U.S. ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
Addendum to Des Moines TCE Site Five-Year Review Report,
dated April 9,2013
A Five-Year Review addendum is generally completed for remedies where the protectiveness
determination is deferred until further information is obtained. When deferring protectiveness in the
Five-Year Review Report (Report), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency typically provides a
timeframe for when the information will be obtained and a protectiveness statement can be made. This
addendum describes progress since the Five-Year Review and protectiveness determinations for the
remedies where the statement was deferred in the fifth Report (2013).
The Report for the Des Moines Trichloroethylene (TCE) Site (Site) in Des Moines, Iowa, was signed by
Cecilia Tapia, Director of the Region 7 Superfund Division, on April 9, 2013. The Site consists of four
operable units (OUs). The protectiveness statements outlined in the Report were as follows:
OU1 (Groundwater extraction, treatment, and monitoring)
The remedy at OU1 protects human health and the environment in the short term because exposure
pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are controlled through operation of the groundwater
extraction and treatment system that assists in preventing contaminants from entering the DM WW
infiltration gallery. In order to be protective in the long term, DICO needs to monitor trends and assess
migration potential for 1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) in the groundwater to the south-southeast.
OU2 (Source soils contributing to OU1 contamination)
The remedy at OU2 protects human health and the environment in the short-term because exposure
pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are controlled by isolating contaminants beneath an
asphalt cap and DICO will continue annual inspections and maintenance of the asphalt cap. In order
for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, an institutional control implementation plan with an
environmental covenant for the site needs to be implemented.
OU3 (Groundwater source north of the Site)
A protectiveness determination of the remedy at OU3 cannot be made at this time until further
information is obtained. Further information will be obtained by assessing the potential for exposure to
contaminants through vapor intrusion. Additionally, further monitoring and data collection is required
to monitor trends for 1,2-DCE in groundwater. It is expected that this action will take approximately
two years to complete, at which time a protectiveness determination will be made.
oin
all oi
40510129
0
Superfund
-------
0U4 (Pesticides, herbicides, metal and polychlorinated biphenyls [PCB] contamination in the buildings
and across the Site)
A protectiveness determination of the remedy at OU4 cannot be made at this time until further
information is collected from the South Pond area. Further information will be obtained by conducting a
baseline ecological risk assessment in the South Pond area. It is expected that these actions will take
approximately two years to complete, at which time a protectiveness determination will be made.
Currently, there is risk to trespassers, including receptors in the indigent community ofDePuydt Woods
located on the site, due to broken windows and unsecured doors in the buildings where the
encapsulation that covers existing contaminated areas has been breached. Broken windows and
unsecured doors in the buildings where the interior protective encapsulation has been breached provide
unauthorized access to trespassers, including members of the indigent community. Continuous
monitoring is recommended to determine the extent of exposure. Risk to trespassers, including receptors
in the indigent community ofDePuydt Wood, would need to be re-evaluated at the next five year review
of the site.
This addendum addresses the Protectiveness Statements for OU3 and OU4.
Progress since the Five-Year Review Completion Date
OU3 - Groundwater Source North of the Site
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the April 2013 Five-Year Review
OU(s): 3
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Potential exposure to contaminants in OU3 through vapor intrusion
Recommendation: Assess vapor intrusion potential
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
Yes
Yes
EPA
EPA
5/2015
Actions Taken Since 2013
Since the last Five-Year Review, additional groundwater sampling has been performed for OU3 by the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The groundwater data collected from 2012 to 2015 was
evaluated to determine if there is a potential vapor intrusion risk to the buildings overlying the
groundwater contamination. All initial screenings show that any potential risk is below the cancer risk of
lxlO"5 or hazard index of 1 (EPA, 2016a). Soil gas samples have not been collected because the
buildings on site are not in use, nor are there any plans to use the buildings. If future on-site plans
change, additional vapor intrusion investigations may be necessary.
Although at this time it has been determined that there is no unacceptable risk to the vapor intrusion
pathway with the current use on site, since groundwater contamination remains below structures on site,
it is recommended that the site monitoring plan be updated to include a continued evaluation of the
vapor intrusion pathway.
2
-------
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the April 2013 Five-Year Review
OU(s): 3
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Monitor and assess trends for 1,2- DCE at OU3
Recommendation: Monitor trends for 1,2-DCE
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA
5/2015
Actions Taken Since 2013
The EPA performed a Mann-Kendall statistical analysis on the groundwater data north of the Site using
the data from 1989 through 2015 to determine contaminant concentration trends in groundwater for
1,2 DCE (EPA, 2016b). IDNR sampling events analyzed for either total 1,2-DCE or speciated 1,2-DCE,
depending on the event.
1,2-DCE was detected in two wells (NW-34 and NW-36). Well NW-34 contained one detection during
that period and has been non-detect for the last three sampling events. Well NW-36 showed an
increasing trend during the sampling period, although all the concentrations were below the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) of 70 micrograms per liter (ng/L) for cis-l^-DCE1.
Although the concentrations of 1,2 DCE remain below the MCL in all wells sampled, it is recommended
that the site monitoring plan for OU3 be updated to ensure speciated 1,2 DCE is analyzed during future
events.
OU4 - Pesticides, Herbicides, Metal and PCB Contamination in the Buildings and Across the Site
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the April 2013 Five-Year Review
OU(s): 4
Issue Category: Changing Site Conditions
Issue: A Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment indicates that ecological
risks may have been underestimated in the South Pond Area.
Recommendation: Perform Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
DICO
NA
2/2015
Actions Taken Since 2013
Since the last Five-Year Review, an ecological risk assessment has been performed on the South Pond
Area (EPA, 2015). In summary, a significant ecological risk was calculated due to pesticides.
While aldrin is a chemical of concern at the Site, it was aldrin's breakdown product, dieldrin, that was
the primary risk driver in the ecological risk assessment. Dieldrin contamination at the South Pond Area
is widespread, as it was detected in all sediment and soil samples. Dieldrin was also detected in surface
water at two locations. In addition, chlordane was detected in all of the sediment and soil locations and
in one surface water location.
1 Since speciated 1,2-DCE sampling was not performed, concentrations were compared to the cis-1,2-DCE MCL since it is
lower than the MCL for trans-l,2-DCE (100 |xg/L).
3
-------
Dieldrin and chlordane identified a potential risk for soil invertebrates and benthic macroinvertebrates
directly exposed to these soils and sediments. In addition, food chain exposure to dieldrin by wildlife
receptors with small home ranges, such as small mammals, is also likely to be significant.
Based on the conclusion of the ecological risk assessment, it is recommended that remedial options be
evaluated to address this risk. In addition, based on a brief review of the pesticide data collected for the
ecological risk assessment, it is recommended that the human health risk assessment be updated to
evaluate potential risks based on future residential, recreational, or industrial use scenarios.
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the April 2013 Five-Year Review
OU(s): 4
Issue Category: Changing Site Conditions
Issue: The broken windows and unsecured doors in the buildings, where the
interior protective encapsulation over existing contamination has been breached,
provide unauthorized access to trespassers, including members of the indigent
community, and subject such individuals to exposure to contamination.
Recommendation: Board up and secure the windows and doors in the buildings
in which the encapsulation has been breached.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
Yes
Yes
DICO
EPA
2/2014
In November 2015, the indigent community was removed from the Site and security now patrols the
area in an effort to prevent trespassing.
Although the indigent community has been removed, encapsulated contamination remains in structures
on site. It is recommended that the site be monitored to verify that buildings with encapsulated
contamination continue to be inaccessible to trespassers by the engineering controls in place.
Issues and Recommendations
Based on the activities conducted to date, a number of issues and recommendations were identified:
OU(s): 3
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Operation and Maintenance Plan is not sufficient to evaluate all site
contaminants and exposure pathways
Recommendation: Update operation and maintenance plan to include
speciated 1,2 DCE in the list of groundwater analytes and include vapor
intrusion pathway analysis.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
State
EPA
12/31/2017
4
-------
OU(s): 4
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: An Ecological Risk Assessment indicates that unacceptable
ecological risks are present in the South Pond Area.
Recommendation: Evaluate and implement potential remedial options to
address the unacceptable risk.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
Yes
Yes
PRP
EPA
9/30/2017
OU(s): 4
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: An Ecological Risk Assessment indicates that unacceptable
ecological risks are present in the South Pond Area.
Recommendation: Update the Human Health Risk Assessment on the
South Pond Area to assess potential human health risk.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
EPA
12/31/2016
OU(s): 4
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Potential exposure to contamination encapsulated in buildings on
site.
Recommendation: Verify buildings where contamination is encapsulated
continue to be inaccessible to trespassers to prevent potential exposure to
contamination. This will be necessary as long as the buildings are present.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
EPA
12/31/2018
Protectiveness Statements
Based on new information and/or actions taken since the Five-Year Review completion date, the
protectiveness statements for OU3 and OU4 are being revised as follows:
5
-------
Protectiveness Statemerit(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Planned Addendum
Completion Date:
0U3 Short-term Protective
Click here to enter a
date
Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at OU3 currently protects human health and the
environment because the groundwater is not being consumed and data analysis indicates that
vapor intrusion is not occurring. However, in order to be protective in the long term, the
monitoring plan needs to be updated to ensure that groundwater data is evaluated for speciated
1,2 DCE and that the vapor intrusion pathway continues to be evaluated.
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit:
Protectiveness Determina tion:
Planned Addendum
Not Protective
Completion Date:
OU4
Click here to enter a
date
I Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at OU4 is not protective because the ecological risk 1
1 assessment has concluded that there is unacceptable risk in the South Pond Area. Remedial 1
| alternatives will be evaluated to address these risks.
Sitewide Protectiveness Statement
Protectiveness Determination: Planned Addendum
Completion Date:
Not Protective
Click here to enter a
date
Protectiveness Statement:. Because the remedy at OU4 is not protective, the site is not
protective because the ecological risk assessment at OU4 has concluded that there is
unacceptable risk in the South Pond Area. Remedial alternatives will be evaluated to address
these risks.
6
-------
Next Five-Year Review
The next Five-Year Review will be completed by April 9, 2018, five years after the signature of the last
Five-Year Review report.
Director, Superfund Division
Attachments:
EPA 2015. Ecological Risk Assessment for Des Moines TCE Site, Operable Unit 04, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 2015.
EPA 2016a. Vapor Intrusion Assessment for 5th Five Year Review OU3, Des Moines TCE Site, Des
Moines, IA., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 2016.
EPA 2016b. MAROS Statistical Analysis, OU3, Des Moines TCE Site, Des Moines, IA, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, February 2016.
7
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
for
Des Moines TCE Site
Operable Unit 04
October, 2015
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, KS 66219
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ii
1.0. INTRODUCTION 5
2.0. SITE BACKGROUND 5
3.0. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY 7
4.0. SITE INVESTIGATION 7
5.0. PROBLEM FORMULATION 8
5.1. CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN 8
5.2. CHARACTERIZATION OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF COPCs 8
5.3. MIGRATION PATHWAYS 9
5.3.1. Soil to Surface Water/Sediment Migration 9
5.3.2. Sediment/Surface Water to Soil Migration 9
5.3.3. Biological/Food Chain Migration 9
5.4. ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS 9
5.4.1. AE#1 Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Benthic Macroinvertebrates 10
5.4.2. AE#2 Survival, Growth and Reproduction Soil Invertebrates 10
5.4.3. AE#3 Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Insectivores 10
5.4.4. AE#4 Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Carnivores 10
5.4.5. AE#5 Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Piscivores 11
6.0. RISK CHARACTERIZATION 11
6.1. EVALUATION OF DIRECT EXPOSURE 11
6.1.1. Calculation of the Exposure Point Concentration 12
6.1.2. Screening Level Benchmarks 12
6.1.3. HQ-Based Risk Characterization 12
6.1.4. Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Benthic Macroinvertebrates 13
6.1.5. Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Soil Invertebrates 13
6.2. FOOD CHAIN EXPOSURE TO WILDLIFE RECEPTORS 14
6.2.1. Wildlife Exposure Factors 14
6.2.2. Estimates of Chemical Concentrations in Diet 14
6.2.3. Toxicity Reference Values 15
6.2.4. HQ-based Risk Characterization 15
6.2.5. Survival, Growth, and Reproduction of Terrestrial Insectivores 15
6.2.6. Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Terrestrial Carnivores 15
6.2.7. Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Piscivores 16
-------
7.0. UNCERTAINTIES 16
7.1. ANALYTICAL DATA 16
7.2. UNCERTAINTY OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL 16
7.3. UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH TOXICOLOGICAL STUDIES 17
7.3.1. Variable Toxicity in the Aquatic Environment 17
7.3.2. Extrapolation of Laboratory Toxicity Tests to Natural Conditions 17
7.3.3. Differences between Responses of Test Species and Receptor Species 17
7.3.4. Differences in Chemical Forms of Contaminants 18
7.3.5. Variability in Toxicity Reference Values 18
7.3.6. Extrapolation of Individual Level Effects to Population-Level Effects 18
7.4. UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 18
7.5. UNCERTAINTY IN EVALUATING ECOLOGICAL RISK 19
8.0. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 19
9.0. REFERENCES 21
APPENDIX A: TOXICITY PROFILE 23
APPENDIX B: FIGURES 30
APPENDIX C: TABLES 39
Table 1. Protected Species and Species of Concern 40
Table 2. Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Exposure and Effects.... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Table 3. Exposure Point Concentrations for Sediment (pg/kg) 42
Table 4. Exposure Point Concentrations for Surface Water (|ig/L) 49
Table 5. Exposure Point Concentrations for Soil ((ig/kg) 56
Table 6. Screening Level Evaluation of Assessment Endpoint #1 (aquatic macroinvertebrates). 60
Table 7. Expanded Risk Evaluation of Assessment Endpoint #1 61
Table 8. Screening Level Evaluation of Assessment Endpoint #2 (soil invertebrates) 63
Table 8. Screening Level Evaluation of Assessment Endpoint #2 (soil invertebrates) 64
Table 9. Bioaccumulation Factors for Terrestrial Prey 65
Table 10. Bioconcentratrion Factors for Small Fish 66
Table 11. Estimated Concentrations in Prey 67
Table 12. Average Daily Dose Equations 68
APPENDIX D: ProUCL RESULTS 77
APPENDIX E: WILDLIFE EXPOSURE FACTORS 82
APPENDIX F: TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES 93
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADD
Average Daily Dose
AE
Assessment Endpoint
AUF
Area Use Factor
BAF
Bioaccumulation Factor
BCF
Bioconcentration Factor
BW
Body Weight
COPC
Contaminants of Potential Concern
ESB
Equilibrium Sediment Benchmark
ESL
Ecological Screening Level
EPC
Exposure Point Concentration
ERA
Ecological Risk Assessment
FCM
Food Chain Multiplier
HQ
Hazard Quotient
IR
Ingestion Rate
LOAEL
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
log Kow
Octanol-Water Partitioning Coefficient
NOAEL
No Observed Adverse Effect Level
OU
Operable Unit
PCB
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PEC
Probable Effect Concentration
POP
Persistent Organic Pollutant
RI
Remedial Investigation
SPA
South Pond Area
-------
1.0. INTRODUCTION
This Ecological Risk Assessment is being conducted as part of the fifth Five-Year Review for
the Des Moines TCE Site. The ERA will be conducted according to the Ecological Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund (USEPA, 1997), which includes the following eight steps:
1. Screening level problem formulation and effects evaluation;
2. Screening level exposure and risk evaluation;
3. Baseline risk assessment problem formulation;
4. Study design and data quality objectives;
5. Field verification of sampling design;
6. Site investigation;
7. Risk characterization;
8. Risk management.
The objective of this ERA, in particular, is to characterize potential ecological risk to the aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems associated with Operable Unit 04 (South Pond Area) of the Des
Moines TCE Site.
2.0. SITE BACKGROUND
The Des Moines TCE Site is located in the south-central portion of the city of Des Moines, Iowa,
adjacent to the Raccoon River. The Site includes a portion of the Des Moines Water Works
facility; the Dico, Inc. property; the industrial area north of the Dico property; the Tuttle Street
Landfill east of the Dico property; and the Frank DePuydt Woods south of the Dico property. In
all, the Site encompasses more than 200 acres (Figure 1).
The Dico property has historically been used for a variety of industrial uses, including grey iron
production; steel wheel manufacturing; and chemical and pesticide formulation and distribution.
From the mid-1950s through the early 1970s, pesticide and herbicide formulation was conducted
in Buildings 1 through 5 and the Maintenance Building. The primary formulation activities were
conducted in Buildings 2 and 3, while Buildings 4 and 5 were primarily used for chemical and
product storage. Operable unit two was initially designated to address chlorinated volatile
organic compound impacted source soils and included all soils on the Dico property. Soil
contamination was detected in the saturated zone approximately 30 feet below ground surface.
However, during the OU2 Remedial Investigation, additional contaminants, including pesticides
and herbicides, were discovered in surface soils of OU2 and in several buildings on the Dico
property. OU4 was then designated to address the buildings and surrounding soils and drainage
areas on the Dico property and a drainage ditch just east of the Dico property.
OU4 currently includes portions of the Dico property including Buildings 1 through 3;
foundations of the Maintenance Building; Buildings 4 and 5 and the Western Annex of Building
3; soil and sediment associated with the former aldrin tank; the South Pond Area; the area
5
-------
associated with completed soil disking operations; and the low-lying area south and east of the
Dico property up to the railroad spurs owned by the Union Pacific Railroad.
The primary contaminants of concern detected in the OU4 buildings (Buildings 1 through 5 and
the Maintenance Building) were aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, and polychlorinated biphenyls. The
highest levels of aldrin, dieldrin, and chlordane were detected in the concrete floor of the
Maintenance Building, in association with the aldrin tank and annex structure. Lower levels of
these contamination were detected in Buildings 2, 3 and 4. PCBs were detected in the insulation
of Buildings 2, 3, 4, 5 and the Maintenance Building, with the highest concentration being
detected in Building 3. However, the Maintenance Building, Buildings 4 and 5, and the Western
Annex to Building 3 have been demolished.
Contaminants of Potential Concern detected in the surface soils at OU4 included aldrin, dieldrin,
and chlordane. The pesticides were detected above health-based cleanup levels at numerous
locations across OU4. COPCs detected in the surface soils in the SPA of OU4 included aldrin,
dieldrin, and chlordane. These pesticides were detected in the surface soils along the
northwestern edge of the South Pond, in sediment samples from the South Pond, and in samples
collected from the east drainage ditch.
Several removal actions have occurred at the Site to address the contamination in the soils and
buildings. The removal action for the buildings addressed contamination associated with Dico
Buildings 1 through 5, the Maintenance Building, and the former aldrin mixing tank, annex and
surrounding soils. The removal action included the following: cleaning the interior surfaces of
the buildings; removal of surface soils that had been impacted by contaminants released to the
outside; demolition and disposal of the aldrin tank and annex structure; removal of impacted
soils surrounding the aldrin tank; repairing damaged and exposed building insulation and
encapsulation of PCBs contained within the insulation materials; and application of a protective
surface coating to walls and floors to encapsulate any remaining COPC residues and PCBs to
prevent direct contact.
The removal action for the soils included excavation and capping of contaminated soil. Soils
from low lying drainage areas were excavated and disposed of at an offsite facility. An asphalt
cap was constructed over the remaining contaminated impacted soil areas to address the direct
contact exposure route. However, contamination has not been removed from the SPA due to
concerns over impacts to wetlands.
As part of the fifth five-year review, sediment data from the SPA was compared to ecological
screening levels. It was found that the quality of the historic sediment data was an issue.
Detection limits were at times orders of magnitude above ecological screening levels, and only
limited sampling of the pond had been completed. However, even when adequate detection
limits were used, pesticide concentrations exceed ecological screening levels. In the case of
aldrin, in particular, the screening level hazard quotient was over 400,000. The purpose of the
risk assessment is to evaluate risk using data that meets data quality objectives. In turn, this will
enable the EPA to determine the protectiveness of the current remedy.
6
-------
3.0. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY
Des Moines has a continental climate that is characterized by hot summers and cold winters.
Precipitation is highest in the summer months. The terrain in and around Des Moines is gently
rolling. Surface water drainage is generally to the southeast, to the Des Moines River and its
tributaries. The Site is located in the floodplain of the Raccoon River, which is a tributary to the
Des Moines River (Figure 1). The surrounding area is industrial and commercial, with some
recreational park land. The Raccoon River is listed as a high priority impaired water due to
bacteria and nutrients.
