period of
six hours was greater than 50% from the glass plates, about 100%
from the surface of leaves, and about 10% from the soil surface.
These observations indicate that commercial herbicide formulations
probably provide the hydrogen donor necessary for photolysis.
Therefore, the loss of the hydrogen donor (i.e., herbicide)
through various fate processes would probably result in a decreased
degradation rate for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. DiDomenico et al. (1982)
cited photodecomposition as a major factor in the initial (less
than six months) rapid reduction of surface soil 2,3,7,8-TCDD
concentrations in Seveso, Italy.
Volatilization
The ability to predict volatilization is generally limited
to the aqueous phase, and is somewhat restricted by the uncer-
tainty of the water solubility and vapor pressure data for
2,3,7,8-TCDD. NRCC (1981) reported a calculated volatilization
transfer coefficient of 1.7 x 102 cm/day (cm/d); their equation,
combined with a measured vapor pressure of 1.5 x 10~9 torr
(Freeman and Schroy, 1984), yielded a calculated coefficient of
approximately 2.2 cm/d.
Nash and Beall (1980) have demonstrated the volatility of
2,3,7,8-TCDD in both laboratory and field experiments. Although
loss of 2,3,7,8-TCDD by volatilization is slow, this mechanism
may be environmentally important in the absence of other transport
or transformation processes.
Freeman and Schroy (1985) have suggested that volatilization
is the principal removal mechanism for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in moist soil,
and that the rate of removal from soil via volatilization is
affected by temperature, depth in initial application, and moisture
B-6
-------
content of the soil. The surface temperature of soils is highly
variable and is expected to significantly affect the rate of
volatilization; the fluctuation of sub-surface temperatures is
much less dramatic. Since volatilization is largely a surface
phenomenon, the depth of the initial chemical application will
also affect the apparent half-life of the compound in soil. The
third factor affecting the rate of removal through volatilization
is the moisture content of the soil. Volatilization of other
chemicals of low water solubility and low volatility, such as
pesticides, has reportedly decreased dramatically under dry soil
conditions (Nash, 1985). The soil moisture content below which
volatilization drops dramatically apparently corresponds to a
monomolecular layer of water, covering the soil surface (Harper
et. al. , 1976). The volatilization rate was not greatly affected
when the soil moisture content was increased above that corre-
sponding to a monomolecular layer of water on soil.
In evaluating off-site transport of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from a
production facility with on-site disposal, Thibodeaux (1983)
predicted that vaporization from surface soils is the major
transport process. Based on an average soil contamination of
1.3 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the total off-site transport rate was
calculated to be 150-1240 g TCDD/yr.; the transport rate attri-
buted to volatilization alone was calculated to be 120-1200 g/yr.
The author cautioned that the lack of reliable water solubility
and vapor pressure data contributed to uncertainty in the volatili-
zation estimates.
Di ffusion
Freeman and Schroy (1984) reported that the vertical trans-
port of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in a soil column can be modeled as a temper-
ature-driven diffusion process. They described peak 2,3,7,8-TCDD
concentrations below the surface, and a very steep concentration
profile as a function of depth. Soil temperature variations are
expected to have a strong impact on the mobility in soil.
Freeman and Schroy (1984) studied Eglin Air Force Base bio-
degradation plots where Agent Orange containing 40 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD
had been applied in 1972 to the bottom of 10-13 cm trenches that
were then backfilled with soil. They demonstrated that the applied
2,3,7,8-TCDD had migrated about 10 cm in 12 years. Migration was
observed above and below the point of application. All the
2,3,7,8-TCDD applied to the study plots was apparently still in
the soil.
Sorption Processes
Sorption of 2,3,7,8-TCDD onto soil particles in the environ-
ment is expected to be rapid; subsequent soil/water equilibration
B-7
-------
and desorption, however, are slow (ADL, 1981). 2,3,7,8-TCDD is
more tightly bound to soils of high organic content, and Harwood
e_t al. (1985) reported that it becomes increasingly bound to soil
as a function of time. Sorption of 2,3,7,8-TCDD onto soil can
be predicted from octanol:water partition coefficient (Kow) data
and the organic carbon content (oc) of the soil according to the
following two equations (Karickhoff e_t a±. , 1979):
log Koc = log Kow - 0.21; and Ksoil = Koc (oc).
In addition to the organic content of soil, other factors
that affect the sorption of 2,3,7,8-TCDD on environmental soils
have been identified. Freeman and Schroy (1984) and Nash (1985)
reported that 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other pesticides bind strongly to
dry soils; mobility is increased in the presence of soil moisture.
The medium in which 2,3,7,8-TCDD is dispersed at the time of soil
application or environmental release is another factor. Since
the solubility of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in organic solvents is generally
greater than its solubility in water, partitioning to soils is
likely to be less, depending on the dispersion medium, and 2,3,7,8-
TCDD may be carried with the organic solvent. Increased migration
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in toluene or xylene was reported by Harwood et
al. (1985); these authors also reported that migration at 40^C~
was significantly greater than at 10°C.
Harrison and Crews (1981) examined the soil contamination
at a site used for storing and loading herbicide contaminated
with 2,3,7,8-TCDD. They reported soil contamination above 1 ppb
near the loading pad, with little soil contamination beyond 3 to
4 meters from the pad. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected at soil depths
down to 1 meter; the authors concluded that the route of migration
was transport with the herbicide.
The leaching of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from contaminated soils is
largely an effect of solubilization and desorption of absorbed
2,3,7,8-TCDD. Jackson (1985) used three different procedures
for generating aqueous leachate to examine the solubility of
2,3,7,8-TCDD in contaminated soils (8 ppb to 26,000 ppb). Experi-
mental soil partitioning coeficients (Kp) were determined as the
ratio of leachate concentration to soil concentration and were
then used to compute Koc values [log Koc = log (Kp/oc)]. The Koc
values, based on experimental data, agreed well with previously
reported Koc data and indicated that the effect of desorption by
leaching would be minimal for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Nash and Beall (1978) analyzed the 2,3,7,8-TCDD content of
leachate samples from silvex-treated microagroecosystems. After
the first two applications (days 0 and 35) of silvex containing
44 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD, water leachate samples showed no detectable
2,3,7,8-TCDD at detection limits of 0.0001 ppt. Following a third
application (day 77) of silvex formulations containing 7500 ppb
B-8
-------
2,3,7,8-TCDD, water leachate samples were shown to be contaminated.
Maximum concentrations of 0.05 to 0.06 ppb were calculated for
leachate samples taken 7 weeks after the third application.
These studies suggest that, in spite of its strong sorptive
properties, 2,3,7,8-TCDD may migrate to some extent in soil
systems. Possible explanations for this behavior include exceed-
ence of the sorptive properties of the soil, increased solubili-
zation of the sorbed 2,3,7,8-TCDD by the organic solvents, or
migration of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD with the dispersing medium.
Translocation
Since 2,3,7,8-TCDD is strongly adsorbed to soil particles
and the effects of aqueous leaching are minimal, translocation
of soil-bound 2,3,7,8-TCDD is expected to be a major fate process.
Monteriolo et a_l. (1982), Wipf and Schmid (1981), and DiDomenico
et_ a_l. (1982J cited the translocation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD adsorbed on
soil colloids and soil particles and movement through soil fissures
as the predominant transport mechanism responsible for the vertical
movement of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in soils at Seveso, and particularly for
the elevated concentrations observed in deep soils. Matsumura
and Benezet (1973) hypothesized that any movement of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
in the soil environment would occur via movements of soil and
dust particles. Young (1981) reported movement of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD by wind/water erosion and burrowing rodents.
Transport of TCDD-contaminated soil into surface waters by
erosion has been described by several authors (Thibodeaux, 1983;
EPA, 1980; Kleopfer and Zirschky, 1983). The 2,3,7,8-TCDD is
expected to remain strongly adsorbed and persist in the suspended
sediment or bottom sediment of the surface waters. Isensee and
Jones (1975) concluded that 2,3,7,8-TCDD adsorbed to soil would
result in significant concentrations dissolved in water, only if
the soil were washed into a small body of water.
Biodegradation
Dioxin exhibits relatively strong resistence to microbial
degradation in soils (Phillip e_t al.f 1981; Wipf and Schmid,
1981; and Young, 1981). in addition, Matsumura and Benezet
(1973) tested 100 strains of microorganisms, which had previously
shown an ability to degrade persistent pesticides, for their
ability to degrade 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Only five strains showed some
ability to degrade this compound.
Young et a1. (1978) attributed loss of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in soil
plots to biocfegradation, with half-lives ranging from 225 to 275
days. Using subsequent data from the same plots. Freeman and
Schroy (1984) concluded that all of the initial 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
B-9
-------
still contained in the test plots and attributed the apparent
biodegradation to temperature-driven diffusion, variations
the initial loadings, and analytical problems.
in
Plant Uptake
The limited data on plant uptake of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from con-
taminated soil indicated that small amounts are accumulated in
plants. In an early study involving soil application of O.Ob
ppm 2,3,7,8-TCDD formulations, a maximum of 0.15% of the 2,3,7,8
TCDD was detected in the above ground portion of oats and soybeans;
no 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in the harvested grains (Kearney e_t
al 1973). In the same study, no translocation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
applied to leaves of young oat and soybean plants was observed.
Isensee and Jones (1971) and Matsumura and Benezat (1973) reported
that 2,3,7,8-TCDD was neither adsorbed by oat or soybean seeds
nor taken up from the soil by the mature plants; young plants,
however, did accumulate up to 40 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Jensen et
al (1983) analyzed rice grain from fields in Texas, Arkansas,
alTd Louisiana that had been sprayed with 2,3,7,8-TCDD herbicides.
No residues were detected in these samples or in 30 other samples
of rice from U.S. retail stores.
Cocucci et al. (1979) examined the absorption and bioaccumu-
lation of 2f 3~7?,~8^TCDD in fruits and kitchen-garden plants from
the contaminated zone near Seveso. Dioxins were measured in all
samples of fruit, new leaves, twigs and cork from fruit trees.
The 2 3,7,8-TCDD levels on leaves were typically 3 to 15 times
higher than the fruit concentrations, which were the lowest.
Cork concentrations were generally higher than those of lejveB
but lower than twigs. The authors concluded that 2, J, / ,«-ICL»IJ is
translocated from soil to the aerial parts of the plants, ana
suggested that losses from fruits and leaves may account for the
relatively low concentrations observed in those samples.
Wipf and Schmid (1981) reported that the contamination of
fruit in the area near Seveso was generally limited to the peel,
and that plant uptake was not significant. They reported that
68% of the contamination observed in carrots remained in the wash
water, 29% was in the peels, and only 3% in the edible portion.
These data strongly suggested that contamination of vegetative
matter was due primarily to deposition of local dust or adsorption
rather than systemic uptake. Young (1981) also reported plant
data suggesting that stem/leaf contamination is probably from soil
particles, and that root contamination is likely from incorpor-
ation of soil particles into the epidermis of the root tissue.
Facchetti et al. (1985) examined the uptake of 2, 3 , 7,8-TCDD
by maize and be₯H pTants grown under open and enclosed conditions
in pots of soil containing between 1 and 752 ppt 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
B-10
-------
The root samples showed high concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD due
to adsorption. Transfer to the aerial parts through the roots
appeared to be limited; contamination of the aerial parts through
the process of volatilization was suggested.
Accumulation in Animals
Contamination of fish downstream of sites with 2,3,7,8-TCDD-
contaminated soil is well documented and summarized (EPA, 1980;
NRCC, 1981; and Firestone et. al. , 1985). For example, levels of
2,3,7,8-TCDD residues exceeding 100 ppt were reported in fish
collected from the Tittabawassee River, Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron,
Arkansas River, and the Bayou Meto; all locations were near plants
that manufactured 2,4,5-T (Stalling et al., 1983; Mitchum et al.,
1980; Harless et. al. , 1982). Kleopfer and Zirschky (19837~found
2,3,7,8-TCDD residues of up to 55 ppt in whole fish from the Spring
River in Missouri, downstream of 2,3,7,8-TCDD-contaminated dis-
posal sites. In most studies, detection limits in sediments were
not low enough to allow correlation of fish concentrations with
sediment concentrations. However, translocation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD-
containing particles is generally thought to be the origin of
contamination in the river. Fish bioconcentration factors reported
by the Dow Chemical Co. (1978) have been summarized by Kloepfer and
Zirschky (1983) as follows: 2000 (catfish), 6600 (rainbow trout),
24,000 (mosquito fish).
The results of an Air Force study described by the EPA (1980)
suggested accumulation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in birds and rodents col-
lected from a site used for extensive testing of herbicide formu-
lations. The accumulation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD residues in animals
from contaminated areas near Seveso has also been evaluated.
Liver samples of rabbits, poultry, cattle, and horses from the
contaminated areas were found to contain 2,3,7,8-TCDD concen-
trations greater than 1 ppb (Monteriolo et al., 1982).
Milk samples from dairy farms near the ICMESA plant in Seveso
were analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD residues (Fanelli et al., 1980).
Highly variable results were reported, with a maximum concen-
tration in milk of 7900 ppt. It was later determined that some
of the fodder given to the dairy cows had been harvested from the
most contaminated zone (Monteriolo et al., 1982).
Potential accumulation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD residues in the fat
of cattle and other livestock is also a concern; however, con-
flicting data on this subject have been reported. Shadoff et
al. (1977) cited no evidence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD bioconcentration Tn
the fat of cattle fed ronnel insecticide contaminated with
2,3,7,8-TCDD. The detection limits were 5 to 10 ppt.
Other researchers have analyzed fat from cattle grazing on
land sprayed with 2,4,5-T herbicides (EPA, 1980). One study
B-ll
-------
(Kocher et al. , 1978) showed detectable 2,3,7,8-TCDD residues
in fat f4~ to 16 ppt) in five of eight samples collected. A
second study (Meselson et_ al. , 1978) reported that 11 of 14
samples contained detectable 2,3,7,8-TCDD residues; the four
highest values ranged from 12 to 70 ppt. A third study (Solch et
al., 1980) detected 2,3,7,8-TCDD residues in 13 of 102 samples of
beef fat at concentrations ranging from 10 to 54 ppt. Harless
et al. (1980) reported two positives (20-60 ppt) out of 85 beef
Tat~~samples analyzed; in the same study, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not
detected in 43 beef liver samples.
B.4 Summary
The 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination in soils is typically confined
to the top 6-12 inches, but mostly in the top 6 inches. Several
studies have reported removal of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from the uppermost
(0-0.5 cm) surface of the soil. The persistence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
has been characterized as having two phases: an initial rapid
decrease in soil levels, followed by a period approaching steady-
state conditions. Most studies have found elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD
levels more than 10 years later.
Most of the observed 2,3,7,8-TCDD removal from soil systems
occurs within a relatively short period of time (less than six
months). Removal from the surface is largely due to photo-
degradation at the time of application, volatilization, or temper-
ature-driven diffusion into the soil column. Biodegradation is
not expected to be an important fate process.
Once 2,3,7,8-TCDD is bound to soil particles, its persistence
in the environment increases significantly. Bioavailability of
adsorbed 2,3,7,8-TCDD is low, and plant uptake is not expected
to be a significant factor in the movement of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Vertical and horizontal translocations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD bound to
soil particles through wind/water erosion are predominant trans-
port pathways and are probably responsible for elevated sediment
concentrations in some surface water bodies near areas of soil
contamination. Biotranslocation by burrowing animals and soil
insects may also be an important transport process.
Under most environmental conditions, the impact of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD-contaminated soil on underlying groundwater is not expected
to be important. Notable exceptions where groundwater contami-
nation may occur are in sandy soils or other soils of low organic
content, and in areas where other organic solvents may be available
to increase the mobility of adsorbed 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
B-12
-------
APPENDIX B REFERENCES
Adams, W.J. and Elaine, K.M. A water solubility
determination of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. In Press, As cited in
Mehrle (1986).
Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL) 1981. Study on state of the
art of dioxin from combustion sources: ASME Research
Committee on Industrial and Municipal Wastes. New York.
Belli, G., Bressi, G., Calligarich, C., Gerlesi, S. and
Ratti, S.P. 1982. Analysis of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD
distribution as a function of the underground depth for
data taken in 1977 and 1979 in Zone A at Seveso (Italy).
Pergamon Ser. on Env. Sci. 5:137-153.
Burkhard, L.P. and Kuehl, D.W. 1986. N-octanol/water
partition coefficients by reverse phase liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry for eight tetra-
chlorinated planar molecules. Chemosphere 15(2):163-167.
Buser, H.R. and Rappe, C. 1978. Identification of
substitution patterns in polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDDs) by mass spectrometry. Chemosphere 7:199-211.
Cocucci, S. et al. 1979. Absorption and translocation of
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin by plants from polluted soil.
Experientia 35(4):482-484 as cited in EPA. 1980.
Crosby, D.G. and Wong, A.S. 1977. Environmental
degradation of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(2378-TCDD). Science 195:1337-8.
Crosby, D.G., Wong, A.S., Plimmer, J.P. and WooIson, E.A.
1971. Photodecomposition of chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins. Science 173:748-749, as cited in NRCC (1981).
DiDomenico, A., Silano, V., Viviano, G. and Zapponi, G.
1980. Accidental release of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) at Seveso, Italy. IV. Vertical
distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in soil. Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety 4:327-338.
DiDomenico, A., Viviano, G. 1982. Environmental
persistence of 2378-TCDD at Seveso. Pergamon Series on
Env. Science 5:105-114.
Dow Chemical Company 1978. The trace chemistry of fire
- a source of and routes for the entry of chlorinated
dioxins into the environment. Chlorinated Dioxins Task
Force, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, as cited in
Kloepfer and Zirschky (1983).
EPA, 1980. Dioxins. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600/2-80-197.
B-13
-------
EPA. 1984. Ambient water quality criteria for
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. EPA-440/5-84-007.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,
DC.
Facchetti, S., Balasso, A., Fichiner, C., Frare, G.,
Leoni, A., Mauri, C., and Vasconi, M. 1985. Assumption
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD by some plant species. Presented at the
ACS National Meeting, Miami, FL; April 1985.
Fanelli, R., et al. 1980. 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels in cow's
milk from the contaminated area of Seveso. Mario Negri
Institute for Pharmacological Research, Milan, Italy.
Prepublication copy, as cited in EPA (1980).
Firestone, D., Niemann, R.A., Schneider, L.F., Gridley,
J.R., and Brown, D.E. 1985. Dioxin residues in fish and
other foods. Presented at the ACS National Meeting,
Miami, FL. April 1985.
Freeman, R.A. and Schroy, J.M. 1985. Environmental
mobility of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and companion chemicals in a
roadway soil matrix. Presented at the ACS National
Meeting, Miami, FL. April 1985.
Freeman, R.A. and Schroy, J.M. 1984. Modeling the
transport of 2378-TCDD and other low volatility chemicals
in soils. Presented at the AICHE National Meeting,
Philadelphia, PA; August 1984.
Harless, R.L., Oswald, E.O., Lewis, R.G., Dupuy, A.E.,
McDaniel, D.D., and Han Tai. 1982. Chemosphere 11:193,
as cited in Firestone et al. (1985).
Harless, R.L., Oswald, E.O., Wilkinson, M.K., Dupuy, A.E.,
Jr., McDaniel, D.D. and Han Tai. 1980. Sample
preparation and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
determination of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
Anal. Chem. 52:1239-1245, as cited in NRCC (1981).
Harper, L.A., White, A.W., Jr., Bruce, R.R., Thomas, A.W.,
and Leonard, R.A. 1976. Soil and microclimate effects on
trifluralin volatilization. J. Environ. Qual. 5:236-242,
as cited in Nash (1985).
Harrison, D.D., and Crews, R.C. 1981. A field study of
soil and biological specimens from a herbicide storage and
aerial-test staging site following long-term contamination
with 2378-TCDD. Environmental Science Research
26:323-339.
B-14
-------
Harwood, J.J., Yanders, A.F., Clevenger, T.E., Kapila, s.
1985. Role of dispersing medium on the disposition of
2378-TCDD in soil. Presented at the ACS National Meeting,
Miami, FL, April 1985.
Helling, C.S., Isensee, A.R., Woolson, E.A., Enson,
P.D.J., Jones, G.E., Plimmer, J.R., and Kearney, P.C.
1973. Chlorodioxins in pesticides, soils and plants. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:171-178. As cited in NRCC (1981).
Isensee, A.R. and Jones, G.E. 1971. Absorption and
translocation of root and foliage applied
2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,7-dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. J. Agric. Food Chem.
19:1210-1214. As cited in U.S. EPA (1984a).
Isensee, A.R. and Jones, G.E. 1975. Distribution of
2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin (2378-TCDD) in
aquatic model ecosystems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9:
688-672.
Jackson, D.R. 1985. Solubility of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in
contaminated soils. Presented at the ACS National
Meeting, Miami, FL; April 1985.
Jenson, D.A., Getzendaner, M.E., Hummel, R.A., and Turley,
J. 1983. Residue studies for (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)
acetic acid and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in
grass and rice. J. Agric. Food Chem. 31:118-122. As
cited in U.S. EPA (1984a).
Karickhoff, S.W., Brown, D.S., Scott, T.A., and Trudy, A.
1979. Sorption of hydrophobia pollutants on natural
sediment. Water Res. 13:241-248.
Kearney, P.C., et al. 1973. Environmental significance
of Chlorodioxins. In "Chlorodioxins - Origin and Fate",
E.H. Blair, ed. American Chemical Society, Washington,
DC: 105-111. As cited in EPA (1980).
Kenaga, E. 1980. Environ. Sci. Technol 14:553. As cited
in Marple et al., 1986.
Kleopfer, R.D. and Zirschky, J. 1983. 2,3,7,8-TCDD
distribution in the Spring River, southwestern Missouri.
Environment International 9:249-253.
Kocher, C.W., et al. 1978. A search for 2,3,7,8-tetra-
chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in beef fat. Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 19:229-236.
As cited in EPA (1980).
Liberti, A., Brocco, D., Allegrini, I., Cecinato, A. and
Possanzin, M. 1978. Solar and UV photodecomposition of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in the environment.
Sci. Total Environ. 10:97-104. As cited in NRCC (1981).
B-15
-------
Mackay, D., and Shiu, W.J. 1981. J. Phys. Chem. Data
10:1175, as cited in Podoll et al., 1986.
Marple, L., Berridge, B., and Throop, L. 1986.
Measurement of the water-octanol partition coefficient of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Environ. Sci. Tech.
20(4):397-399.
Matsumura, F., and Benezet, H.J. 1973. Studies on the
bioaccumulation and microbial degradation of
2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-dioxin. Environ. Health Perspect.
5:253-258, as cited in U.S. EPA (1984a).
Mehrle, P.M. 1986. TCDD and TCDF impact on rainbow
trout: An assessment of chronic toxicity and
bioconcentration. Columbia National Fisheries Research
Laboratory, Fish and wildlife Service. Task Report to the
Environmental Research Laboratory U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Meselson, M., O'Keefe, P.w., and Baughman, R. 1978. The
evaluation of possible health hazards from TCDD in the
environment. Presentation for Symposium on the Use of
Herbicides in Forestry, Arlington, VA, February 21-22, as
cited in EPA (1980).
Mitchum, R.K., Moler, G.F. and Korfinacher, W.A. 1980.
Anal. Chem. 52:2278, as cited in Firestone et al. (1985).
Monteriolo, S.C., DiDomenico, A., silano, V., Viviano, G.
and Zapponi, G. 1982. 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels and
distribution in the environment at Seveso after the ICMESA
accident on July 10, 1976. Pergamon Ser. on Env. Sci.
5:127-136.
Nash, R.G. 1985. Estimating pesticide dissipation from
soil surfaces when loss is primarily by volatilization.
Presented at the ACS National Meeting, Miami, FL; April
1985.
Nash, R.G. and Beall, M.L. 1978. A microagroecosystem to
monitor the environmental fate of pesticides. Pesticide
degradation laboratory, ARS, USDA, Beltsville, MD.
Unpublished, as cited in EPA (1980).
Nash, R.G. and Beall, M.L. 1980. Distribution of silvex,
2,4-D, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD applied to turf in chambers and
field plots. J. Agric. Food Chem. 28:614-623, as cited in
Freeman and Schroy (1984).
National Research Council of Canada (NRCC). 1981.
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins: Criteria for their
effects on man and his environment. NRCC No. 18574,
Environment Secretariat, Ottawa, Canada.
B-16
-------
Nestrick, T.J., Lamparski, L. and Townsend, D.I. 1980.
Identification of tetrachlorobenzo-p-dioxin isomers at the
1 ng level by photolytic degradation and pattern
recognition techniques. Anal. Chem. 52:1865-1875, as
cited in U.S. EPA (1984a).
Philipp, M., Krasnobajew, V., Zeyer, J., and Hutter, R.
1981. Fate of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in microbial cultures and in
soil under laboratory conditions. FEMS Symposium
12:221-233.
Plimmer, J.R., Klingebiel, U.I., Crosby, D.C. and Wong,
A.S. 1973. Photochemistry of dibenzo-p-dioxins. Adv.
Chem. Ser. 120:44-54.
Podoll, R.T., Jaber, H.M., and Mill, T. 1986.
Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin: Rates of volatilization and
photolysis in the environment. Environ. Sci. Technol.
20(5):490-492.
Schroy, J.M., Hileman, F.E., and Cheng, S.C. 1984.
Measurement of the water-octanol partition coefficient of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Environ. Sci. Tech.
20(4):397-399.
Schroy, J.M., Hileman, F.E., and Cheng, S.C. 1985.
Physical/chemical properties of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Chemosphere
14(6/7):877-880.
Shadoff, L.A., Hummel, R.A., Lamparski, L. and Davidson,
J.H. 1977. A search for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) in an environment exposed annually
to 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-acetic acid ester (2,4,5-T)
herbicides. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18(4):478-
485, as cited in EPA. 1980.
Solch, J.G. et al. 1980. Wright State University
Quarterly Report to the U.S. EPA on Cooperative Agreement
No. CR 806846-01, March 23, as cited in EPA (1980).
Stalling, D.L., Smith, L.M., Petty, J.D., Hogan, J.W.,
Johnson, J.L., Rappe, C., and Buser, H.R. 1983. in "Human
and Environmental Risks of Chlorinated Dioxins," ed. R.E.
Thibodeaux, L.J., and Lipsky, D. 1985. A fate and
transport model for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in
fly ash on soil and urban surface. Hazardous Waste and
Hazardous Materials 2(2):225-235.
Tucker et al., 1985, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 221-240,
as cited in Firestone et al. (1985)
B-17
-------
Thibodeaux, L.J. 1983. Off-site transport of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin from a production
disposal facility, in "Chlorinated Dioxins and
Dibenzofurans in the Total Environment," Choudhary, G.,
Keith, L.H. and Rappe, C. Boston: Butterworth Publishers,
pp. 75-86.
Wipf, H.K. and Schmid, J. 1981. Seveso - an
environmental assessment. Environ. Sci. Res. 26:255-274.
Young, A.L. 1981. Long-term studies on the persistence
and movement of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in a natural ecosystem.
Environ. Sci. Res. 26:173-190.
Young, A.L., Calcagni, J.A., Thalken, C.E., and Tremblay,
J.W. 1978. The toxicology, environmental fate and human
risk of herbicide orange and its associated dioxins. USAF
OEHL-78-92, as cited in Freeman and Schroy (1984).
Young, A.L., et al. 1976. Fate of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in the environment:
Summary and decontamination recommendations.
USAFA-TR-76-18, as cited in EPA (1980).
B-18
-------
APPENDIX C ESTIMATION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
A detailed description of the statistical site selection
procedures used in this study is provided in RTI (1984) . As a
result of information gained during the course of this study,
some modifications to the estimation procedures suggested by RTI
(1984) were required. This appendix summarizes the site
selection and estimation procedures that were used, as well as
the estimated percent of contaminated sites for each tier.
C.I Tier 3
C.I.I Site Selection
Initially, the EPA identified 258 facilities as Tier 3
sites from its FIFRA and TSCA Enforcement System (FATES). A
stratified random sample of 50 facilities was selected from
seven strata. The first stratum consisted of the 31 largest
facilities (those handling at least 100,000 pounds total of
active ingredients). The remaining 227 facilities were
classified into six strata, according to EPA region (Table C-l).
Fifty-four 2,4,5-TCP and erbon formulators were discovered
in the FATES file after the initial sample of 50 facilities had
been selected. Two additional strata were created to include
these 54 new sites. One stratum consisted of the eight largest
facilities (handling more than 100,000 pounds) and the other
consisted of the remaining 46. Two plants were randomly
selected from the large facilities and 9 from the remaining
facilities to make a total of 61 statistically selected sites in
nine strata from an overall sample frame of 312 facilities
(Table C-l). Within each stratum, facilities to be sampled were
selected with equal probability and without replacement.
C.I.2 Estimation Procedures
The Percent of Eligible Sites
A number of the sites selected in Tier 3 were ineligible
(did not handle tier 3 compounds or were warehouses) . The
percentage of eligible sites in the sampling frame (P&) was
calculated as follows:
p = N,/N x 100 (C-l)
e cr
where:
-------
TABLE C-l
SUMMARY OF TIER 3 STATUS
Stratum
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
o
i
10
Frame
Count
Sample Sampling Number Number
Selections Weight of Sites of Sites
N(h) nfh) Nfhl/nfhl Sampled Contaminated
31
43
39
53
37
29
26
8
46
312
6 5.16667 5
8 5.37500 4
8 4.87500 5
10 5.30000 9
7 5.28571 5
6 4.83333 5
5 5.20000 1
2 4.00000 2
9 5.11111 5
61 41
Sampling Weights Used for
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
Weighting
Class
Number That
Will Not be
Number
Sampled Ineligible
0
2
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
7
Adjustment
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
0
1
13
Selections
Stratum
1 Large Production Facilities
2 EPA Regions I, II and II
3 EPA Regions IV
4 EPA Region V
5 EPA Region VI
6 EPA Region VII
7 EPA Regions VII, IX and X
8 Other Large Production Facilities
9 Miscellaneous
nlhj
6
6
7
10
6
6
3
2
8
L
Sampling
Weight
Nfhl/nfh)
5.16667
7.16667
5.57143
5.30000
6.16667
4.83333
8.66667
4.00000
5.75000
-------
ft, = the total number of domain d eligible
sites; and
N = the total number of sites in the frame.
ft can be estimated as follows:
H
£
n(h)
(C-2)
where:
H = the number of strata;
n(h) = the number of sites selected from the h-th
stratum;
W(h,i) = the sampling weight of the i-th selection of
the h-th stratum; and
5-(h,i) = the indicator of domain d membership status
of the h-th stratum
= 1 if the h, i-th selection is an eligible
site of domain d status, and
0 otherwise.
The variance for the estimate of P can be calculated as
follows:
Var(f> )
Nfhl-nfhl
n(h)-l
X 100'
where:
(C-3)
N(h)
£ (h)
the total number of sites in the frame count
from the h-th stratum; and
the proportion of eligible sites in stratum h
The estimate of the eligible Tier 3 sites
associated standard error are shown in Table C-2 .
Percent of Contaminated Sites
and its
Three estimates were calculated for the percent of
contaminated sites in Tier 3. The three estimates were based on
different assumptions about the seven missing sites (those sites
that could not be sampled due to paving or extensive earthwork) .
A lower bound estimate was calculated assuming that the seven
sites without data were not contaminated. The point estimate
assumed the seven sites were similar in frequency of
contamination to those with data. An upper-bound estimate
assumed all seven sites to be contaminated.
The lower and upper bounds are the lowest and highest
values of the estimate of the percent of contaminated sites.
C-3
-------
TABLE C-2
ESTIMATION RESULTS FOR TIER 3
Estimate
Percent
111
Standard
Deviation (%)
1.0 Percent of eligible
sites out of the
original 312 sites
in FATES data base
79
2.0 Percent of contaminated
sites (based on the 245
eligible sites)
Lower Bound
Point Estimate
Upper Bound
13
16
28
4
5
5
3.0 Percent of
contaminated sites
out of 312 sites
in FATES
Lower Bound
Point Estimate
Upper Bound
10
12
22
3
4
5
Calculated as the square root of the variance
04
-------
Cochran (1977) suggested using confidence limits formed by using
the lower and upper bound estimates as the most conservative
estimate of the potential bias.
The estimates for the percent of contamination were
calculated for two different populations. The first is an
estimate of the percent of contaminated facilities of the
eligible sites (those that actually formulated Tier 3 compounds
(79% of the total Tier 3 sites). The second is the estimate of
the percent of contaminated sites of the 312 sites that had
originally been identified from the FIFRA and TSCA Enforcement
System (although not all of these sites had actually formulated
Tier 3 compounds). Of the 61 statistically selected sites, 13
were considered ineligible because further information revealed
that no Tier 3 compounds had actually been handled, or the site
was a warehouse.
Percent of Contaminated Sites (of Eligible Sites)
The percent (P,) of domain d sites contaminated with dioxin
of those formulating Tier 3 compounds was estimated by:
where:
Pd = $d/ftd x 100 (C-4)
2 « the estimated total domain d eligible sites
contaminated with dioxin; and
N, = the total number of domain d eligible sites.
d
The denominator of P, is estimated as shown in Equation
(C-2). The numerator is estimated as follows:
H n(h)
$d - V* V W(h,i) 6d(h,i) y (h,i) (C-5)
h=l iA
where:
y(h,i)= the indicator of dioxin contamination for the
i-th site within the h-th stratum. y(h,i) = 1 if
the h, i-th site is contaminated, and 0
otherwise.
The lower bound on the proportion estimate was calculated
by assuming y(h,i)=0 for the seven missing sites (assumes they
are not contaminated). The upper bound was calculated assuming
y(h,i)=l for the missing sites (assumes they are contaminated).
C-5
-------
The point estimate was calculated using weighting class
adjustments, assuming that all of the missing sites are similar
to the sites for which there is information.
The weighting class adjustments were calculated by
modifying the sample sizes for each of the strata to reflect the
total number of respondents (sites). Ineligible sites were
treated as respondents in this calculation. The revised sample
selection (n(h)) equals the total number of sites minus the
missing sites in each stratum. All of the recalculated sampling
weights are shown in Table C-l.
The variance of P, is estimated by (Cochran, 1977, pp.
143-144): Q
Var (P ) = -
H N(h)[N(h)-n(h)] n.(h)
n(h)
+ [1 -
n(h)
] IP .(h) -
X 100"
where:
(C-6)
N(h) = the total number of sites in the frame count
for the h-th stratum;
nd(h) = the total number of domain d eligible sites
in the h-th stratum; and
£,(h) = the proportion of domain d sites
contaminated with dioxin in the h-th
stratum.
Percent of Contaminated Sites (of the 312 Sites Identified
in Fates)
The estimate of the percent (£_) of contaminated sites of
those 312 Tier 3 originally identified in FATES was calculated
as follows:
Pf = ?d/N x 10f (C-7)
The estimate of the variance associated with $d was
calculated as follows (Cochran, 1977, pg. 143):
Var
H
N(hl (N(h)-nfhn
n(h) (n(h)-l)
n(h)
V
^
n(h)
X 100
(C-8)
C-6
-------
The variance associated with P. can be calculated as
follows:
Var(V
Var (f> )= SL- (C-9)
1 N 2
The results of the estimates of proportion of contaminated
sites and their associated standard error are summarized in
Table C-2.