Given the urban and industrial nature of the Site, permanent habitat for threatened and
endangered species is not likely to exist; however, it is possible that certain threatened and
endangered species are transient at the Site. Table 1 provides information on the protected
species and species of concern in Polk County.
The SPA would be considered a forested palustrine wetland. The ecology of these ponds and
floodplain areas is dominated by woody vegetation. Wetlands function as an important
ecological resource by providing habitat for birds and animals, especially semi-aquatic birds and
mammals, as well as amphibians and reptiles.
4.0. SITE INVESTIGATION
The site investigation included the collection of data necessary to evaluate the exposure and
effects of COPCs on ecological assessment endpoints. Specific information pertaining to field
sampling, including standard operating procedures and quality assurance and quality control can
be found in the field sampling and quality assurance and quality control plans for this site
(USEPA, 2014a; USEPA, 2014b). The following data was collected in April of 2015:
¦ Soil - Seven additional soil samples were collected at the Site to characterize current
conditions (Figure 2). Soil sampling focused on the soil surrounding the South Pond to
determine if contamination from the former facility is impacting surrounding areas due to
deposition and run-off.
¦ Surface Water - Twelve surface water samples were collected to further characterize
current conditions in the South Pond and adjacent drainage way (Figure 2).
¦ Sediment Sampling - Twelve sediment samples were collected to further characterize
current conditions in the South Pond and adjacent drainage way. Sediment samples were
co-located with surface water samples (Figure 2).
7
-------
5.0. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The problem formulation phase establishes the goals, breadth, and focus of the ERA (USEPA,
1997). This critical component of the process is the development of assessment endpoints, based
on a well-defined site conceptual model. Defining the ecological problems to be addressed
involves identifying toxic mechanisms of the COPCs, characterizing potential receptors, and
estimating exposure and potential risks.
5.1. CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Based on sampling events conducted during previous investigations, the primary COPCs are
organochlorine insecticides (aldrin/dieldrin and chlordane). Because PCBs have also been
identified as COPCs in the buildings north of the Site, potential releases of these contaminants
were also evaluated. Additional pesticides were also evaluated at the Site, including heptachlors
and DDT.
5.2. CHARACTERIZATION OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF COPCs
Organochlorine pesticides are chlorinated hydrocarbons used extensively from the 1940s through
the 1960s in agriculture and mosquito control. Representative compounds in this group include
DDT, methoxychlor, aldrin/dieldrin, chlordane, toxaphene, mirex, kepone, lindane, and benzene
hexachloride. One of the primary mechanisms of toxicity of organochlorine pesticides is that
effectively bind to sodium channels in neurons increasing permeability to sodium. This increased
permeability facilitates uncoordinated discharge of neurons, which leads to the failure of the
central nervous system.
PCBs belong to a broad family of man-made organic chemicals known as chlorinated
hydrocarbons. PCBs were first introduced into commerce in 1929 and became widely used in
electrical transformers, cosmetics, varnishes, inks, carbonless copy paper, pesticides and for
general weatherproofing and fire-resistant coatings to wood and plastic. PCBs have been shown
to have toxic effects on various organs including tissues of the nervous, reproductive, and
immunologic systems.
Both organochlorine insecticides and PCBs are considered Persistent Organic Pollutants. POPs
are toxic chemicals that adversely affect the environment. Because of their chemical structure,
they persist for long periods of time in the environment and can bioaccumulate in the food chain.
The primary COPCs at the site, aldrin/dieldrin, chlordane and PCBs, are on EPA's list of the
"Dirty Dozen." Detailed toxicity profiles for COPCs at the site can be found in Appendix A.
8
-------
5.3. MIGRATION PATHWAYS
The sources of contamination in the SPA include the historical pesticide formulation, storage and
handling operations at the Site, as well as the PCBs found in the buildings associated with OU4.
The following migration pathways exist at the Site:
¦ Soil-to-Surface Water/Sediment Migration
¦ Surface Water/Sediment to Soil Migration
¦ Biological/Food Chain Transfer
The following subsections present a discussion of each potential route of contaminant migration
for the Site.
5.3.1. Soil to Surface Water/Sediment Migration. Contaminants from source areas may be
transported by the wind or surface water runoff and deposited down gradient in the floodplain of
the Raccoon River, including the surface water and sediment of the SPA and soils of the forested
area surrounding the pond.
5.3.2. Sediment/Surface Water to Soil Migration. Contaminated sediment and surface water
can be a source of contamination to surrounding soils during high water events.
5.3.3. Biological/Food Chain Migration. Biological migration may occur through uptake,
bioaccumulation, and food-chain transfer. Bioaccumulation can be predicted from log octanol-
water partitioning when the log Kow lies between 2 and 6. The log Kow values for the COPCs at
the site suggest a high potential for bioaccumulation and biomagnification. Further, the COPCs
identified at the Site are listed in Table 4-2 of Bioaccumulative Testing and Interpretation for the
Purposes of Sediment Quality Assessment, Status and Needs (EPA, 2000). The EPA generally
considers contaminants in this list to be of concern for biological transport.
5.4. ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS
An assessment endpoint is "an explicit expression of the environmental value that is to be
protected" (USEPA, 1992). A measurement endpoint is defined as "a measurable ecological
characteristic that is related to the valued characteristic chosen as the assessment endpoint" and
is a measure of biological effects (e.g., mortality, reproduction, growth) (USEPA, 1992).
Measurement endpoints are frequently numerical expressions of observations (e.g., toxicity test
results, community diversity measures) that can be compared statistically to a control or
reference site to detect adverse responses to a site contaminant.
The conceptual model (Figure 3) establishes the complete exposure pathways that would be
evaluated in the ERA and the relationship of the measurement endpoints to the assessment
endpoints. The relationship of the selected measurement endpoint to the assessment endpoints
are presented in Table 2.
9
-------
5.4.1. AE#1 Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Benthic
invertebrate communities are expected to be sensitive to the COPCs at the Site due to direct
exposure to sediment. Therefore, survival, growth and reproduction of benthic macroinvertebrate
communities exposed to COPCs in sediment was selected as an assessment endpoint.
Risk Question: Are concentrations of COPCs in sediment and surface water sufficient to
adversely affect the survival, growth and reproduction of benthic macroinvertebrates?
Measure Effects: The maximum and 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the mean (or similar EPC
term) of measured concentrations of COPCs in sediment and surface water were compared to
toxicity benchmark values for sediment.
5.4.2. AE#2 Survival, Growth and Reproduction Soil Invertebrates. Terrestrial
invertebrates that are directly exposed to contaminated soil typically have the highest exposure to
the COPCs at the site. Further, aldrin/dieldrin and chlordane are insecticides that are persistent in
the environment. Therefore, survival, growth and reproduction of soil invertebrates exposed to
COPCs in soil were selected as an assessment endpoint.
Risk Question: Are concentrations of COPCs in soil sufficient to adversely affect the survival,
growth and reproduction of soil invertebrates?
Measure Effects: The maximum and UCL95 of measured concentrations of COPCs in soil were
compared to toxicity benchmark values for soil.
5.4.3. AE#3 Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Insectivores. Food chain transfer of
contaminants from terrestrial soil invertebrates to higher trophic level organisms is an important
exposure pathway given the bioaccumalative nature of the COPCs at the site. Therefore,
survival, growth and reproduction of terrestrial insectivore communities exposed to COPCs is
included as an assessment endpoint. The short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) and American
woodcock (Scolopax minor) have been selected as receptors for this assessment endpoint.
Risk Question: Are concentrations of COPCs in soil sufficient to adversely affect the survival,
growth and reproduction of insectivores?
Measure Effects: The maximum and UCL95 of measured concentrations of COPCs in soil were
used in food chain models to calculate dietary exposure concentrations for insectivorous birds
and mammals. Receptor species representative of the feeding guilds identified as AEs for this
ERA were selected based on their potential to utilize the site, potential exposure to site-related
COPCs based on feeding habits, and availability of data to determine exposure parameters.
5.4.4. AE#4 Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Carnivores. Food chain transfer of
contaminants from small mammals, birds and insects to higher trophic level carnivores is an
important exposure pathway given the bioaccumalative nature of the COPCs at the site.
Therefore, survival, growth and reproduction of terrestrial carnivore communities exposed to
COPCs is included as an assessment endpoint. The long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) and red-
10
-------
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) have been selected as receptors for this assessment endpoint.
Risk Question: Are concentrations of COPCs in soil sufficient to adversely affect the survival,
growth and reproduction of carnivores?
Measure Effects: The maximum and UCL95 of measured concentrations of COPCs in soil were
used in food chain models to calculate dietary exposure concentrations for carnivorous birds and
mammals. Receptor species representative of the feeding guilds identified as AEs for this ERA
were selected based on their potential to utilize the site, potential exposure to site-related COPCs
based on feeding habits, and availability of data to determine exposure parameters.
5.4.5. AE#5 Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Piscivores. Food chain transfer of
contaminants from fish to higher trophic level carnivores is an important exposure pathway
given the bioaccumalative nature of the COPCs at the site. Therefore, survival, growth and
reproduction of piscivore communities exposed to COPCs is included as an assessment endpoint.
The Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) has been selected as receptors for this assessment
endpoint.
Risk Question: Are concentrations of COPCs in sediment sufficient to adversely affect the
survival, growth and reproduction of piscivores?
Measure Effects: The maximum and UCL95 of measured concentrations of COPCs in sediment
were used in food chain models to calculate dietary exposure concentrations for piscivorous
birds. Receptor species representative of the feeding guilds identified as AEs for this ERA were
selected based on their potential to utilize the site, potential exposure to site-related COPCs
based on feeding habits, and availability of data to determine exposure parameters.
6.0. RISK CHARACTERIZATION
In the ecological risk characterization, data on exposure and effects are integrated into a
statement about risk to each assessment endpoint. A weight-of-evidence approach is used to
interpret the implications of different studies and tests for each assessment endpoint. Risk
characterization and the evaluation of potential uncertainties constitute the final phase of the risk
assessment process.
6.1. EVALUATION OF DIRECT EXPOSURE
Direct exposure to contaminated soil and sediment is evaluated for AE#1 and AE#2 using the
Hazard Quotient approach. An HQ is the ratio of the estimated exposure of a receptor at a site to
a benchmark exposure that is believed to be without significant risk of unacceptable adverse
effect on survival, growth, or reproduction. Conservative benchmark values are used to ensure
that potential ecological threats are not overlooked. The benchmarks for chronic No-Observable-
Adverse-Effect-Levels are exposure concentrations at which ecological effects are not expected.
11
-------
HQ = Exposure Point Concentration/Screening Level Benchmark
Exposure may be expressed in a variety of ways, including:
• Concentrations in environmental media (water, soil, sediment, diet)
• Concentrations in the tissues of the exposed receptor and/or
• Amount of chemical ingested by a receptor
In all cases, the benchmark toxicity value must be the same type as the exposure estimate.
If the value of the calculated HQ is less than or equal to 1.0, risks to exposed organisms are
thought to be minimal. If the HQ exceeds 1.0, the potential for adverse effects in exposed
organisms may be of concern, with the probability and/or severity of the adverse effect tending
to increase as the HQ value increases.
6.1.1. Calculation of the Exposure Point Concentration. The SPA is considered a single
exposure area. There are 12 sediment and surface water samples from the pond, and seven soil
samples from the perimeter of the pond (Figure 2). ProUCL version 5.0.0 (USEPA, 2013) was
used to calculate the maximum and UCL95 for all COPCs. Several COPCs had high frequencies
of non-detect values. When all of the reported values are non-detect, one EPC term is estimated
based on the x/i the highest Reporting Limit. If less than four detected values are present in the
dataset, the EPC term is calculated based on the median of the detected and non-detect values
(USEPA, 2013). For datasets with low frequencies of non-detects, the mean and UCL95 are
based on the recommendations provided in ProUCL, generally either Kaplan-Meier or Gamma
statistics. However, when the UCL95 statistic recommended in ProUCL exceeds the maximum
detected value, as was the case for dieldrin and chlordane in soil, the 95% Chebyshev UCL was
used as the EPC term. The EPCs for sediment, surface water and soil can be found in Tables 3-5,
and all ProUCL results can be found in Appendix D.
6.1.2. Screening Level Benchmarks. The primary ecological effects of interest for the COPCs
at this site are direct toxicity; bioaccumulation within the food chain; and adverse effects on
survival, growth and reproduction of potentially exposed ecological receptors. Direct effects
were evaluated by comparing measured COPCs to screening level benchmarks. Sediment was
screened against consensus-based Sediment Quality Guidelines (Threshold and Probable Effect
Concentrations) (MacDonald et al., 2000) and Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks
(USEPA, 2003a; USEPA, 2008). Ecological Soil Screening Levels (USEPA, 2007a; USEPA,
2007b) were used to screen soil. Finally, USEPA Region 5 Ecological Screening Levels
(USEPA, 2003b) were used for all media when one of the above referenced screening values was
unavailable.
6.1.3. HQ-Based Risk Characterization. If the maximum concentration did not exceed the
screening level, the COPC was removed from further evaluation at the site. If the maximum
12
-------
concentration exceeds screening levels, further risk evaluation was conducted using the UCL95
(or alternative EPC term).
6.1.4. Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Risk to benthic
macroinvertebrates was evaluated by comparing maximum concentrations to conservative
screening levels (TEC or ESL). The TEC is a concentration below which effects are not likely to
occur, and ESLs are similarly protective. Screening level results for AE#1 can be found in Table
6. Only two COPCs were screened out, d-BHC and endrin aldehyde. A screening value is not
available for endrin ketone, therefore it was carried through the screen due to uncertainty.
COPCs that exceeded the TEC or ELS were evaluated further by comparing the UCL95 (or
alternative EPC term) to PECs and ESBs. PECs are concentrations above which effects are
probable (MacDonald et al., 2000). In addition, because organic carbon is a factor controlling the
bioavailability of nonionic organic compounds in sediments, ESBs were calculated on an organic
carbon basis for a number of COPCs and compared to ESBwqcs and ESB-rier2 values (USEPA,
2003a; USEPA, 2008). ESBs were calculated based on the UCL95 for both the COPC and total
organic carbon at the site. The conversion from dry weight to organic carbon- normalized
concentration was done using the following formula:
Hg chemical/goc = Hg chemical/gdw -r (% TOC 4- 100)
Results can be found in Table 7. It should be noted that the PEC and ESB for dieldrin were used
for comparison to aldrin because aldrin is rapidly converted to dieldrin in the environment, and
both have similar chemical structures. Consequently, toxicity data on aldrin is limited. The
primary COPCs at the site (aldrin/dieldrin and chlordane) exceed the PEC and ESB in the SPA.
The elevated HQpec for both compounds indicates risk to benthic macroinvertebrates is probable.
Further, the ESB evaluation shows that the organic carbon in the system is not decreasing the
bioavailability below the ESBs, indicating that these pesticides are partitioning into the
interstitial pore water at concentrations that exceed the final chronic values for water quality. The
results for aldrin, dieldrin and chlordane indicate that the risk to benthic macroinvertebrates is
substantial in the SPA.
Several other pesticides, as well as Aroclors, also exceed either PECs and/or ESBs. However, in
most cases, these results are calculated based on a non-detect EPC term. Consequently, there is
substantially more uncertainty associated with the risk evaluation for these COPCs.
6.1.5. Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Soil Invertebrates. Risk to soil invertebrates
was evaluated by comparing maximum concentrations to ESLs because Eco-SSLs for soil
invertebrates are not available for the COPCs at the site. Screening level results for AE#2 can be
found in Table 8. The benzene hexachlorides, other than G-BHC, did not exceed ESLs.
Similarly, the metabolites of DDT (DDD and DDE) did not exceed ESLs. Also, endosulfan I and
II, and heptachlor epoxide, did not exceed ESLs.
13
-------
Hazard quotients based on the UCL95 (or alternative EPC term) can be found in Table 9. Hazard
quotients for aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane and Aroclor 1260 indicate probable risk to soil
invertebrates. Several other pesticides and Aroclors also exceed ESLs. However, in most cases,
these results are calculated based on a non-detect EPC term. Consequently, there is substantially
more uncertainty associated with the risk evaluation for these COPCs.
6.2. FOOD CHAIN EXPOSURE TO WILDLIFE RECEPTORS
Risks to wildlife were modeled using food chain models rather than comparisons based on direct
exposure. Food chain models are based on ingestion as the primary exposure route. The basic
equation for calculation of the HQ for a wildlife receptor exposed to a chemical via ingestion is:
HQi.j r = Ci.j * (IRj,r/BWr) *AUFr / TRVi.r
Where:
HQi.j.r = HQ for the exposure of receptor "r" to chemical "i' in medium "j"
Cij = Concentration of chemical "i" in medium "j" (mg/kg)
IRj.r = Ingestion rate of medium "j" by receptor "r" (kg/d)
BWr= Body weight of receptor "r" (kg)
AUFr = Area Use Factor of receptor "r" as a fraction of the receptor's home range that is
included in the exposure area being evaluated.
TRVi.r = Oral Toxicity Reference Value for chemical "i' in receptor "r" (mg/kg bw/d)
6.2.1. Wildlife Exposure Factors. Exposure factors and ingestion rates for each representative
wildlife receptor can be found in Appendix E. Wildlife exposure factors were selected to
represent average year-around exposure to adults. Although AUFs can be adjusted for wildlife
receptors based on home ranges and seasonal use, an AUF of one is used in the dose equations
for this risk assessment.
6.2.2. Estimates of Chemical Concentrations in Diet. For wildlife, the SPA is considered a
single exposure area. The UCL95 was used to estimate the concentrations of chemicals in the
diet. EPCs for sediment, surface water and soil can be found in Tables 3 through 5. Because data
is only available for soil, sediment and surface water, concentrations in prey items were modeled
based media specific concentrations. For terrestrial receptors, soil-to-invertebrate and soil-to-
mammal Bioaccumulation Factors were used to estimate prey concentrations (HAZWRAP,
1994; USEPA, 2007a; USEPA, 2007b). Soil invertebrate and mammal BAFs are calculated by
dividing the concentration of chemical "i" in tissue by the concentration of chemical "i" in soil.
Where BAFs could not be identified, a default BAF value of 1.0 was used. BAFs can be found in
Table 9, and modeled prey concentrations can be found in Table 11.
For piscivores, COPC concentrations in fish were based on Bioconcentration Factors identified
in the ECOTOX, Version 4.0 database (USEPA, 2015). BCFs are calculated by dividing the
concentration of chemical "i" in tissue by the concentration of chemical "i" in surface water.
14
-------
BCF data on small fish species, such as fathead minnows, was used when available. In some
cases, BCFs for larger fish were used due to lack of data on smaller fish. Where Ecotox data
could not be identified, modeled fish concentrations were based on a surrogate chemical. For
example, the BCF for Aroclor 1254, a more highly chlorinated Aroclor, was used to model
concentrations for Aroclor 1221. This was done to maintain conservatism in the risk estimates.
BCFs can be found in Table 10, and prey concentrations can be found in Table 11.
6.2.3. Toxicity Reference Values. TRVs for wildlife were obtained by conducting a literature
search to obtain information on the ecological effects of COPCs identified at the site. This search
identified mechanisms of toxicity for COPCs and evaluated exposure-response data. TRVs based
on No Observed Adverse Effect Levels and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels for dietary
effect concentrations for avian and mammalian receptors were identified. Detailed information
on TRVs can be found Appendix F. In some cases, a LOAEL value was not available for a
COPC. However, for all COPCs where the LOAEL was not available, the HQnoael did not
exceed one; therefore, a LOAEL value was not necessary for the risk characterization.
6.2.4. HQ-based Risk Characterization. For assessment of effects to wildlife through the food
chain, if neither the NOAEL nor LOAEL based HQ is greater than or equal to 1.0, it is
concluded that there is no model-calculated risks to the given receptor. If the NOAEL based HQ
is greater than or equal to 1.0, but the LOAEL based HQ is less than one, it is concluded that the
model-calculated risks to the given receptor cannot be determined. If the LOAEL based HQ is
greater than or equal to 1.0, it is determined that there is model-calculated risks to a given
receptor.