C.2 Tier 6
C.2.1 Site Selection
Initially, EPA identified 61 facilities belonging to this
tier. These 61 facilities were grouped by EPA region, and a
cluster sample approach was used to statistically select 19 of
them for sampling. There were five clusters, each with four
facilities. One facility was selected twice and is replicated
in the data set used for estimation of the percent of
contamination in the tier. The facilities were selected with
equal probability and without replacement.
Six additional sites were identified in the FATES data base
after the initial 19 were selected. Rather than rework the
selection model to account for the additional sites, all six
sites were selected for sampling as individual clusters. Thus a
total of 25 sites (26 including the one selected twice) were
statistically selected from a total frame of 67 sites (Table
C-3) .
C.2.2 Estimation Procedures
Estimate of the Percent of Eligible Sites
Ten of the Tier 6 sites were ineligible (did not produce
Tier 6 compounds). The percentage of eligible sites in the
frame (P ) was calculated as for Tier 3 using equation (C-l)
(Table C-4). The variance was estimated by:
Var (£> )
N-n C
e' N C (C-l) c=1
X 100 (C-10)
where:
C = the number of clusters; and
P (c)= the percentage of eligible sites in cluster c.
C-7
-------
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY OF TIER 6 STATUS
o
Cluster
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sample
Selections
nfh)
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
26
Sampling Wts.
Nfh) /nfh)
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Number
Sampled
to Date
3
3
3
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
16
Number
Contaminated
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
o
3
Number
Ineligible
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
10
Total number of Tier 6 sites: 67
-------
TABLE C-4
ESTIMATION RESULTS FOR TIER 6
Percent Standard
Estimate (%) Deviation (%)
1.0 Percent of eligible
sites out of the 67
originally
identified Tier 6
sites 67 21
2.0 Percent of contami-
nated sites (of
eligible sites) 14
3.0 Percent of contaminated
sites (of 67 sites
originally identified
as Tier 6 sites)
09
-------
Percent of Contaminated Sites
An estimate was calculated for the percent of contaminated
sites in Tier 6 as there were no missing sites in this tier.
As for Tier 3, the estimate of the percent of contamination
was calculated for two different populations. The first was an
estimate of the percent of contaminated sites of those actually
produced Tier 6 compounds. The second was the estimate of the
percent of contaminated sites out of the total number of sites
(67) that had been originally identified as Tier 6 sites.
Percent of Contaminated Sites (of those Producing Tier 6
Compounds )
The percent (P.) of domain d eligible sites contaminated
X1A9 KSvA. WV?AA t* \ * ^3 / W*%^**l«i* ^ *» W» IMA. -^^2 JU***^^ »**»*»*» ^^w»- w*»^..--. -
was estimated as described for Tier 3 (Equations C-4 and C-5) .
i estimat
(N-n) C
The variance of Pfl was estimated by (Kish, 1965, p. 132)
Var (P,) =
N(C-l)
x 100"
(-11)
where:
nd(c)
= the total number of domain d eligible sites
in cluster c;
the number of clusters; and
= proportion of contaminated sites in cluster c
Percent of Contaminated Sites (out of the 67
Indentifiedas Tier 6 Sites)
Sites
The percent of contaminated sites of the 67 sites
originally identifed as Tier 6 was calculated as for Tier 3
(Equation C-7) . The variance associated with the estimate of
the proportion of contaminated sites from the total sites was
calculated as follows:
Var (Pf)
where:
Var (*d) - -=
(C-12)
N
x 100
(C-13)
CrlP
-------
where:
W(c,i) = sample weight of the i-th site in the c-th
cluster;
5(c,i) = 1 if the C, i-th selection is a member of
domain eligible sites and
0 otherwise; and
y(c,i) - 1 if the h,i-th site is contaminated, and
0 otherwise.
Table C-4 summarizes the estimation results for Tier 6.
C.3 Tier 7
C.3.1 Urban Soils
Site Selection
Three hundred sites were selected from the 1,761 sites in
the Urban Soils Network of the National Soil Monitoring Program
using a single stage, unstratified cluster design (Table C-5) .
Five clusters with 60 sites per cluster were selected. Each
site was selected with equal probability. The Urban Soils
Network has an unknown probability structure and thus cannot be
considered as representative of urban soils in the nation.
Therefore, the results can only be used to estimate the
percentage of contaminated sites in the network.
Estimation Procedures - Percent of Urban Soils Contaminated
The methods described for Tier 6 were used to estimate the
lower bound, upper bound and point estimate for the proportion
of contaminated sites and the associated variances (Table C-6).
C.3.2. Rural Soils
Site Selection
Two hundred sites were selected from the 13,280 sites in
the Rural Soils Network of the National Soils Monitoring
Program, using a single-stage, unstratified cluster design
(Table C-7). Five clusters of 40 sites per cluster were
selected. The Rural Soils Network has an unknown probability
structure and cannot be considered representative of rural soils
in the nation. Therefore, the results can be used only to
estimate the percentage of contaminated sites in the network.
Because of the large number of missing sites, a sub-sample
of 20 sites was drawn from the 59 sites that initially had
missing documentation (Kroner, 1985). Table C-7 summarizes the
sample and the sub-sample for rural soils.
c-n
-------
TABLE C-5
SUMMARY OF TIER 7 STATUS FOR URBAN SOILS
Cluster
1
2
3
4
5
Sample
Selections
nfhl
60
60
60
60
60
300
Sampling
Weight
5.87
5.87
5.87
5.87
5.87
NO. Of
Sites
Sampled
47
42
42
46
44
221
No. of Sites
Contaminated
3
3
5
4
2
17
No. of Sites
with No
Data Available
13
18
18
14
16
79
Total in Tier 7 urban soils: 1,761
o
Sampling Weights Used for Weighting Class Adjustment
Cluster
1
2
3
4
5
Sampling
Weight
Nfhl/nfh)
7.49362
8.38571
8.38571
7.65652
8.00455
-------
TABLE C-6
ESTIMATION RESULTS FOR TIER 7 URBAN SOILS NETWORK
Estimate
Percent of Contaminated
Sites
Lower Bound
Point Estimate
Percent Standard
X%1 Deviation f%)
Upper Bound
32
C-13
-------
TABLE C-7
SUMMARY OF TIER 7 STATUS FOR RURAL SOILS
Sample
Total That
Number That
o
Selections
Cluster n(h)
1 40
2 40
3 40
4 40
5 40
200
Sampling
Weight
66.40
66.40
66.40
66.40
66.40
Were Not Included
in the Subsample Frame
29
30
26
30
26
143
SUBSAMPLE
Number
Sampled
25
27
23
27
22
124
Total Included Number Selected
in the
Cluster Subsample
1 11
2 10
3 14
4 10
5 14
Frame to
from Frame ^ Sampling
Be Sampled Wt
7 (4) 104.34286
4 (3) 166.00000
6 (5) 154.93333
4 (3) 166.00000
5 (5) 185.92000
Number
Sampled
3
4
4
2
1
Number
Will Not
Contaminated Be Sampled
0
0
0
1
o
1
Number
Contami-
nated
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
3
3
4
17
Number That
Will not be
Sampled
4
0
2
2
4
59
26 (20)
14
12
* Note:
After the subsample frame was developed, some additional sites were found from the subsample
which were not part of the subsample selected; 3 in cluster 1, and 1 each in clusters 2, 3
and 4. Numbers in parentheses represent the original number selected from the frame.
-------
Estimation Procedures - Percent of Rural Soils Contaminated
The methods described for Tier 6 were used to estimate the
lower bound, upper bound, and point estimate for the percent of
contaminated sites and the associated variances (Table C-8) . As
a result of the large amount of missing data, a two-phase or
double sampling plan was used (Hansen and Hurwitz, 1946) . In
the sub-sample that was selected many sites could not be found.
However, some additional sites not selected for the sub-sample
were subsequently found. All available sites were used to
estimate the sub-sample values, and the number of sites in each
cluster [n_ (c) ] were calculated based on the number of sites
that were found.
For the cluster elements that were not in the sub-sample,
the weight W(c,i) remained the same as before (66.40000).
Missing sites were handled as in previous tiers, and the
estimates included an upper/lower bound and point estimate
(weighting clss adjustment). New sampling weights [W_(c,i)]
were calculated for cluster elements that were in the sub-sample
as follows (Table C-9) :
W2(c,i) - H
where ,
N. (c) - the total number of sites in the c-th
cluster for which locations were originally
unknown, and,
n.(c) the size of the sub-sample selected
from the c-th cluster.
C.3.3 NASQAN and Benchmark Stations
Site Selection
The sampling frame for NASQAN and benchmark stations
consisted of 554 sites. Of these, 102 stations were selected
for sampling. From the 452 remaining stations a stratified
random sample of 100 stations was selected among 10 strata
(Table C-10).
Estimation Procedures - Percent of Fish Sites Contaminated
The estimates of the percents and associated variances for
Tier 7 fish sites were calculated using the method outlined by
RTI (1984). The sampling weights for the weighting class
adjustment calculations are shown in Table C-10.
C-15
-------
TABLE C-8
ESTIMATION RESULTS FOR TIER 7 RURAL SOILS NETWORK
Standard
Estimate Percent (%) Deviation (%)
Percent of Contaminated
Sites
Lower Bound 0.5 0.4
Point Estimate 0.6 0.6
Upper Bound 23
C-16
-------
TABLE C-9
SAMPLING WEIGHTS USED FOR WEIGHTING CLASS ADJUSTMENT
TIER 7 RURAL SOILS
Sample
Cluster
1
2
3
4
5
Sampling
Weight
77.02400
75.06087
73.77778
73.77778
78.72727
Subsample
Cluster
1
2
3
4
5
243.46667
166.00000
232.40000
332.00000
929.60000
C-17
-------
TABLE C-10
SUMMARY OF TIER 7 FISH STATUS
o
i
M
00
Stratum
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Frame
Count
Nfhl
16
24
18
74
63
101
19
47
45
45
452
Sample
Selections
n(hl
4
5
4
16
14
22
4
11
10
10
100
Sampling
Weight
Nfhl/nfhi
4.00000
4.80000
4.50000
4.62500
4.50000
4.59091
4.75000
4.27273
4.50000
4.50000
No. of Sites
Sampled to
Date
3
4
4
15
12
19
4
11
9
9
90
No. of
Sites
Contaminated
1
0
2
1
6
4
1
0
1
1
17
No. That
Will Not
be Sampled
1
1
0
1
2
3
0
0
1
1
10
Sampling Weights Used for Weighting Class Adjustment
Stratum
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Sample
Selections
nfhl
3
4
4
15
12
19
4
11
9
9
Sampling
Weight
Nfhy/nfh)
5.33333
6.00000
4.50000
4.93333
5.25000
5.31579
4.75000
4.27273
5.00000
5.00000
-------
The percent of contaminated sites was calculated as for
Tier 3, with the elimination of the indicator variable for
ineligible sites.
The variance of P for Tier 7 fish sites was calculated as
follows (Cochran 1977, pp. 107-108):
H 2
Var (P)
.»..., n ,Nfh) - nfhK . g2 fh) ..
L N J LN(h) - 1 J L n(h) J
x 100
M
^
(C-15)
The variance is estimated by substituting
P(h) [1 - P(h)] / [n(h) - 1]
where:
P(h) - the proportion of contaminated sites in the
hth stratum
2
for the unknown quantity a (h)/n(h) in equation (C-15) as
described in RTI (1984) . The estimates for the proportion of
contaminated sites and the associated standard deviation are
shown in Table C-ll.
The estimates of the percents of contaminated fish sites
shown in Table C-ll apply to the 452 stations in the sample
frame. However, 102 sites were selected from the networks
before the probability sample was drawn. In order to provide
an estimate of the proportion of contaminated sites in the
NASQAN and Benchmark networks as a whole, a combined estimate
was developed. A weighted percent was calculated using the
percent of the contaminated 102 sites and the estimate of the
proportion of contaminated sites of the 452. However, data are
not available for all 102 sites. It was assumed that the sites
for which data are available represented the 102, although it
was not a probability sample and the bias is unknown. As a
result, the variance associated with the percent of the
contamination of the 102 sites cannot be estimated. The
variance associated with the combined estimate is unknown, but
would be greater than that associated with the proportion
estimate for the 452 sites.
C-19
-------
TABLE C-ll
ESTIMATION RESULTS FOR TIER 7 - FISH
Standard
Estimate Percent (%) Deviation (%)
1.0 Percent of Contaminated
Sites (of 452 sites in
Sample Frame)
Lower Bound 17 3
Point Estimate 19 4
Upper Bound 27 4
2.0 Percent of Contaminated
Sites of 102 Sites
originally Selected 29
(21 contaminated sites/73 sites with data)
3.0 Percent of Contaminated
Sites in NASQAN and
Benchmark Networks
(Percent of contaminated sites from 1.0)
554
Lower Bound 19
Point Estimate 21
Upper Bound 27
C-20
-------
APPENDIX C REFERENCES
Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling techniques. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Hansen, M.H. and W.N. Hurwitz. 1946. The problem of
nonresponse in sample surveys. Journal of the American
Statistical Association 41:517-529.
Kish, L. 1965. Survey sampling. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Kroner, S. 1985. Letter to Joanne Perwak, ADL; 1/18/85.
Sample selection for sub-sample of 20 sites for Rural
Soils Network Sample.
Research Triangle Institute. 1984. Statistical and
quality assurance support for the National Dixoin Study:
Estimation and weighting procedures. Prepared for
Monitoring and Data Suport Division. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. RTI/2750/04-01F.
C-21
-------
Appendix D - Analytical Data
-------
TABLE D-1 RESULTS OF TIER 3 ANALYSES - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
RANGE DET LIMIT
(PPB UNLESS B (PPB UNLESS
LOCATION UtbUK I r M un : .-..-... ,.~ . ..~ _ .. _ _ _ _____ _ __ __ -- ==-=============
B
IATEI
NJ
NY
WV
GA
D SITES:
W. CALDWELL
FARMINGDALE
ONA
FORT VALLEY
ROCKLAND CHEM. CO., INC.
SOI L
FARMINGDALE GARDEN LABS, INC.
SOIL
HOLDER CORP.
SOIL
SEDIMENT
FISH
CLAM
SECURITY CHEM. CO. (WOOLFOLK CHEM.)
SOIL
SOIL
10
25
36
5
3
1
16
1
1
1
0
0
3
0
2
1
1.3 1
17.6 1
ND 0
ND 0
0.5 - 2.9 (PPT) 3
ND 0
23-40 2
36.7 (PPT) 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.03 -
.1 -
.012 -
.72 -
.05 -
2.2
.13 -
NA
1.1
0.94
0.84
8 (PPT)
0.3 (PPT)
(PPT)
21
o
5 IL CHICAGO HEIGHTS RIVERDALE CHEM. CO.
SOIL
Ml GRAND LEDGE ETM ENTERPRISES (PARSONS)
SO I L
NOT CONTAMINATED SITES:
1 NH NASHUA J HUBBARD, INC.
SOIL
21
13
1.1 - 364
0.56 - 1.13
ND
14
NA
1 0.05 - 0.76
0 0.051 - 0.15
2 NJ CARLSTADT AIRWICK INDUSTRIES INC.
NJ LINDEN
GAF CORPORATION
PA ELLWOOD CITY CALGON CORP.
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
21
5
20
9
41
6
0
4
0
8
0
1
ND
4
ND
3.6 -
ND
1.5
44 (PPT)
26.3 (PPT)
(PPT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02 - 0.
NA
0.14 - 0.
NA
0.03 - 0.
0.35 -0.5
48
99
72
6(
A SOIL/SEDIMENT LEVELS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT; BIOLOGICAL TISSUE LEVELS BASED ON WET WEIGHT
SOIL.
-------
TABLE 0-1 RESULTS OF TIER 3 ANALYSES - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
A
RANGE OET LIMIT
(PPB UNLESS B (PPB UNLESS
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION: MATRIX TYPE # SAMPLED # DETECTED OTHERWISE NOTED) # CONT OTHERWISE NOTED)
3 PA PHILADELPHIA E.F. HOUGHTON
O
I
FL MIAMI SPRINGS PET CHEMICALS INC,
GA MACON BETZ LABS., INC.
NC HUNTERSVILLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLY SERV. CORP.
SOIL
TN MEMPHIS MORTON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
IL CHICAGO HYSAN CORPORATION
IL CHICAGO MORTON THIOKOL-VENTRON DIV.
IL DES PLAINES RAMS HEAD CO.
IL ELGIN BLACK LEAF PRODUCTS CO.
IL ROCHELLE HUB OIL CO.
IN INDIANAPOLIS HUB STATES CORP.
IN KINGSBURY D H & R CO. INC.
Ml OWOSSO AM. AEROSOL (DOW)
SOIL
. (DIXIE CHEM.
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
. CORP.
SOIL
INC.
SOIL
SOIL
DIV.
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
HO
CO.)
16
12
23
7
2~l
21
17
7
9
20
15
35
40
21
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
NO
NO
NO
ND
1.3 - 16 (PPT)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.36 - 0.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.021 -
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.5
0.01
0.02
0.11
0.055
0.02
0.14
0.1
0.02
0.01
0.22
- 0.06
- 0.06
- 0.58
NA
- 5.8
- 0.21
- 0.37
- 0.65
- 0.49
- 0.67
- 0.86
- 0.94
- 0.74
- 1
-------
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
TABLE D-1 RESULTS OF TIER 3 ANALYSES - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
RANGE DET LIMIT
(PPB UNLESS B (PPB UNLESS
MATRIX TYPE # SAMPLED # DETECTED OTHERWISE NOTED) # CONT OTHERWISE NOTED)
O
MN MARSHALL STANDARD CHEMICAL MFC CO.
OH SPRINGFIELD ABLE PEST CONTROL INC.
6 TX HOUSTON DREW CHEMICAL CORP.
TX IRVING MOHAWK LABS. DIV. OF NCH CORP.
TX SAN ANGELO BES-TEX INSECT. CO. INC.
IA ESTHERVILLE GOLDEN SUN FEEDS, INC.
IA MALVERN STANDARD CHEM. MFG. CO.
MO KANSAS CITY NOVA PRODUCTS, INC.
MO MARYLAND HEIGHTS CHEVRON CHEM. CORP.
MO N. KANSAS CITY COLONY CHEM. CO. (PEUBLO CO.)
MO SEWARD EASY CHEM. & MFC CO. INC.
3.
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
H CORP.
SOIL
'SOIL
, INC. (PALO
SOIL
SOIL
DUST
SOIL
SEDIMENT
DUST
SOIL
SOIL
BLO CO. )
SOIL
Rl CHEMICAL
SOIL
C.
SOIL
31
9
14
13
38
ALTO)
53
34
3
16
15
5
25
28
13
CO.)
32
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
=s ===:====
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3 - 0.3
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01 -
0.03 -
0.01 -
0.02 -
0.03 -
0.05 -
0.1 -
0.1 -
0.1 -
0.1 -
0.1 -
0.03 -
0.05 -
0.1 -
0.04 -
0.1 -
0.63
0.48
0.2
0.81
0.61
0.85
0.11
0.36
0.8
0.67
0.48
0.77
0.7
0.76
0.67
0.47
-------
TABLE D-1 RESULTS OF TIER 3 ANALYSES - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION: MATRIX TYPE
3=:===:sss:s===
MO ST. LOUIS DERRICK SOAP PRO. INC.
MO ST. LOUIS NAVY BRAND MFG., CO.
AZ SCOTTSDALE INDIANHEAD MFG.
CA BREA
PETROL ITE
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
RANGE
( PPB UNLESS
SAMPLED f DETECTED OTHERWISE NOTED)
DET LIMIT
B ( PPB UNLESS
CONT OTHERWISE NOTED)
27
27
17
16
ND
0.86
ND
NU
0.05 - 5.4
0.1 - 0.55
0.1 - 0.61
0.1 - 1.2
o
Ul
-------
TABLE D-2 RESULTS OF TIER 3 ANALYSES - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
B
CONTAMINATED SITES:
3 VA ALEXANDRIA R.H. BOGLE CO.
VA NORFOLK SMITH DOUGLAS CO. (BORDEN)
U FL BELLE GLADE CHEM. SPRAY, INC.
5 IL BEDFORD PARK NALCO CHEM. CO.
7 MO SAINT JOSEPH UNION CARBIDE
9 CA SANTE FE SPRINGS MAGNA CORP.
NOT CONTAMINATED SITES:
1 Rl WOOD RIVER JUNCTION CARROLL PRODUCTS, INC.
5 IL ATLANTA HOPKINS AGRI.. CHEM. CO.
RANGE DET LIMIT
(PPB UNLESS B (PPB UNLESS
MATRIX TYPE # SAMPLED # DETECTED OTHERWISE NOTED) # CONT OTHERWISE NOTED)
IL QUINCY
MOORMAN MANUFACTURING CO.
SOIL
FISH-WHOLE
FISH-FILET
SEDIMENT
:N)
SOIL
DUST
OTHER
SOIL
SEDIMENT
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
i, INC.
SOIL
SOIL
1.
SOIL
(CHANGE
SOIL
SOIL
WATER
40
4
U
9
53
10
1
19
7
10
26
10
23
30
38
23
29
10
0
U
3
5
1
0
0
2
7
2
23
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND 0
1.6 - 6.3 (PPT) t
1.9 - 5.0 (PPT) 3
5.5 - 23 (PPT) 5
10.1 1
ND 0
ND 0
0.2 - 3.0 1
20.9 - 515 (PPT) 7
1.9 - 2.2 2
0.13 - 39.1 16
2.0 1
ND 0
ND 0
ND 0
ND 0
ND 0
ND 0
0.07 -
J.3 -
O.U -
1.2 -
0.01 -
0.08 -
0.12
0.01 -
NA
0.76 -
0.11 -
0.07 -
0.01 -
0.01 -
0.01 -
0.02 -
0.02 -
0.01-0.
0.89
1.3 (
1.3 (
9.7 (
0.83
0.83
60
0.65
1.04
0.7
0.33
0.3
0.28
0.37
0.95
152 (1
MN INVER GROVE FARMERS UNION CENTRAL EXCHANGE
OH MARYSVILLE 0 M SCOTT & SONS CO.
A SOIL/SEDIMENT LEVELS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT; BIOLOGICAL TISSUE LEVELS BASED ON WET WEIGHT
B CONTAMINATION DEFINED AS CONCENTRATION GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1 PPB IN SOIL OR ABOVE DETECTABLE LEVELS IN OTHER MEDIA; SEDIMENT
IS DEFINED AS SAMPLES WITH OVERLYING WATER SUPPORTING AQUATIC LIFE. SAMPLES FROM AREAS SUCH AS DRAINAGE DITCHES ARE CONSIDERED
SOIL.
-------
TABLE D-2 RESULTS OF TIER 3 ANALYSES - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
D
htGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
Wl MILWAUKEE ALDRICH CHEMICAL CO.
Wl RANDOLPH HOPKINS AGRI. CHEM. CO.
Wl STURTEVANT S.C. JOHNSON & SON
6 TX BEAUMONT VELSICOL CHEM. CORP
TX HOUSTON CSA, LTD.
TX NACOGDOCHES C J MARTIN COMPANY
IA GRIMMEL GOLDEN SUN FEEDS, INC.
IA MUSCAT INE KENT FEEDS INC.
-------
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
B
CONTAMINATED SITES:
1 ME B&A - R-O-W - GRINDSTONE
2 NY LONG ISLAND RAILROAD - STEWART MANOR
U FL WEST PALM BEACH - FLORIDA CANALS
MS CLEVELAND CO.
MS SCOT CO.
5 Wl PETENWELL FLOWAGE - WISCONSON RIVER
TABLE D-3 RESULTS OF TIER 5 ANALYSES
MATRIX TYPE # SAMPLED # DETECTED
RANGE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
O
00
AR DESHA CO.
LA ASSUMPTION PARISH
LA POINT COUPEE PARISH
LA RICHLAND PARISH
A SOIL/SEDIMENT LEVELS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT; BIOLOGICAL TISSUE LEVELS BASED ON WET WEIGHT
B CONTAMINATION DEFINED AS DETECTABLE LEVELS
SOIL
SOIL
SEDIMENT
SOIL
RICE
SOIL
BOTTOM FEEDER- FILET
BOTTOM FEEDER-WHOLE
GREAT BLUE HERON
GREEN HERON
KING FISHER
RACCOON FAT
PREDATOR- FILET
PREDATOR-WHOLE
PLANT TISSUE
SEDIMENT
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
SEDIMENT
SOIL
22
26
36
20
1
20
3
U
3
1
2
3
2
2
5
3
U6
24
25
1
35
18 8-35
1 9
27 0.7 - 26. !>
16 O.fi - 1.7
0 ND
2 0.6 - 0.7
3 20-23
it 25 - U7
1 1.2
1 0.76
2 7.8 - 12
1 1.9
2 3-8
2 9-37
0 ND
0 ND
1 3
14 0.3 - 1.1
20 1 - 2.5
0 ND
9 0.3 - O.U
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
- 68
- M»
.M - 1.35
.142 - 1.21
0.6
.22 - 1 . U5
.5 - 1.6
.7 - 1.2
.12 - 0.2
0.1
.t - 0.7
.13 - O.U
.8 - 0.9
.5 - 0.7
- 10
- 2
- 8
.28 - 0.82
.26 - 1.15
O.U6
.19 - 0.39
-------
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
TABLE D-3 RESULTS OF TIER 5 ANALYSES
MATRIX TYPE # SAMPLED # DETECTED
RANGE (PPT)
DET LIMIT (PPT)
TX RIO GRANDE PLAIN EXP. RANCH - KINNEY CO
SOIL
RATTLESNAKE
VEGETATI ON
38
1
6
12
0
0
0.2 -
ND
ND
0.09 - 0.75
0.1
O.c - 1.1
7 MO MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST - FREDERICKTOWN
SOIL
50
21
0.3 - 124
0.17 - 0.7
9 AZ TONTO NATIONAL FOREST
SOIL 121
COYOTE FAT 1
COYOTE KIDNEY 1
COYOTE LIVER 1
DEER FAT 2
DEER KIDNEY 1
DEER LIVER 3
FROGS WHOLE (20) 1
JAVELINA FAT 3
JAVELINA KIDNEY 2
JAVELINA LIVER 3
QUAIL WHOLE 1
SUNFISH WHOLE 1
SNAKE WHOLE 3
TOAD WHOLE 1
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1- 6623
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.06 - 33
5.1
0.6
0.8
5 - 6.9
0.2
- 0.6
0.3
11
- 0.4
- 0.8
0.3
0.44
0.3 - 1.7
0.5
0.3
3 -
0.2
CA SANTA ANA RIVER
BOTTOM FEEDER-WHOLE 7
PREDATOR-WHOLE 2
SEDIMENT 28
4.6
ND
0.6
0.24 - 0.68
0.05 - 0.67
0.14 - 0.85
10 OR SANTIAM FOREST - GATES
SEDIMENT 12
SOIL 35
WHOLE SCULP IN 1
0.2
- 0.4
ND
ND
0.1 - 0.43
0.13 - 1.05
0.3
NOT CONTAMINATED SITES:
1 ME CMP - R-O-W - YARMOUTH
SOIL
23
ND
1 - 9
VT LAKE ABENAKI - THETFORD
SEDIMENT 23
S.M. BASS-WHOLE 1
ND
ND
1 - 3
2.6
-------
TABLE D-3 RESULTS OF TIER 5 ANALYSES
O
I
O
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
VT LAKE CLARA - WHITINGHAM
MATRIX TYPE # SAMPLED #_DfTECTED =_J)^NGE_(_PPT)==
3 VA KING-QUEEN CO.
VA MATTHEWS CO.
AL ESCAMBIA EXP. FOREST - BREWTON
MS BOYLE CO.
LA MADISON PARISH
NM NMSU EXP. RANCH - DONA ANA CO.
OK TILLMAN CO.
9 CA N. CALIFORNIA RICE FIELDS
CHAIN PICKERAL FIL 1
SOIL 15
SEDIMENT 8
WHITESUCKER FILLET 1
WHITESUCKER WHOLE 1
SEDIMENT 3
SO I L 39
TREE BRANCHES&LEAV 4
SOIL 36
TREE BRANCHES&LEAV 2
SO I L 20
SEDIMENT 1
SO 1 L 22
SOIL 24
SOIL 38
VEGETATION 9
SO 1 L 24
SOIL 4
SEDIMENT 20
BOTTOM FEEDER-WHOLE 2
PREDATOR-WHOLE 4
I
I
I
I
OOOOO 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
zzzzz
ooooo
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.6
1
1 - 3
0.7
0.4
2
1 - 2
1.2 - 1.5
1 - 5
0.9 - 1
0.06 - 0.47
0.46
1 - 2
0.11 - 0.88
0.3 - 4
0.5 - 1.1
0.2 - 4
1 - 2
1 - 3
0.5 - 1.6
0.9 - 2.3
-------
TABLE D-4 RESULTS OF TIER 6 ANALYSES - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
RANGE DET LIMIT
(PPB UNLESS B (PPB UNLESS
MATRIX TYPE # SAMPLED # DETECTED OTHERWISE NOTED) # CONT OTHERWISE NOTED)
1 0.02 - 0.17
0 0.08
0.028 - 0.37
B
CONTAMINATED SITES:
2 NJ SOMERSET W.A. CLEARY
SOIL
SEDIMENT
6 TX PORT NECHES CHEM ALL, INC. (RIVERSIDE CHEMICALS)
SOIL
NOT CONTAMINATED SITES:
2 NJ FORDS TENNECO, INC. (NUODEX, INC.)
SOIL
SEDIMENT
NJ TRENTON CUSTOM PROCESSING
SOIL
0
M NJ HAWTHORNE MERCK (CALGON)
I-* SOIL
3 PA LOCK HAVEN AMERICAN COLOR & CHEM.
SOIL
SEDIMENT
WATER
PRODUCT
PA PHILEDELPHIA ROHM & HAAS
SOIL
U MS VICKSBURG VERTAC INC.
SOIL
SEDIMENT
NC RALEIGH MALLINCKRODT
SOIL
SOIL
___ _
31
1
32
27
2
13
15
10
4
2
1
18
23
H
30
6
=====
1
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
_ ______ _
c
3U.7
ND
0.1 - 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0 - 3.
0 0.034 - 1
0 15-22 (PPT)
0 0.05 - 0.1
0 0.03 - 0.65
0 0.01U - Q.9U
0 O.OU - 0.12
0 0.002 - 0.004
0 0.06
0.0072 - 0.2
0 0.02 - 0.97
0 1-3.1 (PPT)
0 0.028 - 0.69
1.0 - 3.6 (PPT) 0 0.23 - 0.99(PPT)
A SOIL/SEDIMENT LEVELS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT
B CONTAMINATION DEFINED AS CONCENTRATION GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1 PPB IN SOIL OR ABOVt DETECTABLE LEVELS IN OTHER MEDIA; SEDIMENT
IS DEFINED AS SAMPLES WITH OVERLYING WATER SUPPORTING AQUATIC LIFE. SAMPLES FROM AREAS SUCH AS DRAINAGE DITCHES ARE CONSIDERED
SOIL.
C CONCENTRATION LEVEL UNCERTAIN - MAY BE HIGH BY 20%
-------
TABLE D-H RESULTS OF TIER 6 ANALYSES - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
SC CHARLESTON HGTS. MOBIL CORP.
5 IN LAFAYETTE ELI LILLY COMPANY
6 AR HELENA VERTAC, INC.
TX PASEDENA VELSI COL
8 MT BILLINGS TRANSBAS
10 WA TACOMA REICHOLD CHEMICAL CO.
D SOIL
MATRIX TYPE
SOIL
RANGE DET LIMIT
(PPB UNLESS B (PPB UNLESS
SAMPLED # DETECTED OTHERWISE NOTED) # CONT OTHERWISE NOTED)
ND
SOIL
WATER
SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
WATER
SOIL
U1
4
U6
11
21
3
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
U7.8 -
0.05 - 0.29
0 0.1 - 0.3
0 0.02 - 0.91
0 0.1 (PPT)
0 0.03 - 0.33
0 0.01U - 0.03«*
0 0.02 - 0.52
0 0.002- O.OI(PPT)
0 0.18 - 1.02(PPT)
0 0.05 - 0.8
-------
TABLE D-5 RESULTS OF TIER 6 ANALYSES - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A
CONTAMINATED SITES:
9 NV HENDERSON STAUFFER CHEM.
NOT CONTAMINATED SITES:
5
RANGE DET LIMIT
(PPB UNLESS B (PPB UNLESS
MATtUX TYPE # SAMPLED # DETECTED OTHERWISE NOTED) # CONT OTHERWISE NOTED)
== = = ========= ========== =====:===s=:=:a===== 3=55===:=: =:s==:=:=:=:=5s=:=:=s:s==
SOIL
WATER
AQUEOUS LIQUID
IN TERRE HAUTE INT. MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORP.