6.2.5. Survival, Growth, and Reproduction of Terrestrial Insectivores.
The short-tailed shrew and American woodcock were selected as receptors for AE#3. Exposure
factors for wildlife receptors can be found in Appendix E, and TRVs for birds and mammals can
be found in Appendix F. The Average Daily Dose equations for terrestrial insectivores can be
found in Table 12. Model-calculated risk to terrestrial insectivores was found for dieldrin, as the
HQloael for both receptors exceeds one. For Aroclor 1248, the HQloael exceeded one for the
short-tailed shrew, indicating model-calculated risk. However, this result is based on non-detect
data, resulting a high degree of uncertainty. For several Aroclors, DDE, and chlordane, the
HQnoaki. exceeds one, but the HQloael did not, indicating unknown risks.
6.2.6. Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Terrestrial Carnivores.
The long-tailed weasel and red-tailed hawk were selected as receptors for AE#4. Exposure
factors for wildlife receptors can be found in Appendix E, and TRVs for birds and mammals can
be found in Appendix F. The Average Daily Dose equations for terrestrial carnivores can be
found in Table 12. Model-calculated risk to terrestrial carnivores was found for dieldrin, as the
HQloael for both receptors exceeded one. For Aroclor 1221, 1242, and 1248, the HQloael
exceeded one for the long-tailed weasel, indicating model-calculated risk. However, these results
are based on non-detect data, resulting a high degree of uncertainty. For several Aroclors, DDD,
DDE, DDT and chlordane, the HQnoael exceeded one for one or both of the receptors, but the
HQloael did not, indicating unknown risks.
15
-------
6.2.7. Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Piscivores
The Great Blue Heron was selected as receptors for AE#5. Exposure factors for wildlife
receptors can be found in Appendix E, and TRVs for birds and mammals can be found in
Appendix F. The Average Daily Dose equations for piscivores can be found in Table 12. Model-
calculated risk to piscivores was found for Aroclor 1016, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1254, and 1260. The
HQloael exceeds one for all of these COPCs; however, these results are based on modeled fish
concentrations from surface water concentrations that are non-detect; therefore, there is a large
degree of uncertainty. For DDE, dieldrin and toxaphene, the HQnoael exceeded one, but the
HQloael did not, indicating unknown risks.
7.0. UNCERTAINTIES
There are inherent uncertainties in the risk assessment process; however, knowledge of the cause
and potential effects of these uncertainties permits the risk assessor and risk manager to interpret
and use the risk assessment in making site management decisions. Sources of uncertainty fall
into several categories including analytical and sampling design, assumptions, natural variability,
error, and insufficient knowledge. Risk assessment is essentially the integration of the exposure
and hazard assessments. Sources of uncertainty associated with either of these elements may
contribute to overall uncertainty. In addition, the risk assessment procedure itself can contribute
to overall uncertainty. Each of these sources of uncertainty can be addressed differently;
therefore, understanding how each of these sources of uncertainty is handled within the risk
assessment is integral to the overall interpretation.
7.1. ANALYTICAL DATA
The analytical database has inherent uncertainties. For example, the contribution of the chemical
of potential concern across the site was assumed to coincide with receptor contact with
environmental media. The degree to which this assumption is met is not quantifiable and
direction of bias cannot be measured.
In many instances, results were reported as non-detect. In those cases, ProUCL was used to
calculate exposure point concentrations. However, there is substantial uncertainty when using lA
the reporting limit or the median of a dataset in which the majority of the data is non-detect. In
some cases, the reporting limits were reported at up to 20 times the detection limit due to
laboratory interferences. This greatly increased the EPC term for a number of COPCs.
The use of non-detect data to calculate prey concentrations further increases this uncertainty. For
example, model-calculated risk for the heron exposed to Aroclors and toxaphene exceeded one;
however, the entire surface water dataset for these COPCs was non-detect, and the detection
limits for surface water were elevated, resulting in high modeled concentrations in the fish tissue.
7.2. UNCERTAINTY OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Organisms use their environment unevenly, and differential habitat use based on habitat quality
is a source of uncertainty. Natural variability is an inherent characteristic of ecological systems
and stressors. Additionally, there is a limit to our understanding of the population dynamics of
most species, and the community interactions that exist between species. Limited knowledge of
16
-------
population ecology is fundamental in the interpretation of measurement endpoints as they relate
to the assessment endpoint.
Also, the exposure model is based on the "average" behavior of a species. As such, extremes of
behavior are not incorporated into the overall exposure assessment. While these assumptions
may not apply to all individuals, they are generally applicable at the population level and while
not all of the biological variability is captured in the assessment, no directional bias is
introduced.
Finally, an additional source of uncertainty is the exclusion of the air pathway due not only to
lack of data, but also due to the lack of physiological and toxicological data necessary to evaluate
this exposure pathway. While this may not generate significant amounts of additional COPC
exposure, it may be a contributor to overall risks.
7.3. UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH TOXICOLOGICAL STUDIES
7.3.1. Variable Toxicity in the Aquatic Environment. There are specific uncertainties related
to toxicity of contaminants in the aquatic environment. Temporal variations and variations
related to climatic conditions can significantly increase or decrease the toxicity of COPCs. These
variations may affect the concentration of individual COPCs, other essential nutrients, and TOC,
which in turn affects toxicity and bioavailability.
7.3.2. Extrapolation of Laboratory Toxicity Tests to Natural Conditions. The toxicological
data that were used to evaluate the implications of estimated doses to receptors of concern
constitute a source of uncertainty in the assessment. For example, organisms used in toxicity
tests conducted in laboratories are not necessarily subjected to the same degree of non-toxicant
related stress as receptors under natural conditions. In general, laboratory toxicity tests use single
toxicants while receptors in the field are exposed to multiple toxicants. Multiple toxicants can
behave independently (such as when modes of action are very different), they may act additively
(or synergistically), such that expression of effects is driven by several toxicants simultaneously,
or they may interact antagonistically. Cumulative effects of multiple stressors are not necessarily
the same. It is difficult to predict the direction of bias in this case as laboratory conditions and
natural conditions each may stress organisms but the relative magnitude and physiological
implications of these stresses are not actually comparable. Also, due to the differences in the
health of laboratory and field populations, differences in genetic diversity (and hence resistance
to stressors), and possible impacts of non-toxicant stressors, some unavoidable uncertainty exists
when extrapolating laboratory derived data to field situations. Given these factors, the difference
between conducting laboratory tests with single stressors as compared to natural conditions with
multiple stressors adds to the uncertainty regarding the conclusions of this risk assessment. In
addition, although it is believed that the important potential sources of toxicity have been
addressed, it is possible that there are unmeasured or unconsidered stressors at the site.
7.3.3. Differences between Responses of Test Species and Receptor Species. Toxicological
studies also use species that, while they may be related to the taxa, or species, being evaluated at
17
-------
the site, are rarely identical. In general, the greater the taxonomic difference, the greater the
uncertainty associated with the application of study data to the receptors of potential concern.
7.3.4. Differences in Chemical Forms of Contaminants. Many toxicological studies use
chemical formulations and/or administration methods that do not relate well to field exposures.
7.3.5. Variability in Toxicity Reference Values. In some cases there may be a significant
difference between the no effect and lowest effect level toxicity reference values used to estimate
risk to a receptor. The actual point at which effects are seen could be anywhere in the range
between these two values. The greater the range between the two values, the greater the
uncertainty associated with the conclusions.
7.3.6. Extrapolation of Individual Level Effects to Population-Level Effects. Laboratory
based bioassays or toxicity tests measure the response of a laboratory "population" of organisms
to the stressor under consideration. These populations generally represent a low diversity genetic
stock and, as such, probably do not represent the range of sensitivities and tolerances
characteristic of natural populations. As such, there is uncertainty associated with extrapolation
of laboratory population responses to populations in natural systems. This uncertainty is
probably not directionally biased as both sensitive and tolerant individuals may be missing from
the laboratory populations.
7.4. UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The SPA is less than one acre. It was assumed that the area-use-factor is 100% for each wildlife
receptor. Other than the short-tailed shrew, this assumption likely results in an over-estimate of
risk.
An additional source of uncertainty associated with exposure calculations is that feeding rates
were assumed to not vary with season, breeding condition, or with other local factors. Reported
feeding rates undoubtedly vary with all of these factors because metabolic needs change as does
food availability. Conservative estimates of feeding rates were derived from studies that reported
for multiple seasons.
Further, dietary compositions were simplified for each wildlife receptor. For example, herons
consume a variety of aquatic species, as well as some terrestrial prey. Red-tail hawks are
opportunistic hunters that feed on a variety of small animals, not just small mammals. However,
the direction and magnitude of the uncertainty related to simplifying diets is not known. Finally,
diet composition was assumed to not vary with season or local conditions. As with feeding rates,
this assumption is unlikely to be met but the direction of bias is not measurable.
Finally, all of the prey concentrations were modeled based off of BAFs/BCFs from a variety of
sources (HAZWRAP, 1994; USEPA, 1995, ECOTOX, 2015). Modeling always introduces more
uncertainty in comparison to having data from prey inhabiting the Site. For example, there are a
number of surface water-to-fish BCFs for each COPC available from the ECOTOX database.
18
-------
Only one value was selected. Uncertainty was somewhat reduced by selecting BCFs based on
small laboratory fish species; however, there is certainly a range of BCFs and the true
concentration in small fish from the SPA could be more reliably estimated by collection of fish
from the pond, which was not done.
7.5. UNCERTAINTY IN EVALUATING ECOLOGICAL RISK
There is uncertainty associated with the interpretation of hazard quotients. The calculated hazard
quotients are based on a literature benchmark. Data are generally not available on the slope of
the toxicity curve for most contaminants and little is known about the interaction of the
contaminant on the slope of the toxicity curve. For this reason, as well as others discussed in this
section, the numerical value of a hazard quotient has little absolute meaning. For example,
hazard quotients above 1 indicate a potential risk relative to the toxicological benchmark, but a
hazard quotient of 10 does not mean that the risk is 10 times greater.
There is also the issue of immeasurable long-term effects and adaptations. Due to the complexity
of community and population dynamics, it is not currently possible to evaluate all possible
effects by implementation of even the most ambitious studies. The information presented, while
complete and accurate, may miss long-term adverse effects of contaminants on receptors or may
fail to address adaptation to conditions that impart some immunity to contaminant effects. In
addition, ecological functional redundancies contributed by unevaluated species (multiple
species may fill the same niche) may provide resilience against adverse effects at the community
and ecosystem levels and sensitivities may be present in other populations that have not been
evaluated in the current risk assessment. In either case, the results presented are only snap-shots
of conditions as they exist at the site and it is essentially certain that not all of the underlying
variability and stressor effects have been quantified. As such, it is important for the reader to
recognize that large uncertainties exist regarding community and population health, but that
these uncertainties most likely do not directionally bias conclusions.
8.0. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The primary COPCs at the site are aldrin, dieldrin, and chlordane. PCBs are also a potential
concern due to their presence in the buildings on the Site. Aldrin tanks were stored at the SPA,
and aldrin contamination is still present at the Site. However, it is Aldrin's breakdown product,
dieldrin that appears to be the primary risk driver. Dieldrin contamination at the SPA is
widespread, as it was detected in all sediment and soil samples. Dieldrin was also detected in
surface water at locations 8 and 11. Modeled-risks are probable for all of AEs, except AE#5
(piscivores), in which the risk is unknown (HQnoael >1, but HQloael < 1). Therefore, it is
concluded that significant ecological risk is likely at the SPA due to dieldrin contamination.
Also, chlordane was detected in all of the sediment and soil locations and in surface water at
Location 8. Potential risk due to Chlordane was identified for soil invertebrates and benthic
macroinvertebrates, but not for wildlife receptors at the site.
19
-------
Of the Aroclors evaluated, only Aroclor 1260 was detected in soil and sediment at the site.
Probable risks to soil invertebrates and benthic invertebrates was found for Aroclor 1260. Risks
were unknown for terrestrial wildlife receptors with HQnoael values >1, but HQloael values <
1. Aroclor 1260 was not detected in surface water; therefore, modeled risks to the heron are
highly uncertain. Although potential risk due to other Aroclors was identified for all AEs, this
risk is uncertain, as the data was non-detect.
Other pesticides were evaluated in the risk assessment, even though they were not identified as
site-specific COPCs. Several of these pesticides were detected in soil and sediment. The extent to
which these pesticides were related to intended use in the past is unknown. For example, DDT
may have been applied at the SPA (or in the vicinity). The impact of these additional pesticides
on ecological receptors is likely to be additive to the overall effects of the site-related COPCs at
the Site.
Direct exposure to sediment and soil impacting the soil invertebrate and benthic
macroinvertebrate populations at the SPA is a probable risk at the site. Food chain exposure to
dieldrin to wildlife receptors with small home ranges, such as small mammals, is also likely to be
significant. However, the small size of the site may limit food chain exposure to higher trophic
level wildlife receptors. For receptors with large home ranges (red-tailed hawks, American
woodcocks and long-tailed weasels), true exposure is likely to be less than the exposure assumed
in this risk assessment. The habitat south of the site includes woods and riparian zones that
would also provide areas for foraging, and human encroachment on the SPA may be a deterrent
to wildlife to some degree.
20
-------
9.0. REFERENCES
HAZWRAP, 1994. Loring Air Force Base Ecological Risk Methodology. Martin Marietta
Energy Systems, Inc.
MacDonald D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of
consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 39:20-31.
USEPA, 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/63-R-92/001.
USEPA, 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA 540/R97/006.
USEPA, 2000. Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality
Assessment, Status and Needs. February 2000. EPA 823-R-OO-OOl.
USEPA, 2003a. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks
(ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. EPA/600/R-02/010.
USEPA, 2003b. USEPA Region 5 Ecological Screening Levels.
http://epa.gov/Region5/waste/cars/pdfs/ecological-screening-levels-200308.pdf
USEPA, 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin. Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-57.
USEPA, 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and Metabolites. Interim Final.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-57.
USEPA, 2008. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks
(ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Compendium of Tier 2 Values for Nonionic
Organics. EPA/600/R-02/016.
USEPA, 2013. ProUCL 5.0.00 User Guide. Statistical Software for Environmental Applications
for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations. EPA/600/R-07/041.
USEPA, 2014a. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Field Sampling for Ecological Assessment at
the Des Moines TCE Site Operable Unit 04.
21
-------
USEPA, 2014b. Field Sampling Plan for Ecological Assessment, Des Moines TCE Site,
Operable Unit 04.
USEPA, 2015. ECOTOX Database, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/
22
-------
APPENDIX A: TOXICITY PROFILES
23
-------
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Based on information from the EcoSSL Toxicity Profile
(USEPA, 2007)
24
-------
Aldrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-1,4,4",5,8,8"-exo-1,4-endo-5,8-dimethano-naphthalene or HHDN)
and its epoxide derivative dieldrin (l,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy- l,4,4",5,6,7,8,8"-octahydro-
l,4-endo,exo-5,8-dimethanonaphthalene, or HEOD), are man-made chlorinated cyclodiene insecticides
used extensively in the United States from the 1950s to the early 1970s. Aldrin is discussed along with
dieldrin as it readily changes into dieldrin when it enters the environment. The trade names used for
dieldrin included Alvit, Dieldrix, Octalox, Quintox and Red Shield (ATSDR, 2002). Aldrin and
dieldrin were used primarily for the control of termites around buildings, corn pests by application to
soil and in the citrus industry (U.S. EPA, 1980). Other uses included crop protection from insects,
timber preservation and termite-proofing of plastic and rubber coverings of electrical and
telecommunication cables and of plywood and building boards (Worthing and Walker, 1983). The U.S.
Department of agriculture canceled all uses of aldrin and dieldrin in 1970. In 1972, however, EPA
approved aldrin and dieldrin for use in three instances: 1) subsurface ground insertion for termite
control; 2) dipping of non-food plant roots and tops; and 3) moth-proofing in manufacturing processes
using completely closed systems (USEPA, 1980 and 1986). Use for termite control continued until
1987 when the manufacturer voluntarily canceled the registration for use in controlling termites.
Manufacture in the U.S. ceased in 1989 (ATSDR, 2002).
Dieldrin in the soil environment has low to no mobility. Dieldrin is nonpolar, has a strong affinity for
organic matter and sorbs tightly to soil particles. Volatilization is the principal loss process but is slow
due to its low vapor pressure and strong sorption. Dieldrin degrades slowly in soil surfaces with a
reported half-life of about 7 years in field studies. Dieldrin (and aldrin) applied to soil may also
undergo degradation by ultraviolet light to form photodieldrin and this reaction may also occur as a
result of microbial activity. In soil, aldrin is converted to dieldrin by epoxidation (ATSDR, 2002).
Dieldrin bioaccumulates in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. As both plants and animals metabolize
aldrin to dieldrin via epoxidation, significant levels of aldrin are seldom found in biological matrices.
Therefore, most studies focus on dieldrin rather than aldrin. In plants, dieldrin is accumulated primarily
in the roots with aerial parts containing smaller concentrations (ATSDR, 2002). In terrestrial
organisms, accumulation of dieldrin in fat tissues is known to increase with increasing trophic level of
the organism with predators at the top of the food chain tending to have the highest exposure and
greatest risk. In mammals, dieldrin is accumulated in adipose tissue, liver and brain. The neurotoxicity
of dieldrin to the Central Nervous System is well documented. CNS manifestations originate in neural
synapses. Dieldrin prevents the action of the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) by
binding to the picrotoxin binding site of the GABA-receptor-ionophore complex (Matsurmura and
Giashudding, 1983). GABA is secreted only by nerve terminals in the spinal cord, the cerebellum, the
basal ganglia, the retina, and areas of the cortex. It is thought to cause inhibition of neurotransmission
by binding the complex and creating a structural alteration preventing influx of CI- and repolarization
of the membrane (Bloomquist and Soderlund, 1985). Basal ganglia innervation by GABA neurons
originating from the cortex provide inhibitory input. GABA, therefore, lends stability to motor control
systems (Guyton 1991). Without the inhibitory effect of the GABA transmitter, there is uncontrolled
25
-------
motor stimulation leading to convulsions and other CNS manifestations of dieldrin. In mammals,
clinical signs of toxicity include depressed activity, followed by hyperexcitability, tremors and
convulsions (Coats, 1990; Matsurmura and Giashudding, 1983).
References:
ATSDR. 2002. Toxicological Profile for Aldrin/Dieldrin. US. Department of Health and Human
Services. September, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html
Bloomquist, J.R., and D.M. Soderlund. 1985. Neurotoxic insecticides inhibit GABA-dependent
chloride uptake by mouse brain vesicles. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. (133). 37-43.
Coats, J.R. 1990. Mechanisms of toxic action and structure-activity relationships for
organochlorine and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides. Environmental Health Perspectives. 87:
255-262.
Guyton, A.C. 1991. Textbook of Medical Physiology. 8th Ed. W.B. Saunders Company.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Hazardous Substances Database
(HSDB). U.S. National Library of Medicine, http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/
Matsumura, F., and S.M. Ghiasuddin. 1983. Evidence for similarities between cyclodiene type
insecticides and picrotoxin in their action mechanisms. J. Environ. Sci.Health. Part B. (B18). 1-
14.
USEPA. 1986. Guidance for the Reregistration of Pesticide Products containing Aldrin as the
Active Ingredient. Case No. 0172. Washington, DC, U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs.
USEPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aldrin/Dieldrin. U.S. EPA Criteria and
Standards Division. PB81-11730/OWRS.
Worthing, C.R. and S.B. Walter (eds). 1983. The Pesticide Manual: A World Compendium, 7th
ed. Suffolk, Great Britain: The Lavenham Press Limited.
26
-------
Aroclors
Based on Information from Eisler (2000)
27
-------
Aroclor is the trade name used for most of the commercial PCB mixtures created in the United
States by the Monsanto Company. These were sold in the US under the name Aroclor followed
by a 4-digit number. The first two digits represent the number of carbon atoms (12); the second
two digits indicate the percentage of chlorine by mass in the mixture. For example, Aroclor 1260
contains 60% chlorine by mass. Aroclors with lower numbers are "light" oily liquids, while at
the higher end they have a "heavier," more waxy form.
The transport and fate of PCBs in the aquatic environment and their partitioning between
sediment, water and organisms depends largely on sorption reactions. In soils, the sorption and
retention of PCB congeners is influenced by the number of chlorine atoms in the molecule, and
the more highly chlorinated PCBs tend to more strongly bind to soil particles. The soil sorption
capacity and bioconcentration factors of PCBs are strongly related to the octanol-water partition
coefficient (KoW). The higher K,,w values of PCBs is what leads to their bioaccumulation and
biomagnification in the food web.
The amount of chlorine largely determines the physical properties of different Aroclors. The
toxicology of PCBs varies considerably among congeners, depending on the number and
location of chlorines on the biphenyl molecule, and also between animal species due to
differences in absorption, metabolism, mechanism of action, and potential toxic effects.
Common effects of PCB exposure observed in various animals are summarized in the table
below (Hansen, 1994).
System Affected
Specific Effect
Hepatic effects
Hepatomegaly, bile duct hyperplasia;
Widespread (e.g., rabbit) or focal (e.g., mouse) necrosis;
Lipid accumulation, fatty degeneration;
Induction of microsomal monooxygenases and other enzymes;
Decreased activity of membrane ATPases;
Depletion of fat-soluble vitamins;
Porphyria
Gastrointestinal effects
Hyperplasia and hypertrophy of gastric mucosa;
Gastric ulceration and necrosis;
Proliferation and invasion of intestinal mucosa (monkey);
Hyperplasia, hemorrhage, necrosis (hamster, cow)
Respiratory system
Chronic bronchitis, chronic cough
28
-------
Nervous system
Alterations in catecholamine levels;
Impaired behavioral responses;
Developmental deficits;
Depressed spontaneous motor activity;
Numbness in extremities
Skin
Chloracne;
Edema, alopecia
lmmunotoxicity
Altered levels of circulating steroids;
Estrogenic, antiestrogenic, antiandrogenic effects;
Decreased levels of plasma progesterone;
Adrenocortical hyperplasia;
Thyroid pathology, changes in circulating thyroid hormones
Reproduction
Increased length of estrus;
Decreased libido;
Embryo and fetal effects following in utero exposure
Carcinogenesis
Promoter;
Attenuation of some carcinogens
References:
Eisler, R. 2000. Handbook of Chemical Risk Assessment: Health Hazards to Humans, Plants, 2
and Animals. Volume 2 - Organics. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. ISBN 1-56670-506-1.
29
-------
Chlordane
Based on Information from Eisler (2000)
30
-------
Technical chlordane is an organochlorine compound first introduced into the United States in
1947 in a variety of formulations for use as a broad-spectrum pesticide. By 1974, about 9.5
million kilograms of chlordane were produced annually. Concern over the potential
carcinogenicity of chlordane has led to sharply curtailed production. Since 1983, chlordane use
in the United States has been prohibited, except for control of underground termites.
Technical chlordane consists of about 45 components, primarily cis-chlordane (19%), trans-
chlordane (24%), heptachlor (10%), cis- and trans-nonachlor (7%), and various chlordane
isomers (22%). Chemical analysis of technical chlordane is difficult because of analytical
interferences from other organochlorine compounds, nonstandardization of analytical techniques,
variations in the number and relative composition of components in weathered chlordane, and,
uncertainty of structural formulas and other properties of several compounds present.
Past chlordane use, coupled with atmospheric transport as the major route of dissemination,
produced global contamination of fish and wildlife resources and human populations. The
chemical and its metabolites were frequently detected in all species examined, but usually at low
concentrations. Residues in fish muscle sometimes exceeded the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration action level of 0.3 mg/kg fresh weight recommended for human health
protection. In general, chlordane in animals is highest near areas where the chemical has been
applied to control termites; concentrations are highest in fat and liver, especially in predatory
species.
The half-life of chlordane in water is comparatively short; cis-chlordane, for example, usually
persists less than 18 h in solution. In soils, however, some chlordane isomers persist for 3 to 14
years because of low solubility in water, high solubility in lipids, and relatively low vapor
pressure. There seems to be little accumulation of chlordane in crops grown in contaminated
soils.
Chlordane is readily absorbed by warm-blooded animals through skin, diet, and inhalation, and
distributed throughout the body. In general, residues of chlordane and its metabolites are not
measurable in tissues 4 to 8 weeks after exposure, although metabolism rates varied significantly
between species. Food chain biomagnification is usually low, except in some marine mammals.
In most mammals, the metabolite oxychlordane has proven much more toxic and persistent than
the parent chemical.
Many species of aquatic organisms are adversely affected at concentrations in water between 0.2
and 3.0 pg/L technical chlordane. Sensitive bird species had reduced survival on diets containing
1.5 mg chlordane per kilogram in their diet, or after a single oral dose as low as 14.1 mg
chlordane per kilogram body weight. Chlordane has produced liver cancer in laboratory strains
31
-------
of domestic mice, but carcinogenicity has not been established in other mammals.
Chlordane criteria for protection of marine life (0.004 (Jg/L, 24-h mean; not to exceed 0.09 ng/L)
seem satisfactory. Proposed criteria for freshwater life protection (0.0043 (Jg/L, 24-h mean; not
to exceed 2.4 jig/L) however, overlap the range of 0.2 to 3.0 |ig/L shown to adversely affect
certain fish and aquatic invertebrates, suggesting that some downward modification in the
maximum permissible level is needed. Chlordane criteria for protection of birds and mammals
are inadequate because the data base is incomplete. Until these data become available, a
reasonable substitute is the criteria proposed for human health protection, namely, daily intake
not to exceed 0.001 mg chlordane per kilogram body weight, and diet not to exceed 0.3 mg
chlordane per kilogram fresh weight.
Most authorities agree that more studies are needed in several areas: monitoring of oxychlordane
concentrations in wildlife; interpretation of the biological significance of residue levels found in
wildlife; standardization of analytical extraction and other techniques for quantitation of
chlordane and its metabolites; reexamination of aquatic toxicity data where test concentrations
exceeded the solubility of chlordane in water (6 to 9 (Jg/L); interaction effects with other
agricultural chemicals; reevaluation of the cancer risk of chlordane on representative organisms
at realistic environmental levels; effects of depleted soil fertility from chlordane induced
earthworm suppression; and continuance of epidemiological studies on exposed workers.
Reference:
Eisler, R. 2000. Handbook of Chemical Risk Assessment: Health Hazards to Humans, Plants, 2
and Animals. Volume 2 - Organics. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. ISBN 1-56670-506-1.
32
-------
APPENDIX B: FIGURES
33
-------
34
-------
Foundations;
Buildings" I
1
f . Ra
Raccoon R
South PonC Area
epiK-r «!t»gHr»n^»,&*twi>t«liqrtSe1r?
Figure 1. Des Moines TCE Site.
35
-------
SD11/SW11
S010/SW10
SD12SW12
6S07
SD03SW03
SD09SW09
SD07/SW07
SD06 SW08
SD0*1/SWOlSD02 SW02
SD06 SW06
SD05 SW05
'SS01
SD04 SW04
*71, dW!?[> sirjtjm
wssmp, is. tew\,ofio«^an
(Wimnfr-
Figure 2. Sediment, Surface Water and Soil Sampling Locations.
36
-------
37
-------
FIGURE 3. Conceptual Model for hcologlcal Exposure at the l)es Moines TCE Site
Source
Release Mechanism
Potentially Impacted Environmental Media
Exposure Route
Aquatic Receptors
Terrestrial Receptors
(Plants. Invertebrates)
Wildlife Receptors
(Birds. Keptiles,
Mammals)
Amphibians
Bent hie
Organisms
Plants
Soil
Organisms
Dust m Air
Inhalation
X
Direct Contact
X
/
Deposition in surrounding
soiK from high water events
Surface Soi
Ingestion
X
•
*
Direct Contact
•
•
X
Historic Pesticide
strragc and
formulation ami run
off from built lings
Terrestrial Food Items
f Plants, Mammals.
Invertebrates)
uptake inii> tLssuer
Ingestion
1 . 1
Surface Water
Ingestion
•
Direct Contact
•
•
X
Run off from pesticide
storage in buildings and lank
V \
\
Aquati: Food Items
(Aquatic Invertebrates.
Plants)
uptake into tissues
*
Ingestion
O
O
•
\
Sediment
Ingestim
X
X
•
Direct ( omact
X
•
X
Pathway is nut complete, no evaluation required
X
Pathway is complete hu probably cannot he evaluated quantitatively
•
Pathway is complete and could he significant, quantiauvc evaluation
O
Pathway is complete, limited quantiativc evaluation may he possWe
38
-------
APPENDIX C:TABLES
39
-------
Table 1. Protected Species and Species of Concern.
TYPE
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
STATUS
NUMBER
OF
RECORDS
Fish
Ammocrypta Clara
Western Sand Darter
T
1
Reptile
Emydoidea Blandingii
Blanding's Turtle
T
3
Fish
Esox Americanus
Grass Pickerel
T
1
Fish
Notropis Heterolepis
Blacknose Shiner
T
1
Reptile
Ophisaurus Attenuatus
Slender Glass Lizard
T
Mammal
Perognathus
Flavescens
Pocket Mouse
E
1
Butterfly
Poanes Zabulon
Skipper
SC
1
Mammal
Spilogale Putorius
Spotted Skunk
E
Plant
Cirsium Hillii
Hill's Thistle
SC
1
Plant
Cypripedium
Candidum
Small White Lady's Slipper
SC
1
Plant
Opuntia Fragilis
Brittle Prickly Pear
T
1
Plant
Plantathera Praeclara
Western Prairie Fringed
Orchid
T
1
Plant
Spiranthes
Magnicamporum
Plant Great Plains Lady's
Tresses
SC
1
Spiranthes Ovalis
Oval Lady's Tresses
T
7
Endangered
T: Threatened
SC: Special Concern (no protection status)
Source: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Conservation and Recreation Division
40
-------
Table 2. Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Exposure and Effects.
Assessment Endpoint
Measures of Exposure/Effects
Survival, growth and reproduction of benthic invertebrates.
Compare maximum and UCL95 concentrations of COPCs in
sediment to screening benchmark values.
Survival, growth and reproduction of soil invertebrates
Compare maximum and UCL95 concentrations of COPCs in soil to
screening benchmark values for soil invertebrates.
Survival, growth and reproduction of insectivorous birds and mammals
Maximum and UCL95 concentrations of COPCs measured in soil
will be used in food chain models to calculate dietary exposure of
selected receptor species. Calculated dietary exposure concentrations
will be compared with TRVs for COPCs obtained from the literature
for birds and mammals.
Survival, growth and reproduction of carnivorous birds and mammals.
Maximum and UCL95 concentrations of COPCs measured in soil
will be used in food chain models to calculate dietary exposure of
selected receptor species. Calculated dietary exposure concentrations
will be compared with TRVs for COPCs obtained from the literature
for birds and mammals.
Survival, growth and reproduction of piscivorous birds.
Maximum and UCL95 concentrations of COPCs measured in surface
water will be used in food chain models to calculate dietary exposure
of selected receptor species. Calculated dietary exposure
concentrations will be compared with TRVs for COPCs obtained
from the literature for birds.
41
-------
Table 3. Exposure Point Concentrations for Sediment (pg/kg).
Location
Latitude Longitude TOC % Aldrin
Detection
ID
Aroclor 1016
1
41.57647
-93.63753
2.88
3200
J
1200
2
41.57641
-93.63737
5.66
77
J
1700
3
41.57671
-93.63732
2.33
4200
J
780
4
41.57603
-93.63725
3.28
29
J
860
5
41.57635
-93.63799
3.09
25
UJ
850
6
41.57648
-93.63836
4.24
64
J
980
7
41.576525
-93.63864
9.05
89
J
2600
8
41.5765
-93.63773
0.366
490
J
500
9
41.57667
-93.63827
3.99
260
J
1000
10
41.5769
-93.6386
6.24
990
J
3400
11
41.57711
-93.63879
1.5
740
J
690
12
41.57685
-93.63871
5.53
110
J
1700
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
4200
2600
3400
1700
42
Detection Arocor 1221 Detection Aroclor 1232 Detection
ID ID ID
U 1200 U 1200 U
U 1700 U 1700 U
U 780 U 780 U
U 860 U 860 U
U 850 U 850 U
U 980 U 980 U
U 2600 U 2600 U
U 500 U 500 U
U 1000 U 1000 U
U 3400 U 3400 U
U 690 U 690 U
U 1700 U 1700 U
3400 3400
1700
1700
-------
Location
Latitude
Longitude
TOC %
Aroclor 1242
De
ID
1
41.57647
-93.63753
2.88
1200
U
2
41.57641
-93.63737
5.66
1700
U
3
41.57671
-93.63732
2.33
780
U
4
41.57603
-93.63725
3.28
860
U
5
41.57635
-93.63799
3.09
850
U
6
41.57648
-93.63836
4.24
980
U
7
41.576525
-93.63864
9.05
2600
U
8
41.5765
-93.63773
0.366
500
U
9
41.57667
-93.63827
3.99
1000
U
10
41.5769
-93.6386
6.24
3400
U
11
41.57711
-93.63879
1.5
690
u
12
41.57685
-93.63871
5.53
1700
u
Maximum
3400
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
1700
Aroclor 1248 Detection Aroclor 1254 Detection Aroclor 1260 Detection
ID ID ID
1200 U 580 U 3200 U
1700 U 870 U 870 U
780 U 390 U 390 U
860 U 430 U 430 U
850 U 420 U 420 U
980 U 490 U 490 U
2600 U 1300 U 1300 U
500 U 250 U 250 U
1000 U 520 U 520 U
3400 U 1700 U 1700 U
690 U 340 U 1900
1700 U 860 U 860 U
3400 1700 1900
690
1700 850
43
-------
Location
Latitude Longitude TOC % A-BHC
Detection B-BHC
ID
1
41.57647
-93.63753
2.88
17
U
58
2
41.57641
-93.63737
5.66
26
U
87
3
41.57671
-93.63732
2.33
12
U
39
4
41.57603
-93.63725
3.28
13
U
43
5
41.57635
-93.63799
3.09
13
u
42
6
41.57648
-93.63836
4.24
15
u
49
7
41.576525
-93.63864
9.05
38
u
130
8
41.5765
-93.63773
0.366
7.5
u
25
9
41.57667
-93.63827
3.99
16
u
52
10
41.5769
-93.6386
6.24
51
u
68
11
41.57711
-93.63879
1.5
10
u
35
12
41.57685
-93.63871
5.53
26
u
86
Maximum
51
130
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
25.5
65
44
Detection D-BHC Detection G-BHC Detection
ID ID ID
U 23 U 23 U
U 35 U 35 U
U 16 U 16 U
U 17 U 17 U
U 17 U 17 U
U 20 U 20 U
U 51 U 51 U
U 10 U 10 U
U 21 U 21 U
U 100 U 68 U
U 14 U 14 U
U 35 U 35 U
100 68
50 34
-------
Location
Latitude
Longitude
TOC %
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endc
1
41.57647
-93.63753
2.88
48000
1100
35
2
41.57641
-93.63737
5.66
2700
250
52
3
41.57671
-93.63732
2.33
32000
3200
23
4
41.57603
-93.63725
3.28
260
110
26
5
41.57635
-93.63799
3.09
500
56
25
6
41.57648
-93.63836
4.24
1700
53
30
7
41.576525
-93.63864
9.05
6200
310
77
8
41.5765
-93.63773
0.366
1400
450
15
9
41.57667
-93.63827
3.99
2500
360
31
10
41.5769
-93.6386
6.24
7100
1200
100
11
41.57711
-93.63879
1.5
5400
1100
21
12
41.57685
-93.63871
5.53
3500
290
52
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
48000
23829
3200
1533
100
50
45
Detection Endosulfan II Detection Endosulfan Detection
ID ID Sulfate ID
U 35 U 46 U
U 52 U 70 U
U 23 U 31 U
U 26 U 35 U
U 25 U 34 U
U 30 U 39 U
U 77 U 100 U
U 15 U 20 U
U 31 U 42 U
U 100 U 140 U
U 21 U 28 U
U 52 U 69 U
100 140
50
70
-------
Location
Latitude
Longitude
TOC %
Endrin
De
ID
1
41.57647
-93.63753
2.88
46
U
2
41.57641
-93.63737
5.66
70
U
3
41.57671
-93.63732
2.33
31
U
4
41.57603
-93.63725
3.28
35
U
5
41.57635
-93.63799
3.09
34
U
6
41.57648
-93.63836
4.24
39
U
7
41.576525
-93.63864
9.05
100
U
8
41.5765
-93.63773
0.366
20
U
9
41.57667
-93.63827
3.99
42
U
10
41.5769
-93.6386
6.24
140
U
11
41.57711
-93.63879
1.5
28
U
12
41.57685
-93.63871
5.53
69
U
Maximum
140
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
70
Endrin Detection Endrin Detection Heptachlor Detection
Aldehyde ID Ketone ID ID
58 U 46 U 35 U
87 U 70 U 52 U
39 U 31 U 150
43 U 35 U 26 U
42 U 34 U 25 U
49 U 39 U 30 U
130 U 100 U 77 U
25 U 20 U 15 U
52 U 42 U 31 U
170 U 140 U 100 U
34 U 28 U 21 U
86 U 69 U 52 U
170 140 150
33
85 70
46
-------
Location
Latitude
Longitude
TOC %
Heptachlor
Detection
p,p'-[
Epoxide
ID
1
41.57647
-93.63753
2.88
35
U
2900
2
41.57641
-93.63737
5.66
52
U
70
3
41.57671
-93.63732
2.33
23
u
31
4
41.57603
-93.63725
3.28
26
u
35
5
41.57635
-93.63799
3.09
25
u
34
6
41.57648
-93.63836
4.24
30
u
79
7
41.576525
-93.63864
9.05
77
u
100
8
41.5765
-93.63773
0.366
15
u
20
9
41.57667
-93.63827
3.99
31
u
86
10
41.5769
-93.6386
6.24
100
u
190
11
41.57711
-93.63879
1.5
21
u
28
12
41.57685
-93.63871
5.53
52
u
97
Maximum
100
2900
UCL95
Median
75
1/2 max RL
50
47
Detection p,p'-DDE Detection p,p'-DDT Detection
ID ID ID
190 U 61 U
U 87 U 87 U
U 48 39 U
U 43 U 43 U
U 62 42 U
U 49 U 49 U
U 130 U 130 U
U 25 U 25 U
87 52 U
81 170 U
U 34 U 34 U
U 86 U 86 U
87 170
72
85
-------
Locatior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Maximu
UCL95
Median
1/2 ma>
Latitude
Longitude
TOC %
P,P'-
Detection
Toxaphene
De
Methoxychlor
ID
ID
41.57647
-93.63753
2.88
120
U
1200
U
41.57641
-93.63737
5.66
170
U
1700
U
41.57671
-93.63732
2.33
78
U
780
U
41.57603
-93.63725
3.28
86
U
860
U
41.57635
-93.63799
3.09
85
U
850
U
41.57648
-93.63836
4.24
98
U
980
U
41.576525
-93.63864
9.05
260
U
2600
U
41.5765
-93.63773
0.366
50
U
500
U
41.57667
-93.63827
3.99
100
U
1000
U
41.5769
-93.6386
6.24
340
U
3400
U
41.57711
-93.63879
1.5
69
U
690
U
41.57685
-93.63871
5.53
170
U
1700
U
340
3400
170
1700
48
-------
Table 4. Exposure Point Concentrations for Surface Water (ng/L).