SOIL
WATER
37
7
42
5
0
0
1 1 0.05 - 0.29
0.07 - 0.11 (PPT) 4 0.005 -0.02(PPT)
ND 0 0.002 - 0.005
ND
ND
0
0
0.01 - O.t9
0.01 (PPT)
CA IRWINDALE SPECIALITY ORGAN ICS
SOIL
20
ND
0.04 - 0.36
D
A SOIL/SEDIMENT LEVELS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT
B CONTAMINAT ON DEFINED AS CONCENTRATION GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1 PPB IN SOIL OR ABOVE DETECTABLE LEVELS IN OTHER MEDIA- SEDIMENT
IS DEFINED AS SAMPLES WITH OVERLYING WATER SUPPORTING AQUATIC LIFE. SAMPLES FROM AREAS SUCH AS DRAINAGE DITCHES ARE CONSIDERED
SO I L«
-------
TABLE D-6 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 URBAN SOILS
B
REGION
C
CONTAMINATED LOCATIONS :
6
9
10
NOT DETECTED LOCATIONS:
1
7
9
10
LOCATION DESCRIPTION
D.C., WASHINGTON
PA, PITTSBURGH
IN, EVANSVILLE
IN, GARY
LA, LAKE CHARLES
CA, SAN FRANCISCO
WA, TACOMA
TOTAL
CT, HARTFORD
MA, FITCHBURG
MA, PITTSFIELD
PA, PITTSBURGH
PA, READING
VA, NEWPORT NEWS
D.C., WASHINGTON
AL, GADSDEN
GA, MACON
NC, DURHAM
SC, GREENVILLE
IL, SPRINGFIELD
IN, EVANSVILLE
IN, GARY
AR, PINE BLUFF
LA, LAKE CHARLES
I A, DES MOINES
CA, SAN FRANCISCO
WA, TACOMA
TOTAL
NO. SAMPLES
3
2
1
2
1
1
7
17
8
6
9
22
7
11
16
8
7
12
7
11
2
12
10
8
14
27
7
"204
LEVELS DETECTED (PPT)
3.0
2.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
1.3
0.5
0.2
2.0
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.9
8.7
11.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
DETECTION LIMIT (PPT)
0.40 - 2.0
1.0 - 4.0
NOT AVAILABLE
NOT AVAILABLE
NOT AVAILABLE
1.0
NOT AVAILABLE
1.0 - 10.0
1.0 - 10.0
1.0 - 4.0
1.0 - 9.0
1.0 - 4.0
1.0 - 4.0
0.4 - 17.0
1.0 - 3.0
1.0 - 2.0
0.5 - 5.5
0.7 - 1.8
1.0 - 9.0
0.2 - 0.34
0.27 - 1.13
0.2 - 3.0
0.07 - 0.53
0.5 - 3.0
1.0 - 8.0
0.33 - 0.98
A SAMPLING WAS CONDUCTED IN THE SMSAS FOR THESE CITIES
B SOIL LEVELS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT
C CONTAMINATION DEFINED AS DETECTABLE LEVELS
-------
D
H
Ul
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
3 PA BRADFORD COUNTY
PA MONROE COUNTY
VA WASHINGTON COUNTY
k AL LAUDERDALE COUNTY
FL FLAGLER COUNTY
FL ORANGE COUNTY
GA WHITFIELD COUNTY
KY BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY
KY HARD IN COUNTY
KY WASHINGTON COUNTY
MS COAHOMA COUNTY
MS PERRY COUNTY
MS TATE COUNTY
NC PERQUIMANS COUNTY
TN ROBERTSON COUNTY
5 IL CHRISTIAN COUNTY
IL CLAY COUNTY
IL HENRY COUNTY
IL IROQUOIS COUNTY
IL LOGAN COUNTY
IL MCDONOUGH COUNTY
IL SHELBY COUNTY
IN WARREN COUNTY
TABLE D-7 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 RURAL SOILS
A
LEVEL DETECTED(PPT) DETECTION LIMIT(PPT)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
0.90
0.80
1.00
2.00
0.90
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.31
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.36
A SOIL LEVELS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT
-------
o
I-1
CTi
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
IN WAYNE COUNTY
IN WHITLEY COUNTY
Ml CALHOUN COUNTY
Ml PRESQUE ISLE COUNTY
MN CARVER COUNTY
MN CHI SAGO COUNTY
MN HENNEPIN COUNTY
MN KANABEC COUNTY
MN POLK COUNTY
MN REDWOOD COUNTY
MN WATONWAN COUNTY
OH PREBLE COUNTY
OH SANDUSKY COUNTY
OH SHELBY COUNTY
Wl CHIPPEWA COUNTY
Wl ST. CROIX COUNTY
Wl WAUSHARA COUNTY
6 AR DESHA COUNTY
AR GREENE COUNTY
AR LAWRENCE COUNTY
AR MADISON COUNTY
LA CALCASIEU PARISH
OK BEAVER COUNTY
OK COTTON COUNTY
OK LEFLORE COUNTY
TABLE D-7 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 RURAL SOILS
A
LEVEL DETECTED(PPT) DETECTION LIMIT(PPT)
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.36
0.59
2.00
0.45
0.12
0.37
0.18
0.25
0.2H
0.18
0.3U
0.21
0.29
O.U2
0.30
0.36
0.39
0.34
0.36
0.12
0.70
0.80
0.20
O.UO
0.38
0.28
0.06
O.U1
-------
TABLE D-7 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 RURAL SOILS
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
OK OSAGE COUNTY
OK WOODS COUNTY
TX ARMSTRONG COUNTY
TX CAMERON COUNTY
TX CASTRO COUNTY
TX DUVAL COUNTY
TX ELLIS COUNTY
TX FRIO COUNTY
TX HALE COUNTY
TX HALL COUNTY
TX KERR COUNTY
TX KINNEY COUNTY
TX LAMB COUNTY
TX NUECES COUNTY
TX RUNNELS COUNTY
TX WICHITA COUNTY
7 IA ADAIR COUNTY
IA FLOYD COUNTY
LEVEL DETECTED(PPT) DETECTION LiMIT(PPT)
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.25
0.19
0.34
0.83
0.17
0.12
0.27
0.11
0.28
0.13
0.29
1.04
0.24
0.25
0.12
0.33
0.32
0.16
0.18
0.33
0.30
0.27
1.29
0.58
0.99
0.27
0.08
0.10
0.34
0.33
0.19
0.25
2.00
0.28
1.24
-------
TABLE D-7 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 RURAL SOILS
a
i
M
03
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
IA JASPER COUNTY
IA TAYLOR COUNTY
IA WARREN COUNTY
KS CHEYENNE COUNTY
KS COVE COUNTY
KS MARSHALL COUNTY
KS MCPHERSON COUNTY
KS MEADE COUNTY
KS RAWLINS COUNTY
KS RICE COUNTY
KS RUSSELL COUNTY
KS SUMNER COUNTY
KS WALLACE COUNTY
MO ANDREW COUNTY
MO BARTON COUNTY
MO GREENE COUNTY
MO HOLT COUNTY
NE BOX BUTTE COUNTY
NE BUFFALO COUNTY
NE BURT COUNTY
NE FILLMORE COUNTY
NE KNOX COUNTY
NE RICHARDSON COUNTY
LEVEL DETECTED(PPT) DETECTION LIMIT(PPT)
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.00
2.00
1.00
0.06
0.17
1.00
O.U6
0.12
0.1U
0.15
0.18
0.17
0.5U
0 . 1'l
0.70
0.07
0.17
0.71
1.00
0.20
0.12
0.31
0.51
O.U8
0.15
0.17
1.00
1.00
-------
D
I
REGIOh LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
8 CO ARCHULETA COUNTY
CO ELBERT COUNTY
CO GILPIN COUNTY
CO MONTROSE COUNTY
CO PHILLIPS COUNTY
MT FERGUS COUNTY
MT GALLATIN COUNTY
MT HILL COUNTY
MT JEFFERSON COUNTY
MT LIBERTY COUNTY
MT MADISON COUNTY
MT PARK COUNTY
ND BURLEIGH COUNTY
ND KI ODER COUNTY
ND LOGAN COUNTY
ND MCLEAN COUNTY
ND MORTON COUNTY
SD BRULE COUNTY
SD CHARLES MIX COUNTY
SD CLAY COUNTY
SD HAAKON COUNTY
SD MARSHALL COUNTY
SD STANLEY COUNTY
SD TODD COUNTY
SD TRIPP COUNTY
SD TURNER COUNTY
UT MILLARD COUNTY
TABLE D-7 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 RURAL SOILS
A
LEVEL OETECTEO(PPT) DETECTION LIMIT(PPT)
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.21
0.1U
O.H7
0.5U
0.25
0.19
0.20
0.35
0.31
0.25
0.15
0.37
0.26
O.UO
0.2U
0.33
0.90
0.12
O.U5
0.18
0.38
0.11
-------
TABLE D-7 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 RURAL SOILS
O
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
WY CAMPBELL COUNTY
WY CROOK COUNTY
WY SHERIDAN COUNTY
WY WASHAKIE COUNTY
WY WESTON COUNTY
9 CA GLENN COUNTY
CA MENDOCINO COUNTY
CA SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
CA SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
NV ELKO COUNTY
NV NYE COUNTY
10 ID CASSIA COUNTY
ID GOOD ING COUNTY
ID TETON COUNTY
OR LINN COUNTY
OR MALHEUR COUNTY
OR MARION COUNTY
OR MORROW COUNTY
WA ADAMS COUNTY
WA DOUGLAS COUNTY
WA SKAGIT COUNTY
WA STEVENS COUNTY
LEVEL DETECTED(PPT) DETECTION LIMIT(PPT)
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D.50
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.93
0.07
0.17
0.60
0.07
0.19
0.20
0.1U
0.22
0.08
0.07
0.33
1.00
0.19
0.88
0.27
NOT AVAILABLE
0.29
0.2U
0.16
0.40
0.33
0.08
0.34
0.47
-------
TABLE D-8 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
O
to
CONTAMINATED SITES:
1 HE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER - BRUNSWICK
3 MD SUSQUEHANNA RIVER - CONOWINGO
PA SCHUYLKILL RIVER - PHILADELPHIA
U MS YAZOO RIVER - REDWOOD
IN WABASH RIVER - NEW HARMONY
Ml MUSKEGON RIVER - BRIDGETON
TYPE OF FISH
« B
CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
MN RAINY RIVER - LONG SAULT
OH GREAT MIAMI RIVER - NEW BALTIMORE
A IF MORE THAN ONE VALUE REPORTED FOR ONE TYPE OF SAMPLE, THE HIGHEST VALUE IS SHOWN
B BIOLOGICAL TISSUE LEVELS BASED ON WET WEIGHT
C CONTAMINATION DEFINED AS DETECTABLE LEVELS
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
19
11
1.2
0.5
1.2
ND
1.9
ND
3.2
ND
2
ND
ND
2.8
ND
1+.3
ND
19
12
ND
1.2
1
0.6
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.5
1.1
1.2
0.3
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.6
0.1
O.U
1.2
2
H.6
0.08
-------
TABLE D-8 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
D
OH LITTLE MIAMI RIVER - MILFORD
Wl NEMADJI RIVER - SOUTH SUPERIOR
6 AR MISSISSIPPI RIVER - ARKANSAS CITY
AR RED RIVER - INDEX
LA BEOUF RIVER - FT. NECESSITY
OK WASHITA RIVER - DURWOOD
7 NE PLATTE RIVER - LOUISVILLE
9 CA OWENS RIVER - BIG PINE
10 OR WILLAMETTE RIVER - PORTLAND
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
FILET
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
1.2
4
0.9
1.5
3.7
2.U
6
1.9
7
ND
1.1
ND
1.3
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
1.2
ND
ND
4.5
1.5
O.It
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.96
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.32
0.39
0.38
0.34
0.4
1.4
0.?
l.i
0.7
1.1
0.7;
NOT CONTAMINATED SITES:
1 CT CONNECTICUT RIVER - THOMPSONVILLE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
3.8
ME NARRAGUAGUS RIVER - CHERRYFIELD
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ID
-------
TABLE D-8 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
2 NJ RARITAN RIVER - QUEENS BRIDGE
NY NISSEQUOGUE RIVER - SMITHTOWN
NY RICHELIEU RIVER - ROUSES POINT
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
ND
NO
ND
1.6
0.2
2.9
NY TONAWANDA CREEK - BATAVIA
VA APPOMATTOX RIVER - MATOACA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
ND
0.3
0.8
to
u>
VA PAMUNKEY RIVER - HANOVER
AL ALABAMA RIVER - MONTGOMERY
AL CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER - COLUMBUS
FL CHIPOLA RIVER - ALTHA
FL ECONFINA CREEK - BENNET
FL FISHEATING CREEK - PALMDALE
FL MAIN CANAL - VERO BEACH
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.7
0.6
O.U
1.2
O.U
0.2
0.1*
FL ST. MARYS RIVER - McCLENNY
KY BIG SANDY RIVER - LOUISA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLF FISH
ND
ND
1.1
3.2
-------
TABLE D-8 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
O
to
MS CYPRESS CREEK - JANICE
MS ESCAfAWPA RIVER - AGRICOLA
NC CATALOOCHEE CREEK - CATALOOCHEE
SJC COOSAWHATCHI E RIVER - HAMPTON
TN BUFFALO RIVER - FLAT WOODS
TN CLINCH RIVER - MELTON HILL DAM
5 Ml MANISTEE RIVER - MANISTEE
Ml RIFLE RIVER - STERLING
Ml ST. MARYS RIVER - SAULT STE MARIE
Ml TAHQUAMENON RIVER - TAHQUAMENON PARADISE
Ml WASHINGTON CREEK - ISLE ROYALE
MN MINNESOTA RIVER - JORDON
'6 AR NORTH SYLAMORE CREEK - FIFTY SIX
AR SULPHUR RIVER - TEXARKANA
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.9
0.4
0.6
1
0.69
2.1
1.3
2.2
2.5
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
-------
TABLE D-8 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
LA TANGIPAHOA RIVER - ROBERT
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE #_DfJ££J££ VALUE JJPPJJ ££I==~II=i=-T*
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.5
NM CANADIAN RIVER - NM-TEX STATE LINE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.7
NM RIO MORA RIVER - TERERRO
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
0.2
OK KIAMICHI RIVER - BIG CEDAR
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.5
OK RED RIVER - DEN I SON DAM
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.8
TX BRAZOS RIVER - HIGHBANK
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.7
O
»o
Ul
TX COLORADO RIVER - SILVER
TX GUADALUPE RIVER - VICTORIA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
ND
0.7
1.1
TX LAVACA RIVER - EDNA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.6
TX LITTLE RIVER - CAMERON
BOTTOM FEEDER FILET
ND
0.52
TX SOUTH FORK ROCKY CREEK - BRIGGS
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.8
TX TRINITY RIVER - ROMAYOR
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
7 IA IOWA RIVER - WAPELLO
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.35
IA NISHNABOTNA RIVER - HAMBURG
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.2
-------
TABLE D-8 RESULTS OF ANALYSE? OF TIER 7 FISH - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
IYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
?
10
MO OSAGE RIVER - SCHELL CITY
NE MISSOURI RIVER - OMAHA
8 CO COLORADO RIVER - COLORADO - UTAH BORDER
MT FLATHEAD RIVER - COLUMBIA FALLS
MT MISSOURI RIVER - FORT BENTON
MT MISSOURI RIVER - VIRGELLE
MT POWDER RIVER - LOCATE
MT ROCK CREEK - HORSE CREEK
MT YELLOWSTONE RIVER - BILLINGS
ND LITTLE MISSOURI RIVER - WATFORD CITY
SD CASTLE CREEK - HILL CITY
UT DELORES RIVER - CISCO
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER FILET
PREDATOR WHOLE FISH
PREDATOR FI LET
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
0
0
0
0
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
1.6
0.7
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.7
WY CACHE CREEK - JACKSON
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
1.2
-------
TABLE D-8 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
WY NORTH PLATTE RIVER - ALCOVA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.74
9 CA KLAMATH RIVER - KLAMATH GLEN
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.7
CA SAN JOAQUIN RIVER - VERNALIS
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
0.8
CA SAN LUIS REY RIVER - OCEANSIDE
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
1.3
CA SANTA CLARA RIVER - LA-VENTURA COUNTY LINE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.23
HI HALAWA STREAM - HALAWA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.6
D
HI HONOLII STREAM - PAPAIKOU
NV COLORADO RIVER - BELOW HOOVER DAM
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
ND
0.5
NV HUMBOLDT RIVER - CARLIN
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.08
10 AK SUSITNA RIVER - SUSITNA STATION
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
0.8
ID SNAKE RIVER - KING HILL
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.29
OR COLUMBIA RIVER - WARRENDALE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER FILET
0
0
ND
ND
O.U
0.7
WA OKANOGAN RIVER - MALLOT
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.1
-------
TABLE 0-8 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - STATISTICALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
WA PUYALLUP RIVER - PUYALLUP
WA SNOHOMISH RIVER - MONROE
WA WILLAPA RIVER - WILLAPA
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMMT (PPT)
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
ND
ND
O.U
0.7
0.3
to
oo
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
C
CONTAMINATED SITES:
1 CT QUIN1PIAC RIVER - NORTH HAVEN
TYPE OF FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
A B
CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
WHOLE FISH
FILET
1
0
0.9
ND
0.3
0.66
MA BLACKSTONE RIVER - MILLVILLE
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
1
1
1
0
1.1
0.4
2.4
ND
0.05
0.13
0.1
0.76
MA MERRIMACK RIVER - TYNGS ISLAND
BOTTOM FEEDER
WHOLE FISH
1.2
0.24
MA NASHUA RIVER - PEPPERELL
ME ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER - LEWISTON
ME KENNEBEC RIVER - SIDNEY
ME PENOBSCOT RIVER - EDDINGTON
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
VT CONNECTICUT RIVER - NEWBURY
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
A IF MORE THAN ONE VALUE REPORTED FOR ONE TYPE OF SAMPLE, THE HIGHEST VALUE IS SHOWN
B BIOLOGICAL TISSUE LEVELS BASED ON WET WEIGHT
C CONTAMINATION DEFINED AS DETECTABLE LEVELS
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
3.3
ND
3.5
ND
29
4.6
24
4.5
11.4
1.2
20.3
7.6
2.6
4.6
1.6
ND
ND
ND
0.5
0.7
0.3
1.1
0.32
0.43
0.5
0.47
0.02
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.45
0.5
0.11
0.6
1.4
0.4
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
TYPE OF FISH
A B
CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
O
w
o
NJ PASSAIC RIVER - PATERSON
NY HUDSON RIVER - PEEKSKILL
NY HUDSON RIVER © GREEN ISLAND - TROY
3 DC POTOMAC RIVER - EAST POTOMAC PARK
MD POTOMAC RIVER - SHEPHERDSTOWN
PA ALLEGHENY RIVER - NEW KENSINGTON
PA JUNIATA RIVER - NEWPORT
VA JAMES RIVER - GLASGOW
VA SHENANDOAH RIVER - ROCKLAND
WV OHIO RIVER @ PIKE ISLAND - WHEELING
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1.7
0.9
2.7
1.3
Nf
1.9
ND
1.2
ND
U.9
5
H.b
2.9
1.7
ND
0.7
ND
ND
U.5
ND
1.U
ND
1
ND
ND
1.2
ND
1.2
ND
3.6
0.6
0.1
0.21
0.2
0.58
0.7
0.75
0.26
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.3
O.U4
1
0.1
1.1
O.U
0.6
1.6
0.3
1
1.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
1
0.2
0.6
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
AL ALABAMA RIVER - CLAIBORNE
TYPE OF FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
A B
CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
23
2.4
17
12
0.65
0.08
0.09
0.15
AL COOSA RIVER - CHILDERSBURG
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
15
3.2
13
6.7
0.1
1.2
1.4
0.3
AL TENNESSEE RIVER - WATERLOO
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
1
1
0
0
3.5
2
ND
ND
0.75
0.23
1.5
0.22
D
W
GA FLINT RIVER, LAKE BLACKSHEAR - CORDELE
GA SAVANNAH RIVER - AUGUSTA
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
1.3
1.1
3
8.1
5.1
0.1
0.08
0.3
1.6
0.1
KY KENTUCKY RIVER - GEST
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
1
0
0
0
0.8
ND
ND
ND
0.23
0.45
0.31
0.62
KY OHIO RIVER - CANNELTON DAM
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
1
0
1
0
3.9
ND
4.1
ND
0.24
1.2
0.13
2.6
KY OHIO RIVER - MARKLAND DAM
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
1
1
1
0
13
6.4
4.2
ND
1.1
0.06
0.06
0.53
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
KY OHIO RIVER - UNIONTOWN
KY OHIO RIVER - WESTPOINT
MS BIG BLACK RIVER - BOVINA
TYPE OF FISH
A 8
CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
O
w
NJ
MS HOMOCHITTO RIVER - ROSETTA
MS PASCAGOULA RIVER - BENNDALE
NC CATAWBA RIVER - LAKE HICKORY
SC LAKE MURRAY - PROSPERITY
SC PEE DEE RIVER - PEE DEE
5 IL DES PLAINES RIVER - LOCKPORT
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
S3BSSSSSS3S
3.1
NO
5.2
2.1
2.2
NO
NO
NO
1.8
2.6
5.2
ND
2.7
ND
1.5
ND
ND
ND
3.7
1
ND
ND
2.3
3.9
ND
ND
12
8.9
=====x====:
1.6
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.64
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.7
2.9
0.2
0.67
0.21
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.74
1.4
1.3
0.6
0.1
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.1
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
IL ILLINOIS RIVER - FLORENCE
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
O
CJ
IL ILLINOIS RIVER - MARSEILLES
IL KASKASKIA RIVER - VANDALIA
IL MISSISSIPPI RIVER - THEBES
IN INDIANA HARBOR CANAL - E. CHICAGO
IN MISSISSNEWA RIVER - MATTHEWS
IN WABASH RIVER - BLACKROCK
Ml CLINTON RIVER - MT. CLEMENS
Ml FLINT RIVER, ELMS ROAD - FLINT
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
WHOLE
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2.7
ND
ND
ND
15
7
1.2
ND
ND
5.U
ND
ND
8
1
ND
2
ND
1.U
ND
2.6
28
5.1
1.6
ND
0.5
0.92
0.69
0.36
0.7
0.3
1
0.7
3
0.3
1.6
1.6
0.1
0.1
1.1
0.1
0.8
0.2
O.U
0.3
0.02
0.23
0.23
0.12
Ml KALAMAZOO RIVER - LAKE ALLEGAN
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
0.7
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
O
I
OJ
Ml MUSKEGON LAKE - MUSKEGON
Ml PINE RIVER - ALMA
Ml ST. CLAIR RIVER - ALGONAC
MN RAINY RIVER - INTERNATIONAL FALLS
OH GREAT MIAMI RIVER - FRANKLIN
OH GREAT MIAMI RIVER - HAMILTON
OH OHIO RIVER - EAST LIVERPOOL
OH OHIO RIVER - GALL I POLIS
OH OHIO RIVER - MARIETTA
OH OHIO RIVER - PORTSMOUTH
OH SCIOTO RIVER - CIRCLEVILLE
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATO^
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
F( skinless)
WHOLE FISH
F( skinless)
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLt MSH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ND
5.2
3.9
ND
8.6
4.9
23
5.9
85
4.8
1.8
3.7
ND
0.9
1.08
4
3.6
0.97
2
3.1
3.2
2.7
1.4
2
1.6
2.4
0.4
0.3
0.52
0.1
O.T
1
0.13
0.3
0.6
0.16
0.03
0.6
0.03
0.23
0.36
0.3
0.19
0.4
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
Wl BLACK RIVER - BLACK RIVER FALLS
Wl ST. CROIX RIVER - ST. CROIX FALLS
6 LA BAYOU LAFOURCHE - MATHEWS
LA MISSISSIPPI RIVER - ST. FRANCISVILLE
O
W
Ul
TX LAKE HOUSTON
IA BIG SIOUX RIVER - AKRON
KS ARKANSAS RIVER - DERBY
KS NEOSHO RIVER - CHETOPA
TYPE OF FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
A B
CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
c
1
0
1
0
0
0
4.7
ND
ND
ND
1.8
ND
ND
ND
1.9
ND
1.9
ND
5.3
ND
0.7
0.8
2.8
ND
ND
ND
1.3
ND
0.8
ND
2.4
ND
ND
ND
0.2
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.1
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.72
0.1
0.67
0.9
1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
1.7
1.2
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.2
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.7
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
O
u>
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
KS TUTTLE CREEK RESERVOIR
MO LITTLE RIVER DITCHES - HORNERSVILLE
MO MISSOURI RIVER - LEXINGTON
MO ST. FRANCIS RIVER - CARDWELL
8 NO RED RIVER - PEMBINA
NOT CONTAMINATED SITES:
1 CT CONNECTICUT RIVER - MIDDLETOWN
CT FARMINGTON RIVER - TARIFFVILLE
CT QUINNEBAUG RIVER - JEWITT CITY
ME SACO RIVER - UNION FALLS
ME SEBAGO LAKE
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
WHOLE
WHOLE
WHOLE
WHOLE
WHOLE
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.7
NO
ND
ND
1.9
o.«*
1.3
ND
1.8
ND
ND
ND
3.1*
1.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
1.1
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.1
0.21
0.72
0.8
0.72
0.7
0.9
2
0.3
0.6
-------
TABLE 0-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
NH CONNECTICUT RIVER - NORTH WALPOLE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
NO
1.U
O
OJ
j
NH MERRIMACK RIVER - CONCORD
NH PEMIGWASSET RIVER - PLYMOUTH
Rl BLACKSTONE RIVER - PAVfTUCKET
Rl WOOD RIVER - ALTON
VT BLACK RIVER - NEWPORT
VT CONNECTICUT RIVER - GUILDHALL
VT LAMOILLE RIVER - EAST GEORGIA
VT OTTER CREEK - WEYBRIDGE
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM
BOTTOM
BOTTOM
FEEDER
FEEDER
FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM
BOTTOM
FEEDER
FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE
WHOLE
WHOLE
WHOLE
WHOLE
WHOLE
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
WHOLE
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
1.9
1
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.5
1.3
0.5
1.3
0.9
1.3
0.8
NJ MULLICA RIVER - GREEN BANK
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.5
NJ PEQUEST RIVER - BUTZVILLE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.3
NJ TOMS RIVER - TOMS RIVER
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
2.1
NJ WADING RIVER - JENKINS
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.5
-------
TABLE 0-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
NY GENESSEE RIVER - BELMONT
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.5
NY MOHAWK RIVER - LITTLE FALLS
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.5
NY UNADILLA RIVER - ROCKDALE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.7
DE C ft D CANAL - ST. GEORGES
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
1.1
DE NANTICOKE RIVER - WOODLAND
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
0.76
MD PATAPSCO RIVER - ELICOTT CITY
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.6
u>
oo
PA ALLEGHENY RIVER - FRANKLIN
PA MONONGAHELA RIVER - CLAIRTON
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
ND
2.7
0.69
PA SUSQUEHANNA RIVER - COLUMBIA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.7
PA WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER - LEWISBURG
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.8
PA YOUNG WOMANS CREEK - RENOVO
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.9
VA HOLIDAY CREEK - ANDERSONVILLE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.6
VA JAMES RIVER - CARTERSVILLE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE PISH
ND
u.8
VA NOTTOWAY RIVER - SEBRELL
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
1.5
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
RECION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
WV GUYANDOTTE RIVER - SALT ROCK
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER FILET
PREDATOR WHOLE FISH
PREDATOR FI LET
0
0
0
0
NO
ND
NO
ND
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.3
WV KANAWHA RIVER - GAULEY BRIDGE
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
O.U5
WV LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER - PALESTINE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
O.U
WV SHENANDOAH RIVER- MYERSTOWN
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.6
WV TYGART LAKE - GRAFTON
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
C
u>
AL CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER - EUFAULA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.6
AL CHOCTAWHATCHEE RIVER - GENEVA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.7
AL CONECUH RIVER - EAST BREWTON
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.7
AL TOMBIGBEE RIVER - GAINESVILLE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.6
FL AUCILLA RIVER - SCANLON
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.8
FL LAKE PARKER - LAKELAND
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
FL LAKE TALQUIN - TALLAHASSEE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.5
FL ST. JOHNS RIVER - PALATKA
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
1.1
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
FL ST. JOHNS RIVER 9 LAKE MONROE - SANFORD
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
1.5
FL SUWANNEE RIVER - BRANFORD
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
2.4
GA HARTWELL RESERVOIR
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
NO
1.4
GA LAKE SIDNEY LANIER
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
0.31
GA OGEECHEE RIVER - EDEN
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.3
KY GREEN RIVER - BEECH GROVE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
D
KY TENNESSEE RIVER - KENTUCKY LAKE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.4
KY LICKING RIVER - CAVE RUN LAKE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.5
MS TALLAHATCHIE RIVER - SARD IS LAKE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
3.8
NC FRENCH BROAD RIVER - MARSHALL
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.4
NC NEUSE RIVER - KINSTON
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
4.1
NC PEE DEE RIVER - HYDRO
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
SC EDISTO RIVER - GIVHANS
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.6
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
SC LAKE MARION - SANTEE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.1
SC LAKE WYLIE - CLOVER
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.8
SC LYNCHES RIVER - EFFINGHAM
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
2.1
TN HATCH IE RIVER - BOLIVAR
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
1.6
TN HOLSTON RIVER - KNOXVILLE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.3
TN LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER - TALLASSEE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
IL BIG MUDDY RIVER - GRAND TOWER
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.7
IL ROCK RIVER - JOSLIN
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.U
IN WABASH RIVER AT DARWINS FERRY - DARWIN
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.7
IN WHITE RIVER - PETERSBURG
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.U
Ml AUSABLE RIVER - MIO
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.8
Ml HURON RIVER - FLAT ROCK
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.2
Ml MUSKEGON RIVER AT ROGERS POND(DAM)
BOTTOM FEEDEK WHOLE FISH
ND
0.8
Ml RAISON RIVER - MONROE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.2
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
Ml SHIAWASSEE RIVER - CHESANING
MN CANNON LAKE - FARIBAULT
MN MINNESOTA RIVER - MANKATO
MN MISSISSIPPI RIVER - LACROSSE
OH MIDDLE FORK LITTLE BEAVER CREEK - DAMASCUS
OH MUSKINGUM RIVER - ZANESVILLE.
Wl FOX RIVER - WAUKESHA
3
t>
^ Wl WISCONSIN RIVER - BIRON FLOWAGE 3 BIRON
Wl WISCONSIN RIVER fl BOOM BAY - RHINELANDER
6 AR L'ANGUILLE - MAR IANNA
AR ST. FRANCIS RIVER - MADISON
AR WHITE RIVER - CLARENDON
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE * DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
-WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.2
0.33
0.66
0.48
2.5
1.9
1
1
O.i
2.5
0.40
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.3
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
LA OUACHITA RIVER - JONESVILLE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.6
LA RED RIVER - ALEXANDRIA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.8
LA TOLEDO BEND RESERVOIR - ANACOCO
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
0.8
NM ELEPHANT BUTTE RESERVOIR
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.4
NM GILA RIVER - REDROCK
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.3
NM PECOS RIVER - RED BLUFF
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.8
O
*»
U)
NM SAN JUAN RIVER - SHIPROCK
OK ARKANSAS RIVER - VAN BUREN
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
ND
0.5
1.6
OK CIMMARON RIVER - PERKINS
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.3
OK SOUTH CANADIAN RIVER - EUFAULA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.9
TX BRAZOS RIVER - SOUTH BEND
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.1
TX CONCHO RIVER - PAINT ROCK
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.5
-------
TABLE 0-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
============= ========== =========== =============
7 IA SOUTH SKUNK RIVER - AMES
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.2
KS SMOKY HILL RIVER - ENTERPRISE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.45
MO GRAND RIVER - BOSWORTH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
O.U
MO MERAMEC RIVER - ST. JAMES
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.U
MO MISSOURI RIVER - HERMANN
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.2
NE LITTLE BLUE RIVER - DEWEESE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
2.1
NE NORTH PLATTE RIVER - McGREW
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.7
NE PLATTE RIVER - GRAND ISLAND
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.1
8 CO ARKANSAS RIVER - BARTON
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.5
CO GUNNISON RIVER - GRAND JUNCTION
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
CO RIO GRANDE RIVER - LOBATOS
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.7
CO SOUTH PLATTE RIVER - JULESBURG
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.7
CO SOUTH PLATTE RIVER - LITTLETON
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.2
ND HEART RIVER - MANDAN
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
1.9
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
ND KNIFE RIVER - HAZEN
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.3
ND SHEYENNE RIVER - KINDRED
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.6
ND SOUR IS RIVER - UPHAM
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLt FISH
ND
0.3
SD JAMES RIVER - SCOTLAND
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.5
WY GREEN RIVER - GREEN RIVER
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.6
D
^
ui
WY LARAMIE RIVER - HOWELL
WY NORTH PLATTE RIVER - OR IN
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
0
0
ND
ND
ND
0.5
2.1
1.2
WY SHOSHONE RIVER - KANE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.9
WY SNAKE RIVER - ALPINE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.2
AZ COLORADO RIVER ABOVE IMPERIAL DAM
BOTTOM FEEDER FILET
ND
AZ GILA RIVER - EDEN
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.11
AZ GILA RIVER - YUMA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.9
AZ ROOSEVELT LAKE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.1
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
AZ VERDE RIVER BELOW BARTLETT DAM
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.36
CA MERCED R I VER-HAPPY I SLES BR , DGE-YOSEM I TE NAT I ONAL^ARK
f ( ^
ND
0.7
CA SACRAMENTO RIVER - HOOD
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
2.8
CA SMITH RIVER - CRESCENT CITY
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.9
CA TRUCKEE RIVER - TAHOE CITY
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
NO
1.9
10 AK KENAI RIVER - SOLDOTNA
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
0.9
a
*>
AK SALCHA RIVER - SALCHAKET
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.3
'D CLEARWATER RIVER - SPAULDING
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.9
ID SALMON RIVER - WHITEBIRD
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.5
ID SNAKE RIVER - AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.3
ID SNAKE RIVER - BURLEY
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.6
ID SNAKE RIVER - HEISE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.6
OR DESCHUTES RIVER AT MOODY - BIGGS
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE
ND
1.6
OR JOHN DAY RIVER AT MCDONALD FERRY - RUFUS
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.8
-------
TABLE D-9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - REGIONALLY SELECTED SITES
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A 8
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
OR HCKENZIE RIVER - COBURG
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
NO
0.6
OR Ml NAM RIVER NEAR Ml NAM
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.6
OR ROGUE RIVER BELOW GRANTS PASS
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
O.l*
OR SANTIAM RIVER - JEFFERSON
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER FILET
0
0
ND
ND
1.5
1.U
OR UMPQUA RIVER - ELKTON
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
0.9
O
*>
OR WILLAMETTE RIVER - SALEM
WA UHEHALIS RIVER - PORTER
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
ND
2.1
0.4
WA MOSES LAKE - ALTMET
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.6
WA NI SQUALLY RIVER - McKENNA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.4
WA PEND OREILLE RIVER - DALKENA
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.6
WA SKAGIT RIVER - MT. VERNON
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
0.6
WA SNAKE RIVER - TUCANNON
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
WA SPOKANE RIVER - LONG LAKE
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.8
-------
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
TABLE D-10 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - GREAT LAKES AREA
TYPE OF FISH
CONTAMINATED SITES:
2 NY LAKE ONTARIO - BUFFALO RIVER
NY LAKE ONTARIO - EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK
D
I
00
NY LAKE ONTARIO - NIAGARA RIVER
NY LAKE ONTARIO - OLCOTT
NY LAKE ONTARIO - ROCHESTER
NY LAKE ONTARIO - WILSON
Ml LAKE ERIE - TRENTON CHANEL
A B
CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (Pf»T)
Ml LAKE ERIE - RIVER ROUGE
A IF MORE THAN ONE VALUE REPORTED FOR ONE TYPE OF SAMPLE, THE HIGHEST VALUE IS SHOWN
B BIOLOGICAL TISSUE LEVELS BASED ON WET WEIGHT
C CONTAMINATION DEFINED AS DETECTABLE LEVELS
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1.9
0.76
6.3
ND
20
3.6
11
8.4
5.8
2.3
18
13
13
12
23
9
14
2.7
ND
ND
21.1
4.4
3.4
ND
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.65
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.4
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.1
1.6
0.4
1.8
0.26
1.01
0.68
-------
TABLE D-10 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - GREAT LAKES AREA
D
I
*>
V0
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
Ml LAKE ERIE - DETROIT RIVER (BELLE ISLE)
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
Ml LAKE HURON - ROCKPORT
Ml LAKE MICHIGAN - SAUGATUCK
Ml LAKE MICHIGAN - WHITE LAKE
Ml LAKE ST.CLAIR - ANCHOR BAY
Ml LAKE HURON - SAGINAW BAY - CASEVILLE
NY LAKE ONTARIO - OSWEGO
OH LAKE ERIE - BLACK RIVER
OH LAKE ERIE - CUYAHOGA RIVER
Wl LAKE MICHIGAN - FOX RIVER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
=55===========
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
FILET
WHOLE FISH
WHOLE FISH
WHOLt FISH
FILET
WHOLE FISH
FILET
1
1
2
C
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
9.1
8
3.8
NO
5.0
9.8
4
6.5
1.8
ND
1.1
ND
5.8
2.3
18
13.2
6.8
0.7
41
2.4
3.1
5.3
1.2
6
ND
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.58
1.1
0.2
1.4
0.25
0.45
0.21
0.1
0.43
0.95
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
1.1
1
0.19
0.3
0.3
1.5
0.48
-------
TABLE D-10 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - GREAT LAKES AREA
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
Wt LAKE MICHIGAN - MENOMINEE RIVER
Wl LAKE MICHIGAN - OCONTO RIVER
O
I
ui
o
Wl LAKE MICHIGAN - PESTIGO RIVER
Wl LAKE SUPERIOR - ASHLAND
Wl LAKE SUPERIOR - SUPERIOR
NOT CONTAMINATED SITES:
2 NY LAKE ONTARIO - CAPE VINCENT
3 PA LAKE ERIE - ERIE
5 LAKE SUPERIOR - APOSTLE ISLAND
Ml LAKE MICHIGAN - MANISTIQUE RIVER
OH LAKE ERIE - BASS ISLAND
A B
TYPE OF FISH CUT OF SAMPLE # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
BOTTOM FEEDER
PREDATOR
PREDATOR
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
WHOLE
FILET
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
FISH
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
7.3
8
1.4
1.8
3.6
1.2
ND
ND
8.5
3.5
1.5
ND
H.8
ND
15
5.2
5.2
ND
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.2
1.5
0.2
0.6
0.29
0.38
0.22
0.4
1.3
0.2
0.71
0.46
1 .2
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
PREDATOR
WHOLE FISH
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.1
1.2
3.1
0.9
1.8
OH LAKE ERIE - MAUMEE RIVER
BOTTOM FEEDER WHOLE FISH
ND
1.5
-------
TABLE D-11 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - ESTUARINE AREAS
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
D
ui
CONTAMINATED SITES:
1 Rl NARRAGANSETT BAY - NARRAGANSETT
2 NJ SANDY HOOK BAY- LEONARDO
6 LA GARDEN ISLAND BAY - VENICE
TX TRINITY BAY
NOT CONTAMINATED SITES:
1 MA MASSACHUSETTS BAY - ICABODS FLATS - KINGSTON
ME PENOBSCOT BAY;SO. CRESENT BEACH - OWLS HEAD
2 NJ ATLANTIC CITY - ATLANTIC CITY
NJ CAPE MAY- CAPE MAY
NY MORICHES INLET - BROOKHAVEN
NY ROCKAWAY POINT - QUEENS CO.