Location Latitude Longitude Aldrin
Detection
ID
Aroclor 1016
1
41.57647
-93.63753
0.05
U
1.0
2
41.57641
-93.63737
0.05
u
1.0
3
41.57671
-93.63732
0.05
u
1.0
4
41.57603
-93.63725
0.05
u
1.0
5
41.57635
-93.63799
0.05
u
1.0
6
41.57648
-93.63836
0.05
u
1.0
7
41.576525
-93.63864
0.05
u
1.0
8
41.5765
-93.63773
0.05
u
1.0
9
41.57667
-93.63827
0.05
u
1.0
10
41.5769
-93.6386
0.05
u
1.0
11
41.57711
-93.63879
0.05
u
1.0
12
41.57685
-93.63871
0.05
u
1.0
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
0.025
0.5
49
Detection Aroclor Detection Aroclor 1232 Detection ID
ID 1221 ID
U 1.0 LI 1.0 U
U 1.0 U 1.0 U
U 1.0 U 1.0 U
U 1.0 U 1.0 U
U 1.0 U 1.0 U
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
0.5
0.5
-------
Location Latitude Longitude Aroclor 1242 Detection Aroclor 1248
1
41.57647
-93.63753
1.0
ID
U
1.0
2
41.57641
-93.63737
1.0
U
1.0
3
41.57671
-93.63732
1.0
u
1.0
4
41.57603
-93.63725
1.0
u
1.0
5
41.57635
-93.63799
1.0
u
1.0
6
41.57648
-93.63836
1.0
u
1.0
7
41.576525
-93.63864
1.0
u
1.0
8
41.5765
-93.63773
1.0
u
1.0
9
41.57667
-93.63827
1.0
u
1.0
10
41.5769
-93.6386
1.0
u
1.0
11
41.57711
-93.63879
1.0
u
1.0
12
41.57685
-93.63871
1.0
u
1.0
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
0.5
0.5
50
Detection Aroclor Detection Aroclor 1260 Detection ID
ID 1254 ID
U 1.0 U 1.0 U
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
U 1.0 U 1.0 u
0.5
0.5
-------
Location Latitude
1 41.57647
2 41.57641
3 41.57671
4 41.57603
5 41.57635
6 41.57648
7 41.576525
8 41.5765
9 41.57667
10 41.5769
11 41.57711
12 41.57685
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
Longitude a-BHC
-93.63753 0.05
-93.63737 0.05
-93.63732 0.05
-93.63725 0.05
-93.63799 0.05
-93.63836 0.05
-93.63864 0.05
-93.63773 0.098
-93.63827 0.05
-93.6386 0.05
-93.63879 0.05
-93.63871 0.05
0.05
Detection b-BHC
ID
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
0.025
51
Detection d-BHC
ID
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
Detection g-BHC
ID
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
U 0.05
Detection ID
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
0.025
0.025
-------
Location Latitude
Longitude Chlordane
Detection
ID
Dieldrin
1
41.57647
-93.63753
0.05
U
0.1
1
41.57641
-93.63737
0.05
U
0.1
3
41.57671
-93.63732
0.05
U
0.1
4
41.57603
-93.63725
0.05
U
0.1
5
41.57635
-93.63799
0.05
u
0.1
6
41.57648
-93.63836
0.05
u
0.1
7
41.576525
-93.63864
0.05
u
0.1
8
41.5765
-93.63773
0.13
0.98
9
41.57667
-93.63827
0.05
u
0.1
10
41.5769
-93.6386
0.05
u
0.1
11
41.57711
-93.63879
0.05
u
0.1
12
41.57685
-93.63871
0.05
u
0.1
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
0.05
0.1
52
Detection
Endosulfan
Detection
Endosulfan
Dt
ID
I
ID
II
U
0.05
U
0.1
u
U
0.05
U
0.1
u
u
0.05
u
0.1
u
u
0.05
u
0.1
u
u
0.05
u
0.1
u
u
0.05
u
0.1
u
u
0.05
u
0.1
u
0.05
u
0.1
u
u
0.05
u
0.1
u
u
0.05
u
0.1
u
0.05
u
0.1
u
u
0.05
u
0.1
u
0.025
0.05
-------
Location Latitude
1 41.57647
2 41.57641
3 41.57671
4 41.57603
5 41.57635
6 41.57648
7 41.576525
8 41.5765
9 41.57667
10 41.5769
11 41.57711
12 41.57685
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
Longitude Endosulfan
Sulfate
-93.63753 0.1
-93.63737 0.1
-93.63732 0.1
-93.63725 0.1
-93.63799 0.1
-93.63836 0.1
-93.63864 0.1
-93.63773 0.1
-93.63827 0.1
-93.6386 0.1
-93.63879 0.1
-93.63871 0.1
0.05
Detection Endrin
ID
U 0.1
U 0.1
U 0.1
U 0.1
U 0.1
U 0.1
U 0.1
U 0.1
U 0.1
U 0.1
U 0.1
U 0.1
0.05
53
Detection
Endrin
Detection
Endrin
Detection ID
ID
Aldehyde
ID
Ketone
U
0.1
U
0.1
U
u
0.1
U
0.1
U
u
0.1
u
0.1
u
u
0.1
u
0.1
u
u
0.1
u
0.1
u
u
0.1
u
0.1
u
u
0.1
u
0.1
u
u
0.1
u
0.27
u
0.1
u
0.1
u
u
0.1
u
0.1
u
u
0.1
u
0.1
u
u
0.1
u
0.1
u
0.05
0.1
-------
Location
Latitude
Longitude
1
41.57647
-93.63753
2
41.57641
-93.63737
3
41.57671
-93.63732
4
41.57603
-93.63725
5
41.57635
-93.63799
6
41.57648
-93.63836
7
41.576525
-93.63864
8
41.5765
-93.63773
9
41.57667
-93.63827
10
41.5769
-93.6386
11
41.57711
-
93.638795
12
41.57685
-93.63871
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
Heptachlor Detection Heptachor
ID Epoxide
0.05 U 0.05
0.05 U 0.05
0.05 U 0.05
0.05 U 0.05
0.05 U 0.05
0.05 U 0.05
0.05 U 0.05
0.05 U 0.05
0.05 U 0.05
0.05 U 0.05
0.05 U 0.05
0.05 U 0.05
0.025 0.025
54
Detection p,p'-DDD Detection p,p'-DDE Detection ID
ID ID
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
U 0.1 U 0.1 u
0.05
0.05
-------
Location
1
Latitude
41.57647
Longitude
-93.63753
p.p'-DDT
0.1
Detection
ID
U
p,p'-
Methoxychlor
0.5
j
41.57641
-93.63737
0.1
U
0.5
3
41.57671
-93.63732
0.1
u
0.5
4
41.57603
-93.63725
0.1
u
0.5
5
41.57635
-93.63799
0.1
u
0.5
6
41.57648
-93.63836
0.1
u
0.5
7
41.576525
-93.63864
0.1
u
0.5
8
41.5765
-93.63773
0.1
u
0.5
9
41.57667
-93.63827
0.1
u
0.5
10
41.5769
-93.6386
0.1
u
0.5
11
41.57711
-93.63879
0.1
u
0.5
12
41.57685
-93.63871
0.1
u
0.5
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
0.05
0.25
55
Detection
ID
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Detection
ID
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
Toxaphene
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2.5
-------
Table 5. Exposure Point Concentrations for Soil (|ig/kg).
Location Latitude Longitude
1
41.57630
-93.63799
2
41.57640
-93.63836
3
41.57649
-93.63864
4
41.57660
-93.63773
5
41.57680
-93.63824
6
41.57707
-93.63865
7
41.57681
-93.63873
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
TOC % Aldrin Detection
ID
4.61 19 UJ
3.27 3.5 J
3.21 3.6 J
1.34 2.2 J
4.26 16 UJ
2.55 770 J
7.69 120 J
770
346.7
Location Latitude Longitude
1
41.57630
-93.63799
2
41.57640
-93.63836
3
41.57649
-93.63864
4
41.57660
-93.63773
5
41.57680
-93.63824
6
41.57707
-93.63865
7
41.57681
-93.63873
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
TOC % Aroctor 1242 Detection
ID
4.61 630 U
3.27 57 U
3.21 59 U
1.34 49 U
4.26 550 U
2.55 520 U
7.69 700 U
700
350
Aroclor 1016 Detection Aroclor
ID
630 U
57 U
59 U
49 U
550 U
520 U
700 U
700
350
Aroclor 1248 Detection Aroclor
ID
630 U
57 U
59 U
49 U
550 U
520 U
700 U
700
350
Detection Aroclor 1232 Detection
ID ID
U 630 U
U 57 U
U 59 U
U 49 U
U 550 U
U 520 U
U 700 U
700
350
Detection Aroclor 1260 Detection
ID ID
U 320 U
U 46
U 30 U
U 38
U 270 U
U 1300
U 350 U
1300
270
1221
630
57
59
49
550
520
700
700
350
1254
320
29
30
25
270
260
350
350
175
56
-------
Location
Latitude
Longitude
TOC %
A-BHC
Detection
B-BHC
Detection
D-BHC
Detection
G-BHC
Detection
ID
ID
ID
ID
1
41.57630
-93.63799
4.61
9.5
U
32
U
13
U
13
U
2
41.57640
-93.63836
3.27
0.86
U
2.9
U
1.1
U
1.1
U
3
41.57649
-93.63864
3.21
0.89
u
3
U
1.2
U
1.2
U
4
41.57660
-93.63773
1.34
0.74
u
2.5
U
0.98
U
0.98
U
5
41.57680
-93.63824
4.26
8.2
u
27
U
11
U
11
U
6
41.57707
-93.63865
2.55
7.8
u
26
U
10
U
10
U
7
41.57681
-93.63873
7.69
10
u
35
U
14
U
14
U
Maximum
10
35
14
14
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
5
17.5
7
7
Location
Latitude
Longitude
TOC %
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Detection ID
Endosulfan
1
Detection
ID
Endosulfan
II
Detection ID
1
41.57630
-93.63799
4.61
750
750
19
U
19
U
2
41.57640
-93.63836
3.27
220
170
1.7
U
1.7
U
3
41.57649
-93.63864
3.21
290
160
1.8
U
1.8
U
4
41.57660
-93.63773
1.34
60
16
J
1.5
U
1.5
U
5
41.57680
-93.63824
4.26
150
50
16
U
16
U
6
41.57707
-93.63865
2.55
13000
15000
16
U
16
U
7
41.57681
-93.63873
7.69
8500
6200
21
U
21
U
Maximum
13000
15000
21
21
UCL95
11963*
12530*
Median
1/2 max RL
10.5
10.5
*The recommended adjusted Gamma UCL95 exceeded the maximum concentration, therefore, the 95% Chebyshev UCL was selected as the UCL95 term.
57
-------
Latitude
Longitude
1
41.57630
-93.63799
2
41.57640
-93.63836
3
41.57649
-93.63864
4
41.57660
-93.63773
5
41.57680
-93.63824
6
41.57707
-93.63865
7
41.57681
-93.63873
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
Location Latitude Longitude
1
41.57630
-93.63799
2
41.57640
-93.63836
3
41.57649
-93.63864
4
41.57660
-93.63773
5
41.57680
-93.63824
6
41.57707
-93.63865
7
41.57681
-93.63873
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
TOC% Endosulfan Detection
Sulfate ID
4.61 25 U
3.27 2.3 U
3.21 2.4 U
1.34 2 U
4.26 22 U
2.55 21 U
7.69 28 U
28
14
TOC % Heptachlor Detection
ID
4.61 19 U
3.27 1.7 U
3.21 1.8 U
1.34 1.5 U
4.26 16 U
2.55 25
7.69 21 U
25
16
Endrin Detection Endrin Detection Endrin Ketone Detection
ID Aldehyde ID ID
25 U 32 U 25 U
2.3 U 2.9 U 2.3 U
2.4 U 3 U 2.4 U
2 U 2.5 U 2 U
22 U 27 U 22 U
21 U 26 U 150
28 U 35 U 28 U
28 35 150
22
14 17.5
Heptachlor Detection p,p'-DDD Detection p,p'-DDE Detection
Epoxide ID ID ID
19 U 33 U 120
1.7 U 5.1 U 18
1.8 U 2.9 U 13
1.5 U 2 UJ 2.5 U
16 U 22 U 72
83 180 U 52
21 U 200 140
83 200 140
99.9
16 22
58
-------
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Maximum
UCL95
Median
1/2 max RL
Latitude Longitude
41.57630
-93.63799
41.57640
-93.63836
41.57649
-93.63864
41.57660
-93.63773
41.57680
-93.63824
41.57707
-93.63865
41.57681
-93.63873
TOC % p,p'-DDT
4.61
69
3.27
9
3.21
9.5
1.34
2.5
4.26
64
2.55
39
7.69
61
69
47
Detection p,p'- Detection
ID Methoxychlor ID
63 U
5.7 U
5.9 U
U 4.9 U
55 U
U 52 U
U 70 U
70
35
Toxaphene Detection
ID
630 U
57 U
59 U
49 U
550 U
520 U
700 U
700
350
59
-------
Table 6. Screening level evaluation of Assessment Endpoint #1 (aquatic
macroinvertebrates).
COPC (ng/kg)
Maximum
(W?/kg)
TEC
(Hg/kg)
ESL
(Hg/kg)
HQ
Aldrin
4200
2.0
>1
Aroclor 1016
3400U
601
>1
Aroclor 1221
3400U
601
>1
Aroclor 1232
3400U
601
>1
Aroclor 1242
3400U
601
>1
Aroclor 1248
3400U
601
>1
Aroclor 1254
1700U
601
>1
Aroclor 1260
1900
601
>1
A-BHC
51U
6
>1
B-BHC
130U
5
>1
D-BHC
100U
71500
<1
G-BHC
68U
2.4
>1
Chlordane, technical
48000
3.2
>1
p,p'-DDD
2900
4.9
>1
p,p'-DDE
87
3.2
>1
p,p'-DDT
170U
4.2
>1
Dieldrin
3200
1.9
>1
Endosulfan 1
100U
3.3
>1
Endosulfan II
100U
1.9
>1
Endosulfan Sulfate
140U
34.6
>1
Endrin
140U
2.2
>1
Endrin Aldehyde
170U
480
<1
Endrin Ketone
140U
NA
NA
Heptachlor
150
0.6
>1
Heptachlor Epoxide
100U
2.5
>1
p,p'-Methoxychlor
340U
13.6
>1
Toxaphene
3400U
0.077
>1
1 - TEC based on Total PCBs.
60
-------
Table 7. Expanded Risk Evaluation of Assessment Endpoint #1.
CO PC (Hg/kg)
EPC TERM
(Hg/kg)
PEC
(Hg/kg)
HQpec
ESB
(Hg/g°c)
ESBwqc
(Hg/goc)
ESBTier2
(klg/goc)
HQesb
UCL95
Median
Yt max RL
PEC
Aldrin
2600
61.81
42 1
49
12*
4.1
Aroclor 1016
1700
6762
2.5 \
Aroclor 1221
1700
6762
2.5
Aroclor 1232
1700
6762
2.5
Aroclor 1242
1700
6762
2.5
Aroclor 1248
1700
6762
2.5
Aroclor 1254
850
6762
1.3 1
Aroclor 1260
690
6762
1 :
A-BHC
25.5
NA
NA
0.48
11
<1
B-BHC
65
NA
NA
1.22
11
<1
D-BHC
50
NA
NA
0.94
11
<1
G-BHC
34
4.99
6.8
0.64
0.37
1.7
Chlordane, technical
23829
17.6
1354
p,p'-DDD
75
28
2.7
p,p'-DDE
72
31.3
2.3
p,p'-DDT
85
62.9
i.4 :
Dieldrin
1533
61.8
24.8
28.9
12
2.4
Endosulfan 1
50
NA
NA
0.94
0.33
2.9
Endosulfan II
50
NA
NA
0.94
1.6
<1
Endosulfan Sulfate
70
NA
NA
1.32
0.6
2.2
Endrin
70
207
<1 |
1.3
5.4
<1
Endrin Aldehyde
85
NA
NA
Endrin Ketone
70
NA
NA
61
-------
Heptachlor
33
NA
NA
Heptachlor Epoxide
50
16
3.1
p,p'-Methoxychlor
170
NA
NA
1.6
1.9
<1
Toxaphene
1700
NA
NA !
32.1
10
3.2
Total Organic Carbon
5.3
1 - Because Aldrin is rapidly broken down to Dieldrin, the PEC and ESB for Dieldrin was used for comparison to Aldrin.
2- PEC based on Total PCBs.
62
-------
Table 8. Screening level evaluation of Assessment Endpoint #2 (soil invertebrates).
COPC (jig/kg)
Maximum
(Ug/kg)
ESL
(Hg/kg)
HQ
Aldrin
770
3.32
>1
Aroclor 1016
700U
0.332
>1
Aroclor 1221
700U
0.332
>1
Aroclor 1232
700U
0.332
>1
Aroclor 1242
700U
0.332
>1
Aroclor 1248
700U
0.332
>1
Aroclor 1254
350U
0.332
>1 ¦
Aroclor 1260
1300
0.332
>1
A-BHC
10U
99.4
<1
B-BHC
35U
3.98
<1
D-BHC
14U
9940
<1
G-BHC
14U
5
>1
Chlordane, technical
13000
224
>1
p,p'-DDD
200
758
<1
P.p'-DDE
140
596
<1
p,p'-DDT
69
3.5
>1
Dieldrin
15000
2.38
>1
Endosulfan 1
21U
119
<1
Endosulfan II
21U
119
<1
Endosulfan Sulfate
28U
35.8
<1
Endrin
28U
10.1
>1
Endrin Aldehyde
35U
10.5
>1
Endrin Ketone
150
NA
NA
Heptachlor
25
5.98
>1
Heptachlor Epoxide
83
152
<1
p,p'-Methoxychlor
70U
19.9
>1
Toxaphene
700U
119
>1
63
-------
Table 8. Expanded Evaluation of Assessment Endpoint #2 (soil invertebrates).
COPC (Mg/kg)
EPC
(Mg/kg)
ESL
(Mg/kg)
HQ
Aldrin
346.7
3.32
104
Aroclor 1016
350U
0.332
1054
Aroclor 1221
350U
0.332
1054
Aroclor 1232
350U
0.332
1054
Aroclor 1242
350U
0.332
1054
Aroclor 1248
350U
0.332
1054
Aroclor 1254
175U
0.332
527
Aroclor 1260
270
0.332
813
G-BHC
7U
5
1.4
Chlordane, technical
11963
224
53.4
p,p'-DDT
47
3.5
13.4
Dieldrin
12530
2.38
5265
Endrin
14U
10.1
1.4
Endrin Aldehyde
17.5U
10.5
1.7
Endrin Ketone
22
NA
NA
Heptachlor
16
5.98
2.7
p,p'-Methoxychlor
35U
19.9
1.8
Toxaphene
350U
119
3
64
-------
Table 9. Bioaccumulation Factors for Terrestrial Prey.
Pesticides/PCBs
Soil-to-lnvertebrate BAFmv
Animal-to-Animal BAFsm
Source
Aldrin
0.56
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
Aroclor 1016
5.8*
2.91
HAZWRAP, 1994
Aroclor 1221
5.8*
2.9'
HAZWRAP, 1994
Aroclor 1232
5.8*
2.9'
HAZWRAP, 1994
Aroclor 1242
5.8*
2.91
HAZWRAP, 1994
Aroclor 1248
5.8*
2.9'
HAZWRAP, 1994
Aroclor 1254
5.8
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
Aroclor 1260
5.8
2.91
HAZWRAP, 1994
A-BHC
2.6
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
B-BHC
2.6
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
D-BHC
2.6
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
G-BHC
2.6
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
Chlordane,
technical
1.6
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
p,p'-DDD
11.2
4.83*(11.2*Coii)
US EPA, 2007
p,p'-DDE
11.2
4.83*(11.2*Csoii)
USEPA, 2007
p,p'-DDT
11.2
4.83*(11.2*Csi,ii)
USEPA, 2007
Dieldrin
14.7
1.2*(14.7*Csoii)
USEPA, 2007
Endosulfan 1
5.5
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
Endosulfan 1!
5.5
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
Endosulfan
Sulfate
5.5
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
Endrin
1.9
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
Endrin Aldehyde
1.9
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
Endrin Ketone
1.9
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
Heptachlor
1.0
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
Heptachlor
Epoxide
1.0
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
p,p'-Methoxychlor
0.57
2.9
HAZWRAP, 1994
Toxaphene
1.0
1.0
default
1 - Aroclor 1254 used as surrogate.
65
-------
Table 10. Bioconcentratrion Factors for Small Fish.