3 DE DELAWARE BAY - PORT MAHON
MATRIX TYPE # SAMPLED # DETECTED
MUSSELS
B
VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
MUSSELS
BOTTOM FEEDER-FILET 1
BOTTOM FEEDER-WHOLE 1
OYSTERS
MUSSEIS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
OYSTERS 1
A IF MORE THAN ONE VALUE REPORTED FOR ONE TYPE OF SAMPLE, THE HIGHEST VALUE IS SHOWN
B BIOLOGICAL TISSUE LEVELS BASED ON WET WEIGHT
C CONTAMINATION DEFINED AS DETECTABLE LEVELS
3.5
1.08
1.7
0.03
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
3.3
2.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.8
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.4
1
0.3
0.7
0.36
-------
TABLE D-11 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - ESTUARINE AREAS
KEG I ON LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
MATRIX TYPE # SAMPLED # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
en
to
DE DELAWARE BAY 9 CAPE HENELOPEN - LEWES
MD ASSATEAGUE
MD CHOPTANK RIVER - CHOPTANK
MD NORTHERN CHESAPEAKE BAY - DEALE ISLAND
MD NORTHERN CHESAPEALE BAY -TILGHMAN ISLAND
MD POCOMOKE RIVER - POCOMOKE CITY
VA BRICK KILN CREEK - HAMPTON
VA CAPE CHARLES - CAPE CHARLES
VA LYNNHAVEN BAY
VA RAPPAHANOCK RIVER - TAPPAHANOCK
FL CAT POINT BARRIER - APALACHICOLA BAY
FL CEDAR KEY
FL ROOKERY BAY - NAPLES
GA SAVANNAH RIVER - SAVANNAH
MUSSELS
HARD CLAMS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
HOGCHOKER
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
1 0
1 0
1 0
2 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
O.It
0.6
0.7
l.U
1.3
0.1
2.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.95
0.5
-------
TABLE D-11 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - ESTUARINE AREAS
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
A B
MATRIX TYPE i SAMPLED # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
D
ui
oo
MS BILOXI BAY - OCEAN SPRINGS
MS MISSISSIPPI SOUND - PASS CHRISTIAN
NC CAPE FEAR RIVER
NC HATTERAS ISLAND
SC CHARLESTON HARBOR - CHARLESTON
LA BARATARIA BAY
LA CALCASIEU RIVER - CAMERON
LA LAKE BORGNE - CHALMETTE
LA LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN
LA TIMBALIER BAY - LEEVILLE
LA VERMILLION BAY - GULF OF MEXICO
TX ARANSAS BAY
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
SHELLFISH
OYSTERS
OYSTERS
FISH- BOTTOM FEEDER
OYSTERS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.82
0.3
2.3
1.7
0.5
1
0.41
TX GALVESTON BAY
OYSTERS
ND
3.2
TX MATAGORDA BAY
OYSTERS
ND
1.2
-------
TABLE D-11 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - ESTUARINE AREAS
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
TX SABINE LAKE
TX SAN ANTONIO BAY
CA FARALLON ISLANDS
CA POINT ARGUELLO - LOMPOC
CA POINT LA JOLLA - LA JOLLA
CA POINT SAN PEDRO - PACIFICA
A B
MATRIX TYPE # SAMPLED # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
D
Ul
CA SAN PABLO BAY - RODEO
CA SAN PEDRO HARBOR - LONG BEACH
CA SANTA CATALINA ISLAND - SANTA CATALINA
CA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY - SAN FRANCISCO
10 AK CHILKAT BAY - HAINES
AK KACHEMAK BAY - HOMER
AK ORCA BAY - CORDOVA
OYSTERS
FISH-BOTTOM FEEDER
OYSTERS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
MUSSELS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.77
0.9
0.9U
1.5
1.9
1.7
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.5
2.4
0.8
0.9
1
-------
TABLE 0-11 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF TIER 7 FISH - ESTUARINE AREAS
REGION LOCATION DESCRIPTION: A B
MATRIX TYPE # SAMPLED # DETECTED VALUE (PPT) DET LIMIT (PPT)
OR COOS BAY AT S. SLOUGH - CHARLESTOWN
OYSTERS 1 0 NO 0.8
OR TILLAMOOK BAY - BAY CITY
OYSTERS 1 0 ND 0.4
OR YAQUINA BAY - NEWPORT
OYSTERS 1 0 ND 0.5
WA PUGET SOUND - MANCHESTER
MUSSELS 1 0 ND 2.7
WA WILLAPA BAY - TOKELAND
MUSSELS 1 0 ND 1.5
D
ui
-------
APPENDIX 0-10
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES LOCATED NEAR STATISTICALLY SELECTED TIER 7 FISH SAMPLING SITES
o
1
Ul
en
(
SITE NAME 'Pule t Paper Hills' Steam Electric '0
Halnsteei ' Tribs Nainsteoi ' Tries '
CONIAMINATED ' '
AndroscoMie * Irunsolck, 1C '2 - - 2 - -
MMCONTAM1NATED ' ' '
Connecticut Thoopsonvlllo. CI '8 - 5 ' 2 - - '
NONCONIAMINATEO ' ' '
Rarltan « Queens Bridge. MJ '1 - 2 - - - '
Richelieu Rouses Pt, NY ' - - - ' 1* - '
Ojjimi 111 > '
CONTAMINATED ' '
Schuylkill t Phlladolehia. PA '3 - - ' 2 1 - '
Susouehenna ConoMlngo. MD ' - - - * 4 1 1 '
NONCONTAM1NAIEO '
PaMMkey near Hanover, VA '- - - ' - - -'
»«ui«m IV ' ' '
CONTAMINATED ' '
yaiee Red»ne«. MS ' 1 - - ' - - - '
MMCONIAMINATEO ' ' '
AlabaM near Montgomery. Al ' - - - ' - - - '
Escatauea near Agrtcola. MS - - - ' - - - '
St. Marys near Hicclenny. Fl - - - ' - - - '
Main Canal » Varo leacli. FL - - - ' - lb - '
Fishaating Creek t Palmdale. FL - - - ' - - - '
Chieele near Altha. Fl ' - - - ' - - - '
Econfina Creek near Bonnet, Fl ' - - - ' - - - '
Chattaheochee Andreu LU nr. Columbia. GA - - ' - 1 - '
Big Sandy t Louisa. KV ' - - - ' - 1 - '
Cyfress Creek near Janice, MS ' - - - ' - - - '
Cataleochee Creek near Cataloochea, NC- - - ' - - - '
Coosauhatchle near Hampton, SC - - - ' - - - '
Clinch * Nil ton Mill Dam. IN '- - - '2
Buffalo near Flat Weeds. IN ' - - - -
CONTAMINATED ' ' '
Uabash Ne» Harmony. IN ' - - - ' - - - '
Rainy * Manitou Rapids. MN ' - - - ' -
Huskegon near Briaooton, NI ' - - - 2 - - '
Great Miasn 1 Hen Baltimore, OH "2 - - ' 1 - - '
Number of Facilities Located Near Sampling Sites*
gontc Cbeei t Pesticides-Inorganic Chan t Pesticides* iueerfund Sites POT* Hotel Discharging Industry Ot
HatMlem Trlbs ' Neieitem Tries Nainsteoi Tries ' Mainline Tribs Nalnsleei Tribe '
11. BM Of un nm Of in flrm "r ' " INMI "* ' III BUR H
I - - - - - - 2 - I- I - I
t
'. ','.'. '.
3 1 4 - - S ' 1 - 5 ' 3 1 22' II 2 13
-- 2*-' - - -
2 - - 2 - 1 '2 - 2 IS 13 ' II 2 II '
1 !»' '
.
! '.'.' '
I .... .. --.21--2-- |
'- - - '- - - ' ' ~ ~'
... i - - - '---'l--|--- |
... i . ' .
'- - - ' - - ' * " ~ '
... >--- i.-1'l ------ ^
... "... .__<-.- .--
- - 1 - - -'2 - 4 - - 3 '
i . _ » 1 . 1 ' 11 - 12 '
«- - - - - -'- - -' - - 7
... .-- .----- ...
--- '--- -.-2-1'---
j - - - . -*2 - -' - - -
- - '--- - -.'--2'--l '
... --- i---'l 1 ' --- '
-'II 4 S' 3 - I '
-2 1 - - - - '
,11 ii itl-6'7-1 '
..... '11 1 ' i' '
her Industrial Categories ' Miscellaneous Industries
Nil ns tee Trlbs ' Nslnstee, Iribs
IU aajei in ' "r ftsm !
2 1
3 3 '112*
'
S 1 II ' 7 1 »
1 '22-*
1-2 ' S 1 3
.«.. '2 3*
.
i
* *
-II'
»
III |b . . .
" " " , ,
-II I - -
" i t
I I - i I I
- -
III I - - >
( ,
... ' 2 - - '
.
1 - - 1
Z » 2 7
1 ' » - 1
1 2 - - '
-------
APPENDIX 0-10 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES LOCATED NEAR STATISTICALLY SELECTED TIER 7 FISH SAMPLING SITES
(Continued)
Number of Facilities Located Near Sampling Sites'
sin i
Inftntry Otlw InfeitrUI C»l«««rUi
Irlki NiiiiitM Irlki
I»*i»trlti
HiiMto ' Irlki
IMUMIO '
St. NMTt !' «»«!. HI
HIllMWU «Mr .
- I*
1 1
3
COMTANMAICD '
MiotMlr*! *' AriiMi*> City. Al I
M » IitfM. M ' '
MMktU "««r OunM4. OK ' -
|MV« «Mr f«rt Mtcmlty. LA
HDKONIAMINAICD
Sxl«h>' >*"> ' '""M. Al ' I
Mrtk Syl«Mr< Cr»k imr fifty SI.. M
I WI-II IUI« KM. M -
He Mra n«*r Tarnra, HM ' -
KiMlcM Mr. OK ' -
R*4 0 OMiswl D*B AMr OaniMA. OK ' -
Trinity t totyer. II -
run M«r HI(kkMk. IK ' -
Ultl! t CMtrM. TI
C»l«»* ** Sllv.r. n
biMalur* * VicttrU. II ' -
Swtk f«rt Uckii CrMt >Mr >ri«g<. TI-
I3« 2 -
4-0
3-3
1 I
CONMNHttTCD
fl.tt.
MMCIMIAMMICD
tM (too* HHkiirt. U
Mi..«.rl » OHkl. HE
Ou«> KMr ScktH City. W
MWCWTMUWTEO
uu»M «« co-ur >uu IIM. co -
Mnwirl * F.rt IMIM. Ml ' -
HI twirl » VlrftlU, HI '
teimivi. MI
loc«H. NT '
FU1K414 » Column F.lll. MI
Mk Crt*k b«'o« H«rj. Cr«k, MI '
Llttlt Nlitxirl iu
Cwtlt Cr. ikovi D»«rfi«l< !<. SO '
0*l«rt» AMr CUca. UT '
Nartk rutu AIc««. UY
C«ch« CrMk M»r Jackson. WV '
~
-2 - 7-
, . ' . . - -
->-_ - 2'
- - 1
1 - 1
' - - I
- - 1
-------
APPENDIX 0-10 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES LOCATED NEAR STATISTICALLY SELECTED TIER 7 FISH SAMPLING SITES
(Continued)
Number of Facilities Located Near Sampling Sites*
Pulp t Papar mill' SUM El.etrtc 'Organic ChM t Pastlcidas'lMrgantc Chan t Posticidas1 Suparfund Slus K»« Natal Discharging Industry Othar Industrial tatagartas Mlscallaoaaus Industrial '
Hainstasi Trtbs ' Mainsta» ' Tribs HainstM Tribs minstaoi Inbs Maiosta*. Iribt HiliutM tribs Naiaitaai Irib« HalMtaai Trlbi NatMtosi ' Irlbs
-L-lfc HMD lla u. no_ Up u. o~«, Uf g, g^, u. . u. r^, u. . IL. n~. u. . |h p.-,. u. . ... .^ |b. . y. [)-^. |h
CONTAMINATED
Owns ba1a» Tlnaavha 0*.. C*
NONCONTMIIIUTED
Sui lull ««y ( OcMiitK*, CA
S«it> CUra * U-«Mtyra 1lM, CA
San jMquin n«ar Vtrnalti, CA
Kltxth iuar KlaMth Clan. CA
HalaM Straa* Mar HalaM. HI
HoMlil Straai Mar Papaikoo. HI
Cain-Ma Mlao Boov.r torn, m
HMteldl Mar Carl In. NV
o
00
COH1ANINATEO
HillaMtla Portland. 01
NONCONTAHINATCO
Susitna » Susitna Statlan, AK
SMka King Hill, ID
Caluastta t karrandala. OH
Uillaoa Mar Uillapa. MA
Puyallup Puyallup. 1M
Snohonith Mir Nwiroa, HA
ilatt, uA
lc 2
1«
3
13-
1«
1
3*
3
I
2
* Facilltlat lacata* «Hhin a 30 !! radius af tbt Ulo«ln slta.
b Facilitias locatad 3 atlas 4a*mstraa« an tha coastliM af tha Atlantic Ocaan.
' Facllittas m slwrallM of »Ua rty.r. t»«» cau>a not ba locataa a»caat a> altbar «U«l« S »1U» toxtitrua ar 11 mll« oattrHB.
" mach is nat digitiiad. SuKarliatim basaf an aata frm IFO and Malar Supaly Utility Databasa aa facililias lacatad Klthln a » «lla rMias o( tka
diaxin sita.
Tha facilUUs siMuriiatf ara locatad within 3 atlas aawnstraaav »n tha vainsttav »r 30 atlas uastraa* a« tha aatnstaai and tributarias af tha Ttar 7 fish
Saaiiltn) sita. Tha Industrial catgarlas Includa tha facllitlas In tha fallanlng SIC codas:
a Pulp and Paaar - SIC 2611. 2621. 2631. 2M1. 2642. 2M3, 2645. 2646, 2647, 2648. 264*. 2651. 2652. 2653. 2664. 2655, Md 2661
SltJ. Clactric - SIC 4111 and 4931
a Organic Chasncals, Plastics, and Synthatic Fibars aad Pasticidas Hanufacturars SIC 2121. 2123. 2624. 2865. and 2869
a Inarganic Chaiicals and Pasticidas Haiwfacturars - SIC 2112, 2613. 2116. and 2114
a Suaarfwid Silas - SIC >9M
a TOTUi - SIC 4962 and 49S4
a Hatal Discharging Industry - Includas all facllltias Idantifiad in tha fallavina IMustrlal catagarlas: Alwlnuai Farming, lattary Manufacturing, Coal
Mining. Coll Coating, Fauidrlas, Iran I Staal. Natal Finishing, Nonfarraus Natals, Ora Mining, Paint, Parcalatn CuMling, Caapar Forming, Ink, Auto aM
Othar LauM~rias, Photographies, and ElactHcal Coattonants
Othar Industrial Catagartot - Includas all facilitlas tdantiftod la tka fallwlng Industrial catogartas: Laathar Taming. Toitilas. Ttokor,
Phannacauticals, Patrolau* nafining. Misc. Chaaicals. Argiculturat Chaaiicals, Misc. Potrelauai Products.
a Hiscallanaous Industrias ' Includas all tho raaaining industrial catagarias, such as food products, Luabor. Raal Estata.
-------
-
I I
< Q
s
||-
!
i
iii
s
i
S
ll
15 -
i l
11
-ti
t
1 1
i
i
»
4-1 g *
(X) M
21 5
c * <
III
s I*
z ll
* i
O S «
i « A
^ j ^
* -
5 If
I!1-
dumber of
t rxticiMi'
1 Irlta
1 1
w
1*
*c *c
i!J
" t :
ZSi
! £
}j,
ffi
I
U
«*
, , , ~ , , -
> i i 1 1 1 1 1
i i i i i «»> i
...
(SI 1 1 Kt t 1 (SI
1 1 1 1 A 1 1
(si i i » tsi i i in
1 1 1 M 1 1 tft
. , i ~*.S S
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 N 1 | 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 N N 1 (SI
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i i i i i i i i
1,1-1,1-
i i i i i i i i
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i i i m i i i
l l l csi i i i
»~ . - 1 . - ,
§ u |*| || |
r i iii i i i l i ll i i
11 -ii iiii <* ii i t* i
II III 1 II 1 (Stl l«ftj
ii i 1 till l I i t
ii III till i ll ill
il | iiii i «i tin
11 1 1 IIII 1 1 1 CM
II (St 1 IIII 1 1 Cl
i **tfi- lit
ii ill lift i ii i (
it ill iiii i ii iii
11 ill i ii i i ii
ii iii iiii i it iii
i til - l l l i ii iii
1
ll mi ill i ii INI
ii ill iiii i ii iii
i i (si i iiii m i i t III 1 I 1
111 III 1 - 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 III IIII
111 III IIII
III III IIII
i m i i i iiii
iii
i i iii i i i
' -
(SI 1 1 111 IIII
Mil II
m ill llli
ill ill iiii
1
-------
APPENDIX D-11 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES LOCATED NEAR REGIONALLY SELECTED TIER 7 FISH SAMPLING SITES
SUE NAME
CONIAMUMIED
JAMS Glotgow. VA
ihonoodoth » locklM4. VA
Polouc * E. PoUMc Pork, DC
AlloghMy NM ICoMlngtM. PA
NONCONIAHINATEO
Sui%Moh»nM Coluobio
Nooongtholi * CljirtM
AUogkMy » Fruklio
U»*l Wlroiat*
JOMOk V Carlorfvill*
Holiday CrMk Mor AnoortoflvilU
Mjim
CIO COM! * SI. tMrgoi
CONIAHINAKO
loko Hickory. Cotowbo Divor. NC
PM DM * PMM«. 5£
Ohio H*rklM« Ow. KV
Ohio t CMMlIM DM. «Y
Dig Dlock ooor DoviM. NS
HoMchitto lo>olU. NS
AlloMoVciIioornT At''
Itiuwtu* * UtorlM. Al
StvMAOA 0 AuguiU. GA
Flint liv«r. Ltko llockihoor. GA
NONCmiAHIHAIEO
PM D» » Hydro
Franc* Into- Norilul 1
\ Number of Facilities Located Near Sampling
P»l» « Pooor Mile Slot* ClKtric -Orgmlc CUo 1 rMtlclooVlMrgMic Ckoi t PnticilM- tnr*rtmt SUM
Holoito» Trio. MiMtMj IriH NkiottOB Irl.t MilMtooi Irlo. Mloitooi trikt Hlloi
2 - -'3 - -'1 - - 1 - - -I - -'2»
- -- - 1 ' 1 - 1 - - -'5
-1 1 -- - - - - .. - -.3
2 -- 1 - 1 - 2 - - 2-13
'- - 1-2 - !- - - - - 1 - - I>I7
3 - -'- - - 1 - - - - -'13
- . 1
'.'.'.' '. '. ;
<
* * i *
- - - ' 2 - - ' - - - ' - - - »
- 1 ' - - - '
1 | -- . -- - - - - - '- - - -
.. . -- . -- - - - - - '- - -'3
. . _-_-- .--- '---'I
1 . ,.| - -- 1 - - - - '
. l» - - 2« - - l» - - - - - 7»
, , . . . 2 - - ' 1 - - '2 1 - ' - - ' ' '
. . , . ... - i - - - - - - «
* . «
Sites"
on MO
ilooi Trlbt
o
3
1 3
1 7
4 14
2 14
0 4
4
.
"
.
1 '
1
i
1 3
1
0 '
2
1 '
2
1 1
1 2
3
2
1
g
6
IS
1 1
-
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
2 2
(
,
-
-
!
,
'
-
,
,
-------
APPENDIX D-11 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES LOCATED NEAR REGIONALLY SELECTED TIER 7 FISH SAMPLING SITES
sue HUC
MCOMAMINAKI (CWTIMJU)
SMik. CmliM
L|«ckM » CfflMjM
UUI* MM CIvkMI
UM NiriM. SMtM
Ukt «»li», Cl«v»r
KMtiicki uu. TMMMM liwr
fiTM* Mar M»Ck 6>*V«
Cw« « UU. llckinf lt»tr
MlttM KMT «»».Vlll«
HiUkl« MliMr
little 1*M«ttM f*llMSM
_ SM*I» Uk«. T«ll«k*lcki« llvir
Ol tl«kiH
I-1 CM*C« » Cot IraxtMi
ItMtlkOT * KlIMWilll
Ckrtlikuckn t CvluiU
CkMlMlutckN * (mo*
1. m
OHIO » GtlliMlit. OH
Number of Facilities Located Near Sampling Sites*
Fill, t FiMr Mill- StMtUctrtc 'OrtjMic CMS 1 FMtlclM>'lMr«Mll OMB t FntlclMl- SyMr(»M SltM < F*» *UI OiKMrflH IMMlr, Otl
Ntlutw Irikt MUllM trlki ' NllmtHl ' lrlk» N»l«iU> Irlki MiHt« Irifcf N»iMt« Irlki NtlMUa lrik«
'. '. , . ...
iii i iii
i. . ... - -- . - - - - - - -.- - 2' - - - '
-1 - ... - 2-
.|«. . . |» - - 2*-
.)»- -.|«- -.2*- - -2«- - - - -»- -' »-
i i . .
_.| . ... - - - - - - - -'3 - 1 i 1 5 '
... - ... - - - - - - - -'2*1 -' 16*-
2 1 - 3 1 1
... - ... - - - - - - - -- 1
... - ... - - "- - - - - -! - 2- - - 1
'
1 -- - ... - - - - - - - -- - -
... . ... - - - - - - - -- - 1 - - 1 '
1 - -- - -- - - - - - ' 3 -' - '
... . ... - - .- - - - 2-
... . ... . . .. . - 16* - -' l» -
-4»- -!«- - - - - - - -'Z3«- - * -
.
-2 - - '- - -'2 - 1
-.- | ... - - - - - - - -'2 1 - - 1
-!«- - '- - -'2
... - ... - - .- - - .| - ->- - - - - - '
............ . . . . ............ ;
i .
-- - ! - »' 1
I - - - - - - - - - -'1 2 '
1 - -.4 - - 1 2 'I - - - - -'3 - 1 - - 1
... - -. - - * 1 2-
... - .. - - ! 1 - - - -'221 2- 3
1 . _.| . ,. - - .- - - ik - -! - 1' 2 1 1
.------ -- ! -- 3- J1 1 - 1
-.3 - -.4 - - 1 - - '2 - -.12- 2- 6 - 1
1 - l - - -- - - -'5 > I1 1
... - ... - - - - - .- - -- - - ' - - - '
.7 . ... . _.| . . .- - - - - --4 1 - II 2 1
. 1 l< 1 . 3 - 2 - - - 1 l« 1 - 2« - Ji* - > ' 26* - 1
<..- - ... - - l - - -2 - -"5 1 S' 15 2 »
... . ... . - - - . - 3 -- 3 - 2
., . ... . ... . . - . . - - -'2
-.7 . | - - 2 '- - 1 '- - -'304 16' 16- M
... - ... | . .- - . - - -'2 - 4' 2 - 1
Mr IMMtrUI CMtgtrlM MiullaMMl lM>»trtl
«f u, u. D» UL
I 1 - -
n« - - 13*
2» - -
- . 2* - -
- - - "3-1
1 ' 1 - -
- - -
'
- _ - -
. -
.
7« - -
20* - 4« -
;
- '
- 1
.
1 '1-2
- 1 6
2
1 - - S - 1
2 1 - '521
1 - 1 ' 2
1 '2-2
4-1 16 - 3
'521
1
3 2 - '31-
4» - 1 32* - 5
3-3 '3-7
1 - 1 '2-3
- - - l
3 -641
« '
.
.
t
.
'
'
'
'
.
'
'
'
'
'
*
'
'
*
'
'
*
*
'
,
-------
APPENDIX D-11 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES LOCATED NEAR REGIONALLY SELECTED TIER 7 FISH SAMPLING SITES
SHE HHC
lou 5 ICoot nuo*l
COHIAHINAICO ICOHIINCO)
Scioto Clrcl.villo. OH
Ohio * Hlriotlo. OH
«... » PortsoBulk. OH
(root Hioo)l « Fraokl in, OH
St. Croi> * St. Croi. Folli. HI
lUck * tluk (Uor fallt. W
ft.lk.OM toko. Ml
Flint * f.I«* to**. MI
firoal Miaou Hoar Hamilton. OH
NOKONIAHINAIF.O
Illinois
19 HuMy CranO- lOMr
Uakait » Domini' Ftrry
_. Miito * P.UrtBurj
O
NJ SkioMMoo t Cko«o«l*g
Ivor Mllio PMroo
Huron » FUtrack
AuSoblo » Hio
Humnopi t laCros»
Hinnosoto 0 Hankato
Dku
Fo» * Haukosha
Uiscoasin t Biron FloMgo
COIIIAHIMAtCD
toko Houston - Son Jocinto 1. T«
Mississippi * St. Fronciivillo, LA
MMCONIAHINAICO
Brajos noar Cloar Fork
Lojiiuaju
Ouachita 9 Jonosvillo
Lak« Boron*
Number of Facilities Located Near Sampling Sites*
P«lo t Papor Nilli' Stoa. Eloctric -Orfooic Cko. t P.,tici«..'I«r^ni£ CM. t Posticloo.' Suporfuno- Sitoi - POIK H>UI OltcUr«l., I,J.,lr, Olkor In^.trUI C.t^rl.s 1
Haiiisto. Irib. Hainsto. Irik, Hainslo. Tribi Hlinsto. Trios Hainsto. - Trio. Hoimto. Irib. ' Halosto. Iribi HolMto. Irlk.
_Mfc b~n u. u. n~. up uo IL^. u, . u, ««« u. y. Q^ i^ . l₯ n^n Ik. . ii. fto^, n. Uf n~. ii.
| - ' "'! " - - 1 - '2 - - ) . -.12- 14' 3 1 2 1 - 1
-* - I'l - 1 ! - - .- . ,.» . 6. | . t . , . 3
,------;'-- 1 '---..22.4-5
.* ' " , * - ~ , ~ ' ~ ~ - ' 3* 3- 6 1 5 i - 2
.,0 .. ".""" .'""" '---'I 12- I-- -.-
- - - '* - ~ ' - - - - - - - . t 2 - 2 ' 2 1 4
"t " - ' 1 - - '- - - .. _ -'192 7' S - 1 ' - 1 1
"'- - -'- - - '- - - >- - ..6 - - - - - . - . . .
~ \~ " " ) " " " ' " ' " '" - - * - 2' - - 1
1 1 - - ' * - - 1 - - 2 - - .--,.' 2 - 3 ' - - 4 -2-1
' ' - -'- - -'- - - '- - - - - -.7 - 3' 7
| - - - ''I - -'- - - '- - - - - -! - 1" 3
- ' 1 2 1 ' - - - .. - _ ._ _ -.4 2 S' - - 4 ' - 1 1
---II-'--- .... .-,-.225.--- '
-- - -'- - - '- - - - - -.2 - -
.4 3 _.2 | -- - - - - - '- - - 4 1 2' 1
_ ^
- . 2 - - ' 4 - 1 '4 - 1 ' 0» - 7* 2» - - ' »» -
_ _ _>_ _ - - '_ - - '- - -'4«_ -< - - - ' 2*- - '
UcollanooM*
NollIlM '
II 2
3
2 5
14
1
2
1 1
2
2
2
3
4
1
1
3
2
3
4
10*
«*
-
loduttrlM '
1 Trlbi
4
3
2
5 '
'
4 '
1
2
2 '
3
5 '
4
12
3
:
.
(
i«
1
-------
APPENDIX D-ll (Continued)
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES LOCATED NEAR REGIONALLY SELECTED TIER 7 FISH SAMPLING SITES
\ Number of Facilities Located Near Sampling Sites*
SITE NHC -rule t Fife' Hilll- SleM Electric 'Orgmic Cke» t relticldn'lmrginic Chee> t rettlcldei- SuferfMd Sltei KTU H»UI Oiick*rgiii| Industry Otktr Indmtrill Clteglrlei Hltcellin
HiiMto Irlks H>iNt*B Trite H>int*» ' Triki rui.il.. Triki HilutM Trlki H>l»t*> Trlki ' Hiinitee) Trlkt HliMte. Trlki Hilu
MMdMIMMMTU (COHIIWCO) ... . ...
Miami ... . ... . .
UkiU f CIlrtMM - - ... - -'- - - - - - '- - -! 1 3' - - -
L 'anguine t HirliM* - - -'1 - -'- - - '- - - ' - - -'3 2 - - 1 - '
ElelkMt tutu ImrMlr -_->--_--- .... .---.-1- ... ...
Men * IM §!«(» '- - -'- - -'- - - '- - - '- - -'- - "' " " " '
lilt IMTKk -.-..----- .... .---.--- ... ...
CONIUUMICO ... . ... .
rtmlll «««r Dtrky, US ---J-21--- .... --I'I23'2-- ---
HniH »»r Cketif*. US i..-.|-..--- --- .---.2-3 --4 --
Ttittle Cr. In.. US ---_----- .... i---..-- ... ...
littlt 1. Oitckn t H>rMr»IIU. HO- - -'- - -'- - - '- - - '- - - 1 - -' - - - ' - - - ''
1)9 Si«u * MrM, U .....-.---- .... - . . > t - - ... ... ^_
MH IndiutrlM '
to Trlki
n_« ii,
'
,
,
*
,
'
t
-
MMCMMHINMn
fl.lt. t ttMt IllM*
kkrtk riittl HttrM
tlltU tlM I
Seotk Sim* tolhi tan
Swtr Hill » toUrprtu
HIiMurl HtraiM
tnm f liiMrlk
H>r«Mi Mir St. J«
CmHMIMICa
IU4 *. .1 Nerlk « PMkiM. MD
MMCMIiyUWIU
Skeywuil Mir Kindred
Hurt * HM*M
Unite ne.r HlieM
Sewrn neir UekMl
-------
APPENDIX D-11 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES LOCATED NEAR REGIONALLY SELECTED TIER 7 FISH SAMPLING SITES
Number of Facilities Located Near Sampling Sites*
Pulp 1 Papar Wilt' ttoa» ClKtrU 'Or«wic Cka» t PottUltn'Inorganic Cho> t PntUloa*' Soporfwd IHn POI* Itatal Btuhargioo, Industry Otkar lodMlrttl Ulogortot ' Mtullooooiu [ndtntrioi
Nalniloo ' Trial (blotto Trio. HlUttao < Trlkt ' NalMtoo trita HilMtM Trlkt ItolMtM Irikf Ntlnitw Trltl ' MlMtiB Irlta IblntM Irlkl
NONCONTANllttUD (COMIINUCO)
S-mlh Pffctti
Cheyenne 9 Cherry Creek
North ruttt Drill
Shuhw KM*
GTMII n*«r Gr«M Riv
ftia Gr«n4« near LatotM
South PUtU * Jultiburg
GtMNikon Mar Grand Juncttaa
South Platta » litllttoo
O
Ol
MMCMTMINATCD
Saith ne»r Crescent City
SoatrwHAte # Hood
Htrc*y Ulec tritfg*
L*h« laho* (hc«.t «f Truck** River)
Colorado naar Hartinoi
Gila noar VuMa
Varda t lartlatt ta
Gila » (dao
(oosovoll tako
NONCONIDNImlCO
vmn
MntitM P Je fersoA 1
. 3*
...
- ...
» .
t t i
i *
.
-
----- '--_ ' 4 - 1 '
-------
UJ
f
» 1
»-4
_l
Q.
1
S
u_
r*»
oe
UJ
i «
i_
a
UJ
UJ
_l
! 3
*» ^
ii 3
2 i
X Z
s s
1 i
UJ
1 1
I
_J
t
s*
LL.
_J
i i
QC
h-
§
u.
0
>-
VI
01
e
I
U
i
*j
u
o
01
u
u.
o
L
§
J
T
"5
ii
5*
i
|
fl
-i
li
Is
5
i
i
±
ij
*
ss
ii
ii
I
M .
ji
1
I
1 3 i
* 5
ii
u t
|i
s
SIM ClKtrli
1 MtMtM ' Irll
= 1
r £
I",
« s
fi
I
5
1 1 1 1 1 II
1 1 1 1 1 II
f. , - , , .X
;:::: ;;
» i i i i ii
%
1 I 1 -d f t t
* i * i ii
-~- ' **
, , , , ,
x
till* ll
i f i i i ll
? i i i i li
i i i 1 i ll
i i i i i ll
i i i i i ll
i 1 i 1 1 ll
i i i 1 i ll
i i i 1 i li
i i i 1 i ii
i i i i i 11
i i i 1 i ll
t
! ! * ,
1 i « « i
{ ! :-,Hj ?i
' i ji-H *^
s *I
5 f J ,
! If !
5 f I 1
1 i « J.
i , ff ? .
? s li ! 1
IH ii i i
2 3-1 ..i s .1
s i . - ts3
» i* e 5 a
I i ". !5 li|
* " : § f* ^t!
«s 1 *. 51 Sei
Ji * i I* Is
sa ~ a, - .- . s «
If I i? Ii 1"
mi ~ 3 * 31 ~^*
" 3 l! fl Mt
S5 ~ SS -- IS^
i: s 5 ". =1 s | S
1 II !- IS III!!!
^ 1* 3 i§ :;[s.?
; jj s s. : 1 * ± ^ :
2 -j » li liiili
fc c u « wu _> k ~ . .2
si s =3 = " s-; s ~
1 ?« S- II si=r^
11 !ij« :?l!J
| i? li'l- Ii|is:
is aiijMj^tli!
1 I as!.{sij|l!lj
I !- Ii!|:2l5s'3f-
s : ; liilSua^is.?!
s = s XiSu.ssjilil
! If iiiha**kki1
J :i 2llihiJiilI
D-65
------- |