Pesticides/PCBs
Log K0w
BCF
Reference
Aldrin
3.0
3.89e+3
ECOTOX, 2015
Aroclor 1016
5.6
4.25e+4
ECOTOX, 2015
Aroclor 1221*
4.7
1.0e+05
ECOTOX, 2015'
Aroclor 1232
5.1
1.0e+05
ECOTOX, 2015"
Aroclor 1242
5.6
1,3e+04
ECOTOX, 2015
Aroclor 1248
6.2
6.0e+04
ECOTOX, 2015
Aroclor 1254
6.0
1.0e+05
ECOTOX, 2015
Aroclor 1260
7.1
2.7e+05
ECOTOX, 2015
A-BHC
3.8
4.5e+02
ECOTOX, 2015
B-BHC
3.8
4.5e+02
ECOTOX, 20152
D-BHC
4.1
4.5e+02
ECOTOX, 20152
G-BHC
4.1
1.8e+02
ECOTOX, 2015
Chlordane,
5.5
3.78e+04
ECOTOX, 2015
technical
p,p'-DDD
6.0
8.3e+03
ECOTOX, 20153
p,p'-DDE
5.7
4.2e+04
ECOTOX, 2015
p,p'-DDT
6.4
8.3e+03
ECOTOX, 2015
Dieldrin
4.6
1,3e+04
ECOTOX, 2015
Endosulfan 1
3.6
l.le+04
ECOTOX, 2015
Endosulfan II
3.6
9.9e+03
ECOTOX, 2015
Endosulfan
3.1
l.le+04
ECOTOX, 20154
Sulfate
Endrin
5.6
0.3
ECOTOX, 2015
Endrin Aldehyde
3.1
0.3
ECOTOX, 2015 s
Endrin Ketone
3.1
0.3
ECOTOX, 2015 s
Heptachlor
4.3
1,7e+04
ECOTOX, 2015
Heptachlor
5.4
1,44e+04
ECOTOX, 2015
Epoxide
P,P'-
4.8
8.3e+03
ECOTOX, 2015
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
5.5
4.7e+03
ECOTOX, 2015
1- Aroclor 1254 used as a surrogate.
2- a-BHC used as a surrogate
3 - DDT used as a surrogate.
4 - Endosulfan I used as a surrogate
5 - Endrin used as a surrogate.
66
-------
Table 11. Estimated Concentrations in Prey.
Pesticides/PCBs
Soil
Mammals
Small Fish
Invertebrates
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Aldrin
0.19
0.56
0.10
Aroclor 1016
2.03
5.89
21.25
Aroclor 1221
2.03
5.89
50
Aroclor 1232
2.03
5.89
50
Aroclor 1242
2.03
5.89
6.5
Aroclor 1248
2.03
5.89
30
Aroclor 1254
1.04
3.02
50
Aroclor 1260
1.57
4.54
135
A-BHC
0.01
0.04
0.02
B-BHC
0.05
0.13
0.01
D-BHC
0.02
0.05
0.01
G-BHC
0.02
0.05
0.05
Chlordane
19.14
55.51
1.89
p,p'-DDD
0.25
1.19
0.42
P/P'-DDE
1.12
5.41
2.10
p,p'-DDT
0.53
2.54
0.42
Dieldrin
184.2
221.03
1.3
Endosulfan 1
0.06
0.18
0.55
Endosulfan II
0.06
0.18
0.5
Endosulfan
0.08
0.22
0.55
Sulfate
Endrin
0.03
0.08
0.00
Endrin Aldehyde
0.03
0.1
0.00
Endrin Ketone
0.04
0.12
0.00
Heptachlor
0.02
0.05
0.43
Heptachlor
0.02
0.05
0.36
Epoxide
P,P'-
0.02
0.06
2.08
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
0.35
1.02
11.75
67
-------
Table 12. Average Daily Dose Equations.
Terrestrial Insectivore
IRbiota
1R soil Cinv
Csoil/sed
A DDbiota
Csw
IRsw
ADDtotal
TRVnoael
HQ
TRVloael
HQ
Aldrin
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.19
0.35
0.0538
0.00003
0.10
0.0538
0.07
0.768
0.35
0.154
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.20
0.35
0.0432
0.00003
0.14
0.0432
0.20
0.216
1.00
0.043
Aroclor 1016
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
2.03
0.35
0.4467
0.00050
0.10
0.4468
0.18
2.482
1.80
0.248
Shrew
0.209
0.030
2.03
0.35
0.4265
0.00050
0.14
0.4265
1.37
0.311
3.43
0.124
Aroclor 1221
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
2.03
0.35
0.4467
0.00050
0.10
0.4468
0.18
2.482
1.80
0.248
Shrew
0.209
0.030
2.03
0.35
0.4265
0.00050
0.14
0.4265
0.07
6.273
0.68
0.627
Aroclor 1232
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
2.03
0.35
0.4467
0.00050
0.10
0.4468
0.18
IN
00
« N
1.80
0.248
Shrew
0.209
0.030
2.03
0.35
0.4265
0.00050
0.14
0.4265
0.07
6 27 J
0.68
0.627
Aroclor 1242
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
2.03
0.35
0.4467
0.00050
0.10
0.4468
0.41
1090
1.80
0.248
Shrew
0.209
0.030
2.03
0.35
0.4265
0.00050
0.14
0.4265
0.07
6.182
0.69
0.618
Aroclor 1248
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
2.03
0.35
0.4467
0.00050
0.10
0.4468
0.18
2.482
1.80
0.248
Shrew
0.209
0.030
2.03
0.35
0.4265
0.00050
0.14
0.4265
0.01
42.653
0.1
4.265
Aroclor 1254
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
1.04
0.18
0.2287
0.00050
0.10
0.2288
0.18
1.271
1.80
0.127
Shrew
0.209
0.030
1.04
0.18
0.2185
0.00050
0.14
0.2185
0.07
3.214
0.68
0.321
Aroclor 1260
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
1.57
0.27
0.3446
0.00050
0.10
0.3446
0.18
1.915
1.80
0.191
Shrew
0.209
0.030
1.57
0.27
0.3290
0.00050
0.14
0.3291
0.07
4.839
0.68
0.484
a-BHC
68
-------
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.01
0.005
0.0030
0.00005
0.10
0.0030
0.56
0.005
2.25
0.001
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.01
0.005
0.0027
0.00005
0.14
0.0028
0.01
0.197
0.14
0.020
b-BHC
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.05
0.0175
0.0104
0.00003
0.10
0.0104
0.56
0.018
2.25
0.005
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.05
0.0175
0.0096
0.00005
0.14
0.0096
0.01
0.688
0.14
0.069
d-BHC
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.02
0.007
0.0041
0.00003
0.10
0.0041
0.56
0.007
2.25
0.002
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.02
0.007
0.0038
0.00005
0.14
0.0039
0.01
0.275
0.14
0.028
g-BHC
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.02
0.01
0.0041
0.00025
0.10
0.0042
2.00
0.002
20.00
0.000
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.02
0.01
0.0038
0.00025
0.14
0.0039
8.00
0.000
NA
NA
Chlordane
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
19.14
11.96
4.5160
0.05000
0.10
4.5210
2.14
2.113
10.70
0.423
Shrew
0.209
0.030
19.14
11.96
4.0754
0.05000
0.14
4.0824
4.60
0.887
9.20
0.444
Dieldrin
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
184.19
12.53
39.8566
0.00010
0.10
39.8566
0.07
562.153
1.73
23.039
Shrew
0.209
0.030
184.19
12.53
38.5745
0.00010
0.14
38.5745
4.60
8.386
9.20
4.3.93
DDD
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.25
0.02
0.0535
0.00005
0.10
0.0535
0.23
0.236
10.98
0.005
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.25
0.02
0.0516
0.00005
0.14
0.0516
7.65
0.007
18.83
0.003
DDE
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
1.12
0.10
0.2432
0.00005
0.10
0.2432
0.23
1.071
10.98
0.022
Shrew
0.209
0.030
1.12
0.10
0.2347
0.00005
0.14
0.2347
7.65
0.031
18.83
0.012
DDT
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.53
0.05
0.1143
0.00005
0.10
0.1143
0.23
0.504
10.98
0.010
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.53
0.05
0.1103
0.00005
0.14
0.1103
7.65
0.014
18.83
0.006
Endosulfan 1
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.06
0.01
0.0133
0.00005
0.10
0.0133
10.00
0.001
NA
NA
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.06
0.01
0.0127
0.00005
0.14
0.0127
0.15
0.085
NA
NA
69
-------
Endosulfan II
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.06
0.01
0.0133
0.00005
0.10
0.0133
10.00
0.001
NA
NA
Shrew
0.209
0.0B0
0.06
0.01
0.0127
0.00005
0.14
0.0127
0.15
0.085
NA
NA
Endosulfan Sulfate
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.08
0.01
0.0170
0.00005
0.10
0.0170
10.00
0.002
NA
NA
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.08
0.01
0.0162
0.00005
0.14
0.0162
0.15
0.108
NA
NA
Endrin
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.03
0.01
0.0062
0.00005
0.10
0.0062
0.01
0.619
0.10
0.062
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.03
0.01
0.0056
0.00005
0.14
0.0057
0.09
0.061
0.92
0.006
Endrin Aldehyde
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.03
0.02
0.0077
0.00005
0.10
0.0077
0.01
0.773
0.10
0.077
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.03
0.02
0.0071
0.00005
0.14
0.0071
0.09
0.077
0.92
0.008
Endrin Ketone
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.04
0.02
0.0097
0.00005
0.10
0.0097
0.01
0.972
0.10
0.097
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.04
0.02
0.0089
0.00005
0.14
0.0089
0.09
0.097
0.92
0.010
Heptachlor
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.02
0.02
0.0040
0.00003
0.10
0.0040
0.28
0.014
1.38
0.003
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.02
0.02
0.0034
0.00003
0.14
0.0034
0.1
0.034
1
0.003
Heptachlor Epoxide
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.02
0.02
0.0040
0.00003
0.10
0.0040
0.28
0.014
1.38
0.003
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.02
0.02
0.0034
0.00003
0.14
0.0034
0.1
0.034
1
0.003
Methoxyclor
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.02
0.04
0.0055
0.00025
0.10
0.0055
355.00
0.000
1775.00
0.000
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.02
0.04
0.0044
0.00025
0.14
0.0044
4
0.001
8
0.001
Toxaphene
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
0.35
0.35
0.0872
0.00250
0.10
0.0874
2.00
0.044
10.00
0.009
Shrew
0.209
0.030
0.35
0.35
0.0753
0.00250
0.14
0.0757
8
0.009
NA
NA
70
-------
Terrestrial
Carnivores
IRbiota
IR soil
Cinv
Cmom
Csoil/sed
ADDbiota
Csw
IRsw
ADDtotol
TRVnoael
HQ
TRVloael
HQ
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.19
0.56
0.35
0.0206
0.00003
0.05
0.0206
0.070
0.294
0.35
0.059
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.19
0.56
0.35
0.0752
0.00003
0.11
0.0752
0.200
0.376
1.00
0.075
Weasel
Aroclor 1016
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
2.03
5.89
0.35
0.2085
0.00050
0.05
0.2085
0.180
1.159
1.80
0.116
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
2.03
5.89
0.35
0.7673
0.00050
0.11
0.7673
1.370
0.560
3.43
0.224
Weasel
Aroclor 1221
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
2.03
5.89
0.35
0.2085
0.00050
0.05
0.2085
0.180
1159
1.80
0.116
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
2.03
5.89
0.35
0.7673
0.00050
0.11
0.7673
0.068
11.284
0.68
1.128
Weasel
Aroclor 1232
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
2.03
5.89
0.35
0.2085
0.00050
0.05
0.2085
0.180
1.159
1.80
0.116
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
2.03
5.89
0.35
0.7673
0.00050
0.11
0.7673
0.068
11.284
0.68
1.128
Weasel
Aroclor 1242
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
2.03
5.89
0.35
0.2085
0.00050
0.05
0.2085
0.410
0.509
4.10
0.051
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
2.03
5.89
0.35
0.7673
0.00050
0.11
0.7673
0.069
11.121
0.69
1.112
Weasel
Aroclor 1248
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
2.03
5.89
0.35
0.2085
0.00050
0.05
0.2085
0.180
1.159
1.80
0.116
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
2.03
5.89
0.35
0.7673
0.00050
0.11
0.7673
0.010
76.732
0.1
7.673
Weasel
Aroclor 1254
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
1.04
3.02
0.18
0.1070
0.00050
0.05
0.1070
0.180
0.594
1.80
0.059
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
1.04
3.02
0.18
0.3936
0.00050
0.11
0.3937
0.068
5,789
0.68
0.579
Weasel
71
-------
Aroclor 1260
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
1.57
4.54
0.27
0.1609
0.00050
0.05
0.1609
0.180
0.894
1.80
0.089
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
1.57
4.54
0.27
0.5919
0.00050
0.11
0.5919
0.068
8.705
0.68
0.871
Weasel
a-BHC
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.0013
0.00050
0.05
0.0014
0.560
0.002
2.25
0.001
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.0049
0.00050
0.11
0.0050
0.014
0.356
0.14
0.036
Weasel
b-BHC
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.05
0.13
0.02
0.0047
0.00003
0.05
0.0047
0.560
0.008
2.25
0.002
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.05
0.13
0.02
0.0173
0.00003
0.11
0.0173
0.014
1.232
0.14
0.123
Weasel
d-BHC
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.007
0.0019
0.00003
0.05
0.0019
0.560
0.003
2.25
0.001
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.007
0.0069
0.00003
0.11
0.0069
0.014
0.493
0.14
0.049
Weasel
g-BHC
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.007
0.0019
0.00003
0.05
0.0019
2.000
0.001
20.00
0.000
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.007
0.0069
0.00005
0.11
0.0069
8.000
0.001
NA
NA
Weasel
Chlordane
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
19.14
55.51
11.96
1.9836
0.00025
0.05
1.9836
2.140
0.927
10.70
0.185
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
19.14
55.51
11.96
7.2832
0.00025
0.11
7.2832
4.600
1.583
9.20
0.792
Weasel
Dieldrin
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
184.19
221.03
12.53
7.8275
0.05000
0.05
7.8300
0.071
110,438
1.73
4.526
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
184.19
221.03
12.53
28.8038
0.05000
0.11
28.8093
0.015
1920.623
2.28
12.636
Weasel
DDD
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.25
1.19
0.02
0.0421
0.00010
0.05
0.0421
0.227
0.185
10.98
0.004
72
-------
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.25
1.19
0.02
0.1548
0.00010
0.11
0.1548
0.147
1.053
18.83
0.008
Weasel
DDE
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
1.12
5.41
0.10
0.1912
0.00005
0.05
0.1912
0.227
0.842
10.98
0.017
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
1.12
5.41
0.10
0.7038
0.00005
0.11
0.7038
0.147
4.788
18.83
0.037
Weasel
DDT
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.53
2.54
0.05
0.0898
0.00005
0.05
0.0898
0.227
0.396
10.98
0.008
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.53
2.54
0.05
0.3308
0.00005
0.11
0.3308
0.147
2.250
18.83
0.018
Weasel
Endosulfan 1
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.06
0.18
0.01
0.0062
0.00005
0.05
0.0062
10.000
0.001
100.00
0.000
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.06
0.18
0.01
0.0229
0.00005
0.11
0.0229
0.150
0.153
NA
NA
Weasel
Endosulfan II
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.06
0.18
0.01
0.0062
0.00005
0.05
0.0062
10.000
0.001
100.00
0.000
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.06
0.18
0.01
0.0229
0.00005
0.11
0.0229
0.150
0.153
NA
NA
Weasel
Endosulfan Sulfate
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.08
0.22
0.01
0.0079
0.00005
0.05
0.0079
10.000
0.001
100.00
0.000
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.08
0.22
0.01
0.0291
0.00005
0.11
0.0291
0.150
0.194
NA
NA
Weasel
Endrin
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.03
0.08
0.01
0.0028
0.00005
0.05
0.0028
0.010
0.275
0.10
0.028
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.03
0.08
0.01
0.0101
0.00005
0.11
0.0101
0.092
0.110
0.92
0.011
Weasel
Endrin Aldehyde
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.03
0.10
0.02
0.0034
0.00005
0.05
0.0034
0.010
0.344
0.10
0.034
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.03
0.10
0.02
0.0126
0.00005
0.11
0.0126
0.092
0.137
0.92
0.014
Weasel
73
-------
Endrin Ketone
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.04
0.12
0.02
0.0043
0.00005
0.05
0.0043
0.010
0.433
0.10
0.043
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.04
0.12
0.02
0.0159
0.00005
0.11
0.0159
0.092
0.173
0.92
0.017
Weasel
Heptachlor
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.0017
0.00005
0.05
0.0017
0.280
0.006
1.38
0.001
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.0061
0.00005
0.11
0.0061
0.100
0.061
1
0.006
Weasel
Heptachlor
epoxide
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.0017
0.00003
0.05
0.0017
0.280
0.006
1.38
0.001
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.0061
0.00003
0.11
0.0061
0.100
0.061
1
0.006
Weasel
Methoxyclor
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.0021
0.00003
0.05
0.0021
355.000
0.000
1775.00
0.000
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.0077
0.00003
0.11
0.0077
4.000
0.002
8
0.001
Weasel
Toxaphene
Red-tailed Hawk
0.035
0.06
0.35
1.02
0.35
0.0365
0.00025
0.05
0.0365
2.000
0.018
10.00
0.004
Long-tailed
0.130
0.04
0.35
1.02
0.35
0.1339
0.00025
0.11
0.1339
8.000
0.017
NA
NA
Weasel
74
-------
Avian Piscivore
Heron
IRbiota
Cfish
ADDbiota
Csw
IRsw
ADDtotoi
TRVnoael
HQ
TRVloaei
HQ
Aldrin
0.18
0.10
0.0175
0.00003
0.045
0.02
0.07
0.25
0.35
0.05
Aroclor 1016
0.18
21.25
3.8250
0.00050
0.045
3.83
0.18
21.25
1.80
2.13
Aroclor 1221
0.18
50.00
9.0000
0.00050
0.045
9.00
0.18
50.00
1.80
5.00
Aroclor 1232
0.18
50.00
9.0000
0.00050
0.045
9.00
0.18
50.00
1.80
5.00
Aroclor 1242
0.18
6.50
1.1700
0.00050
0.045
1.17
0.18
6.50
1.80
0.65
Aroclor 1248
0.18
30.00
5.4000
0.00050
0.045
5.40
0.18
30.00
1.80
3.00
Aroclor 1254
0.18
50.00
9.0000
0.00050
0.045
9.00
0.18
50.00
1.80
5.00
Aroclor 1260
0.18
135.00
24.3000
0.00050
0.045
24.30
0.18
135.00
1.80
13.50
a-BHC
0.18
0.02
0.0040
0.00005
0.045
0.004
0.56
0.01
2.25
0.002
b-BHC
0.18
0.01
0.0020
0.00003
0.045
0.002
0.56
0.004
2.25
0.001
d-BHC
0.18
0.01
0.0020
0.00003
0.045
0.002
0.56
0.004
2.25
0.001
g-BHC
0.18
0.05
0.0081
0.00025
0.045
0.01
2.00
0.004
20.00
0.000
Chlordane
0.18
1.89
0.3402
0.00005
0.045
0.34
2.14
0.16
10.70
0.03
Dieldrin
0.18
1.30
0.2340
0.00010
0.045
0.23
0.07
3.30
1.73
0.14
DDD
0.18
0.42
0.0747
0.00005
0.045
0.07
0.23
0.32
10.97
0.01
DDE
0.18
2.10
0.3780
0.00005
0.045
0.38
0.23
1.64
10.97
0.03
DDT
0.18
0.42
0.0747
0.00005
0.045
0.07
0.23
0.32
10.97
0.01
Endosulfan 1
0.18
0.55
0.0989
0.00005
0.045
0.099
10.00
0.01
100.00
0.00
Endosulfan II
0.18
0.50
0.0892
0.00005
0.045
0.089
10.00
0.01
100.00
0.00
Endosulfan
0.18
0.55
0.0989
0.00005
0.045
0.099
10.00
0.01
100.00
0.00
Sulfate
Endrin
0.18
0.0000
0.0000
0.00005
0.045
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.10
0.00
Endrin Aldehyde
0.18
0.0000
0.0000
0.00005
0.045
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.10
0.00
Endrin Ketone
0.18
0.0000
0.0000
0.00005
0.045
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.10
0.00
Heptachlor
0.18
0.43
0.0765
0.00003
0.045
0.08
0.28
0.27
1.38
0.06
75
-------
Heptachlor
0.18
0.36
0.0648
0.00003
0.045
0.06
0.28
0.23
1.38
0.05
Epoxide
Methoxychlor
0.18
2.08
0.3735
0.00025
0.045
0.37
355.00
0.00
1775.00
0.00
Toxaphene
0.18
11.75
2.1150
0.00250
0.045
2.12
2.00
1.06
10.00
0.21
76
-------
APPENDIX D: ProUCL RESULTS
77
-------
Aldrin - Sediment
Kaplan^Meier (KM) Statistics using Nomd Gribcd Values anddher Nnqnamsbic UCLs
Mean 856.2
SD 1321
95% KM (t) UCL 1575
95% KM (z) UCL 1514
90*/. KM Chebyshev UCL 2056
97.5*4 KM Chebyshev UCL 3354
Standard Error of Mean 400
95*/. KM (BCA) UCL 15G7
95V, KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 1537
95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 3455
95*. KM Chebyshev UCL 2600
99V. KM Chebyshev UCL 4837
Chlordane - Sediment
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0519
Theta hat (MLE) 14982
nu hat (MLE) 14.85
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 9272
Adj listed Level of Significance; 0.029
k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.52
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 17840
nu star (bias corrected) 12.47
MLE Sd (has corrected) 12861
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 5.54
Adjusted Chi Square Value 4.853
Assuming GamnB Distnbuban
95*/. Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)! 20874
95V. Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 23829
Dieldrin - Sediment
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.885 7
Theta hat (MLE) 798
nu hat (MLE) 21 25
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 706.6
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.029
k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.72
Theta star (bias corrected MLE), 981.8
nu star (bias corrected) i 17.27
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 832.9
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 8.867
Adjusted Chi Square Value; 7.963
Assuming Gamma DUdilion
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50); 1376
95"; Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when rx50) 1533
78
-------
Tnt.il i >it aihiMi - Sediment
roc
Notmtil uOf 1«»t
v ., •! Shapiro W>ft GO! I est
riiicijl Value 0.8S9 Date appear Normal at 5% Sijntieaf
<".t—?r— ti(i« k»* ' >0! 1«4
1 '« " " .' I - •!,. -i '! i >' " ' "<» ~-
If.tl.i Mnui. ,1.)! *< i imlti .
-------
Chlordane - Soil
N onparametiic D istribution Fiee UCLs
95% CLT UCL
6557
95% Jackknife UCL
7152
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
6348
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
67849
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
64849
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
6313
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
6943
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
9256
95% ChebyshevlMean, Sd) UCL
11963
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
15719
99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
23098
S uggested U CL to U se
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 28932
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
Dieldrin - Soil
Nonpaiametiic Distribution Fiee UCLs
95% CLT UCL
6716
95% Jackknife UCL
7355
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
6562
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
68438
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
74167
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
6669
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
8205
90% ChebyshevfMean, Sd) UCL
9619
95% Chebj)shev(Mean, Sd) UCL
12530
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
16570
99% Chebjishev(Mean, Sd) UCL
24506
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 32738
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation
80
-------
DDE - Soil
Rrffti.tfi Mun ? KM i M.tiiMn \ <. Nivitnl ( 4 7.
-------
APPENDIX E: WILDLIFE EXPOSURE FACTORS
-------
American Woodcock (Scolopax minor)
Food Habits and Diet Composition
Woodcocks feed primarily on invertebrates found in moist upland soils by probing the soil with
their long prehensile-tipped bill (Owen et al., 1977; Sperry, 1940). Earthworms are the preferred
diet, but when earthworms are not available, other soil invertebrates are consumed (Miller and
Causey, 1985; Sperry, 1940; Stribling and Doerr, 1985). Some seeds and other plant matter may
also be consumed (Sperry, 1940). Krohn (1970) found that during summer most feeding was
done in wooded areas prior to entering fields at night, but other studies have indicated that a
significant amount of food is acquired during nocturnal activities (Britt, 1971, as cited in
Dunford and Owen, 1973). A diet of 100 percent earthworms was assumed (Stribling and Doerr,
1985) for the risk assessment.
Food Ingestion Rate
Stickel et al. (1965) reported a mean food ingestion rate of 0.77 g/g BW/day (range, 0.11-1.43
g/g BW/day) in captive woodcocks eating an earthworm diet during the winter in Louisiana. A
normalized food ingestion rate is reported in USEPA, 2003, as 0.214 kg/kg bw/d.
Water Ingestion Rate
No literature data were found concerning water consumption rates in woodcocks. However, most
of the woodcocks' metabolic water needs are reportedly met by their food (Mendall and Aldous,
1943, as cited in Cade, 1985), although captive birds have been observed to drink (Sheldon,
1967). A water consumption rate of 0.1 L/kg BW/day can be estimated (Calder and Braun, 1983)
based on summer body weights from Nelson and Martin (1953).
Soil Ingestion
Soil ingestion was estimated as 0.164 as a percentage of the diet. This estimate is based on
information provided in the Eco-SSL guidance (USEPA, 2005), as reported in Beyer et al.
(1994).
Home Range
Home range values reported in the literature vary considerably by sex and season. Therefore, a
median home range for singing males in Pennsylvania of 10.4 ha, as reported by Hudgins et al.,
1985, is used in the risk assessment. American woodcocks tend to be early spring
migrants,leaving the wintering grounds in February and arriving in breeding territories in early
March. Fall migration begins in October with the timing of the first frosts.
American Woodcock
Value
Reference
Body Weight (kg)
0.176
Nelson and Martin, 1953
Normalized Food Ingestion Rate (kg/kg bw dw/day)
0.214
Stickel et al., 1965
Water Ingestion Rate (L/kg bw/day)
0.10
Calder and Braun, 1983
Fraction Diet Earthworm
100%
Stribling and Doerr, 1985
Soil Ingestion Rate
16.4%
USEPA, 2005
83
-------
Northern Short-Tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda)
Food Habits and Diet Composition
The short-tailed shrew is primarily a carnivore. Common prey items include insects, worms,
snails, and other invertebrates. They may also eat mice, voles, frogs, other vertebrates and some
plants and fungi (Robinson and Brodie, 1982; Hamilton, 1941). For this ERA, a simplified diet
of 100 percent soil invertebrates was used in to calculate the ADD.
Food Ingestion Rate
In laboratory studies, shrews of both sexes fed a diet of mealworms had a food ingestion rate of
0.49 kg/kg bw/day (Barrett and Stuek, 1976). Lab studies using beef liver found that shrews had
a food ingestion rate between 0.49 kg/kg bw/day and 0.62 kg/kg bw/day (Morrison et al., 1957).
USEPA (2005) estimated a food intake rate for shrews of 0.209 kg dw/kg bw/day, based on a
high end point estimate. Therefore, a value of 0.209 kg dw/kg bw/day will be used to estimate
exposure to the short-tailed shrew.
Water Ingestion Rate
The shrew must consume water to compensate for its high evaporative water loss, despite the
fact that it obtains water from both food and metabolic oxidation (Chew, 1951). Deavers and
Hudson (1981) indicated that the short-tailed shrew's evaporative water loss increases with
increasing ambient temperature even within its thermoneutral zone. Therefore, a water ingestion
rate of 0.223 L/kg bw/day is assumed based on a study by Chew, 1951.
Soil Ingestion Rate
Data concerning soil ingestion by short-tailed shrews was based on USEPA, 2003. A soil
ingestion rate, as percentage of diet is estimated to be 0.03 mg/kg bw/d.
Home Range
Short-tailed shrews are found in a wide variety of habitats and are common in areas with
abundant vegetative cover (Miller and Getz, 1977). They inhabit round, underground nests and
maintain underground runaways, usually in the top 10 cm of soil, but sometimes as deep as 50
cm (Hamilton, 1931). Winter, non-breeding home ranges can vary from 0.03 to 0.07 ha at high
prey densities, to 1 to 2.2 ha during low prey densities (Piatt, 1976).
Short-tailed Shrew
Value
Reference
Body Weight (kg)
0.176
Nelson and Martin, 1953
Normalized Food Ingestion Rate (kg/kg bw dw/day)
0.209
Stickel et al., 1965
Water Ingestion Rate (L/kg bw/day)
0.14
Calder and Braun, 1983
Fraction Diet Earthworm
100%
Stribling and Doerr, 1985
Soil Ingestion Rate
3%
USEPA, 2005
84
-------
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Food Habits and Diet Composition
Small mammals, including mice, shrews, voles, rabbits, and squirrels, are important prey,
particularly during winter. Red-tails also eat a wide variety of foods depending on availability,
including birds, lizards, snakes, and large insects (James, 1984; Fitch et al., 1946).
Food Ingestion Rates
Food consumption rates of adult red-tailed hawks are estimated to be 0.0353 kg/kg bw/day
(USEPA, 2005).
Water Ingestion Rate
No water consumption data were available for red-tailed hawks. A water consumption rate of
0.05 L/kg BW/day was calculated using the Calder and Braun (1983) equation, and a mean body
weight of 1.13 kg:
WIR = (0.059(BW)""')/BWkg,
Soil Ingestion
No soil ingestion data were found in the literature. Soil ingestion is likely to be negligible and
consist only of that associated with prey that are consumed.
Home Range
Red-tails are found in habitats ranging from woodlands, wetlands, pastures, and prairies to
deserts (Bohm, 1978b; Gates, 1972; MacLaren et al., 1988; Mader, 1978). They appear to prefer
a mixed landscape containing old fields, wetlands, and pastures for foraging interspersed with
groves of woodlands and bluffs and streamside trees for perching and nesting (Brown and
Amadon, 1968; Preston, 1990). Red-tailed hawks are territorial throughout the year, including
winter (Brown and Amadon, 1968). Trees or other sites for nesting and perching are important
requirements for breeding territories and can determine which habitats are used in a particular
area (Preston, 1990; Rothfels and Lein, 1983). Home range size can vary from a few hundred
hectares to over 1,500 hectares, depending on the habitat (Andersen and Rongstad, 1989;
Petersen, 1979).
Red-tailed Hawk
Value
Reference
Body Weight (kg)
1.0
Craighead and Craighead,
1956
Normalized Food Ingestion Rate (kg/kg bw dw/day)
0.0353
USEPA, 2005
Water Ingestion Rate (L/kg bw/day)
0.05
Calder and Braun, 1983
Fraction Small Mammal
100%
Fitch et a/., 1948
Soil Ingestion Rate
0%
USEPA, 2005
85
-------
Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata)
Food Habits and Diet Composition
Weasels are specialist predators of small, warm-blooded vertebrates (King, 1983). Their diet
consists predominantly of small mammals (50-80 percent of annual consumption) with larger
species consuming larger-sized prey (Polderboer et al., 1941; Svendsen, 1982).
Food Ingestion Rates
Food ingestion is estimated to be 0.13 kg/kg bw/day based on USEPA, 2005.
Water Ingestion Rate
Weasels require a constant supply of drinking water, drinking small amounts frequently
(Svendsen, 1982). Long-tailed weasels are reported to consume 25 mL water/d (Svendsen,
1982). No other literature data were found describing water ingestion by weasels. A water
consumption rate of 0.11 L/kg BW/day was calculated using the Calder and Braun (1983)
equation, and a mean body weight of 0.297 kg:
WIR = (0.099(BW)090 VBWkg,
Soil Ingestion Rate
Soil ingestion rates are estimated to be 0.043 as a percentage of diet (USEPA, 2005).
Home Range
Home ranges of weasels vary by sex, habitat, food availability and season, with smaller species
having smaller home ranges (Svendsen, 1982). Home ranges for long-tailed weasels have been
reported to range from 5-16 ha in Iowa (Polderboer et al., 1941) to 81-121 ha in Michigan and
Colorado (Quick, 1944, 1951).
Long-tailed Weasel
Value
Reference
Body Weight (kg)
0.2-0.34
Burt and Grossenheider,
1976
Normalized Food Ingestion Rate (kg/kg bw dw/day)
0.13
USEPA, 2005
Water Ingestion Rate (L/kg bw/day)
0.11
Calder and Braun, 1983
Fraction Small Mammal
100%
Polderboer et al, 1941
Soil Ingestion Rate
4.3%
USEPA, 2005
86
-------
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)
Food Habits and Diet Composition
Fish are the preferred prey, but great blue herons also eat amphibians, reptiles, crustaceans,
insects, birds, and mammals (Alexander, 1977; Bent, 1926; Hoffman, 1978; Kirkpatrick, 1940;
Peifer, 1979). To fish, they require shallow waters (up to 0.5 m) with a firm substrate (Short and
Cooper, 1985). Fish up to about 20 cm in length were dominant in the diet of herons foraging in
southwestern Lake Erie (Hoffman, 1978), and 95 percent of fish consumed by great blues in a
Wisconsin population were less than 25 cm in length (Kirkpatrick, 1940). Great blue herons
sometimes forage in wet meadows and pastures in pursuit of lizards, small mammals, and large
insects (Palmer, 1962; Peifer, 1979).
Body Size and Weight
Body weights of adults for both sexes were reported as 2.229 kg (Quinney, 1982). Hartman
(1961) reported body weights of adult females at 2.2 kg and adult males at 2.6 kg. An average
adult body weight of 2.28 kg is used in the ERA.
Food Consumption Rate
There are no studies available that give specific food consumption rates. However, Kushlan
(1978) developed a regression equation relating the amount of food ingested per day to body
weight for wading bird:
log(FI) = 0.966 log(BW) - 0.640
where, FI equals food ingestion in grams per day and BW equals body weight in grams.
The food ingestion rate based on this equation is 0.18 g/g BW/day based on a body weight of
2.28 kg.
Water Ingestion Rate
No literature data were found describing water ingestion by great blue herons. A water
consumption rate of 0.045 L/kg BW/day was calculated using the Calder and Braun (1983)
equation, and a mean body weight of 2.28 kg:
Soil Ingestion
No information was found in the literature on soil ingestion. As a piscivorous, nonfossorial
species, soil ingestion is likely to be negligible.
Home Range
Great blue herons inhabit a variety of freshwater and marine areas, including freshwater lakes
and rivers, brackish marshes, lagoons, mangroves, and coastal wetlands, particularly where small
fish are plentiful in shallow areas (Spendelow and Patton, 1988; Short and Cooper, 1985). Bayer
(1978) reported a mean (SD) feeding territory of 0.6±0.1 ha for great blue herons feeding in
freshwater marshes in Oregon.
87
-------
Great Blue Heron
Value
Reference
Body Weight (kg)
2.28
Hartman, 1961
Normalized Food Ingestion Rate (kg/kg bw dw/day)
0.18
USEPA, 2005
Water Ingestion Rate (L/kg bw/day)
0.045
Calder and Braun, 1983
Fraction Small Fish
100%
Alexander, 1977
Sediment Ingestion Rate
0%
NA
88
-------
References
Alexander, G. R.. 1977. Food of vertebrate predators on trout waters in north central lower
Michigan. Michigan Academician 10: 181-195.
Andersen, D. E., and O.J. Rongstad. 1989. Home-range estimates of red-tailed hawks based on
random and systematic relocations. J. Wildl. Manage. 53: 802-807.
Barrett, G. W. and K. L. Stueck, 1976. Caloric ingestion rate and assimilation efficiency of the
short-tailed shrew, Blarina brevicauda. Ohio J. Sci. 76: 25-26.
Bayer, R. D.. 1981. Weights of great blue herons (Ardea herodias) at the Yaquina Estuary,
Oregon. Murrelet 62: 18-19.
Bent, A. C.. 1926. Life histories of North American marsh birds. Washington, DC: U. S.
Government Printing Office; Smithsonian Inst. U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 135.
Beyer, W.N., E. Conner, and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. J.Wildl.
Manage. 58: 375-382.
Bohm, R. T.. 1978. Observation of nest decoration and food habits of red-tailed hawks.
Loon 50: 6-8.
Britt, T. L.. 1971. Studies of woodcock on the Louisiana wintering ground [master's thesis],
Shreveport, LA: Louisiana State University.
Brown, L. and D. Amadon. 1968. Eagles, hawks, and falcons of the world, v. 1. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Burt, W. H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1980. A field guide to the mammals of North America
north of Mexico. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Chew, R. M.. 1951. The water exchanges of some small mammals. Ecol. Monogr. 21: 215-225.
Craighead, J. C. and F. C. Craighead. 1956. Hawks, Owls and Wildlife. Harrisburg PA, the
Stackpole Co. and Washington DC Wildl. Manage Inst.
Deavers, D. R. and J.W. Hudson. 1981. Temperature regulation in two rodents (Clethrionomys
gapperi and Peromyscus leucopus) and a shrew (Blarina brevicauda) inhabiting the same
environment. Physiol. Zool. 54: 94-108.
Dunford, R. D. and R.B. Owen. 1973. Summer behavior of immature radio-equipped woodcock
89
-------
in central Maine. J. Wildl. Manage. 37: 462-469.
Fitch, H. S.F. Swenson, and T.F. Tillotson. 1946. Behavior and food habits of the red-tailed
hawk. Condor 48: 205-237.
Gates, J. M.. 1972. Red-tailed hawk populations and ecology in east-central Wisconsin.
Wilson Bull. 84: 421-433.
Hamilton, W. J., Jr.. 1931. Habits of the short-tailed shrew, Blarina brevicauda (Say). Ohio J.
Sci. 31: 97-106.
Hamilton, W. J., Jr.. 1941. The foods of small forest mammals in eastern United States.
J.Mammal. 22: 250-263.
Hartman, F. A.. 1961. Locomotor mechanisms in birds. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Misc.
Coll. 143.
Hoffman, R. D.. 1978. The diets of herons and egrets in southwestern Lake Erie. In: Sprunt,
A.; Ogden, J.; Winckler, S., eds. Wading birds. Natl. Audubon Soc. Res. Rep. 7: 365-369.
Hudgins, J. E.; G.L. Storm; and J.S. Wakeley. 1985. Local movements and diurnal-habitat
selection by male woodcock in Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manage. 49: 614-619.
King, C.M.. 1983. Mustela erminea. Mammalian Species. No. 195. American Soc. Mammal.
Kirkpatrick, C. M.. 1940. Some foods of young great blue herons. Am. Midi. Nat. 24: 594-
601.
Kushlan, J. A.. 1978. Feeding ecology of wading birds. In: Sprunt, A.; Ogden, J.; Winckler, S.,
eds. Wading birds. Natl. Audubon Soc. Res. Rep. 7; pp. 249-296.
Krohn, W. B.. 1970. Woodcock feeding habits as related to summer field usage in central Maine.
J. Wildl. Manage. 34: 769-775.
MacLaren, P. A.; S.H. Anderson, and D.E. Runde. 1988. Food habits and nest characteristics of
breeding raptors in southwestern Wyoming. Great Basin Nat. 48: 548-553.
Mader, W. J.. 1978. A comparative nesting study of red-tailed hawks and Harris' hawks in
southern Arizona. Auk 95: 327-337.
Mendall, H. L. and C.M. Aldous. 1943. The ecology and management of the American
woodcock. Orono, ME: Maine Coop. Res. Unit, University of Maine; 201 pp.
Miller, H. and L.L. Getz. 1977. Factors influencing local distribution and species diversity of
90
-------
forest small mammals in new England. Can. J. Zool. 55: 806-814.
Miller, D. L. and M.K. Causey. 1985. Food preferences of American woodcock wintering in
Alabama. J. Wild], Manage. 49: 492-496.
Morrison, P. R.; M. Pierce; and F.A. Ryser. 1957. Food consumption and body weight in the
masked and short-tailed shrews (genus Blarina) in Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri. Ann. Carnegie
Mus. 51: 157-180.
Nagy, K. A.. 1987. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds.
Ecol. Mono. 57: 111-128.
Nelson, A. L. and A.C. Martin. 1953. Gamebird weights. J. Wildl. Manage. 17: 36-42.
Owen, R. B.; J.M. Anderson; and J.W. Artmann. 1977. American woodcock. In:Sanderson, G.
C., ed. Management of migratory shore and upland game birds in North America. Washington,
DC: Int. Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies; pp. 147-175.
Palmer, R. S.. 1962. Handbook of North American birds: v. 1. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Peifer, R. W.. 1979. Great blue herons foraging for small mammals. Wilson Bull. 91: 630-631.
Petersen, L.. 1979. Ecology of great horned owls and red-tailed hawks in southeastern
Wisconsin. Wise. Dept. Nat. Resour. Tech. Bull. No. 111.
Piatt, W. J.. 1974. Metabolic rates of short-tailed shrews. Physiol. Zool. 47: 75-90.
Polderboer, E.B.; L.W. Kuhn, and G.O. Hendrickson. 1941. Winter and spring habits of
weasels in central Iowa. J. Wildl. Manage. 5: 115-119.
Preston, C. R.. 1990. Distribution of raptor foraging in relation to prey biomass and habitat
structure. Condor 92: 107-112.
Quick, H.F.. 1944. Habits and economics of the New York weasel in Michigan. J. Wildl.
Manage. 8: 71-78.
Quick, H.F.. 1951. Notes on the ecology of weasels in Gunnison County, Colorado. J.
Mammal. 32: 281-290.
Quinney, T. E.. 1982. Growth, diet, and mortality of nestling great blue herons. Wilson Bull.
94: 571-577.
Robinson, D. E. and E.D. Brodie. 1982. Food hoarding behavior in the short-tailed shrew,
91
-------
Blarina brevicauda. Am. Midi. Nat. 108: 369-375.
Rothfels, M. and M.R. Lein. 1983. Territoriality in sympatric populations of red-tailed and
Swainson's hawks. Can. J. Zool. 61: 60-64.
Sheldon, W. G.. 1967. The book of the American woodcock. Amherst, MA: University of
Massachusetts Press.
Short, H. L. and R.J. Cooper. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: great blue heron. U. S.
Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. No. 82(10.99); 23 pp.
Spendelow, J. A. and S.R. Patton. 1988. National atlas of coastal waterbird colonies: 1976-1982.
U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. No. 88(5).
Sperry, C.. 1940. Food habits of a group of shore birds; woodcock, snipe, knot, and dowitcher.
U. S. Dept. Int., Bur. Biol. Survey, Wildl. Res. Bull. I; 37 pp.
Stickel, W. H.; D.W. Hayne and L.F. Stickel. 1965. Effects of heptachlor-contaminated
earthworms on woodcocks. J. Wildl. Manage. 29: 132-146.
Stribling, H. L. and P.D. Doerr. 1985. Nocturnal use of fields by American woodcock. J. Wildl.
Manage. 49: 485-491.
Svendsen, G.E.. 1982. Weasels, pp. 613-628. In Chapman, J.A., and G.A. Feldhamer (eds.),
Wild Mammals of North America. Biology, Management, and Ecomomics. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
USEPA. 1993. Wildlife exposure factors handbook. Vol. I. EPA/600/R-93/187a. Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2005. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs).
Attachment 4-1. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55.
92
-------
APPENDIX F: TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
93
-------
Wildlife TRVs are derived from three primary sources, including Toxicological Benchmarks for
Wildlife: 1996 Revision (Sample et al. 1996), Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin
(USEPA, 2007a); and Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and Metabolites (USEPA,
2007b). When TRVs could not be identified from those sources, a literature search was
conducted.
Two TRVs were identified for each wildlife receptor, including a No Observed Adverse Effect
Level (NOAEL) and a Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) (Tables 1 and 2).
Where Sample et al., (1996), or values from the literature were used to derive the TRVs, the
NOAEL and LOAELs are based on the single study method. For each study, the form of the
compound, test species, body weight of test species, study duration, test endpoint, exposure
route, and dosage was identified. NOAEL and LOAELs were then calculated based on the dose
and body weight of the test species. In cases where only a LOAEL is reported, a NOAEL can be
derived by dividing the LOAEL by 10 (USEPA, 1995).
Where Eco-SSLs were used to derive TRVs (USEPA, 2007a; 2007b); the NOAEL was estimated
based on the geometric means of the bounded NOAEL data for growth, reproduction and
survival. However, if this value is higher than the lowest bounded LOAEL for either
reproduction, growth, or survival results, the TRV is equal to the highest bounded NOAEL that
is lower than the lowest bounded LOAEL for reproduction, growth, and survival. For both
Dieldrin and DDT, the NOAEL was based on the highest bounded NOAEL that is lower than the
lowest bounded LOAEL, not the geometric mean. The LOAEL was calculated based on the
geometric mean of the bounded LOAELs for reproduction, growth, and survival. LOAELs for
DDT and metabolites, and dieldrin, can be found in Table 3.
Table 1. TRVs for Mammals
COPC
Test Species
NOAEL
LOAEL
Reference
(mg/kg/d)
(mg/kg/d)
Aldrin
Rat
0.2
1.0
a
Aroclor 1016
Mink
1.37
3.43
a
Aroclor 1221
Oldfield Mouse
0.068
0.68
a1
Aroclor 1232
Oldfield Mouse
0.068
0.68
a1
Aroclor 1242
Mink
0.069
0.69
a
Aroclor 1248
Rhesus Monkey
0.01
0.1
a
Aroclor 1254
Oldfield Mouse
0.068
0.68
a
Aroclor 1260
Oldfield Mouse
0.068
0.68
a1
BHC Mixtures
Mink
0.014
0.14
a
g-BHC
Rat
8.0
NA
a
Chlordane
Mouse
4.6
9.2
a
94
-------
DDT
NA
0.147
18.8
b
Dieldrin
NA
0.015
2.28
c
Endosulfan I
Rat
0.15
NA
a
Endosulfan II
Rat
0.15
NA
a ~
Endosulfan Sulfate
Rat
0.15
NA
¦>
a**
Endrin
Mouse
0.092
0.92
a
Endrin Aldehyde
Mouse
0.092
0.92
a3
Endrin Ketone
Mouse
0.092
0.92
a3
Heptachlor
Mink
0.1
1.0
a
Heptachlor
epoxide
Mink
0.1
1.0
a4
Methoxychlor
Rat
4.0
8.0
a
Toxaphene
Rat
8.0
NA
a
a - Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision (Sample et al. 1996)
a1 - Aroclor 1254
a2 - Endosulfan I
a3 - Endrin
a4 - Heptachlor
b - Geometric means of NOAEL and LOAEL values from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for
DDT and Metabolites (USEPA, 2007).
c - Geometric means of NOAEL and LOAEL values from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for
Dieldrin (USEPA, 2007).
Table 2. TRVs for Birds.
COPC
Test Species
NOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
LOAEL
(mg/kg/d)
Reference
Aldrin
Ring Necked Pheasant
0.07
0.35
d
Aroclor 1016
Ring Necked Pheasant
0.18
1.8
a1
Aroclor 1221
Ring Necked Pheasant
0.18
1.8
a1
Aroclor 1232
Ring Necked Pheasant
0.18
1.8
a1
Aroclor 1242
Screech Owl
0.41
1.8
a (a1 LOAEL)
Aroclor 1248
Ring Necked Pheasant
0.18
1.8
a
Aroclor 1254
Ring Necked Pheasant
0.18
1.8
a
Aroclor 1260
Ring Necked Pheasant
0.18
1.8
a1
BHC Mixtures
Japanese Quail
0.56
2.25
a
g-BHC
Mallard Duck
2.0
20.0
a
Chlordane
Red-Winged Blackbird
2.14
10.7
a
DDT
NA
0.227
10.98
b
Dieldrin
NA
0.0709
1.73
c
Endosulfan I
Gray Partridge
10.0
NA
a
Endosulfan II
Gray Partridge
10.0
NA
i
a~
Endosulfan Sulfate
Gray Partridge
10.0
NA
1
a"
Endrin
Screech Owl
0.01
0.1
a
95
-------
Endrin Aldehyde
Screech Owl
0.01
0.1
a3
Endrin Ketone
Screech Owl
0.01
0.1
a3
Heptachlor
Ring-necked Pheasant
0.28
1.38
d
Heptachlor
epoxide
Ring-necked Pheasant
0.28
1.38
d
Methoxychlor
chicken
355
1775
e
Toxaphene
Black Ducks
2.0
10.0
f
a - Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision (Sample et al. 1996)
a1 - Aroclor 1254
a2 - Endosulfan I
a3 - Endrin
b - Geometric means of NOAEL and LOAEL values from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for
DDT and Metabolites (USEPA, 2007).
c - Geometric means of NOAEL and LOAEL values from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for
Dieldrin (USEPA, 2007).
d - Hill et al., 1975
e-Wiemeyer, 1996
f - Mehrle et al., 1979
Table 3. LOAEL (mg/kg bw/d) data for growth, reproduction and survival with geometric mean
calculations from the Eco-SSL guidance for DDT and Dieldrin.
DDT AVIAN
DDT MAMMALS
DIELDRIN AVIAN
DIELDRIN MAMMALS
Reproduction
0.40
Reproduction
0.27
Reproduction
0.22
Reproduction
0.03
Reproduction
0.28
Reproduction
0.69
Reproduction
0.52
Reproduction
0.72
Reproduction
0.75
Reproduction
0.74
Reproduction
0.68
Growth
1.96
Reproduction
1.13
Reproduction
1.79
Reproduction
1.70
Growth
2.00
Reproduction
1.97
Reproduction
17.10
Reproduction
1.51
Growth
1.74
Reproduction
0.49
Reproduction
19.00
Reproduction
2.60
Growth
2.05
Reproduction
1.89
Reproduction
99.00
Growth
3.78
Growth
5.22
Reproduction
5.20
Reproduction
50.00
Growth
0.52
Growth
5.22
Reproduction
6.07
Reproduction
85.30
Growth
10.10
Growth
18.00
Reproduction
21.10
Reproduction
38.80
Growth
5.93
Survival
0.23
Reproduction
32.50
Reproduction
95.60
Survival
0.18
Survival
1.33
Reproduction
46.90
Growth
4.19
Survival
3.78
Survival
0.75
Reproduction
42.50
Growth
33.70
Survival
0.54
Survival
2.00
Reproduction
29.00
Growth
96.50
Survival
0.56
Survival
3.92
Reproduction
37.50
Growth
137.00
Survival
1.25
Survival
3.96
Reproduction
51.50
Survival
5.18
Survival
1.70
Survival
1.74
Growth
2.27
Survival
24.39
Survival
2.35
Survival
2.23
Growth
2.79
Survival
25.40
Survival
2.60
Survival
3.53
96
-------
Growth
2.95
Survival
81.20
Survival
4.15
Survival
5.22
Growth
42.50
Survival
69.70
Survival
4.00
Survival
24.20
Survival
1.30
Survival
137.00
Survival
4.42
Survival
18.80
Survival
4.51
Geomean
18.83
Survival
15.00
Geomean
2.28
Survival
7.54
Geomean
1.73
Survival
5.21
Survival
2.85
Survival
2.93
Survival
20.30
Survival
22.70
Survival
13.80
Survival
130.00
Survival
21.90
Survival
25.10
Survival
85.30
Survival
59.40
Survival
25.00
Survival
43.50
Survival
35.60
Survival
51.50
Survival
58.10
Survival
132.00
Survival
200.00
Geomean
10.98
97
-------
References:
Hill, E.F., R.G. Heath, J.W. Spann, and J.D. Williams. 1975. Lethal Dietary Toxicities of
Environmental Pollutants to Birds. USFWS Special Scientific Report - Wildlife, No. 191.
Mehrle, P.M., M.T. Finley, J.L. Ludke, F.L. Mayer, and T.E. Kaiser. 1979. Bone development in
black ducks as affected by dietary toxaphene. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 10:168-173.
Sample B.E., D.M. Opreska, andG.W. Suter., 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3
USEPA, 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin. Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-57.
USEPA, 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and Metabolites. Interim Final.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-57.
Wiemeyer SN, Hoffman DJ. 1996. Reproduction in eastern screech-owls fed selenium. J Wildl
Manage 60(2):332-341.
98
-------
MEMORANDUM - April 2016
SUBJECT: Vapor Intrusion Assessment for Five Year Review Addendum OU3
Des Moines TCE Site, Des Moines, IA
FROM: Dan Nicoski, Geologist
ENSV/EAMB
TO: Erin McCoy, Project Manager
SUPR/IANE
As requested, an evaluation of the potential for completion of the vapor intrusion
pathway at OU3 was conducted for the above referenced site. This evaluation used
chemicals of concern detected in groundwater collected from OU3 monitoring wells NW-
30, NW-31, NW-32, NW-34, NW-35, NW-36, NW-39 and NW-40. Were appropriate,
the V1SL calculator was used to evaluate the potential for contaminated vapors
partitioning from impacted groundwater into overlying occupied structures above/near
the plume.
As of the last sampling event in November 2015, only cis-l,2-DCE was detected in
groundwater at OU3. The concentration of cis-l,2-DCE was 9 (Jg/L at monitoring well
NW-39. During the prior groundwater sampling event in May 2012, PCE, TCE and total
DCE were detected at concentrations less than their respective MCLs.
Cancer risk and non-cancer hazard index values are not provided in the latest RSL table
(November 2015) for either DCE isomer (i.e., cis or trans). During the latest sampling
event, there were no apparent human health risks from vapor intrusion based on the
above noted detection.
Typically at sites with chlorinated solvents in groundwater, TCE is the driver for risk
management decisions. TCE was last detected during the 2012 groundwater sampling
event at a concentration of 4.8 (Jg/L in well NW-35. Based on the more conservative
residential scenario and an interpolated groundwater temperature of 11°C, the VISL
calculator indicates a potential indoor air concentration of 0.949 |ug/m3 which equates to
a cancer risk of 2.0 E-06 and hazard index of 0.46. This concentration of TCE in
groundwater is less than human health risks.
Based on this VI evaluation, continued periodic groundwater monitoring indicates recent
groundwater COC concentrations do not represent potential indoor air exceedances of
human health risk. Should you have any questions, please contact me at x7230.
-------
Des Moines TCE Statistical Analysis of OU-3 Contamination
INTRODCTION
A statistical analysis was performed on the main chemicals of concern (COCs) for the upgradient
operable unit 3 (OU-3) of the Des Moines TCE Site (Site) to determine if concentrations were increasing
or decreasing.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources samples the wells for a limited volitale organic carbon (VOC)
list that includes the COCs for the Site. COCs at OU-3 include tetrachloroethylene (PCE),
trichloproethylene (TCE), dichrlorethylenes (DCE), and vinyl chloride (VC). Speciation of DCE was not
performed, so the statistical analysis was performed on total 1,2-DCE concentrations.
A review of the site file showed that several parameters were either unknown at the site, or were over
10 years old. Therefore, some parameters were assumed based on known data. These included:
Parameter
Value
Source
Seepage Velocity
2 feet per day
Assumed based on sand and gravel. Assumed low
due to depositional environment (alluvium and
glacial till combined).
httD://Eroundwater.ucdavis.edu/files/156562.Ddf
Current Plume Length
2000 feet
Combined with Dico plume since no break
between the plumes is found. Measured off map
provided in the Progress Report #29
Current Plume Width
500 feet
Combined with Dico plume since no break
between the plumes is found. Measured off map
provided in the Progress Report #29
Source Well
NW-35
Defined as source well because it contained the
most and highest detections.
Tail Wells
All other wells
evaluated
Defined as tail wells based on definitions in
MAROS software.
Distance to downgradient
receptor and property
1 foot
Minimum value MAROS will accept.
Distance from source to
nearest receptor and
property
1 foot
Minimum value MAROS will accept.
results
Analytical data from July 1989 to November 2015 were evaluated to determine if potential trends exists
using the Mann-Kendall (M-K) Statistic. Established trends are outline below. In order for a trend to be
listed, a minimum of two detections was necessary.
• Increase
o TCE - NW-34 & NW-36
o DCE - NW-36
• Decrease
o PCE - NW-35
o TCE - NW-35
February 2016
-------
o DCE - NW-35
• Stable
o PCE - NW-34 & NW-40
o TCE - NW-39
The compliance monitoring recommended sampling for all 4 COCs for at least 1 more year, with several
COCs tested semi-annually for two years.
CONCLUSION
Well NW-35, which is a shallower wells, shows decreasing trends in all of the COCs detected. Well NW-
36, which is the deeper well nested with well NW-35, shows an increase in TCE and DCE. Between 1989
and 2001, only on one detection of TCE and DCE was detected in this well. Since July 2001, DCE has been
detected every sampling event and TCE has been detected in all but two sampling events. This indicates
that contamination in well NW-35 is migrating downward in the aquifer.
Well NW-34 is also a deep well and is located downgradient of well NW-36. PCE concentrations show a
stable trend in this well. TCE has increased in well NW-24, but other COCs, which are breakdown
chemicals of TCE have not increased. In fact, DCE was only detected once in 2008. Vinyl chloride has
never been detected in the well. The concentrations in all wells are below the MCLs.
The increase in DCE concentrations at well NW-35 could indicate that natural dechlorinization is
breaking down TCE. However, breakdown products are not present in downgradient well NW-34 even
though TCE is increasing in this well. Geochemical data has also not been obtained to determine if
conditions are right for dechlorinzation. This indicates that TCE is likely migrating downgradient from
well NW-35 to well NW-34 and that data is not available to support that natural dechlorinization of PCE
and TCE is occurring at OU3.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the statistical analysis, TCE and DCE are migrating downward in the aquifer and TCE is
migrating downgradient, to the south, with only increasing trends determined in deeper wells. However,
concentrations are below the MCLs in all of the wells, showing that contamination, while present, does
not present a potential unacceptable health risk at this time. It is recommended that sampling of wells
in OU3 continue every two to three years so that the trends and potential health risks can continue to
be reviewed.
February 2016
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
User Name: Erin McCoy - EPA
State*. Iowa
Time Period: 7/1/1989 to 11/9/2015
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Project: Dico OU03
Location: Des Moines
All
Source/
Number of
Number of
Coefficient
Mann-Kendall
Confidence
Samples
Concentration
Well
Tall
Samples
Detects
of Variation
Statistic
in Trend
"ND" ?
Trend
DICHLOHOETHYLENES
NW-30
T
24
0
1.58
98
99.3%
Yes
ND
NW-31
T
25
0
1.60
114
99.6%
Yos
ND
NW-32
T
25
0
1.60
114
99.6%
Yes
ND
NW-34
T
26
1
1.66
133
99.9%
No
1
NW-35
S
24
22
0.99
153
100.0%
No
D
NW-36
T
25
9
1.62
152
100.0%
No
1
NW-39
T
5
1
1.69
-4
75.8%
No
NT
NW-40
T
16
4
1.05
-27
87.7%
No
NT
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
NW-30
T
24
1
1.51
81
97.7%
No
1
NW-31
T
25
0
1.60
114
99.6%
Yes
ND
NW-32
T
25
0
1.60
114
99.6%
Yes
ND
NW-34
T
26
12
0.77
25
70.0%
No
S
NW-35
S
24
23
1.00
-150
100.0%
No
D
NW-36
T
25
6
1.54
34
77.8%
No
NT
NW-39
T
5
5
0.29
6
88.3%
No
NT
NW-40
T
16
5
0.79
18
77.5%
No
S
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
NW-30
T
24
0
1.58
98
99.3%
Yes
ND
NW-31
T
25
0
1.60
114
99.6%
Yes
ND
NW-32
T
25
0
1.60
114
99.6%
Yes
ND
NW-34
T
26
5
1.21
84
96.7%
No
1
NW-35
S
24
23
0.87
-155
100.0%
No
D
NW-36
T
25
7
1.96
121
99.8%
No
1
NW-30
T
5
4
0.24
-1
50.0%
No
S
NW-40
T
16
1
1.06
9
63.9%
No
NT
VINYL CHLORIDE
NW-30
T
12
0
0.95
8
68.1%
Yes
ND
NW-31
T
13
0
1.00
12
74.5%
Yes
ND
NW-32
T
13
0
1.00
12
74.5%
Yes
ND
NW-34
T
14
0
1.05
14
75.8%
Yes
ND
NW-35
S
12
0
1.09
19
88.9%
Yes
ND
NW-36
T
13
0
1.00
12
74.5%
Yes
ND
NW-39
T
3
0
0.00
0
0.0%
Yes
ND
NW-40
T
13
1
0.91
5
59.4%
No
NT
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE Monday, February 01, 2016 Page 1 of 2
-------
Project: Dico OU03
Location: Des Moines
User Name: Erin McCoy - EPA
State: Iowa
All
Source/ Number of Number of Coefficient Mann-Kendall Confidence Samples Concentration
j-n Samples Detects of Variation Statistic in Trend "ND" ? Trend
VINYL CHLORIDE
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A)-
Due to insufficient Data {< 4 sampling events); Source/Tail (S/T)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Monday, February 01, 2016
Page 2 of 2
------- |